Canterbury Tail (talk | contribs) |
→Wikihounding: Response by Rterrace |
||
Line 568: | Line 568: | ||
::Looks like obvious sock puppetry [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz]]. To stop the abuse we need a checkuser to verify that these are socks, to find any additional sleeper accounts, and to block all the underlying IPs for a while. A thorough job is needed. Blocking a few known accounts would just turn into a game of [[whack-a-mole]]. Hopefully a checkuser will notice this comment and act swiftly to prevent further wikistalking. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 05:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
::Looks like obvious sock puppetry [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz]]. To stop the abuse we need a checkuser to verify that these are socks, to find any additional sleeper accounts, and to block all the underlying IPs for a while. A thorough job is needed. Blocking a few known accounts would just turn into a game of [[whack-a-mole]]. Hopefully a checkuser will notice this comment and act swiftly to prevent further wikistalking. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 05:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Changed thread title. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 06:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
:::Changed thread title. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 06:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Response by Rterrace'''. *[[User:Abductive|Abductive]] is a disruptive [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|SPA]] serial [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|prodder]] who made his first edit (an AfD nomination), only a month ago. Since then his only edits have been to randomly prod over 130 articles, and to nominate another 50 articles for AfD. He fails [[WP:BEFORE|to make any attempt to verify or improve an article]] before adding the “prod” tag. [[User:Abductive|Abductive]] claims to be an established user who continually changes his account names, but he has refused to disclose who his many different ID's were or are. I am not the only user who has deprodded his deletion nominations. More than 40 different editors have been forced to contest Abductive’ prods. Infact, every single one of his 150+ prods have been contested. The following established editors have all been forced to remove Abductive’s prods on ''multiple'' occasions. |
|||
*[[User:Colonel Warden]] |
|||
*[[User:DGG]] |
|||
*[[User:Kyle1278]] |
|||
*[User:117Avenue]] |
|||
*[[User:ThaddeusB]] |
|||
In summary, it is true that I have contested several of Abductive’s prods. It is my right to contest a prod, and I have not done so in bad faith. I have contested several of his prods because Abductive apparently randomly selects articles to prod. In his haste to prod articles, Abductive does not follow [[WP:BEFORE]]. These articles that I have deprodded can all be improved, and need not be deleted. Policy on this topic is clear (see [[WP:CONTESTED]]), a prod tag should not be restored, ''“even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith”''. If Abductive ''still'' believes that the articles needs to be deleted, then he should list them on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]]. [[User:Rterrace|Rterrace]] ([[User talk:Rterrace|talk]]) 11:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Do we want change? == |
== Do we want change? == |
Revision as of 11:47, 23 June 2009
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Admins with history merging experience wanted
- This discussion is now in Wikipedia talk:New histmerge list#Automating these history-merges?.
- I decided to embark on a little project, and wrote a program to try and figure out just how often cut-and-paste moves happen. The answer seems to be "OH MY GOD! THAT OFTEN?!?!". The program is working its way through the most recent database dump, and as of this writing, it's 6% of the way through, and it has registered over 3,700 hits. I've been in touch with User:Anthony Appleyard, the only admin who performs history merges on a regular basis. Both of us agree that this is way more than what he can handle, and I, not being an admin, can't do anything to help him.
- So, with that, any admins who are willing to help should take a look at User:Mikaey/Possible cut-and-paste moves.
- WAIT: I like cut-and-paste moves to eliminate useless old revisions. Such as: a new user User:JonQuePublic writes several marginal articles (perhaps named like "My rare notable" ). Well, as a typical new user, he saves each edit after every 5 words, then 200 revisions later, goes, "Wow, now that I know how Wikipedia saves & names articles, I'll just redo all of those articles, renaming them better as 'Our rare notable' etc." Hey, I think that's great: just copy/paste into the better article-names, re-created as perhaps 5 revisions by one user. Then, finally, delete all those neophyte articles that had 200 (or more) 5-word revisions. Please, let's not make Wikipedia a monument to proving newbie editors make 200 revisions to each of their first 100 new articles. It is time to start pruning old revisions. Plus, do you realize Wikipedia is lacking perhaps 10,000 highly notable articles, not yet written? ...because people are obsessing about keeping marginal, minor old stuff. Hence, what I'm saying is "purge the old name variations" and "purge even more old 200-revisions by newbies". Then, focus on adding missing articles, while renaming many newbie articles to better titles, such as "Jon Tee Public" becoming "Jon Tee Public (footballer)". There are over 32,000 footballer articles, so far, and I think many of them could be renamed/purged to remove thousands of the current 315 million revisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Attribution-evidence is an easy issue to resolve: just note, on the talk-page under topic "Copyright concerns" that the article was re-created from the prior name (at a specific time). In cases of copyright dispute, the old-named article can be un-deleted, and the lawyers can check the date/time of the 200 revision entries. There is ample legal precedent for this: in a registry of deeds, documents constantly refer to prior deeds filed by page/line number, without the need to repeat the entire deeds within the scope of the current deed: all that is needed is a named/numbered reference. Hence, that problem is solved, so feel free to copy-paste when moving articles, but remind people to note the original article name on the talk-page (or in an early edit-summary). If there were a legal mandate to keep prior revisions, then user-space versions would need to be history-merged to "prove" the users had written the added text on a certain prior date, within their own user-space areas, as full documentation supporting the day they added those changes into the live version of an article. However, when an article "ttt" is deleted, it should be archive-named as "ttt-2009Jun22-hh:mm" to ensure a unique archival name, relative to future articles of the same name. That would allow precise tracking to a particular "John Smith" article being scanned for copyvio. There is no legal reason to retain every prior revision of a page, especially for numerous 5-word revisions made within a few hours. If you have any other questions, let me know. -Wikid77 (talk)
- You might try making the recommended move procedure easier. The 1 time I tried it I couldn't get it to work. Subsequently I did a few c&p moves until an admin told me I shouldn't. Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Overused non-free images
I couldn't find a better place for this, WP:CP is for text and Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free is inactive, so I'm posting this here.
There are currently 42 images tagged as non-free that are used on 30 or more pages. Many of these are being used in templates, including talk page templates and userboxes, so fixing it is as easy as editing one page, though some may have questionable fair use rationales. So if people are looking for something to do:
-- Mr.Z-man 20:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify a few things:
- Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the more appropriate place to post questions of this nature in the future.
