Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive103

Weird user account

I was assessing articles here and found this user account was listed. Should this be deleted? Cla68 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has those. Hey, I do. You can check mine out. You use them to script Wikipedia's interface. --Haemo 23:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that the userpage is found in the category (which was not linked properly). I'll try and edit that out.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, learning something new. Cla68 00:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ConfuciusOrnis

ConfuciusOrnis (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been harrassing me for weeks. He has made a false-accusation that I am a sock-puppet, which is now closed. He has also been reverting many of my edits for no legitimate reason. He even went as far as to request deletion speedy of an article on a very notable golf company[1] simply because I was the main contributor (the speedy delete request was closed by an admin).

Furthermore, he has been uncivil to many other users, if you look at his talk page you will see what I'm talking about.

Thank you for your help. --RucasHost 07:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. He has already been blocked twice (this month) of uncivility and once for 3RR. [2] --RucasHost 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

comment - I feel the 3RR by User:ConfuciusOrnis was a technical failure rather than edit warring against consensus. The IP [3] also reverted numerous times and was also blocked [4]. Later the consensus view made it difficult for the IP to maintain its reverts.

There is actually just 1 incivility claims as one incident seems to been reversed. Personally I wouldn't put too much weight on the 1 remaining incivility claim given how the blocking admin looks to be way too involved with the same sets of discussions [5]...and onwards in the admin talk. Ttiotsw 10:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Images (especially flags) not displaying properly

Before there's a number of posts on this issue, it's a Commons issue, and the developers are looking at it. ELIMINATORJR 11:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick10000 (talk · contribs)

Just to let you guys know, I've removed twinkle from Nick10000's monobook as he obviously can't act responsibly with it, reverting things that quite simply don't need reverting such as users comments on talk pages. I've also told him not to re-add it. Please review and revert if required. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think 2 weeks off twinkle is fine. His edit to Raul's talk was outrageous, and this is just as dubious and really quite BITEy. Moreschi ^Talk 16:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse as well, if a user cannot use a script responsibly, they should not use it. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Userspace GFDL violations

Resolvedno need for immediate action. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See [6]. The pages are various copies of the articles at Template:Harrypotter, with no attribution whatsoever. MER-C 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are a copyright violation, but that can be resolved if the editor just copied a list of contributors to the talk page. Since it's just one editor copying the articles, it can presumably be handled by discussing the situation with that editor. Not everyone is aware that copying GFDL pages without a list of contributors is problematic. Let's find out what's going on here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In case my last post was poorly worded: MER-C was perfectly correct this is an issue that needs to be resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#History_only_undeletion

Whould another admin or two comment at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#History_only_undeletion regarding the Talk:Crystal Gail Mangum request so that the matter may be closed. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Article template standardisation is happening

It's probably worth mentioning that the Wikipedia:Template standardisation project (part two: article space) after three weeks of discussion -- without a single dissenter (!) -- is now going ahead and editing all the article templates.

They need administrators to help out with protected templates. If you can, please sign up at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Admins willing to help. ←Ben^B4 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, something has gone wrong, since the ones I've seen so far are showing up funny. --Calton | Talk 03:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on what's gone wrong, what templates it's occuring on etc. Harryboyles 03:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would guess (uneducatedly, as ever, and probably wrongly, since there may well be occurring real, non-stylistic problems) that Calton refers to the absence of boxed borders and the left-orientation of Template:Ambox, by which I, for one, having, I admit, been only vaguely aware of the work at TS, was rather surprised; I think the "new" format to be decidedly, well, ugly and generally displeasing, but I imagine that it is fair to say that a good many editors partook of the TS discussion, such that there likely exists a clear consensus of the community for the new format (this is not, I would say, a situation like, for instance, that that some perceived to exist relative to WP:ATT, where there existed unanimous support amongst those at WT:ATT for the elevation of the page to policy but where much of the community was apparently unaware of the existence of the ATT debate—a good bit of heated discussion, one will recall, ensued, but this strikes me as a much less serious/significant/controversial issue, and one in the resolution of which many editors across the project have already been involved). Joe 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only just discovered this, and so far don't find anything to approve of with these changes. See my posts at Wikipedia_talk:Template_standardisation#Template_background. Tyrenius 07:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The new templates are not compatible with the existing classic design and colour scheme of wikipedia. They are less easy to read visually than the old template designs, and are overall inferior. See Wikipedia_talk:Article_templates#This_guideline_is_disputed. Tyrenius 08:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism essay

Some spam for User:Moreschi/The Plague. Thoughts? Please leave any on talk page. Some of the measures proposed are radical, but otherwise I cannot see our national-ethnic problem of POV editing being resolved. More seriously, User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism should be required reading for all users, particularly admins. If you have not read this analysis already, please do so! Moreschi ^Talk 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Both essays are particularly relevant with Catalonia, Bharatveer and The Troubles all currently in arbitration, and Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 only just finished. Moreschi ^Talk 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with the solutions proposed but the problems are real and your essay does a good job of characterising them, as does Dbachmann's. This is a very real problem, it may be our Achilles heel if we don't address it. I see admins (including myself, I've been accused of being a tool of the serbians by the croats (or was it the other way round? :) ) recently) get dragged into these things over and over, and they consume mass quantities of time, edit capacity and good will. Thank you for starting this discussion. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Better understanding and discussion for sweeping changes

I would like to open discussion on introducing more discussion for sweeping changes. Primarily this relates to the Wikipedia:Article templates and the Succession Box Standardization project (WP:SBS). The issue is that these projects, well intended, are created by small groups but then are implemented across the whole Wikipedia without a large concensus (or even a preview). The templates were less intrusive than the SBS, I personally believe. My issue with that can be found here: complaint of WP:SBS in a nutshell.

Are there steps that can be made to allow previews and discussions of major changes to happen before they happen? Alternatively, should these free-for-all discussions happen when a dedicated group does a lot of work before sharing that work and ends up getting henpecked -- can "too many cooks spoil the broth" ?

Any thoughts? -- Guroadrunner 12:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Khadr family

Please help monitor the article Khadr family. Much of the information is unreferenced, and may violate BLP. The article has been edited by several editors who claim to be people mentioned in the article, such as Zaynab Khadr (talk · contribs) and Kask0007 (talk · contribs). For the latter, see the (now deleted) article Abdulkareem Khadr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aecis^Brievenbus 15:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Wider

This AfD needs serious attention. There is evidence to indicate that this is a bad faith nomination from a "rival" physician. The subject has also, apparently, recruited several SPAs to side with him. Would an uninvolved party look and see if this needs speedy closing? Also, is there a proper period of time before an article can be renominated? I would like to do so as I have no confidence in the subject's notability at this stage. Thanks.--Sethacus 17:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a disaster. I speedy closed it. As long as you don't have some sort of COI problem as well, you may renominate it at any time. Mr.Z-man 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't and I will.--Sethacus 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Images not displaying

Lots of images aren't showing up right now. Don't know why. See here and Boy Scout.Rlevse 18:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons still has problems. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). — Edokter • Talk • 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sitenotice change

Should the sitenotice be modified? See the discussion here; other admin opinions are sought. --MZMcBride 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I did it. Feel free to revert, change, reformat, or anything. There was a quick agreement on the talk page, so I went WP:BOLD. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD at 7 days needs to be closed

Resolved

This debate has been going on for seven days, and it is not listed in the current AfD logs any more:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tension myositis syndrome

It is listed in the "Old discussions" for Spetember 9.

The debate has so much content it has several subsections, and a new "start over" subsection, resulting from the article being completely rewritten during the debate. In the earlier part of the debate there were a lot of meat/sockpuppets; those have settled down now, but if the AfD isn't closed soon, I wonder if the disruptions might start up again and confuse the situation further.

Regarding the content of the article itself; it was pretty bad before, but has been completely revamped to NPOV, with reliable references, so please consider that many of the earlier comments are about a version that no longer exists. That's also discussed in the debate of course.

I know there are lots of backlogs in admin work, but I thought I should point this one out because it doesn't seem to be on the current list on the main AfD page any more. I was concerned it could be missed since it's not listed in the obvious place at this time. --Parsifal _Hello 20:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. The editor who listed the article for AfD has now changed his !vote to "keep", as have several others, based on the full rewrite of the article and the addition of solid references. So even though the initial discussion was complicated, the later discussion is much more clear - it appears this may be an easy AfD to close. --Parsifal _Hello 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've closed it without a clear consensus but a default keep, due to general confusion, but I sincerely doubt that anyone will renominate it. --Haemo 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution. Thanks for your help, much appreciated. --Parsifal _Hello 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"noinclude" does not work with MediaWiki pages

A little reminder.

MediaWiki does not parse <noinclude> declarations when rendering system messages (i.e. pages in the MediaWiki namespace).

As a result, anything you add to a system message will be rendered when the system message is displayed, regardless of whether it is enclosed by a <noinclude> declaration.

This includes anything inside a <noinclude> on any page transcluded by a system message. Such transclusion is necessary in some circumstances to work around bugs in MediaWiki, which prevent the contents of a parameter passed to a system message being used with parser functions directly.

Faliure to bear this in mind will lead to problems such as the one experienced today, where for several hours, any user trying to view the source of a protected or semi-protected page receieved the contents of the "protected template" tag in addition to the message itself. Of course, because no administrator ever sees this page, the only people knowledgeable enough to fix the problem were completely unaware that it was occuring.

This has been a public service announcement on behalf of the Campaign for Non-Screwing Up of MediaWiki System Messages. Thank you – 81.153.158.137 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Which message was broken in this case? --ST47Talk·Desk 21:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ST47, it was the one that provides the "this page is protected" text when a user tries to edit a protected page. (diff)GDonato (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone does need to do "noinclude" type stuff on templates used by pages in the MediaWiki space, try using the trick used at Template:Exif-make-value. --- RockMFR 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

SVG problem

Protection icon broken

The protection icon in the upper-right corner (such as seen on Wikipedia:Protection policy) is showing up as a broken image and I'm not sure how to fix it. The link points to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Padlock-silver-medium.svg/20px-Padlock-silver-medium.svg.png, which clearly doesn't make sense. I can't find 'padlock-silver-medium' at Special:Allmessages and I don't know where else to look. -SCEhardT 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

purged, should work now. The "svg.png" notation means that SVG files are rendered as PNG, a more accessible format. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! I had no idea about the .svg.png - thanks for explaining. However, the icon still isn't showing up on Wikipedia:Protection policy (even after trying Ctrl+F5) -SCEhardT 05:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's not showing up on articles like George W. Bush either. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on the purge link does render an image in this case, yet it still isn't showing up. Annoying bug of some sort, it's also listed at WP:VP/T. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

SVG Images completely stopped working

Somehow, there have been broad problems over this wikipedia and other langauge wikipedias with SVG files used from the commons. I notice the issue has come up as a variety of templates were reformatted, thought I don't know if this was related. Anyway, I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of articles affected by this, for a brief example, see the "merge arrow" in Template:mergeto. Please tell me someone is working on this. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict note: This might be the same thing as the last post.

Strange, other sizes render fine, e.g. 49px. Purging yields blank file. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with SVG, but the Wikimedia Commons

I noticed that none of the images hosted on this wiki itself break, but both SVG and raster images on the Wikimedia Commons do not show up properly. One PNG example (as of this time) is at User:AZPR.

By the way, this bug has been filed in the Wikimedia bugzilla at bugzilla:5463. Since this is a bug, and not something that administrators can correct, the bugzilla is a better place to bring your discussion. We administrators are rather powerless on this problem and need some developers' help to fix this. However, we can help the developers isolate the problem by posting clues we dig up at the bugzilla. Therefore, the administrator's noticeboard is not really the right place to discuss this problem. Please send future discussion to bugzilla:5463. Jesse Viviano 08:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted this in like 5 places, I see now the bugzilla is actually the place to get it dealt with. Still, given that this problem is messing up a large fraction of wikipedia articles, I HOPE that someone with the ability to do so is working on it right now. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jpg not working either

The image of the sun

Sun

at the top of solar power is not rendering either, yet other pages that use images from the commons do work. In that case it seems to be just that one image. There are three other similar images that could be used as a replacement. 199.125.109.41 13:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

captcha received; I'm blind

Hi. I was trying to add links to two Internet standards I had written to my user page, but received a captcha. I'm blind and there's no way I can respond. Am I going to have to ask for help every time I add an external link to an article? --SamHartman 16:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am reposting this to the Village Pump, since this is a technical issue (administrators cannot turn off those captchas, nor implement spoken captchas). I hope we can solve this issue. Please post Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 66#Captchas and blind people, thanks. -- ReyBrujo 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If admins cannot help, then the captcha help page needs to modified not to tell people to come here. SamHartman 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The only consolation I can offer is that the captcha goes away after a few days. A spoken captcha or a problem-solving alternative would be ideal. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean goes away after a few days? Do you mean that if my account has been around for a while I should not expect captchas when I edit an article and add an external link? If so, annoying but acceptable. SamHartman 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. After about 4 days you should see the check go away. Navou ^banter 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sam, am I understanding correctly that the captcha directs you to bring any issues to this noticeboard? If so, that should probably change, since administrators have no control over captchas. As to where the page should direct people, I don't know, but perhaps the village pump would be a good idea. Natalie 02:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is at Special:Captcha/help. -- ReyBrujo 02:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I can see for contacting an administrator in this case is to get another user's help in actually entering the article text; I don't know of any special powers admins have to help with this situation. It's possible that the helptext writer was thinking "experienced user -> administrator". Discussion of the helptext seems to be at MediaWiki talk:Captchahelp-text - since it took me several minutes to find it, I'm making a note of it here. --Alvestrand 06:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sam, you can send the links to be added to me by e-mail, and I will edit your userpage. Conscious 06:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears he wants to link to the RFCs he mentions on his page - just a note, they are currently linked, any text of the form "RFC ####" is automatically linked to tools.ietf.org, so in this case extra links would be redundant --Random832 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Question

What should i do when im not sure which account is the puppetmaster? ExtraDry 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are currently two around but a RFCU did not like them to a previous one so its possible they are from Silveriver ExtraDry 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Today's dilemma

New article created this morning: Mzoli's, about a restaurant in South Africa that got funded by the Development Bank of South Africa. The article is one sentence long and is supported by one news source and one blog. Ordinarily, I would at least send this one to AFD as nonnotable. The catch: The creator is User:Jimbo Wales, who says on the talk page that he just ate there. Any thoughts? NawlinWiki 15:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow you heart. Look non-notable to me, perhaps he got a free lunch(kidding). ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:^demon speedied it as WP:CSD#A7. --ais523 15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Jimbo is just another editor (well, at most, just another admin). Only in very, very specific cases should he be considered anything more. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest userifying the article, but I imagine Jimbo can manage that himself... — Scientizzle 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at Jimbo's level of technical ineptitude. Holy cow, did I just say that? E kala mai... ;-) --Ali'i 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he just forgot to sign his name when making a comment on the article's talk page...should we send him one of those template messages? Wikidemo 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like touristcruft, based on this. Though this is slightly better. Userfying might be best, as Scientizzle says. Carcharoth 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The notability of the article is now being debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats for those interested. WjBscribe 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible subtle copyvio

I noticed Image:Natgeo-lion2.jpg and the file name makes me very suspicious ("National Geographic" anyone?). The uploader has had a numer of copyvio images deleted before, and I wouldn't be the least surprised if this was actually a scan, however, I'm really not clear what to do from there... but I'm seriously worried of what happens if I'm right and this gets uploaded at Commons. Circeus 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If he's known for uploading copyvios, I doubt he's the original photographer of lions in the wild. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as such. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, unless it was a work-for-hire, National Geographic photos could be released by the original photographer, though having said that, someone will undoubtedly point out that National Geographic have some sort of agreement with the photographers whose work they use. Also, it is unlikely that this is the original photographer, and if it is, he should know better than to use that filename. Anyway, it is a copyvio from here, which is from here, which says it is "© Photo Des & Jen Bartlett, National Geographic, March 1983". Problem solved. Unless the uploader was the Bartletts, it is a copyvio and can be deleted as such. Carcharoth 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. That wasn't a subtle copyvio. The filename gave it away, and a simple search was enough to find the original source. Carcharoth 17:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If the uploader is one of the Barlett's, which is unlikely, it shouldn't be too much trouble for them to send something to the foundation verifying that they are the copyright holders and the holder of that account. I think the uw-copyright warning says something to that effect. Natalie 18:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh the humanity

Why do CAT:PORN and CAT:PR0N exist? 74.224.67.13 19:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's shorter to type than Category:Pornography—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a shortcut for it? The people who use the category don't know the shortcut exists, and the people who don't see how useless it is. 74.224.67.13 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Because redirects are free, and everyone likes cat porn. WilyD 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps these were created by someone in the pornography WikiProject. Does it matter? Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for PRON. It's just a redir for a typo.Rlevse 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not even: it uses a zero for an "o." The latter of the two is pretty useless. ~ UBeR 21:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhm ... this is a very hard question to ask without coming off like a sarcastic asshole, but: seriously? pr0n? Redirects are free anyhow. WilyD 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes forget this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. ~ UBeR 21:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I want to know what the Cat Fanciers Association has to say about Wikipedia's condoning of feline pornography.... Resolute 21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just be glad it isn't kitty porn. — Edokter • Talk • 01:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just be glad it's not File:Wikipi-tan in a catsuit.png - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done redirects to accommodate the Oxford (serial) comma before. Redirects for typos are harmless and useful. Moreschi ^Talk 22:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. If this is what we're worrying about.... well, CAT:CSD is THAT way..... ----> - Philippe | Talk 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: WP:RFD <--- is over there. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely CAT:PORN is for gratuitous pussy shots. _{Oh come on,no-one else thought of that?} Lemon martini 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues with other encyclopedia