- Images used in templates will show as being used in every article where the template is used, which is technically true
- Non-free images may not be used in lists within articles, navigational boxes, or galleries in articles or categories
- Example: File:Seal of ASEAN.svg is incorrectly used in the navbox {{Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)}}
- ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Who is this directed at? This wasn't really a questions, so MCQ didn't seem like a very good forum. I'm not asking if these are overused and used inappropriately, I'm pointing out that most of them almost certainly are. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, frack; I didn't notice it was you. Never mind. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Who is this directed at? This wasn't really a questions, so MCQ didn't seem like a very good forum. I'm not asking if these are overused and used inappropriately, I'm pointing out that most of them almost certainly are. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify a few things:
Ok, I'm working on these now. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just to make an example of it, I'd say that 90% of the uses of File:LSUTigers.png are complete bunk. Resolute 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Same with the other sport logos. However, removing them would probably be deemed "controversial", as there is a long history of editors completely failing to get it with regards to sports logos. Of course, sports logos, especially for universities, are so different to other non-free content. I'd have removed them myself, but my Twinkle is playing up. Dealt with a good few, but more eyes are needed (and a tool for mass removal would be nice in some cases). J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wasn't there a long RfC on sport logos recently? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming they're being used in mainspace with rationales, that question is still up in the air (there's an attempt to get mediation on it). However, any use outside of mainspace is clearly a violation of NFC policy (no ifs, ands, or buts) and that action is what needs to be undertaken. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- There was a RfC, yes, but it was a joke, naturally. Policy is clear, some people just refuse to accept it, as articles look so much prettier with logos splashed all over them. They should just be removed, I don't really see why it's still being discussed. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of the comedy RfC and whatever "mediation" takes place (since when do we do mediation on policy?), of course overuse shoudl be removed in the meantime. Black Kite 01:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming they're being used in mainspace with rationales, that question is still up in the air (there's an attempt to get mediation on it). However, any use outside of mainspace is clearly a violation of NFC policy (no ifs, ands, or buts) and that action is what needs to be undertaken. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wasn't there a long RfC on sport logos recently? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I went through over half the list. The majority of the issue was these were being used in templates, which isn't allowed per NFCC 9. Also, while we have half a dozen places this could have gone, I think Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review would have been the best place personally (take that Gadget850 ;) I also didn't want to touch the sports logos with a 10 foot pole. Seems like majority rule/consensus of avid sports fans get to circumvent NFC, and I'm not up for any fights like that again. Just curious, how was this list generated?-Andrew c [talk] 00:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I generated the list with a Toolserver query. Mr.Z-man 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- When we have respected admins unwilling to deal with blatant abuse of non-free content (presumably because of a fear of drama/general backlash?) we have a problem. This sports logo issue needs sorting... J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Try going after television screenshots. I had more fun dealing with the Croatian/Serbian fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- When we have respected admins unwilling to deal with blatant abuse of non-free content (presumably because of a fear of drama/general backlash?) we have a problem. This sports logo issue needs sorting... J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:NFCC is completely clear that non-free images are not permitted outside the main namespace; removing them from user pages is perfectly appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's not an issue; article space is different though - still, remember that WP:3RR is your friend and doesn't apply to removing NFCC violations ;) The use of File:MarylandTerrapins.png is ridiculous, for example. It should be used in the main article and nothing else. If someone else hasn't fixed this by tomorrow I'll be wielding the NFCC axe. Black Kite 00:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I misread the original post above. The uses in mainspace are more painful to deal with, unfortunately. Was there actually an RFC on the sports logos? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- There was. I can't find it now - can anyone link? Of course, it was just a small number of users pointing out policy vs. a collection of editors who didn't give a shit about NFCC. I've just cleared File:MarylandTerrapins.png in about 12 minutes, incidentally - I'll do the other sports logos tomorrow if no-one else steps up to the plate. If you do remove the violations, watchlist the pages - you will be reverted. As I mentioned above, though, you are in the right - and point it out. Black Kite 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The RFC was at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1. Mr.Z-man 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that was the (still undetermined) RFC. The Request for mediation is currently going on and most (on both sides of the issue) have a de-facto truce not to remove or add anything until the issue is decided. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, some of the images are Trademarked and NOT Copyrighted (apparently the Maryland Terrapin one cited), so that makes the issue even more thorny since they are very likely to be allowable. (as discussed ad nauseum in the sports logo discussions, for anyone interested) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- File:MarylandTerrapins.png? That is without a doubt under copyright protection. Yes, its trademarked too, but that doesn't mean its not also copyrighted. Mr.Z-man 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) The terrapin image is tagged as non-free copyrighted. If it were tagged as a free image, I believe it would not have appeared on the list above. If it really is not copyrighted, the license tag should be updated. NFCC does not apply to images that have a free copyright tag, even if they are trademarked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Aaah, you might be right, I am not sure. I don't know specifically about that image. I just know that it is the case that there are several that had originally been misidentified as copyrighted and then (over the course of the many, many months of discussion in the sports logo fiasco) it was realized many were only trademarked. (and not copyrighted) Again, not sure about the Maryland one because I haven't researched it specifically. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- In the USA and Canada (and I believe the rest of the world), copyright exists as soon as a work is created, and has done so since the mid-70's. That you think something can be trademarked without being copyrighted is a rather disturbing proof that you don't really know much about how copyright works and probably shouldn't be opining on any discussion involving it.//roux 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, that's only true if the material has sufficient originality to be the subject of copyright. Clearly, "IBM" can be trademarked but not subject to copyright. I haven't checked whether this applies to any of the materials discussed, but it is quite possible for something to be trademarked and not copyrighted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. This also makes Roux's "haven't the foggiest" edit summary above to be interesting. However, this is all sort of drifting from the intent of the thread. Tan | 39 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well no, actually. IBM can trademark that arrangement of letters without being able to claim copyright on them... however, we are talking about images here, logos, which as original works are indeed subject to copyright. Indeed, in order to successfully trademark something (Kleenex, Google, Xerox), one must aggressively defend the trademark and not allow others to use it. But again, that's all rather beside the point, since we are in fact talking about logos, not text, so it's all a bit of a red herring for you to be bringing up here. But hey... if you're okay with someone who doesn't actually understand what copyright is and how it works having any influence on copyright policies, by all means go ahead. //roux 19:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. This also makes Roux's "haven't the foggiest" edit summary above to be interesting. However, this is all sort of drifting from the intent of the thread. Tan | 39 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, that's only true if the material has sufficient originality to be the subject of copyright. Clearly, "IBM" can be trademarked but not subject to copyright. I haven't checked whether this applies to any of the materials discussed, but it is quite possible for something to be trademarked and not copyrighted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- In the USA and Canada (and I believe the rest of the world), copyright exists as soon as a work is created, and has done so since the mid-70's. That you think something can be trademarked without being copyrighted is a rather disturbing proof that you don't really know much about how copyright works and probably shouldn't be opining on any discussion involving it.//roux 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Aaah, you might be right, I am not sure. I don't know specifically about that image. I just know that it is the case that there are several that had originally been misidentified as copyrighted and then (over the course of the many, many months of discussion in the sports logo fiasco) it was realized many were only trademarked. (and not copyrighted) Again, not sure about the Maryland one because I haven't researched it specifically. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, some of the images are Trademarked and NOT Copyrighted (apparently the Maryland Terrapin one cited), so that makes the issue even more thorny since they are very likely to be allowable. (as discussed ad nauseum in the sports logo discussions, for anyone interested) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that was the (still undetermined) RFC. The Request for mediation is currently going on and most (on both sides of the issue) have a de-facto truce not to remove or add anything until the issue is decided. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The RFC was at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1. Mr.Z-man 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- There was. I can't find it now - can anyone link? Of course, it was just a small number of users pointing out policy vs. a collection of editors who didn't give a shit about NFCC. I've just cleared File:MarylandTerrapins.png in about 12 minutes, incidentally - I'll do the other sports logos tomorrow if no-one else steps up to the plate. If you do remove the violations, watchlist the pages - you will be reverted. As I mentioned above, though, you are in the right - and point it out. Black Kite 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I misread the original post above. The uses in mainspace are more painful to deal with, unfortunately. Was there actually an RFC on the sports logos? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Every time I look at the NFCC, I can never ever find the wording that Black Kite always asserts is in there and is being flgrantly/abusively/deceitfully/outrageously ignored by everybody except him. I am always amused by the thought that, by just using one logo in one place instead of x places, for the exact same purposes in each place, that that is somehow protecting a copyright holder, or upholding the free content mission. Sort of like, 'if we hide it in just this one article, nobody will find it to copy it' bizarreness, or even worse, 'look dear re-user of free content, you can have all these page for free, but just not the one that explains the whole topic'. There are many many other examples of simple abc wrongness that surround certain users attempts to 'interpret' the NFCC. I find in these never ending POV wars over the NFCC, its always best to actually look at what the foundation lawyer has actually said about NFCC about a hundred times. And although my memory may fail me as the kilobytes have stretched into eternity in the Good Fight, I am quite sure that not once have I ever seen him agree with Black Kite, and in most cases he never even responds. Too busy on important legal type stuff I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- You don't need to be a lawyer to be able to read WP:NFCC#3 - "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.". 43 usages of one logo isn't minimal use. I notice that all the overused logos that I removed last night have been put back by User:Strikehold quoting the mediation. My temptation would be to keep removing them until editors get the message that policy = policy. The mediation is irrelevant because mediation won't change policy. Black Kite 10:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The mediation is not about "changing policy", it is about determining the policy's actual meaning. I'm sorry, Black Kite, I guess those who don't agree on your interpretation of NFCC are just a bunch of simpletons. As for the policy: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Why would that be interpreted to mean anything other than on a single article? You don't think readers go directly to articles like, say 2000 LSU Tigers football team, without ever going to LSU Tigers, or LSU Tigers football, or Louisiana State University, or whatever article in your interpretation is the supposed only allowable usage? And if they do, that means they are not gaining the "significant information" available through the logo's use. Strikehold (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The previous wording of #3a (it was changed on a basis of consensus here) read: As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. It was changed because of discussion here, where it was agreed that "Wikipedia as a whole" was understood to be redundant. That discussion is a further extension of this one where it talks about how these points in #3a are duplicative with #8. The core of all these arguments is that given a piece of non-free artwork, there is likely one and only one article where that article is significant and necessary; if there is an additional article where the image can be placed, it needs a strong rationale as to why it couldn't just be replaced with a link to the core article. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
And they're back: File:LSUTigers.png and File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png. Good effort, though, J Milburn. -Andrew c [talk] 04:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- And gone again. If they come back without rationales I think that a hard line is required. Poor rationales are one thing....totally missing ones are a different matter - Peripitus (Talk) 07:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is fine, although WT:COPYCLEAN might have helped too. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ha! Just great. Another page to add to my watchlist. *grumble* -Andrew c [talk] 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Here is an idea. Text-only logos. Seeing the Arkansas – Texas A&M rivalry article made me think of this. I could imagine a sports fan being really upset that their arch-rival gets to have a pretty logo in the infobox, but not their team of choice. So I made File:LSU text logo.svg. I imagine almost every sports team has a text only logo equivalent. I believe a coordinated effort with the Graphic Lab could help produce a series of these text only (and thereby public domain) logos that all the sports fans could use in templates and infoboxes and userboxes and so-on. It may take a little work, but I think this is a rather ingenious compromise that would still allow logos on these pages, but still be in compliance with NFC. -Andrew c [talk]
- File:Arkansas text logo.svg. Since these two files have been the source of some edit warring. There are probably hundreds of others to do, Category:Academic sports logos seems like another place that needs clean up, if we really are going to push removing these logos from by season and by sports articles. -Andrew c [talk] 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am fine with the text logos (as evidenced by me changing several of the logos to the text ones, haha), but I know most people will not be. Get ready for a lot of pushback if this is widely implemented. (I speak from experience in the many discussions that have taken place on this issue.) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- If this "pushback" comes in the form of edit warring and abuse of non-free content, I see no reason not to block those involved. As you're familiar with the subject matter, perhaps it would be better if you worked on your idea of implementing non-copyrighted text-only logos (though the threshold of creativity is very low- any styalisation at all would be copyrightable) rather than edit-warring with myself and others? If you meet with resistance, I'd be more than happy to help you as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- "If this 'pushback' comes in the form of edit warring and abuse of non-free content, I see no reason not to block those involved."---I would tend to agree (although that seems a little harsh) since that is what those attempting to make non-policy changes were doing, but I'll leave it to others to pursue that course of action if they feel it is warranted, as I do not wish to pursue it myself. On the subject of non-copyrightable text only logos; As I said, it is an acceptable compromise for me personally (although I certainly would not be excited about it enough to undertake any projects implementing that fix), but I know it is unacceptable for a variety of reasons for a number of people, and I do not wish to have that fight either. Good luck with your edits. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- If this "pushback" comes in the form of edit warring and abuse of non-free content, I see no reason not to block those involved. As you're familiar with the subject matter, perhaps it would be better if you worked on your idea of implementing non-copyrighted text-only logos (though the threshold of creativity is very low- any styalisation at all would be copyrightable) rather than edit-warring with myself and others? If you meet with resistance, I'd be more than happy to help you as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am fine with the text logos (as evidenced by me changing several of the logos to the text ones, haha), but I know most people will not be. Get ready for a lot of pushback if this is widely implemented. (I speak from experience in the many discussions that have taken place on this issue.) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ha! Just great. Another page to add to my watchlist. *grumble* -Andrew c [talk] 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Cardsplayer4life
The actions by Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs) here have been extremely negative. Considering, above, he said that many had taken a truce to not add or remove any content, he has taken it upon himself to mass-revert myself and others, often without comment (a clear abuse of undo) and other times pointing to the lack of consensus at the RfC as support for keeping these images. Clearly, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content, so these actions are wholly inappropriate. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- You were the one mass removing content. I am trying to keep the status quo that was agreed upon. If it changes, that is fine, but I am following policy. The "burden of proof" argument has already been raised and answered in the many, many months of discussions. (multiple times) I am not going to rehash every argument here again, please read through the discussion or make any arguments there if you wish. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do not agree to any "status quo". I see a large number of images for which there is no consensus, so I remove them. A second mass reversion is completely disruptive. You are really crossing the line now. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am "really crossing the line now", because I have been 1) placing images in allowed spots based upon the current wording, and 2) been upholding a well-established status quo truce? Not sure what line that makes me cross, but ok. I never claimed you agreed to anything. Whether my reversion seemed disruptive to you or not is irrelevant since it upheld wikipedia policy, sorry. To try and accommodate you further (why, I have no idea) I changed most of the images to the less-desirable (for many reasons) free alternative image. (But, that was before you even wrote the above.) If you feel the image policy should be changed (or clarified), then please take any argument you have to the appropriate discussion on the subject instead of trying to argue with me about it, (Lord knows there are enough of them.) as I have no interest in arguing over changes in image policy, but only upholding current policy. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am very interested as to why the text "burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content" is wikilinked to WP:NFCC, which doesn't make that claim at all. It's true that a rationale is required (which is what NFCC means by "there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article") but that's not the same as saying that without a strong consensus on the validity of a rationale or a set thereof the default position is to exclude. That position is contentious as you well know. As for the subject of this section, you're welcome to open up an WP:RFC/U of course but there are several editors who have been far less civil and far more tendentious regarding these issues. Oren0 (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Have you people ever actually read the non-free content criteria? Direct quote- "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof." No consensus to include the images, no inclusion of the images. Seriously, I'm starting to think you people are just trolling now, I'm getting sick of this crap. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've read through the NFCC more times than you can count, and there ARE valid rationales provided for these images to be included. Links have been provided to the arguments back and forth on it. (It is likely that the reason the fight has gone on for so long is that there are valid rationales that can be provided to support either side of the debate.) If you would like to read through some of the rationales provided, I would read through the links here. (especially the arguments back and forth in archive 1, where in the initial support arguments you can find most of the rationales, although some are scattered throughout) I am not going to compile and paste every single pro and con argument here because it would be too time consuming, but rest assured that we are certainly not trolling. (please assume good faith in editors, and try to avoid personal attacks) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was heavily, heavily involved with the "debate" to begin with. I have seen the arguments offered, yet when I continue to see people willing to edit war to keep these images, I become a little dubious. Being agnostic as to the necessity of the images is one thing, but edit warring with multiple admins experienced in NFC issues is completely another. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've read through the NFCC more times than you can count, and there ARE valid rationales provided for these images to be included. Links have been provided to the arguments back and forth on it. (It is likely that the reason the fight has gone on for so long is that there are valid rationales that can be provided to support either side of the debate.) If you would like to read through some of the rationales provided, I would read through the links here. (especially the arguments back and forth in archive 1, where in the initial support arguments you can find most of the rationales, although some are scattered throughout) I am not going to compile and paste every single pro and con argument here because it would be too time consuming, but rest assured that we are certainly not trolling. (please assume good faith in editors, and try to avoid personal attacks) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Have you people ever actually read the non-free content criteria? Direct quote- "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof." No consensus to include the images, no inclusion of the images. Seriously, I'm starting to think you people are just trolling now, I'm getting sick of this crap. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am very interested as to why the text "burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content" is wikilinked to WP:NFCC, which doesn't make that claim at all. It's true that a rationale is required (which is what NFCC means by "there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article") but that's not the same as saying that without a strong consensus on the validity of a rationale or a set thereof the default position is to exclude. That position is contentious as you well know. As for the subject of this section, you're welcome to open up an WP:RFC/U of course but there are several editors who have been far less civil and far more tendentious regarding these issues. Oren0 (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am "really crossing the line now", because I have been 1) placing images in allowed spots based upon the current wording, and 2) been upholding a well-established status quo truce? Not sure what line that makes me cross, but ok. I never claimed you agreed to anything. Whether my reversion seemed disruptive to you or not is irrelevant since it upheld wikipedia policy, sorry. To try and accommodate you further (why, I have no idea) I changed most of the images to the less-desirable (for many reasons) free alternative image. (But, that was before you even wrote the above.) If you feel the image policy should be changed (or clarified), then please take any argument you have to the appropriate discussion on the subject instead of trying to argue with me about it, (Lord knows there are enough of them.) as I have no interest in arguing over changes in image policy, but only upholding current policy. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do not agree to any "status quo". I see a large number of images for which there is no consensus, so I remove them. A second mass reversion is completely disruptive. You are really crossing the line now. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just because it has a rationale for every use doesn't mean it has a valid rationale. Many of the rationales for File:MarylandTerrapins.png are just ridiculous. Some of them just give "infobox" for the purpose of use. The "Purpose" field is supposed to describe "How does the media contribute significantly to the article(s) in which it is used" (quoted from the FUR template documentation). How does "infobox" do that? Others have "Used to illustrate athletics at Maryland." - That's pretty much the same as "decoration" Mr.Z-man 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Funny to see how this is being brought up in multiple corners of Wikipedia. The concept of overuse is being misused when it comes to team individual or multi-season pages. The community has seen fit to pass FAs, 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team, and the logos were permitted because they represent the essence of the team (itself the basis of trademark). The same can be said for bowl and conference title game FAs (example 1, 2, 3, though there are sometimes slight difference when those logos are changed from year to year (example 1 vs. 2). What it boils down to is, though the idea of overuse is valid in some circumstances, this is a case of square peg in a round hole. To make an analogy: interpretation is the cornerstone of the American common law system, which isn't the rote inflexibility of continental civil law systems. The rationale already exists for why these images are being used, and claiming the burden has somehow shifted back to us is inaccurate. --Bobak (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- As a separate note, I find J Milburn's conduct here to be a little harsh. --Bobak (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course you would- you've done your best to create an "us and them", and I happen to be the "them". The fact that there are FAs is sad, certainly, but I'm not quite sure how that suddenly justifies abuse. You claim that the problem of overuse doesn't apply in this case, yet make the classic "mistake" of forgetting to explain why. You can state as much as you like that these logos should not be treated as other non-free images are, but stating doesn't make it true. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a little unsure why it needs to be explained, yet again, that an image can have the most fantastically written rationale possible, but if it doesn't pass all the criteria of NFCC (in this case 3a and 8) then the rationale is irrelevant. No-one has yet managed to explain how a non-free logo in a sports season passes NFCC#8, and I suspect no-one ever will. Black Kite 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge and delete
Everything seems to have been said in this discussion and the debate hasn't be active in two weeks. Would an admin take the time to close it? Preferably someone who didn't previously delete any of the merged articles. As far as I know, the main outside view came from User:Moonriddengirl. -- Docu (talk · contribs) 19 June 2009 / 10:21
Deletion and salting of account page and talkpage
A quick review please; I have deleted and salted the user and talkpages of User:Pakkbasher, after hardblocking them indefinitely for their username, so this phrase (an incitement to attack Pakistani's) does not appear again in the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Judgment by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) seems sound here. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Only edit was vandalism, although usually we leave user talk pages as is. So the talk page should probably be restored.--Aervanath (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- The talkpage can be viewed by admins - but this is a very sensitive issue in regards to British racist sentiment; I cannot believe that the majority community would permit an editor talkpage of "User talk:Assassinate the Black President" to exist, so I would suggest that the sensibilities of other participants be acknowledged in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Only edit was vandalism, although usually we leave user talk pages as is. So the talk page should probably be restored.--Aervanath (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- If there was any possibility that this was the account of a luggage/package handler for a freight company, I'd disagree here, but the one edit this person made is clear proof that LHvU got it right in one. -- llywrch (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ridernyc and Neon white
Ridernyc and Neon white have repeatedly reinstated a bad faith merger proposal on the articles rap rock and rapcore. Ridernyc and Neon white insist that rapcore is a neologism in spite of multiple verified sources describing it as a legitimate genre. First reverts occur here and here, second reverts occur here and here. Ridernyc insists that a consensus exists where none has ever occurred. The initial proposal was clearly not in good faith, and these repeated reverts are a clear example of POV-pushing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
- What makes this a bad faith proposal? It seems that you've tried to delete his merge proposal and been reverted by multiple editors, so it appears more than one editor feels the proposal has merit. Probably the best thing to do here is to make your feelings known on the merger proposal, and try and get consensus there. Also, telling people they are "clearly not paying attention" [1] isn't very productive. Dayewalker (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- The proposal is in bad faith because the article is clearly sourced, and there is enough rationale for a separate article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
- Comment: I have read Talk:Rap_rock#Merger_proposal, consensus there does not support the proposal by Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs). If User:Ibaranoff24 feels more discussion is needed, a more constructive route would be to seek out dispute resolution, perhaps a WP:3O or WP:RFC, rather than engaging in disruptive behavior. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- The proposal is in bad faith because the article is clearly sourced, and there is enough rationale for a separate article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
First I was not informed of this thread by Ibaranoff24. Second he keeps insisting that the article is well sourced and has 15 sources. I posted a detailed critique of the articles sourcing here User_talk:Neon_white#Rapcore he has totally ignored the specific issues raised with sources and continues saying the article has 15 sources, never commenting on the quality of the sources. I then tried to find sources documenting and giving a description of rapcore.I posted the results of that in the merger discussion. So far all Ibaranoff24 has responded with are generic searchs on broad terms and accusations of bad faith. He keeps insisting there is consensus on his side, even though there is no evidence of any consensus. His attacks also continue to become more and more personal. This is a simple discussion about merger, cleanup and sourcing. For some reason Ibaranoff24 has taken a very aggressive stance, I became involved in this when he performed this edit [2] removing and shooting down the merger before discussion had even started. Ridernyc (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Need page deleted
Hi, The Article Rescue Squad set-up a FAQ page which was met with some editing issues which seemed to have resolved. Within that scuffle the page was moved mucking up the {{FAQ}} template use.