From this signpost "In the news"-item, I ran into this forumpost. He claims numerous copyright violations were made where text from his encyclopedia was copied into wikipedia. I wanted to check it out, but the forum is pay subscription, and it are just too many lemma's for me to go through by hand. Do we have automated tools available to us that can make these kinds of checks easier ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

apparently you have a listing of the articles complained of (I see from the forum that the number is 3), but I do not seea list. I think the first step would be to ask him to specify.  ?DGG (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a contact link here ([7]) that one could possibly use. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I also notice from their faq [8] : there was " an early public domain edition of the Probert Encyclopaedia released through the Simtel network of freeware and shareware." Thus something from the encyclopedia is not necessarily copyvio, depending on when it was taken. DGG (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I sent him a mail, in the hope to get a response, but usually I don't have much hope for that with email addresses published on websites. If anyone knows another way to go trough all this material and deal with it, I welcome it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All we would then be able to do is state our willingness to investigate & take action when there is a specific complaint, as for any other copyright violation. If someone says, you copied my work, but i won't say where, I dont think this would warrant anything more. DGG (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability

The above page seem to have gone missing after recent page move vandalism by Metroidkid1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can someone please look into the issue and restore the page? G.A.S 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Question...I was looking at the logs for the vandal, and noticed that an account creation log entry doesn't exist. How does this happen? --Rocksanddirt 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My guess is, since it's obviously not a new account (new accounts can't move pages for the first few days, & the person behind it obviously knows something about certain Wikipedians), the account was created earlier than the logs currently reach back to, & has sat unused all of these years until now. Logs do get purged to save space, & sometimes they get corrupted & need to be deleted. -- llywrch 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One possible reason is that the account is old, older account don't have the creation time logged. But we're talking olddddd here, so seems unlikely to be the cause here. KTC 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, see here. The account was created by a different account, Metroidkid1993. That account had a "blocked" tag on its user page but had not actually been blocked so it was able to create other accounts. Woops... It's blocked for real now. So are the rest of the socks. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories for Discussion backlog

There is a 6 4 5 day backlog at CFD. FYI. If you have some time and want to close some of these, the help would be appreciated. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia closed

The above arbitration case has closed. Maurice27 (talk · contribs) is banned for 30 days, and the parties to the underlying content disputes are encouraged to continue with the normal consensus-building process to produce high-quality articles. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:24.7.91.244

I'm not sure that this is the exact spot for this type of incident. If it isn't, let me know where it belongs for next time. This user (IP) is injecting wording that violates WP:NPOV such as: so-called "War on Terror" on War dog, claiming that Borat speaks for the rest of the world in War on Terrorism, and being otherwise hostile and disruptive. Brianga 05:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a legitimate NPOV dispute. I made this change. How are we now?--Chaser - T 05:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That is fine by me; I don't really have a dog in this fight (so to speak ;). However, User:24.7.91.244 will most likely be reverting that change and leaving you a nastygram on your talk page shortly. Brianga 05:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, I added the diametric side to expose that there were two sides. As I had stated earlier I hoped someone could merge them. Hey presto an improved article :-) 24.7.91.244 05:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, this user who chooses not to register is not engaging in destructive editing, I have just run into Brianga who seems to be speed editing using script and made a number of inappropriate edits blankings on me.
• Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benamar_Benatta&diff=158658584&oldid=157605927 claimed: "removed pov". This was not POV, it was a factual statement, backed by a reference, and not exactly controversial. I since changed regime to administration, but that's about it in terms of controversy. Instead of editing this user blanked me.
• The article Wardog was highly one-sided. When I introduced a well documented and rather unsavoury fact into it (dogs being used for torture) Brianga blanked the edit. This one was referenced with a photograph. 24.7.91.244 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• In the War on Terrorism, I'm not sure what the user has a problem with. The alternative phrase used in Borat is very well known. In fact I note that Borat's phrase of ridicule, War of Terror is actually set as a redirect in Wiki. Suppression of criticism? 24.7.91.244 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete comments made by other users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where I deleted other user (except on my talk page?) 24.7.91.244 05:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking Borat up in Talk:War_on_Terrorism#Title, response there. 24.7.91.244 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted two comments on this very board [9]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sorry Brianga. Typo on my part, didn't notice  :-(. UPDATE: I see now, I did a copy/paste mess up when posting following an edit conflict when chaser added his stuff I think. My bad. 24.7.91.244 06:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Query: Handling of indef blocks of people with very short edit history?

This is a question about current practice, not about a specific incident...

I had an email the other day from one guy who had been indef-blocked after 4 edits. One of them was in bad taste (inflammatory).

To me, indef-blocking of a new user by a single admin, without any traceable process, seems a lot like biting the newcomers.

I have also seen quite fast indef-length blocking of disruptive editors without any previous discussion, and lengthening of ArbComm-imposed long blocks to "indefinite" based on a single admin's opinion.

I understand the desire of admins to deal speedily and permanently with problems, but still, I wonder - when I become aware of these events, and don't think the case is clear-cut: what's the reasonable thing for me to do?

• to reset the block to something I consider reasonable?
• to bring the case to some noticeboard (which?) for others' opinion?
• to do something else?

Of course, no matter which option I choose, if I take action, I should notify the admin who imposed the original block. But since I'm still feeling like a newcomer to the admin-bit, I thought I'd better ask for opinions first, and this seems like a not-unreasonable place to do so. --Alvestrand 12:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would consult with the original admin first, explaining why you are considering unblocking or shortening the block. If he or she agrees with your proposed action, then go ahead with it and the issue is resolved. If he or she disagrees, or there is a repeated issue that is coming up, then post to ANI. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that consulting with the blocking admin is crucial. Note also that "indefinite" does not equal "infinite". AFAIK, one standard practice is to indef block accounts that appear to have been created only to vandalize, and then unblock if and when the account requests an unblock (alsoo usually involving a promise to contribute constructively). The other most common SOP I have seen is to give a block of 24 hours, but I'm not sure how often those people end up contributing constructively after that block and how many just end up vandalizing until they are blocked again. Natalie 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If an account's first five or so edits are all vandalism, I always block indefinitely. The rehabilitation rate for these is, in my experience, vanishingly small, and I've had to block a lot of such accounts again when the first blocking admin only blocked for 24 hours. If one edit out of four is bad, little bit different story. But I'd have to see who you're talking about for myself. Grandmasterka 21:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Any user whose first edit is to jump straight into the middle of a revert war with a revert I will block, indefinitely and instantaneously. Moreschi ^Talk 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked editors after a single edit. Of course this is limited to people who upload shock images and then add them to articles. There are exceptions to the guideline on blocking, we just have to apply common sense. Tim Vickers 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a new account is an obvious sockpuppet of a banned editor. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, what they all said. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked editors after a single edit before too. Sometimes its easy to see that there's not going to be any good coming from them (editing Darth Vader to insert multiple instances of "nigger", in this case...). If they ask to be unblocked, I'd consider granting it, but watch them like a hawk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As it happens, I just recently indef-blocked Ryan likes guys (talk · contribs) after a single edit. Feel free to review the block and the (slightly customized) message I left on their talk page. (In this case, besides the vandalism, the user had been previously warned about their username as well, but I would not have blocked them for that reason alone. IMO the name would've been perfectly acceptable if it had belonged to a good-faith editor named Ryan, although given their first and only edit this seems less likely to have been the case.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That block certainly has my blessing. I'm definitely of the opinion that sometimes we apply WP:AGF and WP:BITE a little too readily, and to our own detriment. Always good to nip things in the bud. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation deadline for non-free images

I've raised this elsewhere, but nothing seems to ever get done. Many people (including several above) quote a deadline of March 23, 2008, per the Wikimedia Foundation Licensing Policy, for dealing with non-free images. The exact quote is "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." The problem is that this is currently (and has been for ages) the third bullet point of section 6 (applying only to projects without an EDP as opposed to projects, like en-wikipedia, that have an EDP - see section 5). It seems that the deadline should have been put in a new section 7, or added to section 5 as well as section 6. User:Durin said here that discussions with board members indicated the deadline does apply to everything, but I'm concerned that the layout of the Resolution is so sloppy as to leave this unclear. Can anyone here actually get anything done about that? And what does it say about the visibility of the policy that this hasn't been corrected for many months after it was published? Carcharoth 12:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I never noticed that before. If we don't have the March 23, 2008 deadline, why are we waiting so long to get rid of nonconforming images? We could finish by Jan 1, 2008 if we put our mind to it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

why are we waiting so long to get rid of nonconforming images? Do you have the slightest evidence for this rather odd claim that anyone is "waiting"? This page and WP:AN/I have almost-daily reminders of the fallout over the (IMO) overly hasty and ludicrously bureaucratic rush to "get rid of nonconforming images". --Calton | Talk 13:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think it was a typo in the layout. The current layout means that there is no deadline at all for projects with an EDP, which was surely not the intention. I don't think going for an earlier deadline internal to en-wikipedia is the answer. I'm tempted to say that the WMF typo has invalidated everything and the clock needs to be reset from the moment the correct layout is used. ie. 1 year from whenever the WMF board confirm that this was a typo. That would be embarassing for the WMF, but it would ease the pressure a bit here. Spending most of the year (on en-wikipedia) discussing how to deal with the images, and then rushing things in the last few months, is not really the right way to do things. Learning from the past few months of discussions, and starting the clock again, would be a graceful way to proceed, in my opinion. Carcharoth 13:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We do have a nonfree image policy, and have had it for some time. We don't need a deadline from the WMF in order to enforce it. My understanding was that we were planning to handle a certain number of images per month (out of the easily obtainable counts of images, for example ones with no use rationale). Within the limits of the amount of labor available, we can do any number of images per month that we desire. I don't see any reason to stop enforcing the nonfree image policy just because of doubts about the WMF deadline. And since we were already planning to be finished by the deadline, we might as well continue. The cleanup has to happen sometime... — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. What happens after the deadline to keep things in check? Carcharoth 15:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion on WT:NONFREE to treat "recently" uploaded images (when the uploader should be presumed to follow current policy) from "legacy" images (uploaded when policy was different, so there is a good excuse for noncompliance). My impression was that this thread is about the legacy images, not the recent ones. Once the legacy images are resolved one time, we will be able to treat all nonfree images uniformly.

As far as I can tell, the only way practical to enforce the current policies for recent images is for automated programs (bots) to scan the nonfree images and note when the image description page doesn't meet the policy requirements. There are simply too many nonfree images to expect manual patrolling to locate images that (for example) don't have rationales for all articles where they are used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The alternative is to take the newest images and place them into some new category with a parameter to be added once someone has reviewed the fair use claim (sort of like what's done with Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale and Category:Publicity photographs with no terms). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about?--Helpsglad comprehensive 555 08:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL question

Resolved

 – restored and userfied, by -- lucasbfr ^talk

User:Jooler has been recreating deleted pages in his userspace. Not a problem per se, assuming that he intends to work on them, but from their edit histories (his being the only listed editor), it's obvious he cut-and-pasted from an off-Wiki copy. Doesn't this badly break GFDL?

• User:Jooler/List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - AFD
• User:Jooler/List of films by gory death scene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - AFD
• User:Jooler/List of films featuring independent body parts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - AFD

--Calton | Talk 13:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone other than the user in question edited the version the page was copied from, yes, it violates the copyright of the other editors of the old version of the page. --ais523 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When they are ready to go back in, a history merge will fix this by restoring the deleted revisions and merging them with the version Jooler is working on. Nothing too much to worry about. Ideally, when editors want to work on articles deleted at AfD, a full copy is restored to their userspace. I have a couple hanging around in my userspace, including one I have just received the book I needed to improve it. Carcharoth 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably restore the history of the deleted pages to his copies, since it should be fixed now rather than later. --Random832 15:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, going to delete these copies, restore and userfy the originals, since the pages are deleted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam Blacklist

I was attempting to answer a question on the Humanities reference desk and ran up against a spam filter when I tried to include a link to a page on http://www.d m v.org (remove spaces to check). Checking the link http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist doesn't show this domain as blocked as far as I can see. Why is this site being blocked? Exxolon 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's on the meta list as "\bdmv\.org" Kuru ^talk 02:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the reason given; appears the link was spammed. Kuru ^talk 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Exxolon 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the bad points of spam black lists, and the hard block attitude (not talking only about wikipedia, or even wikis), someone from a competitor (or detractor etc.) can spam until the site gets blacklisted. Jackaranga 02:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the solution? Expiration dates? Unlist requests? ←Ben^B4 02:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No solution, just an inherent flaw, in any such spam filter. Jackaranga 03:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-evident joe jobs and spam wars have been resolved in the past by temporary blacklisting and then delisting. Is dmv dot org a reliable source for content? Or just a site that was spammed? The "unofficial guide tot he DMV" does not seem to have muchj potential to be an authoritative source. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sethkin35

He forged an RfA for User:Kyle.died.rich. It had no consent from the nominee to continue. This blatant trolling is quite enough for an indef block. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it blatant trolling, which is why I left a warning on his page. If I may note, you seem to be exceptionally trigger-happy over this; you've already created a SSP report that you immediately retracted once it became apparent that there wasn't a connection. Just calm down. :P
Now, all that said, I certainly wouldn't lose sleep if someone decided to off Sethkin while I was asleep. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was late, I was tired :) I do think there should be some sort of action taken. He went through the trouble to nominate someone and show that he accepted, when he really had no knowledge. I created an SSP report because someone made a total of 4 contributions, all in that day, and nominated someone for adminship. I found that to be suspicious. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem Frames Approach

In March 2007, the page devoted to the "Problem Frames Approach" was deleted for "blatant advert". This was a legitimate page that was not a blatant advert ... unless someone hacked it. In which case, the hack should have been rolled back; the page shouldn't have been deleted.

How can we get the page back? -- Stephen Ferg (email redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenFerg (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You probably want to take it to deletion review for discussion there. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Removed the poster's e-mail to save spambots some work.) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It was speedied as a blatant advert (without being tagged) which it doesn't appear to be. If it needed deleting it should have gone through afd. Secretlondon 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the original poster's application at deletion review. Deletion review has been made extra hard by requiring templates from newbies.. Secretlondon 21:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon admin conduct RfC closed

I have closed and deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lexicon, as it was not properly certified with evidence of prior failed attempts at dispute resolution. Please see the talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lexicon, which is still around. I am leaving open the possibility that some kind of impropriety may indeed have occurred and I invite uninvolved people to look into the case; this is a situation (ethnic wikiwarfare over Sri Lankan Civil War related topics) that probably could do with some more outside admins scrutiny anyway. For the ANI complaint that triggered this, see here.

Note: A continuation of the mutual sniping and bickering by the warring parties as a response to this post here will be unwelcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But, apparently not at WP:ANI. --Haemo 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Herman Jay Cohen

An anonymous user has posted various personal attacks[10][11][12] on Talk:Herman Jay Cohen. I'd like them removed. Jossi is threatening to block me[13] on the grounds that I am vandalizing the talkpage. The entire talkpage, with the exception of the top post, is one user's personal attacks against me. I moved the talkpage posts to the anon's talkpage[14] and asked him, again, to stop engaging in personal attacks. Perspicacite 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Example: "the kiddies need to go home and leave the Wiki pages that aren't about pets and Britney Spears to the adults."[15] Perspicacite 03:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I deleted from the history of that article an expletive you wrote against the subject of that article, which you called a SOB in the edit summary. I advised you about the judicious use of edit summaries, an advise that you deleted twice from your talk page. I also warned an anon with which you are edit warring. Then you delete comments made by anon in which he is complaining of bias in the article, which I reverted. I would argue that you need to take a hard look at your editing behavior, before is too late. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, just to clarify, Jossi selectively deleted from the history of the article my use of the phrase "SOB" while ignoring the anon's edit summary in which he described me using an expletive.[16] Jossi then left several condescending threats to block me for "vandalism" on my talkpage. The anon, as shown above, has repeatedly personally attacked me despite several requests to stop. Jossi is under the impression that personal attacks are acceptable discourse despite my best efforts to convince him otherwise. Perspicacite 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Straw man arguments will not earn you any respect in this noticeboard. Now that you have brought yourself to the scrutinity of this board, expect to receive appropriate feedback from other admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your endless condescension towards me gets tiresome. Perspicacite 03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You accused me of vandalism.[17] You either need to 1. provide a single diff in which I vandalized an article or 2. stop using the uw-vandalism4im template to intimidate users you disagree with. Perspicacite 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You would not have come to the attention of others, if you had used your editing privileges appropriately. This has nothing to do with being condescending. Simply do not use edit summaries to make spurious comments on the subject of the article, and do not delete talk page discussions. If you need help from other editors, pursue WP:DR, that's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you accused me of vandalism, so that's not 'all'. I want to see a diff. I'm waiting. Perspicacite 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure why the article revision was deleted from the history (reversion is fine), we don't usually delete/censor rude talk comments. At least the anon's rude commnets were not to content pages. This seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Voice-of-All 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But the kettle is still black. --Iamunknown 05:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of inflammatory language in user space

I feel like such an ass bringing this up, but User:Alvis has some blatantly offensive pejoratives on his user page. I have brought this up politely as I could and promptly forgot about it. But it's been some time and as they are still there I would appreciate it if this could be remedied, as I'm sure he could express his opinion without calling others: "gay-homosexual Nazi-plagirising acid-washed neo-luddites with mother-complexes and acne." Thanks for your time, VanTucky ^Talk 06:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER says "don't put inappropriate content on your userpage". Will ^(talk) 08:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad revisions deleted from history. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd think the acid-washing would have cleared up their acne, at least... AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well the mysteries of acne prevail. My user page - that at least has changed. Alvis 08:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User Kekrops

Kekrops doesnt discuss his reversions, often doesnt even bother to explain why he is making these reversions, and deletes properly sourced content..Here [18] and there [19] and in many other places..Can someone, not necessarily an administrator, check these articles and give a third party opinion about them? it is virtually impossible to discuss anything with this user, since he simply discuss nothing but just reverts anything that he doesnt like to see..See the talk page [20].. --laertes d 12:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what kind of administrative intervention you actually demand. Anyway ... In a (maybe potentially) controversial article the demand for dialogue before editing goes both ways. And checking for instance some of your (reverted) edits in Chios massacre I read: "Referring to the atrocities committed by Greek rebels against the Turkish civilian population, Phillips claimed that: Everywhere, indeed, the conduct of the insurrection was characterized by the same treachery and unbounded cruelty." What has this to do with the article itself? Why do you feel the need to act as an apologist of the Ottoman side in each separate historical article, even with irrelevant to the content edits? And this is what seems to happen also in Pontic Greeks, where you were told that "we are talking about Pontic Greeks, not all the populations of the exchange." And Kekrops explains there his positions, and why he acts the way he does. In the other article he doesn't, but neither you bothered to explain your initial edits! You don't even have proper edit summaries!!! And this final comment brings me back to the problem I posed with my opening sentence.--Yannismarou 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

`Why do you feel the need to act as an apologist of the Ottoman side in each separate historical article`-Yannismarou

First Yanni, i dont act like an apologist, massacre is a massacre, however i do want to point out that there were wide scale massacres committed by greeks against turks in both these periods..the citations are from non-pro Turkish academical sources, whats the problem with citing them? In the Pontic Greek article, it is actually only me and user denizz who is discussing the possible edits:[21]..About the Chios massacre, if you think some parts of it are unrelated then you made the necassary changes, instead of an unexplained complete reversion..