Our talkpage Wikipedia talk:ARS now correctly links to the correct page at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ
- PLEASE NOTE: Wikipedia talk is where this FAQ is supposed to be, the associated page Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ should be deleted but not the talkpage. I've even written that on the page.
This may seem counterintuitive but the FAQ is a subpage to the talkpage not the mainpage. Lordy lawd I hope that makes sense. -- Banjeboi 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was only following orders. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! Thank you! -- Banjeboi 21:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- ok, but the history has been lost; a history merge should occur. nb: this is a piece of a current ArbCom case and this has messed with evidence. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Presumably the Arbs can see the deleted content if they need - it would seem the case is winding down. I'll look into a histmerge. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the arbs can see it; for transparancy, all should be able to see it. Jack Merridew 06:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Presumably the Arbs can see the deleted content if they need - it would seem the case is winding down. I'll look into a histmerge. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Update. Request is at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New requests. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is still an incorrect move-back; the issue is that {{FAQ}} is on the wrong-track; FAQs should *have* talk pages, not *be* talk pages. See User talk:John Vandenberg#Namespaces for some background; the FAQ template needs to be more aware of namespaces. Jack Merridew 06:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
user:Xinyu transcluded the Administrators page onto his User Talk page, in removing that copyright violation, I deleted far more of the page than needed to be reverted, but when attempting to correct myself, my edit is rejected because there are admin edits on the page rejecting Xinyu's unblock request, and since I'm not an admin, I'm not allowed to add those even though all I'm doing is trying to re-add what I deleted. Could somebody please fix this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well, never mind, Xinyu has replaced it with a soapbox rant. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note Xinyu has since been indef blocked for hosting further attacks upon the current US president on his talkpage, and disruption generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that 'Criticism of Wikipedia' rant.. uugh, five lines down, my stomach churned. Better off as a blog post somewhere. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I closed this move discussion, which is being challenged. If I could get some others to check it as a sanity check, that would be great. Comment here or at User talk:Aervanath#Kohuept.--Aervanath (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd prefer it if discussion took place at Talk:Kohuept#Post-closure discussion, if only for centralisation. Sceptre (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
CheeseDreams
My understanding of the CheeseDreams ban is that it has expired, and the banned tag should be removed from its userpage. At Tony Sidaway's suggestion, I'm bringing the discussion here. Enigmamsg 05:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just realised that CheeseDreams was locked out of her account after revealing the password in public. A user changed the password to stop it being abused, but as CheeseDreams did not have an email address she will not be able to reclaim the account. Because she was restricted by the arbitration committee to using that account, she will not be able to use Wikipedia at all. I suppose it would be up to the arbitration committee or the community to decide whether this is a desirable state of affairs. --TS 05:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Has CheeseDreams indicated that she wishes to return to editing? If so, I suggest she gets in touch with arbcom by email who may, if they feel inclined, amend the account restriction appropriately (perhaps to restrict her to using another, nominated account). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does the community want CheeseDreams to return under any name?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- After the amount of time that has elapsed, I think the question is moot; either they have returned under another account and the link has not been made, or they have moved on from the project. Under the circumstances - and in response to the original request - I think the banned template should be removed and replaced by an indef block notice, with a comment that application by email to the ArbCom for a password should they wish to use the talkpage for an unblock request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does the community want CheeseDreams to return under any name?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are free to remove the tag from her page, but based on my experience with her if any recent troublemaker is determined to be this person under another name -- or she returns to resume her disruptive behavior -- it's time for a permanent ban. This is someone who did not come to improve Wikipedia, just to advocate for some of her idiosyncratic theories on religion by any means fair or foul, & I don't need a tag on her user page to know this. -- llywrch (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Account creation blocking for indef blocks
I'm a little rusty here... I came across a user account with an inflammatory name, whose first edit was blatant vandalism (Special:DeletedContributions/Bringdownwikib). I indef blocked it. The tricky part is: I don't want the person behind it creating a new account for the next day or two, but that limitation seems like it shouldn't be indefinite. I could come back later and change the block settings, but I don't really trust myself to remember to do that.
Any advice? Melchoir (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- The account restriction will last until the autoblock expires (24 hours), though that account cannot ever spawn new sockpuppets while logged in. MER-C 09:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this, I tagged it as a speedy delete candidate (criterion G12) yesterday as it was largely a copy of this copyrighted website. No one deleted the article (or removed the tag) and now the creator claims to have fixed the problem by paraphrasing the copyright text. Comparing the text I'm not 100% sure if it constitutes a derivative work - the editor does seem to have done a reasonable job but I'm no copyright expert. Either way I think the previous versions should be deleted as it remains possible that at some stage someone could unknowingly revert to the copyrighted text. Guest9999 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have deleted and selectively restored the post copyvio edits. From a review of the content as it now exists I feel that the article needs substantial work to make it encyclopedic, but that is for the community to resolve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. A summary of the findings may be found at the Arbitration Noticeboard.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive canvassing on the White people article
To support his position that all images should be removed from the White people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article [3], The Ogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) selectively contacted four perceived opponents of images on their talk pages with a non-neutral message [4] [5] [6] [7], in clear violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_canvassing; one editor The Ogre contacted quickly reverted the article to his favored version [8]. To prevent The Ogre from deriving an advantage from his disruptive canvassing, and to dissuade him from engaging in similar misconduct on other articles, I ask that he and every editor he contacted be topic-banned from the White people article for a reasonable period of time. Erik9 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- nonsense. The only editor exhibiting disruptive behaviour in this case is Erik9, first in revert-warring against consensus, and now in creating wikidrama at ANI. The Ogre is free to avert editors who interacted with the article in the past individually, on their talkpages. If The Ogre's "canvassing" was perceived as spamming by the recipiens, you would, like, expect the complaint to be filed on the part of a recipient.
- My involvement at the article in question is completely unrelated to The Ogre's note, since the article is on my watchlist anyway.
In view of the blatant piece of wikilawyering above (zomg, "non-neutral messages" on user talkpages. topic bans for everyone who tries to stop me), I would advocate a rather stern warning addressed to Erik9. Let Erik9 seek consensus before implementing his proposed changes like everyone else. --dab (𒁳) 17:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_canvassing prohibits canvassing intended to influence the outcome of content disputes through the non-neutral selection of editors to whom notices are delivered or non-neutral wording, even when the canvassed editors welcome the notices and enjoy the opportunity to participate in the content dispute:
- Campaigning
- Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of an individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.
- Votestacking
- Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.
- It does appear that User:The Ogre selectively canvassed perceived sympathetic editors with regard to the image dispute at White people, despite User:dab's rather original concept that it would only be the recipients of canvassing that should complain - which would be perverse if the canvassing was accurately targeted; who would complain of being alerted to a position they are sympathetic too, and why would they be aware only certain viewpoint editors were being contacted? However I don't think this is a matter for admins to resolve, since the underlying dispute (of whether and of what images of "White people" should be included in the article) is not one that sysops are remitted to resolve. The issue needs to be placed before a wider readership, likely in the form of a RfC. I will note The Ogre regarding the need to gather the views of a wider range of opinion in future actions, but I don't think any greater admin action is required.