About the question you asked, what i want a third party contribution to these articles in question..Your previous records clearly demonstrates that youre not a third party opinion..Anyway, if you want to discuss about these articles then use their separete talk pages..Regards..--laertes d 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions

Just like we have Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions, I suspect that writing a similar page for FAC will help address the apparent problems with feature discussions (FAC, FLC, FPC, etc). It seems that several pages have been featured while failing to address important problems, or not featured for spurious reasons, such as whether their en-dashes were "properly spaced". Please contribute to the above page, and give comments on its talk page. >Radiant< 13:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, period is outside the quotation. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Period should be outside the quotation, as Radiant was not quoting a full sentence. Carcharoth 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would we poll such a stupid thing? Write the damn articles, stop caring about features, and stop wasting people on WP:AN's time with spurious polls. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

... I am fairly certain Luigi was being facetious and did not intend to start a poll ... --Iamunknown 14:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there has never been an article denied featured status based on WP:MOS issues (sorry, now a stalled link because of Radiant!'s move of the page in which he's involved in a dispute without discussing it at the page, now a reverted mess); although I've repeatedly asked for an example, one has never been provided, and to my knowledge, no such beast exists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The concerns that some articles are promoted because content spun from whole cloth, speculation, and/or inaccurate misleading references, are missed during the review, is of more concern. It is undeniable, if completely regrettable, that an over-emphasis on WP:MOS issues can lead to less emphasis on content issues. I personally think that advanced copyediting for style should have a separate process within FAC, coming before the main FAC process, which should concentrate on the main goals of readability, comprehensiveness, balance, and credibility (verification through the references plays a part here, but credibility also requires resident presumed subject experts to be called in - usually through notification at various WikiProjects). Even this will miss stuff but is the best Wikipedia can do at the moment. But please get the copyediting part of FAC separated from the content review part of FAC. Carcharoth 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we call that Peer review in these places... sadly, it is perennially understaffed, and often neglected. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that the FAC should focus less on presentation issues (like MOS) and more on content issues. Perhaps having objections labeled as being either style or content? Raul654 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think separating the two could work, yes. Perhaps create two sections. >Radiant< 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict reply to Carcharoth) Absolutely agreed that POV is getting through FAC, but this is a long-standing problem not only at FAC but throughout Wikipedia; undermining an inhouse writing style won't solve that very old problem. (Not to mention that when I used to exhaustively review sources for reliability I was one of the few reviewers doing that, and that was criticized as much as these new MOS criticisms :-) The most glaring example of POV getting through FAC I've ever seen was Hugo Chávez, defeatured within six months. It certainly didn't get by FAC because of an overemphasis on MOS issues; it got by FAC because most of the Venezuelan editors who knew how POV the article was had been silenced by the time the article came to FAC, or couldn't keep up because of ESL issues. It got by FAC because, at that time, Chávez wasn't receiving a lot of international press, and there weren't enough knowledgeable editors to balance the article. How are you going to solve that? The lack of knowledgeable reviewers in a given topic area is *not* a new problem. Undermining good writing style will not solve the POV, comprehensiveness or systemic bias. That is, weakening featured article criteria 2 won't encourage better review of 1b, 1c or 1d; those have always been problems. When we built the {{articlehistory}} for FAs and FFAs, I spent months in FAC archives building the pieces of history, and I will assert that FAC reviews are now far more stringent on 1b, 1c and 1d than they've ever been. In the past, lots of articles got featured based on a regular FAC group saying "I like it". There are many red herrings and straw men being thrown up in this discussion, which is a most curious one, considering some of the irregularities that are occurring in an effort to undermine an inhouse writing guide. I suggest instead we focus on ways to strengthen reviews for 1b, 1c and 1d. Certainly chewing up a lot of editor time in meaningless discussion of dashes and admin irregularities and editwarring won't work towards the goal of improving FA content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is this knee-jerk rejection of MoS issues in FACs. Copy editing is an essential process in any serious form of publication, so I'm not sure why Wikipedia should be any different. But in the end, either an article follows the MoS or it doesn't; either an article is an example of our best work or it isn't. — Brian (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And the fundamental problem is that, in the end, it's impossible to draw a distinction between style and content. There may be a continuum from one extreme to the other, but there's no boundary. Tony 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Brian - yes, but it's not a knee-jerk reaction. It is rather an attempt to focus more on content and less on endashes, because several people have complained that this focus at the moment is wrong. It's a bit like the bike shed effect. >Radiant< 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the color of the bikeshed effect? :-) Carcharoth 09:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. People who aren't knowledgeable about the subject of a FAC nomination will make somewhat arbitrary comments on the form instead. It is nearly the same effect as on RFA, where people who aren't familiar with a nominee also make up somewhat arbitrary benchmarks to judge them. >Radiant< 11:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, you shouldn't really be complaining about un-knowledgeable reviewers and arbitrary benchmarks on FAC while simultaneously attempting to prevent knowlegeable editors from coming up with usable guidelines. Kirill 11:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• How is that even remotely relevant? Not to mention that it was resolved long ago. >Radiant< 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(partially copied from Radiant!'s talk page) You can't really have a setup where editors knowledgeable on some topic are expected to check an article on FAC yet not given the authority authority to make their points stick. The correct way to space en-dashes happens to be a part of the MoS (or a guideline, or a policy, or whatever the tag of the day is); whereas the material WikiProjects produce (which one would expect to be rather more topic-oriented) is being relegated to the status of "stuff you might consider doing, should you be so inclined, but can ignore as you desire". Kirill 12:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• That is still not really relevant, since most style guidelines are in fact written by the relevant Wikiprojects. The issue back then was a wikiproject designing its own merge and delete process. >Radiant< 12:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• My view is that anyone who cares about endashes should simply go and fix the article. 99.9% of the population wouldn't even know what an endash is, let alone care how it's used. But I have worked with movable type and platen presses, so I'm one of the 0.1% :o) Guy (Help!) 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Guy. My pet peeve concerns the proper placement of "AD" -- but my solution is to make the edit, rather than argue over what is proper usage. (And if the article uses BCE/CE, I have no reason to change things.) -- llywrch 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail address form validation

There's a small link in the Signpost to a blog post about a newbie getting his article deleted as advertising, unjustly he says.[22] I'm willing to have a look at it. Would someone please place a copy of the deleted E-mail address form validation in my user space with its history intact? Thank you. ←Ben^B4 02:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The user in question is Badcop666, and I would just like to say that User:Michaelbusch treated him with a lot of aggressiveness, leaving him a uw-bv, as first contact is never good, especially when he did not reference a particular page. Also User:Michaelbusch has been giving him incorrect impressions such as "Alabamaboy has Admin authority and is authorized to delete articles at his discretion.". However User:Badcop666 has made a troll like edit in the past diff. Still no reason to be so aggressive. Jackaranga 02:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, request handled. Vassyana 05:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I gave it a makeover and put it at HTML form e-mail address validation‎. I am sad to say that there was no advertising, blatant or otherwise, in the original article. The incident was a big WP:BITE and I hope someone will encourage the involved parties to try hand-holding instead of slapping. ←Ben^B4 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for sorting this. Have to agree with the above. . ... dave souza, talk 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a somewhat similar experience as a new user some time back, and it really made me not want to be involved. Only after I tried again and had some kinder elder editors give some positive feedback did I decide to stick around. I think we all should take heed to the power of our (seemingly innocuous) actions. (I'm not an admin, but as a HS English teacher, I'm sort of an IRL admin for the classrom.) Cheers. -- Scartol · Talk 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've written a new "Validation" section at E-mail address, loosely based on the page discussed above, and redirected it there. In any case, I do fully agree with BenB4 that the original deletion was completely uncalled for, not to mention having absolutely no connection that I can see to the criterion it was claimed to have been done under. Or did someone seriously think the article was written to promote quirksmode?? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Travb is warned about posting copyvios.[23] He then re-adds the copyvio[24][25] he originally added in 2005[26] which is stolen from this website.[27] Perspicacite 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But there is no copyright violation ... Jackaranga 03:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually there appears to be a single sentence copied; well within fair use, but should be reworded as a paraphrase on principle. It should not be used to try to get another editor in trouble. ←Ben^B4 03:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it doesn't qualify as fair-use if it's not attributed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was attributed, but I'm not following the article, and could be wrong. ←Ben^B4 13:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If the similar part is indeed that short, I think we can safely say that it doesn't matter. After all, there are only so many ways to arrange the words in the first place... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Role accounts?

I've seen a number of account creations recently of the form "word1word2word3word4". On the basis of some off-Wikipedia vandal chatter, I suspect that these may be multi-user role accounts deliberately created with easily guessable passwords: an experiment with the account User:Oli1oli2oli3oli4 (password: "oli" -- now blocked) appears to suggest this may be the case.

Perhaps we need to tighten up the password strength requirements to prevent this, and check for the use of substrings of a username (in whatever capitalization) as a password at account creation time?

-- The Anome 09:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Having said which, an automated search for similar accounts, followed by manual test logins, has so far failed similarly weak passwords for other accounts with similar names. However, my comment about password strength checking stands. -- The Anome 09:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are too many weak passwords to check for them all. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it would be reasonable to check the strenghth of new accounts. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about that. It doesn't really prevent any vandalism, even through role accounts, because anyone can get an account and anyone can sign up for as many accounts as they want. All it would really do is inconvenience people who don't think their Wikipedia password needs to be super hard to guess. And honestly, I can understand why a first time user would not think their password should be particularly strong. It's not their bank account, after all. Natalie 03:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but thats just it... it's not for their protection, it's for ours. We've had a number of admin accounts get "hacked" and I think having some basic industry-standard password tests is reasonable. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But you're suggesting checking new accounts, which obviously don't have a sysop flag yet. Hopefully by the time they are standing for adminship they have understanding of how secure their password should be. I guess I don't feel that we should be checking new account's passwords on the off chance that they may stick around long enough that they might be nominated for adminship, get nominated, accept, and have a successful RfA. And I'm not sure what technical thing could check new sysops passwords, unless every new sysop were required to register a new password. Natalie 02:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD in need of closing

Resolved

Just wondering if an admin could look at (and close) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Asher. It's approaching 7 days, and is becoming a real mess with a bunch of SPA's, and meatpuppets. Thanks, Leuko 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Merope 13:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Leuko 03:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Josh Gibson Page

I am simply looking into someone helping us at the Josh Gibson page find some kind of reasonable solution. We tried to file for an RFC but that hasn't seemed to help. The page was protected and that doesnt seem to help. I tried to ask around for help, but I believe that is canvassing. We have 2 administrators looking into this, but we are at a stalemate. Is there anything anyone can do to help? YoSoyGuapo 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd get more interest if you could briefly (a single sentence or so) describe the issue. I see a 115k talk page that personally just makes me cringe. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest archiving as much as possible of the current page and opening a more organized RFC: set forth the conflict in a neutral sentence or two and give each side one or two short paragraphs to explain their position. Then establish a separate subsection for comments. Durova^Charge! 04:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti vandal bots

Has an admin blocked the anti-vandal bots or something ? Organism was left as "An organism eats little boys named timmy at night. RUN TIMMY RUN!", for 40 minutes. How come nobody noticed this was strange and no bots noticed either even though it went from 41,000 to 65 bytes. I thought there were several bots that searched for such patterns. Jackaranga 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the block logs for ClueBot, MartinBot, and AntiVandalBot, and none have been blocked recently. Perhaps they are not just running right now. hbdragon88 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. AVB hasn't been running since 4 April, while MartinBot hasn't been run since 2 September. (Has AVB been superseded by something else?) ClueBot was active at the time, but it doesn't do a huge amount of reverting. hbdragon88 22:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious answer is that it's night and the bot was named Timmy. Next question. --B 23:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

IP address indefinitely hard-blocked per request of a school supervisor

For the record, I have indefinitely hard-blocked 75.139.45.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per request of the Technical Services Supervisor - Shelby County Schools. A request was made at my talk page and I followed with an e-mail to verify (the request as well as the sender's identity) and to ask about soft-block vs. hard-block. The response confirmed the request and further requested a hard-block. Please advise if I should forward the confirmation e-mail somewhere for future reference. Also advise if I should take any further action or modify the block in any way. (Possibly asking the supervisor to let us know if the IP address changes?) Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with asking him to let you know when the address changes. Also, if I were you, try enabling the autoblocker to see if you can get any sleepers or vandal users from this address. As for forwarding the message... I don't know if anyone would really need it. Maybe forward to Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee? Thats about all I can think of for now... except wish that we could indefblock all abusive school IP addresses. I wouldn't be surprised if vandalism went down as a result of that. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would concur except that first message really doesn't sound like a message that would be sent by an educator. I am assuming you sent the email to the address found on their website? Perhaps I am paranoid but just wanting to make sure. That's not some man-in-the-middle thing going on here. Thanks. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought the message seemed odd as well. But according to this the phone number and name matches up. R. Baley 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The message is a little strange, but it sounds more like someone who is not that comfortable communicating online. I've noticed similar patterns with some of my older and less tech-savvy professors, who are used to either communicating informally face-to-face or formally in writing. I think if it was actually, for example, a child, it wouldn't have any issues with word usage, but would probably have a few misspellings. Nor do I think they are teaching kids how to write business letters these days, so the formatting of the signature block seems to read "adult" to me.

As far as the length of block, though, I concur that you should ask them to let you know if the IP address ever changes. If not I would suggest putting the block at one year, or some similarly long time, and then just double check that it was still registered to the school. I'm also assuming that you explained to Mr. Alexander that everyone at the school will still be able to read Wikipedia. Natalie 01:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Get sure to inform WP:ABUSE, they keep track of that kind of stuff. -- ReyBrujo 02:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, regardless of his wishes, I may have chosen a soft block... editing through accounts should be fine enough, and there has not been enough vandalizing to hard block it. Anyways, remember to leave a note at ABUSE, I think they have a list of all the ips they have blocked for network administrator's wishes. -- ReyBrujo 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I live in Alabama I'll give him a call tomorrow if no one objects. My son is in an Alabama high school and its pretty easy to spoof or swipe addresses. I sure don't mind the block but I would hate to be blocking people as the result of a "joke" message. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I will contact folks as advised. I'm not sure what folks found odd about the message on my talk page but the e-mail address matches Mr. Alexander's as shown on this page. I'm quite confident it is the correct person. Response to Natalie: Yes, I mentioned twice in my e-mail that no one at the address will have any problems reading Wikipedia regardless of whether a soft-block or hard-block were applied. I will try to get a sense from him whether an indefinite or long finite block would be more appropriate. I understand ReyBrujo's concern about the hard-block but I explained the difference in detail and he was pretty clear about his preference. If JodyB wants to further confirm, feel free, but I could understand if he didn't want kids from his school district responsible for any vandalism - logged-in or otherwise. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jody, I think calling would be a great idea. A quick, cheap, and easy way to verify this. Natalie 02:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but why do we block addresses at external requests? If the school wants to block Wikipedia, they are in control of their computers and firewalls. I would not block an address at all without either legal reasons or Wikipedia-intrinsic reasons. I don't know what the motivation for the block request is, but it is not our purpose to enforce the wishes and policies of external entities, wether it's a school adminstration in Alabama, the government of China, or the State Island Fire Brigade. --Stephan Schulz 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Schools can't block kids just from editing. Only we can do that. If they want read-only access to WP, that's on us. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they can. Just have the firewall catch http post requests to Wikipedia, or any request with a "submit" in the url. And even if they could not: It's not our job to enforce their policies.--Stephan Schulz 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That would kill the Go and Search and preferences, etc... The guy could get us to enforce their policies the hard way if he wanted - just keep vandalizing over and over until we block long-term. This is the easy way. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the impression that editing Wikipedia is against the school's rules, but rather that this guy just wants to keep his kids from messing up Wikipedia, which is a great impulse that we should be encouraging. And even if we don't have to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't do something. I think this is a good faith request and we should honor it. Natalie 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is precedent for this too (although I wasn't able to find an example). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Filtering all post requests might kill essential functionality for reading. Filtering URLs for "action=edit" and "action=submit" would certainly not. What I am concerned about is that we are potentially implementing their censorship. Maybe pupils want to add non-complementary information about the school or the headmaster. Or maybe they just waste time and vandalize Wikipedia, and the request is completely benign (looking at the actual request, that looks quite likely). But still, it is not, and cannot be, our job to enforce the access restrictions of external entities. There is neither a technical nor a moral justification. --Stephan Schulz 03:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If the kids are being censored at school, they can edit Wikipedia from home, from their friend's homes, from a library, or from Starbucks. And yet again, no one is saying that we have to honor these requests, which do occasionally come in, but I would argue that it is potentially all right to honor such a request. You're absolutely right that it is not our job. But really, claiming that this is somehow immoral is a bit rich. Natalie 03:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming blocking is immoral, I'm claiming that there is no moral requirement for it. The question is where we start and where we stop. We do not have the resources to evaluate every request, and to continually monitor the situation to see if the block is still applicable. If someone wants to limit access to Wikipedia, they should (and can!) implement it. And the argument "they can use some other venue" didn't work out that well for segregated schools and toilets and beaches. Some kids do not have access at home, or can affort going to Starbucks, or frequently visit a library that has internet access. --Stephan Schulz 18:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We should honor all such requests. If anyone wants their single IP blocked - even hard-blocked - it would be very easy to force us to do so. Just get a user account blocked and then try to perform an edit from the IP every once in a while to cause an autoblock. Why force people to go through all that when they're asking nicely? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think this is "immoral", however I understand we should aim to keep the site as open as possible, and that means softblocking instead of hard blocking. Finally, while blocking is not punitive but preventive, I think we are "preventing" too much, considering the rather short vandalism background of the account compared with other school ips. -- ReyBrujo 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a call in to the Tech Services man and expect to hear back soon. I appreciate keeping the site open, but at the end of the day it is the school's IP address and if they request it legitimately we should cooperate. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea of indefblocking an IP, given the possibility that the school might change IP address some time and forget to tell us. Perhaps it would be better to block for a few months at a time, renewing on confirmation that the school is still at that address? David Mestel^(Talk) 17:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the problems. It's the school's IP address - they control their traffic. As I said above, its not our job. We cannot do it well, and we should not do it at all --Stephan Schulz 18:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see both sides. It should be the school's responsibility to control access. But lots of schools don't have the technical expertise to do even the most basic networking tasks. I suggest we be sympathetic toward verifiable, good-faith requests. Raymond Arritt 18:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A semi-permanent block (lperhaps the remainder of a school year) from any consistently abusive IP is within the administrators' rights, and is being done pretty well on average. This block might set an example. It should be considered a duty of administrators to report egregious school-based vandalism to the school's website. School administrators need to be informed that the school's reputation is becoming tarnished. --Wetman 18:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

An arbitrator I contacted (per a suggestion above) suggested waiting a month or so and then quietly unblocking. Unless something else changes, that's my current plan. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an eminently reasonable plan. How dare you stop this discussion with pragmatic solutions! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 19:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why he's an arbitrator!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No comment on the should/shouldn't question... but there is precedent for blocking (in various permutations of kinds and durations) school IPs per school IT/admin request, I can recall at least one such request coming to the unblock-en-l mailing list. As to what to do with the request itself, perhaps archiving the relevant emails inOTRS might be a good approach? The IP pages could then be tagged with the OTRS ticket number and anyone with OTRS access could then verify. This would avoid publicly publishing the exact email used and the system supposedly has permanence. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The gentleman called me back and we had a nice conversation. He confirms that the system has requested a hardblock and advises that the IP address will not change for at least two years. He has a file on Wikipedia and knows how to contact us if there is a need for editing privileges.

So I guess there is nothing left to see here? I'll stop rubber necking and move along...--Tom 16:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template Deletedpages redirected

As per the outcome of this TFD, I have now redirected the old, depricated {{deletedpage}} salting template to WP:PT. Template talk:Deletedpage, towards the bottom, shows the steps I have taken to implement this change. This is a notice to let admins know that the old salting templates are no longer going to function, and that any new saltings really need to be done by way of cascading protection and WP:PT. - TexasAndroid 18:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh ... I really wish we had a way of salting an image that didn't take the user to the upload screen. Maybe that's a bug fix that could be requested? If a well-meaning user clicks on an image and sees a SALT message, they understand that uploading the image is a bad idea, but if they see an upload screen, then get an unhelpful error when they try to upload the image, they do it with a different filename. --B 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that probably ought to be fixed. Anyway, I wonder if that shouldn't be a "soft redirect"? The problem with redirects out of Template: space is that when a redirected template is transcluded, the target of the redirect is shown instead. This might be somewhat confusing, both to those who might not notice this message and try to use the template, and to those who might stumble across it in (possibly deleted) page histories. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That very issue was brought up in the TfD nomination. It was decided that since Deletedpage is such a widely used template grounded in so many admin's memories, and has been in active use forever, the unusual transclusion of an entire page, in this case, Protected Titles, would be necessarily jarring to inform such admins that there is now a different method for salting pages. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a more elegant solution. Use parser functions to check the namespace ... if it's an image, then display the deletedpage template or something like it, if it's anything else, then display a flashing neon sign telling you to use protected titles. I guess there's no real harm in making {{saltedimage}} to serve this purpose for images. (deletedimage is something else) But I would rather see clicking on a redlinked image enforce the protected title policy ... that would work even better. If you click on a redlinked image, give you the salt message. --B 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I handled it a little differently. Still intentionally jarring, but hopefully a little more explanitory for the admin who tries to use the redirected templates. I placed the existing contents of WP:PT within <noinclude> tags, and added a new set of <includeonly> tags at the bottom of WP:PT, that display a large, red text, bolded message warning the admin that the template has been eliminated, and that they should follow the instructions at WP:PT for how to use cascading protection to do their saltings. If anyone wants to edit the message, they are obviously welcome to do so. If anyone disagrees with my general methodology, then I suspect the talk page of WP:PT would be a better place to discuss that than here. :) The text I used for the warning was: "The template {{deletedpage}}, and all variants, has been removed. If you wish to protect this page from recreation, please follow the instructions for using protected titles and cascading protection available at Wikipedia:Protected titles."- TexasAndroid 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there going to be any effort to change all of the pages that currently use the deleted page template to cascading protection? Natalie 23:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Already done. There were only 40 something pages actually using the template, in part because every other month or so all were already being converted to cascading protection, and I had last converted less than a month ago. There are hundreds of pages that link to it, and the redirection means that those remain as blue links, now pointing to it's replacement system. - TexasAndroid 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wouldn't it have been simpler to just put the big bold red text on the template page, though? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The main benefit of the redirect is for the hundreds of pages that still link to the template, without actually transcluding it. Without actually using it. The redirect gives those pages a permanent place to link to. The warning is for the (hopefully) small number of admins who try to use the template after this point. The noinclude/includeonly trick makes the WP:PT page work for both situations, and honors the closing result of the TFD, which was to redirect. I envision that in 3-6 months the noinclude/includeonly stuff can be safely removed from WP:PT. - TexasAndroid 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not while the template remains a redirect, unless we want to mess up any old revisions that contain the template. Unless you meant that we can delete or unredirect the template then? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The point being that, since the warning is there for those admins who might continue to use the deprecated template, and in 3-6 months IMHO the vast majority of such admins will have seen the warning at least once and hopefully changed over to WP:PT, the need for a specific warning will dwindle to nothing, and the warning can be removed. - TexasAndroid 11:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good work! >Radiant< 13:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell Henderson

Wikipedia has an article on Brandon Vedas so why can't there be an article on Mitchell Henderson (aka an hero)? He's at least as notable as Brandon, his article (or lack thereof) should be unprotected so someone can create a quality article about him.

--RucasHost 11:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is --->> thataway. If you have reliable sources indicating that Mitchell Henderson is notable, take them over there to argue for unsalting. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To speedy or not

I came across Lollyblue (talk · contribs). She has created Ivana Đokić, Glembay Theatre‎, Triznakinje, Saša Numić, Tijana Stević‎, Zoran Pajić, Letnje Večeri, which I believe all fail WP:CSD A7. I just wanted to run it by someone else before I was too bold and went on a deletion spree. Lollyblue appears to be the same person as Tijana Stević, which brings up WP:COI concerns. I intend to contact the user about these issues. One other thing, the user has uploaded a whole bunch of photos to go with all these articles. It seems like nearly all of them have come from myspace. While she can release images that she owns (such as those found on her own myspace page) into the public domain, I fear that some of these images she doesn't own and is tagging them improperly. Anyway, just wanted to get a second opinion on all this from the admin perspective. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked too closely but in similar cases, I've been told that coverage of foreign movie people is a bit weak on the English WP. Still, these seem too stubby to survive. Might be worth an AFD just in case. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the main concern is the user using wikipedia as myspace, The name was derived from "The Glembay Lords" (Gospoda Glembajevi) by Miroslav Krleža, which is by Lollyblue's oppinion the best drama ever written. and all the pictures uploaded, I think most are probably tagged with incorrect licenses, apart from being unecessary. Jackaranga 02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I will readily concede that the coverage of foreign movies is weak on WP, but this is definitively the wrong end to tackle that problem. Serbian internet is not that undeveloped, and the phrase "Letnje Veceri" (Summer nights) gets noble 700 GHits, of which only the MySpace site among the first 10 pages is devoted to the film in question (it's a student film). An AfD or speedy is definitely in order; based on a quick research, only Tijana Stević has some media coverage along with the Kučka show (a musical based on Kučka is said to be produced during the next spring) (I found 3 short news articles, one of those a city guide). Duja► 09:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I went on a deletion spree myself. It's a promotional walled garden, and Lollyblue (talk · contribs) is obviously Tijana Stević [28]. I wish them well, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. There are some traces of notability, but I think that AfD would be a waste of time; I hate articles written for blatant self-promotion. I don't mind DRV btw. Duja► 11:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was about to do the same thing. I would say that DRV wouldn't be necessary. If the topic is notable, then a user can create an entirely new article which explains the notability and cites source and wouldn't need any of the original text in order to do that. The articles are so short and say so little that they are basically useless. Thanks for going ahead and doing this.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Review of deletion

I speedy deleted Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten under WP:CSD#A7. It makes no assertion of notability, in my view. It's been requested that I undelete it, as an editor feels it was improper, due to the previous AfDs on the article.[29] If another sysop feels this was indeed improper, please restore the article. Vassyana 08:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a WP:DRV for this one. As for if it is a good deletion or not, I will need some time to get some sleep then give a good answer. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is improper to speedy an article that has survived 3 AfD's, the last being closed with a consensus 'keep'. Please reverse yourself and put it up for AfD (if you so desire). R. Baley 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think the article should have been deleted but AFD resulted in "keep", the correct thing to do is to ask for a review of the last "keep" decision at DRV, not to just delete it anyway. Kusma (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah overturn per above (and since when did web pages that don't assert notability morph into being web content that dosen't assert notability?) Viridae^Talk 08:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for speedy deletion is to avoid the need for beaurocrocy for deletion of articles which have no chance of passing an AfD. In fact, at WT:CSD, it says that new CSDs "should be uncontestable: it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus. If a rule paves the path for deletions that will cause controversy, it probably needs to be restricted. In particular, don't propose a CSD in order to overrule keep votes that might otherwise occur in AfD.". This means, in my opinion, that an article should never be speedied after surviving an AfD. Od Mishehu 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This was, IMO, an abuse of admin tools. When something has already survived AfD, it is highly improper to delete it out-of-process. Speedy deletions are entirely appropriate for obvious, non-controversial deletions; they're not a device for admins to circumvent community consensus. Admins are given the deletion tools in order to carry out the will of the community, not in order to simply delete anything they wish. Walton^One 10:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana has already restored the article. No more need to talk about abuse and rub more salt in the wounds. Kusma (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept that, and I commend Vassyana for recognising his/her mistake. To clarify, I don't think this was deliberate or bad-faith abuse, and I don't mean to be condemnatory. Walton^One 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do people always assume bad faith from admins? We screw up as much as the other guys. We don't get up in the morning wondering how many valuable articles we will delete and how many valuable contributors we will block before getting caught red handed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, calling it "an abuse of admin tools" is just silly. It's at worst a poor exercise of judgement. WilyD 13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really relevant to this thread, but looking at the title of this article I thought there existed another article on the meme "Everytime X, God kills a kitten", so I did a search on "God kills a kitten". Two of the first ten results were pages containing the phrase "in large quantity and other types of sadistic deaths". is this an example of cruel & fuzzy logic? -- llywrch 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Massive spam campaign on athlete articles

I don't really know where to bring this up ... but something isn't right. I have noticed over the last month a lot of "fan sites" for individual athletes being added to articles. I have probably removed 15 (give or take) links over the last month. These fan sites are mostly link aggregators. Some of them have content copy/pasted from Wikipedia. See jimmyclausenonline, tedginnonline.com, and tonyromoonline.org for a few example sites.

On a couple of occasions, I noticed that the spammer added an interwiki link to the Tagalog language Wikipedia, which I thought was strange, but after verifying that the article did not exist, I would remove the spam link and the interwiki link.

Well, this afternoon, I saw this category tl:Category:Living_people on Tagalog (permanent link in case someone decides to purge that category after seeing this). There are a lot of athlete articles there. All of the articles look like they are copy/pastes of the en versions that were run through some kind of automated translator ... a lot of words didn't get translated and they are all verbatim where they are in their respective sentences.

All of these articles have a link to the respective athlete's "fan site" at the bottom of them.

The Tagalog Wikipedia has 7000 total articles and I seriously doubt that anyone would consider a few US college athletes to be among the most 7000 important topics for that language.

I don't really know where to report this, but it looks like someone is trying to use the Tagalog Wikipedia to promote their websites. --B 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't read or speak Tagalog, but is there perhaps a page of administrators at Tagalog Wikipedia? This seems like something they should know about, if they don't already. Natalie 23:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked through recent changes, found an admin who speaks English, and left him/her a message at tl:User_talk:Jojit_fb#Spam_on_sports_articles. There hasn't been a reply yet ... I have no idea what their equivalent of ANI is. --B 23:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually ... upon further review ... tl:Wikipedia:Kapihan#Spam_on_sports_articles is their village pump. I have left a message there too. --B 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, hopefully someone who speaks English will come across it. I speak reasonable Spanish, which is spoken in some parts of the Philippines, so I may post something offering help to a Spanish speaker. Natalie 02:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please report at WT:WPSPAM. They are working similar cases with sites related to models/actresses/porn stars, and can likely resolve the site IPs and have the bots block their links. If there's cross-wiki spam the Meta spam folks can do something. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I already removed all the fan site links in tl:Category:Living_people but not the articles themselves. I consider them legitimate articles because it can still be understood by a Tagalog/Filipino reader, although, those translations are considered Taglish and needs cleaning-up. So, I inserted a wikify/clean-up tag. Actually we are prioritizing vital articles in the Tagalog Wikipedia but we accept anything that a volunteer wants to contribute. Also, the Tagalog Wikipedia has only handful of active volunteers and only 1 very active administrator (User:Bluemask) (I'm only semi-active). Most Tagalog or Filipino Wikipedians are busy writing articles here in the English Wikipedia rather than in the Tagalog wiki. Some of them frown on writing in Tagalog. --Jojit fb 06:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jojit for taking care of this. I am busy with real life for the moment.

If there are concerns on the Tagalog Wikipedia or any Philippine-related Wikimedia project, drop a note at the Philippines notice board so that more active Filipino Wikipedians can have a look on it. --bluemask ^(talk) 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated warnings and intelligence gathering after Undo

(Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:Vandalism)

Most editors have clicked the Undo button to remove vandalism. But many (most?) don't follow through and post a warning to the vandal's talk page, or to raise the level of warning, or to post a notice to WP:AIV.

It would be a big help if we tied some automation to the Undo button:

• If the editor's talk page is empty, then automatically put a uw-test1 warning on the page.
• Slightly harder: if the talk page already has a recent warning, then add a higher level warning.
• Also hard: if the talk page has a last warning, then automatically submit a report to WP:AIV.

I don't know if a bot could do the above, or if it would require some developer intervention to tie into the Undo button.

There is something else that would be a big help in identifying vandals. Each edit that is undone could be marked in the user's contribution log as an undone edit. When we scan a user's contributions and see that almost all contributions are marked as having been undone, then it is easy to identify that user as a vandal.

We could also calculate for each user a percentage of "undoneness". Productive editors would have a very low percentage of undoneness, but editors with a 100% or 50% or even 20% rating are disruptive. Users with a high percentage of undoneness could be listed in something like the recent changes list, so that vandal fighters could give them extra attention.

Maybe someone could do this with a bot but my guess is that it would require developer support. I think it would be worthwhile. This kind of automation would implicitly make every other editor a vandal fighter merely by clicking the Undo button. Sbowers3 11:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly do-able, as that's how Twinkle works. I'd question making it automatic, as a lot of undos aren't reverting vandalism, but removing inappropriate good-faith edits, and I could see a lot of editors being upset at having their talk page filled with vandalism warnings. Ideally, a Twinkle-style dialog box would open with options for boilerplate talkpage messages, but that would (I think) require Java, which a lot of editors won't be using — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

While I think that making sure users get some sort of message is important, I definitely agree with Iridescent that making it completely automatic is inappropriate. Often I use undo in cases where I want to leave a personalized message for the user to explain why an edit was inappropriate in a more specific/less bitey way when it wasn't actually vandalism. (Users adding their own births or those of other redlinks to date/year pages is a common one, for example.) Pinball22 15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Automation (or bots) are definitely inappropriate. Undo is often the best way to reverse a recent edit that is in good faith, not vandalism. The assumption that an edit which needs to be undone is vandalism is a failure to assume good faith, and is deplorable. GRBerry 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I only generally leave a single warning (or block notice), regardless of perhaps half a dozen rollbacks. Leaving a note for each one? Bleh. I think what is needed here is for the editors to crack down on themselves, rather than introducing a fully- or semi-automated tool to do it. Besides, sometimes a silly edit from an IP just isn't worth the warning. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Okay forget the automated messages, but can't we make it a lot easier for the editor who clicks Undo to leave a message on the other editor's talk page? You would click a button that would take you to that talk page, offer you a choice of the standard warnings or a personalized warning, insert the name of the article that was undone, and sign the message - and possibly offer the choice of posting a message to WP:AIV. Many (most?) editors don't leave any message but if we made it easy, then many more might do it. Sbowers3 23:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Vatican Cardinal edited Wikipedia

Recently, there was a controversy over whether Vatican computers were editing our systems. That prompted a reaction from the leading church press official, Federico Lombardi.

Well, I know that archbishop and doctrinal prefect Angelo Amato, who occupies cardinal Ratzinger's former job, signed his very own name (AA Amato) in [30] on an obscure page in the French Wikipedia. This person is very high ranking and could almost be pope.

The cardinal was apparently having an edit conflict with a member of a sect. He corrected the article and said in the talk page no, come to my office and we'll talk. A statement like that is customary in the roman curia.

Now, the IP number comes from Issy-les-Moulineaux, which is the site of a major Vatican compound for sulpicians, who are leading group among clergy.