- ps. I took the opportunity to further format this page. I trust this is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Topic ban someone because another person put a note on their talk page? Well, that would be one way to silence a group of people an editor doesn't like I guess. But we aren't going to do it. Thanks though for drawing my attention to this -- ok, I've just looked at the history, and it looks as though Erik9 is disputing an old consensus not to have pictures and is in a minority. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. While discursive commentary regarding the matter at Talk:White_people#images is welcome, to merely claim that the issue was decided in a contrary manner years ago is unhelpful. Erik9 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- there is nothing to be said against bona fide "disputing" an old consensus, which would contribute towards a wikilike process of the iterative emergence of a new compromise consensus (aka WP:BRD). This is in contrast to stubborn revert-warring combined with the attempt to fish for attention on ANI. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- No doubt you believe that consensus still favors The Ogre - that's why he invited you to the party [9]. Erik9 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- From my review of the matter the old consensus arose from some dodgy attempts to impose a "Aryan" viewpoint of what being White people entailed - and was properly resolved by having no images. Hopefully that viewpoint has been deprecated and a new consensus could be requested over some more carefully chosen representatives. In that the Bold and Reverted parts of WP:BRD have been exercised, perhaps some thought should be given to the Discuss side. Personally, I think an article that relates specifically to a subject based around visual appearance should require some images to illustrate it - but it needs to be a decision that results from discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- "dodgy attempts to impose a "Aryan" viewpoint of what being White people entailed"? Something, perhaps, similar to [10], with further discussion at Talk:White_people#Washed-out_photograph.2C_Werner_Heisenburg? It's unfortunate that none of these "concerned editors", even one who claimed in this very discussion that "the article is on my watchlist anyway", could be bothered to do anything about it when it happened... Erik9 (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- From my review of the matter the old consensus arose from some dodgy attempts to impose a "Aryan" viewpoint of what being White people entailed - and was properly resolved by having no images. Hopefully that viewpoint has been deprecated and a new consensus could be requested over some more carefully chosen representatives. In that the Bold and Reverted parts of WP:BRD have been exercised, perhaps some thought should be given to the Discuss side. Personally, I think an article that relates specifically to a subject based around visual appearance should require some images to illustrate it - but it needs to be a decision that results from discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- No doubt you believe that consensus still favors The Ogre - that's why he invited you to the party [9]. Erik9 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Topic ban someone because another person put a note on their talk page? Well, that would be one way to silence a group of people an editor doesn't like I guess. But we aren't going to do it. Thanks though for drawing my attention to this -- ok, I've just looked at the history, and it looks as though Erik9 is disputing an old consensus not to have pictures and is in a minority. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on, people! This all looks rather extreme, does it not? Erik9 has tried to change the article in question without discussion or a buil up of a new consensus The previous consensus was reached because editors were unable to come to an agreement on who looked white. And the article was permanentely targeted by racist users who basically wanted a full Nordic/Aryan depiction of Whites. Given the fact that Erik9 acted without discussion I dropped a quick message with a very small number of user I remembered participating in the previous consensus. This was a limited posting, with what I believed (unlike Erik9) was quite a neutral message, to serious and established editors who, having played a part in the consensus reached (and you can not just throw away a consensus because it's old...), have different opinions regarding the issue of pictures and therefore constitute a nonpartisan audience. And I did all of this in a completely open and transparant process! Now, even if after these, some may consider that I engage in canvassing, well... My deepest apologies! But I believe I did not. And I do find Erik9's level of violence quite disturbing. You should try talk to people before hitting them with such swift "disciplinary actions"... The Ogre (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Request
I'd appreciate an admin with some spare time remove rollbacker from my user account. If it's important to the process the rights were granted by User:Juliancolton. Thanks Tiderolls 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Black Kite 22:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
MfD
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Paid editing is a MfD started by a banned user; it may be appropriate for a snow close. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Blacklisted website
http://www.associatedcontent. com/article/407631/interview_singer_quentin_elias_from.html?cat=33
Due to sometype of block, I can't post a link in an article. I am trying to use this article to link it to a reference link in the article for Quentin Elias. For the time being, I have to list the reference from the magazine's print edition info. I can't find another link on the internet with the information found in this link. I had to separate the url, http://www.associatedcontent. com/article/407631/interview_singer_quentin_elias_from.html?cat=33, in order to post it in here. There is a space between "associatedcontent" and ".com". Please note that. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict and I can see the question has been answered, but I spent a while composing so I'm going to reply anyway!) I believe this URL was blacklisted as part of a previous discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard here and the linked "See Also" discussions from that section. The main concerns with the site were that the content is self published, so it cannot be considered reliable for the purposes of referencing and that authors on that site get paid according to the number of pageviews, so spamming links to articles on that site by page owners was a problem. Removal of the site from the blacklist would be unlikely based on what I have read of the discussion unless things have changed greatly within the past year. Camw (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Question re Spanish
Hey, need some help re an SPA situation. I was dealing with it here (see Talk:Infanticide, User talk:Thantalteresco etc), and foolishly tried to do so on es.wiki as well, where pretty much the same stuff has been going on, but my language skills in Spanish are beyond poor (I never actually learned the language so it's a mixture of third-iteration machine translation and paper dictionary!) and I think I have probably screwed up the situation over there as noone can understand me :P If anyone is interested, it shouldn't be hard to find the source of conflict from my contribs there. Note this is not a request for admin intervention specifically, as the matter is on another wiki - anyone who speaks English and Spanish well enough to understand both sides is fine. Cheers Orderinchaos 09:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- You get your message across all right both at the English and the Spanish Wikipedias, and you and Thantalteresco are debating the same issues at both places. This is not a language problem, it's a content issue regarding infanticide practices among Australian aboriginals. Perhaps you should go for mediation? AN/I doesn't seem to be the right place. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
User Space Deletion Needed
Could an admin please see my contributions and look for the note in the summary. They are redirects from a recent name change and I no longer need them. Thank You ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- These were taken care of by Tnxman... In future, feel free to replace page in your userspace with "{{db-user}}" –xenotalk 13:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did use that template, didn't I? (don't feel obligated to reply) ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 14:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
User:2542jack
- 2542jack (talk · contribs)
- 69.124.112.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
On the 1st of June, I came across this group of edits on the article Matt Mulhern (history). Essentially, it looked to me like the user had accidentally blanked the article, was unaware of how to retrieve the content from a previous diff, and so had copy-pasted the rendered content of the page from his web browser into the article, thus losing all of the links, formatting and categories from the article. I restored the previous "good" version of the page, under that assumption, and left the user a welcome note.
I didn't return to the page for a while, but during the interlude, a different user, Boo24yu (talk · contribs), reverted to 2542jack's version, which was subsequently re-reverted by CardinalDan. 2542jack then made a similar edit which was reverted by LedgendGamer.
Another similar edit was made on the 16th of June by an anonymous user, which I undid assuming a simple test edit, not yet having made the link between the user and the IP. The next day, the user 2542jack restored the edit, and sent me a courteous e-mail:
[email text redacted]
Note that due to the time difference, this e-mail was sent three minutes after the edit to the article.
Having read this e-mail, I reviewed and reverted 2542jack's edit, keeping one addition which had been made in that edit (although it was difficult to tell, as the diffs were smokescreened by the odd copy-paste editing method) and added a few links and tags. I left a message on 2542jack's talk page, explaining concerns about WP:OWN and the way that his editing MO stripped all of the formatting from the page.
The version of the page as edited by 2542jack was then restored by the same anon. I undid the edit, adding a couple of reasons into the edit summary.
Unsurprisingly, the edit was restored by the IP two days later. It was accompanied by the following e-mail:
[email text redacted]
This time, I reviewed the edit further, and copied the plaintext of the original and the weirdly edited versions of the page into a text editor to review the differences. The only real content additions were the addition of the website link, which I removed per WP:EL#EL5, and the mention of Mulhern's appearance on Fringe which I added back into the reverted version of the page. Apart from that, I cleaned up the mention of Mulhern's novel, as it was still written as before the book's release. I explained my edit here, and issued a cease-and-desist per the attitude shown in both e-mails.