Right before the incident occured, this cardinal was giving an online interview to explain about a controversy that had occured with protestant communities. [31]

ADM 14:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Did he edit improperly? I would think that even if he did, this report would be more appropriate for WP:COIN than for here. Not really sure what administor action is needed here. - TexasAndroid 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you phrasing this as if it's a crime of some sort? There is nothing wrong about a cardinal editing Wikipedia that is not wrong about a lawyer or a milk deliveryman editing Wikipedia, nothing wrong about people in the Vatican "editing our systems" that is not wrong about Belgian or Paraguayans editing. Picaroon (t) 15:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything, we should be thrilled that someone that high up has taken notice of us. --B 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the IP deleted a statement, which was added back with the equivalent of the {{fact}} tag, and the IP wrote on the talk page to contact him by mail for more information. He identified himself in the first edit summary. I fail to see why such a fuss is made about that to be honest :) 207.45.248.18 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

People in the Vatican are still presumably allowed to edit, although they're likewise presumably just as bound by the same policy and community expectations as anyone else... is there some reason this particular edit was a problem (or a problem for en.wikipedia, rather than fr.wikipedia, in particular)? I feel like I'm missing something, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a nice note for The Inquirer, send them a mail and they will likely accept it. But for us, if he did not vandalize, it is of little relevance (unless we add that to Wikipedia:List of very important people editing Wikipedia). -- ReyBrujo 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Should the Wikipedia Signpost have a story on this? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless he changed Jesus's infobox to |living=yes, or something similar, I don't think there's really any story here, especially given that he's editing French & not English Wikipedia — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually iridescent, some of us might not argue with that! :)--JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 20:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a story here, but not one that directly affects us (& overlooking that this allegedly happened on fr.wikipedia): boss editting Wikipedia gets into an edit war with a subordinate. It'd be the same thing if Bill Gates made an edit, someone else at Microsoft reverted him, & Gates responded with "Please come to my office now." Not much we can do about it except to give people one more reason not to edit war. -- llywrch 21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Amato doesn't appear to hold Ratzinger's old job; Ratzinger was Prefect of the CDF, while Amato's the secretary. Amato's still pretty high up in the Vatican. It's interesting... Ral315 » 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that each Wikipedia language version develops its own standards. The English language WP:COIN or even WP:AN has no authority over the French language Wikipedia. Although I agree this is interesting, there's not much point in discussing it here unless someone who frequents this board also happens to be sysopped on the French edition. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss it for kicks, but there is absolutely nothing we can (or will) do. The French Wikipedia is completely independent from the English Wikipedia. Just as we wouldn't want anyone from there interfering with internal affairs of this wiki, we need to offer the same respect over there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at WP:Consensus

User:151.198.17.177 has repeatedly vandalized WP:Consensus and continued after being warned that vandalism can result in blocking. --Kevin Murray 22:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours. There was no "formal" final warning, but vandalism to policy pages is very disruptive. You may report simple, blatant vandalism to WP:AIV; responses there are usually faster. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Range block 216.76.248.0/24

I have blocked the range of 216.76.248.0/24 due to a persistent over-wikilinking vandal using a dynamic connection for a month. These unhelpful edits have been ongoing for months. The user has been warned and blocked repeatedly. The histories of the following pages are conjested due to the anon and the reverts: Alyson Michalka, Amanda Michalka, Abigail Spencer, Jordana Spiro, Devon Odessa, Lise Simms, Anneliese van der Pol, and possibly a few other. After conferring with a couple other admins who have dealt with these pages, the range block was decided. This is my first range block, so hopefully I did everything right. Is there anything I need to do besides the block (such as add templates?)

One more thing, I noticed Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Rangeblock. All of the pages listed under transclusion were created by User:Mackensen. So here is my question, do CIDR suffixes work for IP user talk pages, or are all of these user talk pages basically useless and for users that don't exist?-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't as far as I know. Prodego ^talk 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that at the time (January/Feb '07) they did work. I remember that there was a software update to address a bug report that was enabled for a bit then disabled (bugzilla:1035). Perhaps it is related? Anyway, the question remains, should these just be deleted for now?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Lahs08 and continual uploading of copyrighted images

I'd like some advice on how deal with Lahs08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who continually uploads the same copyrighted images. FUCK THAT SHIT FUCK THAT SHIT FUCK THAT SHIT (Image:Nfl on fox 2006 logo.jpg) without proper licensing (now calling it user-created public domain to avoid the issue completely). As seen the user talk page [32], there have been a number of images uploaded without sources, improper licensing, etc. This user simply continually uploads the same images in part so that the article NFL on FOX has images about the banner used. Admins should look at deleted edits to see the large number of images that have been deleted as well. There's been no responses to any discussion, just simply reuploading of images and now using different licenses to avoid the issue. I'd recommend at least a few weeks block but I'm open to suggestions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can deal with it the hard headed way: leave him uw-copyright, and report him at WP:AIV if he does it again, he will just keep getting blocked longer and longer. The odds are though, that he pays no attention to his talk page, because he always gets loads of messages about images being deleted, and he can't be bothered to take the time to understand why. Jackaranga 22:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at this example. The user repeatedly re-uploads deleted content without making any effort to comply with the non-free content policies. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC) FUCKING BULLSHIT

I've left him yet another warning, but if he continues with the copyright infringement that account will have to be blocked. THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT!!ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I reported him at WP:AIV. He's had plenty of warnings. The fact that he has re-uploaded the same images repeatedly, but has changed the licenses from non-free to fradulent free licenses, tells me he is intentionally evading the copyright policies despite a pageful of warnings. FUCK THAT SHIT Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to share my experience with Lahs08, I've brought up his vandalism previously in regards to changing the names of sports announcers to Simpsons characters within articles, and posting images on WGBH and Viacom (1971-2005) without any sort of context within the narrative (or one written incomprehensively), or attribution to other websites. The editor has not listened to my warnings in the past (between April-June) and did not respond to me at all. He is non-communicative and disruptive, and seems to not respect any sort of copyright. Nate 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC) THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT!! THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT!! THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT!! THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT!!

Anetode blocked him on the 19th (UTC) for 48 hours, which means the block expired 12 hours ago. He hasn't returned yet, but his edit history shows a number of breaks in it. If he does resume his disruptive ways, I expect he'll be blocked for increasing amounts of time. -- llywrch 16:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark

Aardvark sent me an email today requesting that I help get his account unabnned so that he can participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites discussion. Information from the community would be greatly appreciated. Lulles 01:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The above account has been blocked for editing on behalf of a banned user. Blu Aardvark was before my time or I wasn't paying attention, so I am going to refrain from commenting on unblocking his/her account, but I don't feel there is any harm from this thread continuing. Natalie 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked users can still email the arbcom-l with any comments they might wish to include, and may request there that they be unblocked to participate. WilyD 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Banned users may participate in their own Arbitration process by emailing a clerk or Arbitrator. There is nothing in the Arbitration policy allowing banned users to contribute in other cases. Banned users are banned because their contributions are unwelcome. Period. Thatcher131 10:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Plus Blu Aardvark can email the arbs if he really needs to, but I'm guessing they won't be especially interested this time since all they are supposed to be doing is clarifying the previous finding, not rolling it back (however much Dan Tobias might wish otherwise). Guy (Help!) 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What did 'Lulles' 'edit on behalf of a banned user'? If this is meant to refer to his statement above that Blu Aardvark contacted him about asking to be unblocked then I think it's a mis-application of the policy's intent. We don't want edit wars and disruption continued by people making content changes for blocked users, not merely passing on a question in discussion. Jimbo and several admins have done the same when discussing unblock requests from folks like Brandt with the community. Yes, there are other avenues of communication available, but as a general principle blocking people for trying to talk to us 'the wrong way' seems a bad idea.

That said, Ryulong's actual block reason was 'disruption only account' - presumably based on the deleted user page and 'TOW' shenanigans. --CBD 11:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What I really came here for! (Burger King and McDonalds)

After getting distracted by the storm in a tea-cup above, I wanted to point out the following:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items (February 2007) - delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items (2nd nomination) (February 2007) - keep
• McDonald's menu items (obviously still there)
• Burger King products (April 2007, seems to be a recreation of the menu items article that was deleted in February 2007, but someone needs to check the deleted version to check this)

I'm having trouble tracking down the history of the Burger King products article (due to a rash of redirects and page moves), but I think the recreation is here. The original page was deleted (see here), but was recreated as a redirect on 1 August 2007 (see here).

Several things:

• (0) No knee-jerk "delete, it is a recreated article" reactions, please. :-)
• (1) Could someone look at the histories and see if the early version of Burger King products I found here was a recreation of the article deleted here? If so, the history needs restoring and merging, and the previous AfD noted on the talk page.
• (2) If it was a recreation (I'm not sure if it was), could someone drop a note to the recreator (who I believe took part in the AfD) and tell them not to do this sort of thing (if it was)?
• (3) It is silly to have one article of this type survive AfD and the other not. I personally believe both should be kept, but it is desirable to be consistent in cases like this.
• (4) The names should be standardised.

I think that's it. Carcharoth 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

1) It isn't an exact copy, but the majority of the text is the same. The histories do need merging. I will work on that. Whether this needs to be speedied and sent through deletion review, or have another AfD is still up in the air, but I'll work on fixing the history, and moving everything back to Burger King menu items.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your concerns: yes I did cut and paste the lower portion of the article from another source, but the source was the main article itself not a Google cache or mirror. The information from the deleted article (List of Burger King menu items) was merged back into BK article after the request for deletion. When the Burger King article grew past the 50 KB limit and I sliced the BK menu items section and the BK Advertising section out and created the current two articles. (the three main articles now total about 120 kb in size and would be unwieldy)

As to the line break issue, I do not know what you are referring to.

I would also like to say that the top half of the article I pretty much added in the past 30-90 days. I made sure to properly cite any sources I used. Please understand that the whole article is not the same as the original one that was merged and deleted.

In conclusion, I was not trying to recreate the old article, but cut down the size of the main article in a logical and rational way.

Jeremy (Jerem43 03:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

OK, when splitting out text like that, it is important to link to the source article in the first edit summary. Something like "creating new page as a split from Burger King", and when removing from the original article, say something like "splitting out to new page at Burger King menu items". I also think the "products" title is better, and I'd support keeping both of these articles at any AfD or DRV. Carcharoth 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is why I named the article BK products instead of BK menu items as it just more than a list of items but a full description of there nomenclature, cooking methods menu targeting and more. If possible, could Andrew please put it back to the BK products name?

When I created the article, I was not as familiar with the proper procedures for moving articles, creating new ones etc. I had only primarily added stuff to existing articles. Life is a learning process.

Jeremy (Jerem43 04:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree about the "products" name. Do you know much about McDonalds? Would moving that page to "products" be a better way to treat that one? As for the BK one, talk to Andrew about it on his talk page. He has tried to sort out the page history, and it would be best if you helped him out by explaining the history (as you have done above). Carcharoth 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied to Jerem43's talk page. I looked into this page merge/spinout claim, and could not find any diffs at Burger King to support this claim. Not saying it isn't true. There are at least a hundred edits in the 2 months between the AFD and the new article creation, so I couldn't go through them all. So I have asked Jerm43 to post the diff where the old article was merged with the parent, and the diff where the product content was spun out. From the looks of things, the product section remained unchanged for those 2 months (besides the addition of Chicken Fries and video games). Another concern is merging content from a deleted article. This violated the GFDL because the original authors need to be credited, (we do this by either merging histories, or NOT deleting the original article and leaving it as a redirect to preserve the page history). At the very least, that did not occur in this case. Furthermore, the AfD notice on the talk page should still stand because, as seen from this diff, the vast majority of the deleted article is now incorporated in the current revision. After we get this straightened out, and the move isn't controversial, I'd be more than happy to move the article back to another title. But it was easier to get everything back in its original place while doing the histories merge. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• The only thing more baffling than the question of who eats this crap, is the question of who writes this crap. For the love of Jimbo, are we really here to collect all of BK's press releases and menu sheets and pretend that makes an encyclopedic topic? Where are the books on "the history of Burger king menus since 1972"? There are none. BK's menu is important only if you happen to be going to BK and - guess what? - every BK has a menu right there!. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it me or is the comment by Guy excessively rude? He just nominated the article for deletion as well while we are working on it. I am on break at work and have not had the chance to fully respond to Andrew's requests. Could we please put RfD off for a little while?

Jeremy (Jerem43 00:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Probably not, but people at AfD seem to be recognising that this is a much-improved version, so it's not too bad. I'm more worried that JzG is showing a point of view by not nominating the other crap. :-) (and yes, I agree the food is crap, but that is just my opinion, even though I eat it sometimes). Carcharoth 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I did not respond to your query sooner as I was at work and could not take the time to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have looked over the logs as well as my Wikipedia file (Am I the only editor that has one on their computer?) and I am partially mistaken about the source of the products list.

I am slightly dyslexic and have serious issues with typos, specifically spelling, capitalization and punctuation. When I edit I usually copy the text from article into Word, make my edits, run the spell/grammar check and copy and paste it back into the edit field. After the spell check et al is done and I have copied the information back in, I then do my edits for content. When I finish, I save the work as a text file and keep it in my Wikipedia folder, but under the subject not the name of the article. When I went to create the BK products article, I reused the old file as starting point and worked off of that figuring that the text in was the same as the main Burger King article when it was in fact the text from the old BK menu items article. That is why there were differences from the information from the main and secondary articles and the list of items is identical to the previous article.

I am sorry for the error and am going to change the way I edit, specifically rename the files on my PC to the article name instead of the subject name.

Jeremy (Jerem43 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Someone's fantasy life...

...or so it appears, has erupted on Wikipedia. A whole series of linked "users" and their elaborate user pages has cropped up documenting what looks like a wholly imaginary life as a pop star. The ones I've found include:

• Explode24 (talk · contribs)
• Explode25 (talk · contribs)
• Sweet24 (talk · contribs)
• Wind24 (talk · contribs)
• God24 (talk · contribs)
• All24 (talk · contribs)
• Clumsy24 (talk · contribs)

...plus an assorted of fake album covers uploaded, such as Image:Sdfdsgagawg.JPG‎ and Image:All Good Things (Come To An End) (Front cover).PNG. I've been bold and blanked the pages, but deletion/blocking may be necessary. --Calton | Talk 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok here are all the images:

• Image:All Good Things (Come To An End) (Front cover).PNG (which is a clear copyvio of Image:All Good Things (Come To An End) video2.JPG) uploaded by All24
• Image:Personal (Front cover).JPG uploaded by Sweet24
• Image:The Dutch Of York - International Tour Edition (Front cover).JPG uploaded by Explode24
• Image:The Dutch Of York (Front cover).JPG (Explode24)
• Image:In God's Hands (Front cover).PNG (God24)
• Image:Jakerlicious (Front cover).JPG (Wind24)
• Image:Gvcgh.JPG (Explode25)
• Image:Sdfdsgagawg.JPG (Explode25)

I say delete all of them as either G12 or G3 (maybe G1?). I would also suggest possibly indefinately blocking all of them, except Explode24 as sockpuppets, who appears to be the puppetmaster. Not sure what else, just leave a personalized (i.e. non-templated) message to the user to try to discourage this sort of editing, but encourage productive editing. What do others think?-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I also noted that Explode24 write very poor fair use rationales (usually uses a template and writes only a word or two after each field).-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Ryulong (talk · contribs) has deleted all the images are hoaxes, and blocked everyone indefinitely as part of an elaborate hoax ring. I think this is a bit harsh, because the activity was not occurring in the main article space, and the user hadn't been contacted for an explanation/warning.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an explanation or warning needed to be given out, because these were fairly clear hoaxes. x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting confession

What do people think about this? I want to get some opinions. This person is clearly coming clean, and he didn't have to. But I thought the community should think about it. The Evil Spartan 00:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Does he appear to be telling the truth? Or is he just trying to get lots of other people blocked? I tend not to believe people who stoop all the way to vandalism, even if what they're saying is a confession. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Block away. Cowman109^Talk 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I went ahead and did it. Cowman109^Talk 01:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And no idea what he was saying about doing 800 positive edits on that account. He doesn't even have 250 edits. Cowman109^Talk 01:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that include deleted edits? Carcharoth 10:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He was referring to his other account: User:Brave warrior. The Evil Spartan 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about people reinstating banned user edits

What is the guideline on non-banned users reinstating edits which were undone (or pages which were deleted) per WP:BAN? It seems pointless to have WP:CSD#A5, etc. if other people just re-create the articles from Google cache. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like something we might want to keep an eye on. If the sole reason for deletion is "they're banned" as opposed to "this content is problematic," though... hard to be more specific without a specific example. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The article which instigated the question is Scott Milanovich. It was created by Jmfangio (talk · contribs) which was checkuser-proven to be banned user Tecmobowl (talk · contribs). Per WP:CSD#G5, I deleted several things created by Jmfangio and reverted a few edits. Now this one article has reappeared courtesy of Soxrock (talk · contribs) who fetched it from Google cache. That seems like a bad idea to me and certainly doesn't encourage Tecmobowl to honor his ban. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BAN#Editing on behalf of banned users. There was a recent discussion about this issue, and it seems like consensus is that responsibility for reinstating banned users' edits lies with the reinstater. An e-mail from a banned user containing "Could you post this to WP:ANI?" is fine if at the discretion of the e-mailed user, but not "what do you want me to change for you?" Gracenotes^T § 01:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) As I understand it, if edits by banned users are reverted, per WP:BAN they can be restored by other users so long that users takes responsibility for the edit - i.e. its up to them to makes sure that it is accurate and doesn't violate any policies. However, if contributions by a banned user are deleted, restoring the material violates the GFDL as the edit can no longer be attributed to its original author. WjBscribe 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can deleted edits be rewritten to convey the same information (if the information is OK) without violating GFDL? Ethically, I think the banned user should still be credited in some way. I've always taken the view that it is the content, not the editor, that matters. Focus on the content, not the contributor. I'm aware that there are WP:DENY issues involved, but I think blanket reversion of all edits by a banned user is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I've pointed out before that in some cases this can actually encourage vandalism. ie. a vandal mixes in vandalism with good contributions, and then (using a sock) reverts all the contributions (including the good contributions) claiming WP:BAN supports this. The only way to avoid this is to look at the content (and its sources), not the contributor. Carcharoth 10:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the banning policy should be strictly separated from GFDL considerations. Wikipedia's ban decisions don't affect copyright. A user who gets banned still possesses copyright on whatever he wrote (or writes while ban-evading), and everything is still validly released under GFDL, with all rights and obligations arising from that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Templating the regulars

Resolved

The issue of whether WP:DTTR should be a guideline or an essay is resurrected, this time by 1=2. Please comment at the talk page. --Irpen 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a consensus there for it to be an essay, so I'm marking this resolved. Nihiltres^(t.l) 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixing very long image names

Resolved

 – Not an administrative issue; see my notes on renaming. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) has uploaded an image with, believe it or not, the following image name:

No, that's not the image description, but rather IS the image file name.