And it must follow, as the night the day, 2542jack has re-reverted to the same version as before. I have a feeling that it's time to place this in the hands of the cabal, but I didn't feel that it was a simple enough case for AIV. Hope I haven't rambled on too much... haz (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- He asked you not to edit the article because it was about him and he preferred to have the biography as he saw fit? Sounds like owning to me, and I don't think he understands the disclamer below: If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I redacted his emails. Please don't post emails without their author's permission as they are copyright violations, also see Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence. I reverted his edits to the page and will protect the article if he continues reverting. I also left him a message and pointed him to OTRS if there are factual errors he's concerned with. I can't really work out what he's objecting to but it's probably best just wait and see what happens now. Cheers, Sarah 15:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure thing; was looking for a policy on the reproduction of Special:EmailUser correspondence, but couldn't find it, so thanks for the link. I wouldn't have posted them up, but for the fact that their content, in conjunction with the reversions, was the main reason I levied the level-4-esque warning. haz (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement
This is a call for more administrators and editors to help out at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. We have recently created templates that format requests into a more manageable format. We need the following types of help:
- Administrators to keep threads on topic by discouraging tangential discussions or outright disruption on the board.
- Experienced, uninvolved editors, whether administrators or not, to review evidence and provide opinions.
- Administrators to close discussions.
Greater participation at this board would be a big help. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
How do we transwiki from Wikibooks?
I'm not sure how to do this GFDL-compliant (since we don't have Special:Import enabled), but a VFD discussion on Wikibooks (b:WB:VFD#Politics_of_Merrimack) has consensus for transferring what content there is to w:New Hampshire state elections, 2004 or similar articles. I'm just not sure what to do about the contribution history... anyone have experience with this? --SB_Johnny | talk 15:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please see [13] Triplestop (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well there are a bunch of ways to comply with GFDL. You can list the 5 largest contributors to the deleted article in an edit summary to the imported article, you can copy the history of the deleted article to the talk page of the imported article, you can copy the list of contributors to the new article and then revert the edit. Most of the time we don't care since in general Wikipedia does a poor job of following the GFDL and very few edits end up being GFDL-significant in the long run. MBisanz talk 15:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Deletion Needed
I archived a talk page, into a few pages, then I realized I can fit the same info into less pages. Could an admin please delete...
Thank You! ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 16:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done. In the future, please simply tag the pages with the appropriate Speedy deletion template. --auburnpilot talk 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick template help needed
I need an admin with template experience to modify Template:Harvard citation no brackets, as it is protected and I don't know how to write template code. From the discussions I've had on the talk page, found here, it seems to be a quick fix. I believe the change needed is also explained by another editor there. Thanks ahead of time! Wizard191 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Granting "Abuse Filter Editor" to non-administrators
This is to advise that Cobi has recently been given the "Abuse Filter Editor" userright [14] after a brief discussion at at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#Abuse Filter editors group membership request.
I support Cobi having the userright, but it has set a precedent. It's probably a good idea to discuss (at the above-noted link) what procedures should be followed when determining whether to grant a user the AFE flag. –xenotalk 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Here's an awesome idea: why not make it a part of the Rollbacker title? —harej (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It is probably harder to give non-admins the Abuse Filter right than it seems. The warning templates used by the filter (MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning and friends) cannot be edited by non-admins, so that prevents them not only editing abuse filter warning messages, but from adding warning messages to new filters (unless, of course, they get an admin to do it for them). It simply doesn't make logical sense. The abuse filter (not right now, but possibly in the future) can block or degroup editors. We obviously can't have non-admins creating filters that block editors, can we? And think about it, if we dumb-down the non-admin version of the user right, what's the point of even requesting it in the first place? As much as I want the abuse filter right myself, as do many other non-admins, it just doesn't seem like the abuse filter was designed to work with us. In my own opinion, it seems like a better idea to request adminship than request a user right that doesn't let you use the filter to its full potential. Heck, I'd support a user that ran for adminship simply because they wanted to edit the abuse filter, provided that they were trustworthy nonetheless. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent point. Maybe just giving admins the right and getting rid of the actual abuse filter editor right altogether would make more sense? Then admins couldn't give the non-admins the ability, which really isn't a good idea since it can block people and degroup editors. There should probably be a community process for this... aka, WP:RFA. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are several admins I not would trust with the abusefilter right (not because they're bad admins just because they lack the technical knowledge to use and write filters safely). I think it would be much better to keep the rights separate (maybe even have the right assigned by a 'crat) --Chris 10:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, it is possible to add 'editinterface' to the Abuse Filter Editors group. Ruslik_Zero 05:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather see Chris' and Drilnoth's suggestions combined, i.e. creating a community process that decides it with crats given the flag out, something like WP:RFBA. But it would also need a change to the AF itself so that admins without the flag can view private filters but not edit them. For example, I gave myself the flag, not to edit the filter but to understand those filters that are private but deal with certain kinds of vandalism. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This was moved from the accurate The Moon is Blue to the incorrect The Moon Is Blue. Could someone please move it back to the title without the capitalized is? Thank you for your assistance. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
New user group – 'Autoreviewer'
After a discussion at the village pump, the developers have added a new usergroup to enwiki, 'autoreviewer'. For more information, please see that discussion and Wikipedia:Autoreviewer. NW (Talk) 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't bother to check whether the account is retired or no longer actively editing. It's obviously a race to get as many user rights log actions as quickly as possible. So, GO GO GO. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it's been implemented in order to keep up with new pages patrol. Especially at the back end to make it easier to keep up with blatant copyvios and gross BLP violations before they drop off the new pages list after a month and go into the general pool of articles. In other words, this user group helps us prevent another Siegenthaler incident. If you'd like to help the very small group that patrols the back end of new pages we could really use more hands. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 17:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec, re to MZM) Indeed. The very first name I clicked on at random at Special:ListUsers/autoreviewer turns out not to have edited for four months. Naturally, Wikipedia's current most notorious recent bulk copyright violator (again, without a single mainspace edit for over a month) is also there. Does anyone check these things? – iridescent 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like perhaps one of the admins who's assigning it isn't screening adequately. Admins can also toggle it off, so suggest reversing the action and communicating with the individual who granted it. DurovaCharge! 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I personally granted it to about a dozen users I knew to be active and whose edits I've been patrolling in the last week or so. I notice several other admins granting based on the Whitelist, which while comprhensive, isn't current. As long as we go through from time to time and prune it for inactive accounts, I'm not motivated to go undo 100+ userrights grants. MBisanz talk 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- At the current moment, everyone on User:JVbot/patrol_whitelist#No_restrictions is going to be added. This represents no change from the current situation; it is merely the beginning of a move-over from a userspace list to Mediawiki code. I imagine the initial move over to being done without several checking for convenience sake only. NW (Talk) 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. As I see it, most additions of the flag are preliminary at this point, until we develop a better system. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Seems pointless to add them to inactive users. –xenotalk 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like a good time to review the list. Instead of automatically adding the people, could a review done. It would save work in the long run, maybe. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Since the whitelist contains blocked users, including indefblocked socks, it will have to be reviewed sooner or later, and now is better time. The confusion with the WP:FLP/PR review rights is also ... confusing and will complicate discussions for the implementation. Not giving the rights to inactive users would ease the management of this user right. I removed some. Cenarium (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I've been screening the list for the past couple hours, and only granting the right to active users. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more than happy to go through the lists tonight and make sure the rights log is current, but the last time I did that, people yelled at me, so I want to make sure no one is objecting to it for this userright. MBisanz talk 18:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- No objections here. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- No objections here either. Now is certainly the best time to do this. ~ mazca talk 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Since the whitelist contains blocked users, including indefblocked socks, it will have to be reviewed sooner or later, and now is better time. The confusion with the WP:FLP/PR review rights is also ... confusing and will complicate discussions for the implementation. Not giving the rights to inactive users would ease the management of this user right. I removed some. Cenarium (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like perhaps one of the admins who's assigning it isn't screening adequately. Admins can also toggle it off, so suggest reversing the action and communicating with the individual who granted it. DurovaCharge! 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Er, what rights does this new group grant that are different from vanilla Admin rights? -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I did usernames from A through N, I'll try to do O-Z tomorrow. MBisanz talk 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Forged sig
Not sure where to inquire on this, but a talk page signature was forged in this edit by User:162.83.176.209 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who created the signed edit in this edit. I've annotated it.LeadSongDog come howl 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Warned/notified user. Malinaccier (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring at British Isles
- British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Protection log
I've had enough of the edit warring (over the most trivial matters) that's been going on at this article. The root cause, needless to say, is mutual British/Irish antagonism. I have posted a notice to the effect that any editor who reverts a revert (violating WP:BRD/WP:1RR) will be blocked.