Can someone fix this, please? --Ragib 08:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it for deletion as an invalid fair use claim. Jackaranga 08:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To his defense, it is much better than the usual DCN2354.jpg :D -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked him if he could reupload it under a shorter name. But I don't think admins have anything to do with this image (apparently no one can move an image) -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 09:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The process of renaming an image is to re-upload it to a new name, and linking to the old name to make sure that all the original information is still kept (though proper attribution is less important for Fair Use images). Since it's not really an administrative issue (since any editor can download and reupload a file), I'm going to go ahead and tag this as "resolved". EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as an addendum, there's a bot request in to do this task, User:Betacommand said he would work on it. In the meantime, please just tag the image description page with {{ifr}} if you don't have the time or expertise to do the renaming yourself. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot's notices becoming more difficult to parse

Is it just me, or is this bot leading us to the point where we would need a lawyer to a. formulate a fair use rational for usage on Wikipedia; and, b. parse out what the codified objections are based on. See my query on the bot's talk page for detail. El_C 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#10c is a stupid and pointless concern to address, especially since all media files include a "File links" heading that lists all uses. If any specific usage is unsupported by the rationale, simply remove it. Tagging these images as having "bad" fair use rationales is counterproductive. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The "file links" answer doesn't work. For example, if the image is removed from its original article usage and placed in a completely unauthorized and unjustified article, the original rationale no longer applies. This is why the rationale needs to specify the article usage per WP:NFCC#10c. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many images are deleted every time the rules are changed (i.e. every Thursday); and why couldn't the bot just add that link we both did? ^{[33] [34]} El_C 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that WP:NFCC#10c is a new requirement, it's been around for quite a while so far as I know. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Videmus Omnia explained/fixed this. But there has to be a more straight forward way to explain such matters, from the outset. This codified language seems to broaden the gap between image editors/enforcers and everyone else. El_C 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was JUST having a quarrel with this bot myself. Challenging my fair use?!?! You can't do that if you're not human! -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't BetacommandBot just automatically link to it? I'm concerned that a lot of images are going to be deleted because of that. Now, granted, I possess a below-average intelligence (so bear with me), but I've been staring blankly at this so-called WP:NFCC#10c, and I still have no idea what it is. Actually, I'm inclined to draw the conclusion that it contains a Martian invasion plan of some sort, so I'm off to arm my cat! El_C 05:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It can't automatically link to it because it takes a human to determine whether the usage is valid. If I uploaded a Ford logo and included it in the Chrysler article, should BetacommandBot automatically rewrite the rationale to say it is a good usage? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been preparing my squirrel army ever since I first saw that. I have no idea what it means either. Viridae^Talk 05:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a way to stop fair use trimming through such underhanded, superfluous rule-making. If that is what's happening here. El_C 05:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot checks whether a rationale links to an article the image is used on. In Theanphibian's Image:NCSU R1.jpg, the rationale linked to NCSU Reactor Program (a redirect), whereas the actual usage occurs at North Carolina State University reactor program. It then "disputes" the rationale because something doesn't add up in its little automated mind. In a few weeks, when it's time to clear the disputed rationale backlogs, I wonder how many admins will choose to fix the trivial concern rather than just deleting the image. This is a bad, bad idea which is going to clog up the deletion queue with many valid fair use claims. (e/c) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I keep hearing what a great job this bot does in clearing backlog, but if it's doing this, is it not adding more backlog than it is clearing? And even worse, behind deleting encyclopedic images (logo for that party, for example) due to trivialities, which are a product of...? El_C 05:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have ambivalent feelings about the bot and its tasks. Some tasks, like the identification of orphaned fair use images, are extremely useful, others, like the NFCC#10c tagging, are of dubious utility. Betacommand has a very linear and detail-oriented approach to the bot, which is good for a programmer, but has flaws when it comes to the overall impact to the project. The deletion of a fair use image sans proper rationale will not necessarily encourage users to upload an alternative which corrects all foreseeable concerns. Maintenance of fair use images requires informed editorial discretion, leaving such tasks to a bot is like using a streetsweeper instead of a broom. BTW, the redirect bug just earned bcbot another emergency stoppage. (e/c) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another bad block of BetacommandBot. Those are always quickly reversed. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wait. BCBot is tagging bad fair use claims? I understand having a bot tag images lacking a rationale, or license tag, or some other component, but bots should not be evaluating the validity of those things. -Amarkov moo! 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot is making a very simple check - does the rationale include the name of the article in which the image is to be used per WP:NFCC#10c? This is a very easy requirement to understand, I don't get the pretended confusion. If an admin deletes the image rather than fixing the problem (which is what I normally do, if the usage is valid per WP:NFCC), then the problem is with the deleting admin, not the bot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Spreading blame to the deleting admin ignores the bot's role in eliminating valid fair use images. I've ran across whole discographies where the individual entries lack album covers thanks to BCBot's grand no-rationale cleansing earlier this year. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what about images that really do actually pass the muster of NFCC10, like this one: [35]. Of course, Betacommand doesn't have a problem creating hours worth of work for others, but he can't be bothered spending a few minutes making sure a the page is listed via a redirect. The Evil Spartan 06:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That is no pretended confusion. How can anyone who reads that new NFC#10 knows to do what you just did? Be sensible! El_C 06:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[Copied from ANI (I was told the action was here)] I didn't jump into the previous Betacommandbot rows because the bot was doing painful, but necessary, work in clearing out images with grossly incomplete fair-use rationales, images with a real possibility being liabilities. However, this just popped up on my watchlist. It is an image into which actual work was put into setting up a fair-use rationale (valid and perfectly defensible, by the way), but whose rationale was still imperfect per the current fair-use guidelines.

This image will have no problem beating its 7-day execution deadline, because it is on a high-traffic article on many active users' watchlists. What is going to happen, though, to all the images with usable, but not perfect, fair-use rationales, whose placement on obscure articles means many of their deletion-taggings won't be discovered until it's too late?

Is our new standard for image deletion that fair-use rationales must be perfect by the standards of our current fair-use doctrine or else face quick deletion, regardless of how "fixable" and otherwise-valid those rationales may be? I know this has been discussed to death, but Betacommand's bot is starting to paint with such wide, nitpicking brushstrokes that we could soon lose a large chunk of our legitimate fair-use content. We're talking about images uploaded in good faith by editors who added good -- but not lawyer-perfect -- fair-use rationales, the imperfections of which have nothing to do with the prima facie legitimacy of the images' use on Wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC) {EDIT:] What is our purpose here? Are we most concerned with whether images are actually usable in Wikipedia, or are we more concerned with precise compliance with our own self-made rules, with trying to make it maddeningly difficult to get any bit of non-Creative Commons media included in the encyclopedia, or what? --Dynaflow babble 06:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the nitpicking is going out of hand BcB has been tagging at a ridiculous rate, at least five pages on my watchlist received image deletion notice in less than ten minutes, I understand the bot tagging images with no rationale but I don't think the bot has the required reasoning to know what can be considered a "Bad rationale", I can see this situation being particulary troubling with the new users that aren't well informed about the "copyright paranoia" in Wikipedia. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of that: diff. A user wished to add his own work to the encyclopedia and release it into the public domain. In an attempt to comply with policy, he added an extra template, stating that te image was fair-use because it was his own work. Betacommandbot zapped the image anyway, because it expects that template only on non-free images.

Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but this zero-tolerance policy undermines that promise -- only those well-versed in Wikipedia's internal culture and policies can upload an image without there being a serious chance of someone's automated script just coming along one day and summarily sending it down the memory hole. Either every step of the upload process needs to be carefully structured so that a user can't help but add tags a machine would interpret as perfect, or we need to take a second look at the apparent policy to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to images and fair use. --Dynaflow babble 07:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad block of User:BetacommandBot

User:RockMFR has blocked the bot, although it is doing it's function as designed. If a non-free image rationale is written for a redirect page, this is not a correct rationale - it needs to be fixed per WP:NFCC#10c. The bot is performing its function as approved. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But the bot has the capacity to simply fix this on-the-fly, does it not? At least provide a better explanation (see my question to you). El_C 06:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How is this confusing - WP:NFCC#10c - "The image or media description page contains the following:...The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item." All I did was add the name of the article for which fair use was claimed, pretty easy stuff. The bot cannot make the changes itself because it cannot determine whether the usage is valid, as explained in my Ford/Chrysler example above. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If we follow common sense it's easy, but this is the weekly-image-policy! The name of the party was noted, in the description field. El_C 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the party, but not the name of the article. And, per the Foundation's licensing resolution, the data needs to be put into a machine-readable format. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I explained my block on the bot's talk page. I'm well aware that the bot is correctly following WP:NFCC#10 as it is written. However, adding support for redirect detection is a relatively simple technical fix, and from what I can gather above, there is some support for allowing redirect titles to act as substitutes for the article name provision at WP:NFCC#10. --- RockMFR 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This could have been addressed without blocking the bot, which is doing necessary work. And WP:NFCC#10 doesn't currently contain any exception for redirect pages. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Common sense does. A bot's inability to use common sense is the most common reason for admins having to push the big red button. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you specify exactly how the bot was deviating from its approved function? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Was the bot really approved to tag images that contain incorrect references to the article in which they are used? I'm not saying anything but....It seems like a relative cost/benefit question to me. Which is worse in terms of time spent, errors, disruption, annoyance, etc? For the uploaders and deleting administrators to deal with this and fix images if necessary, or to reprogram the bot to follow redirects (and perhaps fix on the fly)? Ideally the image should be fixed because that's better for record-keeping. The best approach, if anyone wants to do that, is to write a new helper bot that will go in and fix use rationales by replacing article names that are redirects, with the name of the redirect target. And another to do this whenever a page containing non-free images is moved. Even better for saving time, how about a bot that grabs the article name from the "what links here" and slaps it onto the use rationale whenever the rationale is missing the article name or has the wrong one....perhaps with a question mark indicating that it still needs a human to check it over to make sure that's right. Anyway, I'll propose something more detailed along these lines over at NFCC within a few days regarding the legacy images. For the new images, the uploader just hast to be careful. Is that so much to ask? Wikidemo 06:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the bot supposed to tell if the usage is valid or not? Compliance with WP:NFCC is the responsibility of the uploader (or anyone else with an interest in retaining non-free content), not the bot. Regardless, the block was bad. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

By your logic the bot has absolutely no interest in retaining non-free content. Such an antagonistic approach is a bad thing. I think there's merit to eliminating all fair use claims on Wikipedia, but not by a bleedin' campaign of attrition! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets say that a bot is programmed to methodically blank every third sentence in an article. While it may be performing the requested function, that doesn't mean the function itself is well-defined or sensible. C'mon V.O., you can't seriously believe that using a redirect runs counter to fulfilling the intent of NFCC#10c. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the idea did not justify a block of the bot. Of all the images it is tagging, what percentage were to redirects? 1%? 5%? Wikidemo's idea has merits, but it requires a process to be developed for human interaction. (And humans are already being notified to check the images via copious warnings, and only a human can actually delete the tagged images.) In the meantime, the bot has been approved to label images with noncompliant rationales, and should be unblocked to continue. Have you looked at the bot's block log? The blocks are virtually always overturned as bad. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not like blocking a person. It's just stopping a machine until we figure out if what it's doing is right. If what it's doing isn't right, then the longer we let it run, the more damage it'll do. Since Wikipedia has no deadlines (unlesss you've uploaded a picture with an imperfect fair-use rationale), no harm is done in pausing the bot's work. --Dynaflow babble 06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a deadline - March 23, 2008, per the Foundation. And we have hundreds of thousands of images, with thousands more uploaded every day. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. That's why it's to the community's detriment for the bot to waste our time by forcing us to check and correct image pages that it shouldn't be tagging in the first place. The bot should simply check the links contained within the rationale. (I'm not even suggesting that it check for non-linked redirect titles.) If one of them is a redirect to the article containing the image, it should then update it accordingly. —David Levy 07:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Any instances of improper tagging due to the presence of redirects formed sufficient basis for forcefully pausing the bot, as all tagging prior to the block will have to be reviewed. The presence of a substantial block log indicates an unreliable track record, no bot gets a free ride because of good intentions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that tagging bad fair use rational templates by bot is counterproductive to the wiki community at large. I can agree that it makes some sense to tag images completly lacking fair use rationale templates (although I fail to see why not an enhance version of the boilerplates could just do that), but he current order, where editors have to watch the images they've upload constantly against arbitrary deletions is just creating a feeling of repulsion towards the very idea of a community wikipedia. The task of improving fair use rationales has to be done through manual editing, by motivating why there are faults in the rational on the image talk page. --Soman 07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Reviewed how? If a rationale points to a redirect, the rationale needs to be fixed per WP:NFCC. I think you're overlooking the fact that the bot does not delete anything, it simply identifies problems that need to be fixed. Is it better if we just pretend the problems don't exist? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree here. No, this is not a problem that needs to be fixed. In common Wikipedia practice, citing a redirect title generally works just fine as an unambiguous reference to a page. There is no practical problem I can think of, except in vanishingly rare cases. If I move a page, that does not mean all references elsewhere on the wiki to the old title become invalid. If it works without a problem in articles and talk pages, why shouldn't it work in image description pages? I'm normally the first to press for the strictest possible application of NFCC, but I think we ought to concentrate on the content of what kinds of non-free content we want to have, not on formality hair-splitting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can buy into this, as I stated above, but I don't think this justified shutting down the bot. No reasonable admin is going to delete an image just because the rationale points to a redirect. The rationale should be fixed to get the rationale into a machine-readable format per the resolution, but nobody will delete because of that. I just don't understand the aversion to using the bot to identify the problem. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless the admin is deleting images with a script (which has happened before). The point I see here is that the images were indeed in machine-readable format, and were brought out of it by a move by a third party. In that case, the uploader of the image did not do anything wrong, yet still may see his image deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the rationale that needs to be fixed, it's the bot. Once the bot is taught to recognise references through redirects, all is fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a mistaken inference. If the letter of NFCC does not adequately address redirects, then it must be changed, not the other way around. Redirects are going to occur, they are a necessary byproduct of constructing a wiki-based encyclopedia and therefore trump minute incongruities presented by hyper-prescriptive rationale formatting. BCBot, in effect, created a problem where one did not exist. (e/c) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm understanding here, if an editor decides to disambiguate a page which has a FU image and then moves the original page to the dismabiguated title without also editing the image page to include the new 'target', no matter how properly rationaled the image page was, it'll get tagged as not correct?--Alf ^melmac 07:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, this was the reason behind blocking beta's bot. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the bot doesn't recognize redirects and has been tagging images as having a bad rationale because of this, wich means that at the rate that the bot works hundreds if not thousands of images with good rationales are going to be tagged as having bad rationales probably resulting in the project losing a big piece of the "good" fair use content. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot does not delete anything. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's obvious, that's the reason I said "Probably", why? because not all admins assess the situation before deleting a good number of them just deletes when they encounter a tag telling them to do so. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To expand on the above, while it's true the bot doesn't actually do the deletion, it still initiates the process of deletion and creates the kind of administrative backlog that encourages the quick deletion of images by whatever admins end up having to tackle it, to the detriment of the slow and careful process of putting the quasi-legal verbiage of the image page into a robot-acceptable format. --Dynaflow babble 07:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think many people are missing the point that, per the Foundation, all non-free media that doesn't meet the criteria will be deleted after March 23, 2008. That leaves less than 200 days for the "slow and careful" process of getting the data into the right format, a process that is constantly slowed by constant bickering over simple things like including the name of an article in a rationale. And countless new noncompliant images are uploaded daily. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Said criteria are determined and implemented by the community under an "Exemption Doctrine Policy" (NFCC). Out of all present criteria I would ascribe the lowest priority to NFCC#10c, and I can't think of a worse method for addressing that concern than the indiscriminate automated tagging of useful images for deletion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious by now that we're missing a stable, clear, easy to use machine readable EDP. The idea of letting a bot, in the absence of such a stable, clear, easy to use machine readable EDP, tag things for not having one... is insane. If we need to have one it is absolutely the wrong thing to do to start trying to get one by blasting images. Halt the bot until there's one defined, communicate the definition to everyone, then give everyone time to tag as required. Georgewilliamherbert 08:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding a proper FUR should be a option when uploading an image, maybe something simmilar to how the copyright licence is presented, the user uploading is presented with a blank FUR that they fill up in accordance to the image they are uploading (this should only be available if the uploader selects one of the FU licenses of course) I know this might take some time to format but it would be a great addition to the uploading formula and would reduce the ammount of images with "Bad rationales", thus giving the bots less work and eliminating images missing FUR. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what we should do: Since the license tags must be comprehensible to our robot overlords (sorry; Slashdot moment), in the future the tags' creation should be mediated by machine, in a way that won't let an uploader proceed until all required information fields for the type of file being uploaded have been filled in to the machine's satisfaction. I'm sure it is within the Developers' capabilities to redo the upload dialogue that way.

As for the current slew of problematic images, we do seem to have a deadline. However, the deadline is in two hundred days, not seven. Betacommandbot could tag each image with a big, red threat as it does now, but set the date for deletion to, say, four months from the date tagged. That would allow the bot to index all the problematic images now, and leave sporadic contributors, people on wikibreaks, etc., time to come back, discover their images have been tagged, and fix them.

Also, it would be good of the bot to leave some sort of marker on the images themselves when they are displayed on their pages, similar to what the {{tfd-inline}} template does. Wikignomes casually reading through articles could then spot images in peril and take a crack at fixing them. If the original uploader is no longer active, the only places anyone is likely to stumble across Betacommandbot's warnings now are on Talk pages and on the pages for the images themselves, places most Wikipedians won't go unless they happen to be actively working on that particular page. Realistically, for images appearing o i articles with little or no Talk page traffic, no one is ever even likely to see that something needs to be fixed. --Dynaflow babble 10:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BCbot has been out of control and should be permanently shut down. It should not be evaluating validity. Rlevse 11:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The situation in a nutshell: Betacommand makes a bot to do something. It often enforces policy, and is very hastily written, without worrying about people's concerns. Then people get mad when the bot either a) does something it should, b) does something it's supposed to by the letter of the law if not the spirit (would someone read freakin' WP:IAR?), or c) it does something that it shouldn't. The problem is that people often get mad at it (rightfully) for doing b or c, but it's always assumed by everyone else that people are mad for a. Capiche? And thus the bot is always unblocked, and the many calls for "knock it off Betacommand, and write a bot that works" are completely unheeded. Bad system. The Evil Spartan 11:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... c)? Can I have the evil, laconic version, please? El_C 11:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add on behalf of TES "molon labe", but that would not help towards reaching an amiable compromise on this issue. -- llywrch 19:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad block - we don't block Bots because they lack a feature we think they should have. As ever the Bot was doing what its approved to do. If people have a problem with the Bot, they should discuss it with Betacommand or have its approval withdrawn. Being an admin is not a license to shut down Bots one doesn't like. WjBscribe 12:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a license to do so when it does damage, such as placing hundreds of images on the deletion cue when it fails to recognize redirects. El_C 12:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only seen a couple of examples above - not hundreds of images. And in some of the cases the Bot's input will have been helpful. If the name of the article has changed signficantly during a move, I for one would have appreciated the Bot letting me know my rationale needs to be updated... WjBscribe 12:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You would have appreciated the Bot letting you know your rationale needs to be updated? I don't know how to respond to that. El_C 12:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the Bot has at time been heavy handed but it has also shown that users are showing a considerable lack of care when uploading non-free content. In a free content encyclopedia, uploading copyright works should be done with the utmost care - in a lot of (even recent cases) it has not been. I understand people may not be able to write a valid FUR the first time round - I have assisted numerous users with writing rationales, but I don't understand the hostility to the Bot. If I have erred in uploading content, I appreciate that being brought to my attention whether by another editor or a Bot. If a rationale is deficient, I will correct it. I also think that users should take an ongoing responsibility for fair use uploads - is the image still being used? If not, should it be deleted or restored to an article? If the former, please tag it. Has your unfree image started being used on a page other than the appropriate one? If so, please remove it. Has the page its on been moved to a new title? If so, please update your rationale. We have a vast amount of unfree images that are to all intents and purposes "unattended" such that we now can only regulate the matter with a Bot. That is not a failing of the Bot, but the fact that non-free images were allowed to multiply out of human control. WjBscribe 12:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that fair use rationales need to be carefully constructed from the get go, and should be kept accurate. I agree putting an image into a new article not mentioned in the rationale is cause for concern/investigation. But I do not agree that a redirect is not a valid reference to an article. A redirect is eminently valid, just as valid as the real title. We in fact have been admonished by developers to NOT bother fixing them at one point in the past, as being more of a load on the server than leaving them. The bot needs to be fixed, and should not run, should remain blocked, until it is fixed to either honor, or itself fix, redirects in rationales. I have deep respect for Betacommand, his efforts on behalf of the project, and for his bot, but I do think blocking this bot over this was appropriate in this case.

On the matter of helping uploaders get fair use rationales right in the first place, it is very doable to give assistance in the upload screen itself with this. Consider the Commons upload page: commons:Commons:Upload it has a menu, which by (a perversion of :) ) language codes, steers you to various upload pages. At one point, some of those pages even had javascript that would help you fill out various things, IIRC. That technical approach could be used here if desired, and it would not require developer intercession to make it happen, just carefully planned creation of sub pages and changes to the main upload page. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We have something like that at Wikipedia:Upload, though I wish there was a section for Flickr images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, everyone seems to think that things are black and white, either a bot doesn't tag images at all, or a bot has to tag images for deletion. How about a "this particular image needs some further human review" tag (with associated category) instead? This would probably already cut down on the amount of work humans need to do, since they only need to check the needs-review tags. At the same time, there's no danger of admins sweeping by and deleting things. If we make the wording of the tag really friendly, we could even draw people into the community instead.

Something similar can be done for the User talk message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) "Hello! this is your friendly local Betacommandbot, I'm checking images to see if they are all legally shipshape and in order. There may or may not be some small amount of work to still be done on Image:Yourimage . It's probably nothing, if anyone does shows up to take a look, please be kind and give them a hand! Thank you!"

Even bots can be friendly. :-) --Kim Bruning 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents - failing to recognize redirects is a massive bug and something easily fixed. Consider that for merged lists, I've often used redirects to anchors in the FU rationale - that way, if the article is ever spun off on its own again, it points in the right place, and if the article stays merged, the link goes directly to the usage. Tagging such images with a *better* link is clearly ridiculous, as is tagging images for whom the article has moved. I'd also like to note that this policy is likely to hit obscure foreign topics with images uploaded by people with shaky commands of English harder than well-visited English topic, making the Systematic Bias group's job even harder. If Betacommand wants to actually *fix* this problem rather than simply willy-nilly nominate for deletion, may I recommend having his bot add these images to a maintenance category with a name along the lines of "Images whose article rationales may be invalid?" Then, humans can examine each image over the course of a month or whatever and decide whether it can simply be fixed, or if there's actually a problem with the image. SnowFire 22:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. See below. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Every tag that BCBOT puts on an image categorizes the image into a maintenance category. See Category:Images_with_no_fair_use_rationale for an example. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2¢ about User:BetacommandBot--it should be stopped immediately.

I posted the following at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and was directed to this page by Kim Bruning, who also informed me that this bot had (much to my disappointment) evidently been approved or endorsed by some sort of administrative committee. Anyway, my 2¢, plus a few questions: I happened to log in today to find a note from "Betacommand bot" ordering me to write a little essay, lest a photo I posted months ago (and fully in compliance with the policies at the time, as far as I know) be deleted. The language of the message was pompous and insulting (announcing that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided ... may be invalid"). The larger point is that such a notice was entirely uncalled for. Leaving aside the ex-post-facto nature of the demand, the fact is that the image in question, [36] is not problematic. It is the front cover of one issue of Aspen magazine, a defunct magazine, used as the sole illustration in the article about that magazine, and in no other articles. As it happens, there is a longstanding and well-known web site (ubu.web) that reproduces in detail the entire contents of every issue of Aspen magazine. "There is a concern..." Who is concerned? Does anybody really think this image presents a copyright problem? Does anybody think the article will be improved by removing the image? It appears to me that this user is a wildly aggressive rogue, a self-appointed sheriff indiscriminantly shooting up the town in the name of the law. In other words, this bot is damaging the quality of wikipedia and probably driving contributors away. It is unlikely I'll ever upload an image to Wikipedia again: good job, Betacommand. Shouldn't this user be stopped, perhaps suspended from Wikipedia until that bot is reconfigured to send out letters of apology? Am I missing something here? Do people actually think this automated vigilantism is a good thing? BTfromLA 19:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re "Does anybody really think this image presents a copyright problem?": Yes. The image you posted is copyrighted; it needs either an appropriate license or fair use justification to be part of Wikipedia. The existence of other sites reproducing the copyrighted content with or without permission does not change this. However, if Betacommandbot's wording prompts this sort of outraged reaction rather than getting you to just write the necessary fair use justification, perhaps there is room to tone down its language. —David Eppstein 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. In this particular case, the user uploaded an image, added the magazine cover template but failed to include the required rationale which, I believe, was required by the template he added. There is no foul here. We are glad to have you as an editor but we really must insist that you follow the rules and policies of Wikipedia even if they are sometimes uncomfortable. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 11:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC

If there was a policy in place at the time (nine months ago) that required a "rationale" beyond the magazine cover fair use licensing template, I was not aware of it. Certainly, no such thing was requested during the uploading process. If users are required to delve into the arcana of shifting policy pages before they edit, that's a serious adminstrative failure, isn't it? I think there's a serious problem that is damaging Wikipedia and is not limited to the issue of this bot: people whose mentality is oriented toward rulemaking and law enforcement are making the enviroment inhospitable to people who are interested in creating high-quality article content. Those who are primarily interested in writing and research are unlikely to spend their time in policy and procedural discussions. The more heavily bureacratized and legislated Wikipedia becomes, the more mechanically and aggressively the laws are enforced, the less attractive this environment is for those interested in writing articles. You personally may not be as interested in the nuances of the writing and illustrations as in the efficiency of the programming or consistency of policy, but surely you recognize that the article contents do matter at wikipedia, and that the interests of volunteer writers (and contributors of relevant images) should be a consideration in all administrative matters. As to this bot, I think anetode has it right: "Some policies should not be handled by a bot. ... There are obviously flaws in image policies which should be addressed and enforcing a hyper-detailed version of a fluid policy is unwise." Amen. BTfromLA 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. A license template saying, in part, "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law" was posted as part of the original upload. I still fail to see where the problem is. If one image of the cover of one issue of a magazine being used to illustrate an article about the magazine doesn't count as fair use, what does? I'm not an attorney, but this seems like an absolutely unambiguous example of fair use, and the fair use rationale (with a warning against other uses) was already clearly posted. BTfromLA 19:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at it? The justification for this magazine cover's use is already provided, in detail, in the tag BTfromLA added to the image page. That's why the tag is called "Magazine Cover." Badagnani 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether to allow copyright tags as use rationales, either standing alone or with a very brief template, is something we have yet to discuss seriously but we will probably do soon. For the moment the rule is and has been for more than a year that this requires a separate use rationale. It's not a copyright problem but it is a deficiency via-a-vis the image data requirements on the subject.Wikidemo 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We're all about practicality, and though I understand your concern it does sound a little vindictive to punish a user. Having been away from the debate, there are some ins and outs to image use policy and deletion you may have missed. Nevertheless, I do think this points to the need for better oversight of any bot that's going to automate image use and deletion. I'm pretty sure that the bot's original approval (which didn't follow process to begin with) was limited to tagging images without any use rationale. It was not approved for tagging images with use rationales that were determined by machine to be defective. This isn't a simple innocent mistake. Betacommand knew about the redirect issue and apparently chose to ignore it. The messages given in the latest round are hardly adequate to inform users that the reason their images are tagged is that the statement of where the image is used is missing or (the machine has decided) incorrect. I don't see how anyone planning to tag a bunch of images for a reason could miss the fact that the tag doesn't tell people the reason. So...blame the message, not the messenger. No reason to lash out against Betacommand, but specific actions of this and other bots should be reviewed and approved in advance, and our image deletion policy overall ought to be supervised in an orderly way rather than left solely to individual users to program bots as they see fit. Wikidemo 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case the bot acted well, though the language it uses is indeed irritant. About Betacommand he was de-sysoped I don't think he deserves further punishment. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Punishment? For running a bot which is doing what it is supposed to do? Corvus cornix 21:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? was that directed at me? I wasn't the one that suggested suspending him from Wikipedia. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing punishment either. The bot is well intentioned. It has obviously acted up, but not in this case. Wikidemo 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the bot did what it should do. People keep complaining about the bot, but I don't see any proposals to change the policies the bot is based on, so it seems more like people are complaining about having to follow our own rules. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Some parts of some policies should not be handled by a bot. Can you imagine a bot for evaluating article neutrality? There are obviously flaws in image policies which should be addressed and enforcing a hyper-detailed version of a fluid policy is unwise. Out of the dozens of thousands of fair use images with rationales there are obviously many different rationale templates/phrasing, it makes no sense to place some in a deletion queue because a bot was not able to decipher them. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BCBot does not try and decypher the rationale, Instead it checks for a few items, A.) is {{non-free rationale}} used on the page, B.) if that is not there is the page at least 20 characters long excluding templates. (that checks is there any rationale). it then checks for the name of any use of the image. If a image is used on 20 pages but only one is mentioned on the image page it doesnt get tagged. As long as there is any article name that it is used on its not tagged. those few key parts are needed in ANY rationale. As for redirects I am trying to detect them. I thought I had that fixed, Im trying to add that in, its not as simple as most people would think. As for images meeting NFCC#10c that is an absolute necessity. If we dont enforce that we will have images used on 20 pages before we know whats happing, see User talk:Betacommand/20070901#Potential_crisis... for a perfect example of a NFC image that was used on about 30 pages. </end rant> β^_command 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A.) and B.) are fine if they exclude CD covers / logos / any other copyright tag where the rationale is the same in 99% instances of use. The NFCC#10c issue, IMHO, should be addressed either through a novel tag which doesn't place images in a deletion queue, or not trusted to the bot at all. By your own admission the recent round of bot-tagging will not fix instances where images are used at 20/30 pages (which is certainly a problem) because it only checks for one linked instance. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I do have plans for identifying the abused non-free images. And No it does not ignore albums and others, Just because its an album cover does not by default give us the ability to use it. NFCC 10c is a key part of the rules and there are no exemptions from that. (PS Im only currently targeting images uploaded after January 1, 2007 per agreement with Wikidemo and plans on attempting to clean up the disaster that we call our current image usage, and organizational system. β^_command 01:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

NFCC 10c compliance is a low priority issue. Lets continue this at WT:NFC. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content to change NFCC#10c. --- RockMFR 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the discussion on fair use itself, is Betacommandbot even authorized to be doing what it's doing? The closest thing I could find to approval for the task in question was this, giving the bot permission to tag images for deletion if they have been uploaded without any fair-use rationale at all. It says nothing about allowing the bot to assess fair-use rationales and add images to the deletion queue based on its assessment. Is there some sort of parallel process to expand a bot's mandate that I'm not aware of? --Dynaflow babble 07:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I searched and came to the same conclusion. The only relevant page on the list of approved taks is the one Dynaflow noted, here. BetacommandBot is not authorized to tag images for having unsatisfactory fair use rationales. One could possibly interpret Betacommand's description as such, but the strong implication was that the bot would only deal with nonexistent rationales (since that was stated clearly multiple times). I strongly suggest that the block be reapplied. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oftentimes, where a task has been approved, very similar tasks do not require an additional approval request: In this case, that's what happened. Betacommand asked me, and possibly others, whether it would require additional approval, and since it still followed policy and was now enforcing policy, I said that this approval was more like an update than a new task. It is performing as intended, and more importantly, it is following policy, and improving Wikipedia as a project. Imagine the nightmare if even 1/10 of these images were complained about to OTRS. --ST47Talk·Desk 10:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The last statement doesn't really apply to this case. No one is going to complain to OTRS on the basis of an image not fulfilling the exact requirements of NFCC#10c (that criterion is meant for managing internal use_. Wrongful attribution of copyright and compromising market value are much greater concerns to fair use on the project, and those are outside of the scope of this discussion and BCBot's operation. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, BetacommandBot should not be disabled. It's that simple. If you don't like having to abide by our policies and are blaming the bot, then you should question exactly why you're here. --Deskana (talky) 11:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that people not provoke each other by suggesting they don't belong on Wikipedia. Many people who are unhappy about the Bot are old time, productive Wikipedians. Personally, I like abiding by well thought out policies. I do not blame the bot for people's noncompliance. I am here to participate. However, it is fair to question what the bot is doing. It has been blocked perhaps a dozen times, usually for producing unexpected results. More discussion and upset has revolved around this than almost anything else in the past several months. It's clearly doing something it was not approved to do, and the original approval wasn't clean to begin with. Note from the approval log the lack of discussion, waiting period, and detailed notice about what it was going to do. That doesn't mean I favor disabling it, if we can all agree on some ground rules. We can discuss how it should be operating, not just lash out. But a discussion is always appropriate.Wikidemo 11:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I am not saying that people do not belong here. But if you've got some sort of fundamental problem with the NFCC, then I think the problem is deeper than just a problem with fair use. --Deskana (talky) 12:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think saying "there is a problem with how Betacommandbot (BCB) does things, and it's serious, and likely to bite newbies badly, but simple to fix, and therefore BCB should be disabled until it is fixed" (which is what I and I think others are saying) is not at all the same as saying that "there is a problem with NFCC". I have absolutely no fundamental problem with NFCC. But I nevertheless think BCB is broken, and should be disabled until it is fixed. Not honoring redirects is a fundamental, but ultimately simple to fix, flaw. Redirects are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia. Longer term, I think the suggestions being made that BCB not run outside its charter suggest that the charter be reviewed and perhaps clarified, and I think the suggestions that BCB place things in categories that mean things need fixing, categories which any interested volunteer can work on, instead of just leaving notices, might be a better approach. Those are 3 different points being made (short term breakage, out of charter, long term approach change) and none of them in any way are about not fully supporting NFCC. Suggesting that they are may not be the most useful debate tactic. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

de-indent BCBot does now see redirects and follows them. two tagging and saying that that we will get to it, just doesnt work. they will just sit there tagged and rot until the end of time. We have tried generating lists, those go nowhere. only when you put some teeth into the tagging does anything happen. β^_command 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's awesome that you fixed redirects, but if you had said they were going to be fixed at the first sign of someone saying they seem off, that would have been better than waiting till now, I think.

I think something with NO fair use rationale is deletion fodder, and putting it in a speedy category is fine. But a finer discriminant is needed here, because I think something where the bot thinks the fair use rationale is flawed, for whatever reason the bot has been programmed to come up with, is NOT deletion fodder. It needs to be put in a different category, one that doesn't have speedy attached. (and one displayed on the backlog list as a different category too) If desired, let the bot take a second pass after some number of days, and THEN put the item up for normal deletion (not speedy). But marking things for speedy deletion because the fair use rationale isn't quite right seems off. As for notifications, why not, in addition to notifying the uploader, notify everyone who has edited (within the last month, say) any article the image is used in that maybe they might want to take a look. Do it in a nice and friendly way... not the current style of wording. (Note: this is really Lar posting this, crosslinks prove it is me) ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 17:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lar's assessment. "Put[ting] some teeth into the tagging" directly translates to "getting rid of useful images for the sake of making a point". Immediate placement in a speedy deletion queue because of NFCC10c should be out of the question, if a valid rationale is invalidated because of two sets of brackets, then I see good faith flying out the window. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot does put things in categories; that's what the deletion tags do. For example, anyone can look through the images listed as having no fair use rationale and add rationales. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're mixing a couple issues. The person who started this section was having a heated "bot moment" and lashed out some over an image that was simply not compliant. I think we've long since set that straight and I hope the person gets the message. What to do is a different issue. We're talking about making some improvements. Speaking of which, if an image gets tagged for not properly listing an article in which it is used, can we PLEASE use a tag that is clear that's the reason, not just call it a 10(c) violation? Wikidemo 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Going forward... let me once again recommend that BetacommandBot tag images with a maintenance category and/or "rationale cleanup" template in the future, assuming we want to actually fix the problem. User:CBM pointed out above that the bot is already doing this; this is technically true, but they're also categorized for speedy deletion in a week, which is silly. To compare to article space... the {{Notability}} tag is often left on articles for three months plus to give it time to improve and assert notability. The complaints that BCBot is tagging for speedy deletion are the image equivalent of a "copyedit" or "wikify" tag in article space, which are almost never reasons themselves for deletion. There are people who are genuinely interested in helping out with fixing rationales, but requiring them to do it all in one frenzied week (considering the rate the Bot tags at) is not a good idea. SnowFire 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

tagging with a maintance category wont do much that has been tried with no success, unless we have a deadline for deletion it will not get fixed, we will just have thousands of images tagged and no one trying to fix them. β^_command 17:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What skin off your nose is it to simply wait? I'm certain that you could go around with a bot after X amount of time is up and update the tags to the "delete in 7 days" variety. That way there will both be a deadline period as well as a longer period to give contributors who only log on to check Wikipedia once a month a chance to notice. Moreover, as noted above, I sincerely doubt the reasons you are tagging for are actual deletion reasons in any case! It's too scattershot as many will in fact have perfectly valid rationales, and just no or a wrong wikilink. SnowFire 03:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot was only approved to tag images with no fair use rationales, but it was not approved to tag images with fair use rationales it thinks are invalid. It is difficult for a bot to judge whether a fair use rationale is invalid, and it has made a lot of mistakes already. Also, the way it works bites a lot of users - both newcomers and experienced editors. Please shut it down immediately. --Kaypoh 04:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirects acceptable or not

[rm straw poll, I hadn't noticed the issue was already fixed. Random832 14:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)]

Why exactly did we start a straw poll on this? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it needs to be clear that THIS is the issue, and that the bot needs to be blocked until this is fixed no matter how much good it might otherwise do. Silencing any criticism (and reversing any block of the bot) with a cry of "You're just trying to enable image-copyright-violators" has gone on long enough--Random832 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside the [now-fixed] redirect issue, the fact that there is a significant faction that believes "BetacommandBot can do no wrong" belongs here. If a bot has bugs, it should be blocked until they are fixed, no matter how important its task is. Bots don't have feelings, a block of a bot does not have the same emotional payload as a block of a person; so admins can afford to be quick to block and slow to unblock in these cases. --Random832 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. The BOT may not have feelings, but the bot author could well take offense at people's apparent irrational dislike of his pride and joy. So I'll reiterate, I think this bot is nifty and doing important work. I just think a few changes are needed in the approach. (yes, it's me typing this, not my bot) ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly it pisses me off when admins block a the bot for no valid reason. Most of the time im online and a note to my or the bots talkpage in a calm, pleasant manner, (Not screaming and attacking as what a lot of users do, because I guess WP:CIVIL doesnt apply when talking to me) will often result in a very quick answer. If Im online I know about a new message in either place within 10 seconds. Random832's Point of View most people dont read the messages, and tags that are left on their talkpages or images, instead they come screaming at me, WHY DID YOUR F*&^ing BOT TAG MY IMAGE?, such messages are useless for me and just seem to be the user venting anger at me. Instead when coming to a talk page you should be calm civil and informative, Why did your bot tag <INSERT IMAGE NAME HERE>, It has <RATIONALE OR IS USED>, not sure why it was tagged because I cant find anything wrong with it, it has a rationale and is used in an article. <<== that message will get you a prompt clear answer, Admins and users who fail to communicate with me (IE straight to AN OR ANI) or leave unclear messages tend not to get responded to well. . β^_command 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I left you two messages stating that there was a problem with your tagging images as orphans when they were not and someone else also left you a similar message. You were online when your bot was working yesterday and you saw the three messages, yet you ignored them. All three were civil, informing you that there was a problem with your tagging images as orphans when they were not, yet you ignored them. Why? --Bob 14:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not ignore them, I was in fact away at the time. I use an IRC based status changer and I forgot to mark my self as away, Even though my computer was online I was not at the keyboard. In regard to it mis-tagging, MediaWiki was give some wrong information. According to the software images were orphaned. The issue was a few of them were not orphaned images, Ive talked to some of the devs and its an error with pages not properly updating the link table in the MediaWiki database. To solve the problem you need to purge the article's in question. There is no way that the bot could detect these rare errors, not even MediaWiki sees them. The devs said that it happens so rarely that they dont plan on fixing the issue. But that is why I also notify uploaders and tag them for seven days. If you note I also said the same thing but in fewer words in response. β^_command 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot tagging images as orphans when they are not

Image:Indiarugbylogo.jpg, Image:NZ7s.gif, Image:Stemma Petrarca Rugby.png, Image:Mexicorugby.png, Image:Amatori.jpg, Image:FCGAlpes.gif, Image:Heartland XV logo.png amongst others were tagged as orphaned by this bot today, when they are all in current use on articles, in some cases, for almost a year as is the case for Image:CASI.jpg. Fair use claim in place, in use on article since November 9, 2006, yet tagged as an orphan today. Yes, some didn't have fair use claims, but they majority did. Can the bot be stopped until the bug is sorted out? --bob 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, shows that Betacommand bot, at the time of that edit, was not functioning in accordance with claimed design, and shows why I think placing images like that into a category that is deletable in 7 days may not be the right approach. On the other hand, anything deleted can be undeleted so it's not the end of the world, as long as newbies aren't bitten too hard. I just don't see why the bot can't place images like that one into a different category than ones with no FUR at all. (that the placement is via a speedy template is a red herring at best... at worst it's a design flaw, use of the template as the sole way to place the image into a category may not be the best approach) I think that the speedy category is a slushpile, and asking admins or volunteers to look through the dross for images that were placed there incorrectly isn't ideal. A finer grained approach is needed. If there are multiple sorts of problems, place the images in multiple sorts of categories, making it easier to work on specific problems, instead of one huge category with many different problems all lumped together ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 19:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Note BCBot has a triple orphan check, BCBot did not make any errors MediaWiki made the errors. Some images were not showing up in the file links section. Please do not complain to me about that, I will take this to the devs and see what can be done. β^_command 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock-finding tool fixed

Resolved

 – and there was much rejoicing

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~pgk/autoblock.php

For those (like me) who have been sorely missing this useful tool over the last month or so, it is now fixed. Please direct appropriate levels of gratitude (nothing short of worship really ;) ) to Gmaxwell. WjBscribe 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah! When it's borked, previously, I tend to use links like this one and find-in-page for whatever info I've got... really a pain. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap yes. --Haemo 20:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally! Thanks for posting this WJBscribe and Gmaxwell for the tech fixes.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Eli Pariser -- anonymous user edit-warring

I reluctantly stepped into the fray on Eli Pariser to simply remove all unsourced content; each time I've done so today, 83.99.33.168 (Talk) has reverted, in spite of multiple warnings and requests for sources for his/her additions. I'm leery of changing the page again for fear of running afoul of WP:3RR. Could I get some assistance? Thanks! Ashdog137 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a webhost...

...though apparently someone hasn't figured that out yet and is trying to use it to keep notes for some sort of meeting. To whit:

• CURA Comments (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Images and Diagrams For CURA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meeting Information (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meeting Notes For CURA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meeting Notes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SSHRC Community-University Research (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SSHRC CURA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Almost all have already been deleted and/or blocked, but I bring this up because their variants seem to keep cropping up, and admins should be on the lookout. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All are blocked except Meeting Notes and Meeting Information, as the usernames are sufficiently generic. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Those last two are clearly single purpose accounts though. I don't expect an account called "Meeting Notes" to be editing the Charles VII of Sweden article any time soon (for example). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv RM

A request has been made to rename the article Kiev to Kyiv because it conforms to the preferred spelling. First it was difficult to even open the RM because a small number of editors did not want to discuss the issue. It was finally officially opened by placing a notice for it on the Kiev talk page (that wasn't deleted)[37], including a clearly defined timeframe for discussion [38]. So far so good. The purpose is to allow discussion in a controlled manner for a week in order to arrive at some sort of consensus. However, before the process was complete, El C disregarded both notices of the timeframe for discussion[39] and closed the RM stating that there was no consensus. The problem is that consensus requires two things, participation and time. Participation requires proper publication of the RM, which was done. Time was not provided, as the RM was closed less than 48 hours later.[40] I would like to request that the RM be reopened or actually just extended to remain open for a minimum of five days from the date it is reopened in order to finish the process in a fair manner. However it also has come to light after the RM was closed, as pointed out by Jehochman that we should use Kyiv, which is actually supported by official Wikipedia policy at WP:Naming conventions which states "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." In this case there is an other accepted naming convention, also an official policy on the same page: Ukranian names: "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used." In addition, "For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc." Which would indicate that a redirect needs to be included from Kiev, and that Kiev appear in bold as well as Kyiv in the lead of the article. 199.125.109.35 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this is the English Wikipedia, the common usage in English is "Kiev" and not "Kyiv". Google shows over 8 times as many usages for Kiev over Kyiv (42M vs 5M), so because there is no consensus to move the page to a less commonly used name, the page should remain as it is unless consensus changes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Break all rules as well, not just this one? 199.125.109.35 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is covered at WP:LAME the common name in english is Kiev. As far as wikipedia is concerned that is the end of the debate.Geni 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And you think that a page should be followed that starts out by saying "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." Instead of a page that starts out by saying "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Your humor escapes me. 199.125.109.35 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine became an independent country, and now wants place names transliterated from Ukrainian to English, rather than from Russian to English. The US government officially uses Kyiv, so this idea isn't completely crackpot. Rulong, Google counts aren't so useful, because they include historical web pages that don't account for current usage. In a similar case, Gypsy is used slightly more often than Romani, but our article is correctly titled Romani people. We could use some fresh views at the naming discussion page. Let's NOT discuss this here. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And we use the common name in English usage, which according to 42M+ Google results says "Kiev" over "Kyiv." "Gypsy" is an atypical choice for an analogy, but yes, it is inappropriate to discuss this here, particularly because the IP user wanted to get his way in the dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the naming of Kiev/Kyiv. This discussion is about the actions of El C and whether the RM should be kept open. 199.125.109.35 05:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

El_C acted entirely properly and within his discretion. The continued pursuit of this issue across multiple venues is beginning to approach disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Raymond Arritt 04:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BURO, sometimes you just have to admit consensus is against following the exact pre-determined rule. Jackaranga 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing I should point out is that I am an impartial observer in this discussion, and could care less what title is used. The only thing I care about is the process used to determine the title. 199.125.109.35 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus. Jackaranga 05:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that there is consensus to my request that the RM be extended? Consensus to what? The process used? Sounds good. However aborting the process prolongs obtaining consensus. 199.125.109.35 18:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What is there to do here? Ukraine = independent nation, wants names in English. Kiev = English version. en.wikipedia.org = English encyclopedia. Therefore, Kiev. I'd imagine then if someone forced a rename to some other format, it would be vandalism that needed admins, but otherwise, what is the point? Case settled, or am I incorrect? • Lawrence Cohen 13:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to write "Kyiv"?[41] The purpose of this discussion is to request holding open the RM for Kiev to Kyiv until it has been open for at least five days. 199.125.109.35 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been what looks like weeks of discussion with no headway. Stop bringing this issue up outside of the talk page of the article or you will be blocked for disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption? You surely are joking. There are any number of people I would love to block for disruption, and yet there is no policy in place to allow that. However, if it makes you feel any better, I am striking all of the above. 199.125.109.35 05:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so don't strike it. Your talk page User talk:Ryulong is protected. I have left a reminder for you to unprotect it. However, the proposed WP:Disruptive was rejected. 199.125.109.88 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Request withdrawn because of lack of support. The issue, however should be resolved as quickly as feasible. One user above, asked if it could be resolved within 24 hours. I would encourage everyone reading this to participate in the discussion. 199.125.109.35 05:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda

Sigh. Jaranda has left the project because of some more intemperate comments made by Jimbo. Corvus cornix 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And pretty soon, we're going to be getting comments rationalizing it by "but he was PROVOKED!" -Amarkov moo! 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropiate board to throw blame around, Jaranda was de-sysopped following the use of right to vanish, right? - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarify, he requested de-sysopping, vanishing itself doesn't revoke the tools. As for Jaranda, I'm not so sure he's fully gone. hbdragon88 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking if he was de-sysoped, I would hate to see someone hack into the account while he is gone and have admin tools available. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm referring to the last time he left about three? months ago. He apparently was de-sysopped this time for deleting the article. hbdragon88 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Who was provoked? Jaranda or Jimbo? Silly me. Both, of course. Carcharoth 00:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And on the way out Jaranda deleted the article he was upset about "to make sure I get desysopped". That has to be one of the more dramatic exits I've ever seen (a similar one was when User:Zoe left under similar Jimbo-induced circumstances). My opinion is that people take such comments by Jimbo too much to heart. It should be easily possible to recover one's wiki reputation after such an episode, but less easy to avoid accusations of being a drama queen if you leave under such circumstances. For those behind the curve, see here, here (the second comment by Jimbo), here and here for most of the story. Carcharoth 00:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's totally illogical on one hand people are saying Jimbo is not above the rules, and then he says Some people should excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby, and all of a sudden his every wish is an order. Jackaranga 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was Jaranda's decision to leave and no-one else's. I think he is over-reacting to what Jimbo said. For the record, Jaranda is (at the time of writing) still an administrator on en-wikipedia (see here). I haven't found a formal desysop request (from him or anyone else), and I think it is best to leave things to settle down now. Hopefully Jaranda will come back when he has calmed down. At the moment, his final deletion logs for his user and talk pages have the summaries "right to vanish" on them. Carcharoth 00:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting reprimanded by Jimbo hurts, as Zoe's departure has shown. hbdragon88 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It probably does, and that's not a good thing, really. But in the long run I have more respect for people who stay or leave on principle, not according to what Jimbo thinks of them. Carcharoth 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda made mistakes but hasn't been emergency desysopped because he was no threat to the project other than the one grossly inappropriate deletion. He's made a bit of a fool of himself in my opinion, which is very unfortunate. He is at present still welcome to come back. --Deskana (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe closing this thread would be an idea? Carcharoth 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Who really cares? Pilotguy 00:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo and Jaranda, apparently. But I agree, storm in a tea-cup and all that. Carcharoth 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda left. What's the news? How many times has he left in the past? Jaranda leaves. Thats what he does. He'll be back. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The right to vanish, I'm pretty sure, doesn't cover user talk pages -- and certainly not by user hisownself. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Past practice seems to have been to leave user talk pages deleted, unless the user returns, at which point all revisions should be undeleted again. Natalie 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs) appears to buck this trend, as his user talk page was restored after he deleted it. Werdna attempted the same thing, was denied. E Pluribus Anthony (talk · contribs) was so persistent in adding speedy tags that his user talk page was eventually fully protected. It's a tossup, really. hbdragon88 04:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly won't be restoring it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it is rude to delete, or request deletion, of your own talk page. Other people's edits are there as well. Your user page, fine, but not the talk page. As has been pointed out, though, we are inconsistent on this. Carcharoth 10:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note I was desyropped less than an hour ago, I purged the password so that's an indication I don't want to do nothing with the site anymore. Being insulted by Jimbo, I want nothing to do with wikipedia. I left before because of school isses, etc, and came back but this is a different story. Jaranda 131.94.55.77 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Link for verification. Keegan^talk 04:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I asked for my talk page to be restored while saying my last goodbyes in IRC. 131.94.55.77 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Various comments:

1. meta:Right to vanish has always included the option to have user page AND user talk page deleted. From time to time some people have disputed this on the same grounds as the 'users cannot remove warnings from their talk page' philosophy, but the policy has never changed. User talk pages exist to facilitate communication with the user. Not as a 'permanent record' of 'misdeeds'. If there were anything actually needed from past communication it could always be retrieved.
2. "Jimbo is not above the rules" - Actually, yes he is -> Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Jimbo_as_the_ultimate_authority. Or, more precisely, Jimbo is 'not above the rules'... unless he says so.
3. Jimbo is a human. This means that he makes mistakes, is sometimes rude, cannot fly under his own power, and has other failings beyond count. Thus, I'd suggest the proper response when he says something hurtful is not to feel that you have been harmed and/or stalk away in anger and hurt, but to calmly explain precisely why his action was wrong. In my experience he takes it better than the average human.
4. Dozens of articles like the one in question are deleted every day. I don't agree with that, but it is reality. Claims that this one was only kept because of Jimbo are 'correct', but the assumption that peoples' views were influenced by Jimbo is largely not IMO. Most of these articles get deleted because nobody except the person who created it ever notices, and if they dare to complain they generally get blocked or, if they are lucky, ignored. This one was kept not because people judged it differently than they normally would, but because they paid attention to it at all.
5. Wikipedia is a good thing. No doubt it could be better if everything were done exactly the way >I< think it should be, but even without that... a very good thing. A well organized compendium of human knowledge, accessible to every person on the planet, will profoundly change the world for the better. Ultimately, that's what it is all about. Any flaws in the way it is run or the actions of the people in charge just aren't that important in the long run. --CBD 09:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)