Posting here for review and any constructive suggestions. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely agree with your suggested restriction - there's been some utterly ridiculous edit warring over pointless details. People need to be encouraged to discuss more and revert less here. ~ mazca talk 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- The only problem with the ruling is that it allows one side or another to revert valid edits without a means of comeback. Revert restrictions, blocks, protections etc have all been tried on that article to no avail. It is protected more times than not. I honestly think this is one of those articles that needs to be permanently protected to admins only, and changes discussed and agreed upon on the talk page. Otherwise the page will just be an eternal warzone with editors making claims despite references and evidence to the contrary. Too many hot heads for the articles good. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Dellwood Country Club
I think a admin needs to take a look at Dellwood Country Club. It appears that has been deleted four time times only to be recreated, twice as Dellwood country club. It does not appear that the creator is interested in establishing notability or referencing the article. I believe the article still falls under A7 of WP:CSD as it is written now. Click23 (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- My feeling is that it has a slight claim of importance (not notability) in that it was designed by a notable golf course architect, which is enough to avoid a speedy deletion. I would recommend bringing it to AfD to get a clear-cut decision. TNXMan 19:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Special:Nuke
Hey everyone, this is just a note informing everyone that after talking with Dev Rob H, Special:Nuke and mw:Extension:Nuke are now operational on the English Wikipedia. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sexy. –xenotalk 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- This should be used with care. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wonderful. Thanks Dev Rob H! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- You mean I shouldn't type "Dr. Blofield" into the field and then then try and nuke hundreds of thousands of articles? =) –xenotalk 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, two new additions in one day! Thanks for all the hard work, devs. Nuke 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Quick, someone go rouge and nuke Nuke. DurovaCharge! 19:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Doing... –Juliancolton | Talk 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm far too wary to try it myself, so I'll ask: what is Special:Nuke for? Is it a special-page version of the delete button? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Doing... –Juliancolton | Talk 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Quick, someone go rouge and nuke Nuke. DurovaCharge! 19:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, two new additions in one day! Thanks for all the hard work, devs. Nuke 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any documentation available other than mw:Extension:Nuke? That page is good for the technical side of things but it doesn't give the practical side. It claims to "mass delete pages recently added by a user or IP address" but doesn't say what recent means. Within the last few hours? Day? Week? --auburnpilot talk 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- If I'm reading the code correctly, it is every page the person created and every image they uploaded for the last month. Dragons flight (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
What use does this have here? Couldn't a malicious admin easily destroy the server by mass deleting many pages with many revisions quickly? Triplestop (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, because it only gives you a list of pages created recently by a user or IP, so they are unlikely to have many revisions. Even so, given that a malicious admin could do quite a lot of worse things if they were so minded, the point is effectively moot. Black Kite 23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I get nervous just looking at that page! I think I'll stick to the old-fashioned speedy deletion process. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Request for permission to create article
I'd like to create a little article on the Everett Clinic in Washington and I don't seem to be able to figure out how. I have managed to write it on my own page but I don't know how to link it to the entries for Everett, WA and healthcare in Everett. I would really appreciate some help on this. So far the article is posted on anacalugar's page but I'd like to make it it's own entity that pops up when you search for Everett or Everett Clinic. Thanks! -anacalugar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacalugar (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Put it here: Everett Clinic. But be forewarned that it may be nominated for deletion. Kingturtle (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't move it yet -- as it stands it will almost certainly be speedily deleted. Even if it survives that, it needs some reliable sources to support notability to avoid an Afd. It's also rather spammy. – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
After recent installation of Twinkle, I see next to all edits in the history have a tab now that says [rollback] and [rollback (Vandal)]. Does this mean I have rollback privileges or do I still need to apply for it before using? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, this doesn't mean you have the rollback userright. However, once you've proven that you can revert vandalism responsibly with Twinkle, you may successfully request the userright here. Hope that helps. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- May I just add, you might find this link helpful. While the official MediaWiki feature known as "rollback" and the Twinkle version of rollback may appear very similar, they are in fact different. The MediaWiki version is significantly faster, but obviously requires an admin to approve you for access of the right. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that there is nothing to be gained by asking an admin to approve you for rollback if you're using Twinkle; it's far superior. Added to which administrators have an unhealthy tendency to punish by removing, or threatening to remove, your rollback rights for any minor infraction in your use of the tool. All in all just not worth it. In fact I gave it up, as I found that I never used rollback in preference to Twinkle anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I debated rolling back that edit, just to see the ensuing melee. Tan | 39 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Aside from its historical importance, rollback actually matters little now. It's original intent to rollback vandalism without additional server load is relatively insignificant with the growth of the Foundation's server capacity. Just sayin'. Keegan (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I find that I hardly ever use rollback "in the browser". I prefer to use popups or twinkle. However, it's required to use Huggle so I'll keep it for now. Popups rollback has one major advantage over native rollback. It allows you to quickly choose the revision you want to revert to. Very useful if a page has been vandalized multiple editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Repeated removal of info by an editor who has nommed the page for deletion
Do we have a policy against the repeated removal of information from an article by an editor who has also nominated that article for deletion? (See Talk:Armenia–Spain relations). The editor argues (erroneously in my opinion) that a reference to the fact and a map indicating that both countries were once part of the Umayyad Caliphate are irrelevant to the relations between those countries. He just removed the info for a third time. He also nominated the article for deletion on June 18. It seems like it would be a conflict of interest for the nominator to interfere in the improvement of the page that he wants to erase.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- See my responses here and here. Yilloslime TC 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I assume on good faith that the editor is not secretly trying to destroy the article, yet such removals for me do raise problem, particularly with regard to the possible short time the article may be around to work on (due to the efforts of the same editor). Yilloslime has expressed the opinion that he doesn't think anything about the article should be kept, so for him to chip away at the article arguing he is "improving" it, also seems a little disingenuous.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have often tried improve articles that are at AfD. Sometimes, as is the case here, these improvement come in the form deleting superfluous material, but in other cases I have added relevant material. Here's an example of a time I added content to an article, even whilst voting delete it's AFD. And there also examples where I voted keep while improving an article. So it goes both ways. Yilloslime TC 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- There exists no rule against editing an article even in the midst of a deletion discussion. In cases where there is some attempt at sabotaging the article with regards to the debate, that can be dealt with as it happens, but otherwise editorial actions on an article may continue. Shereth 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Does this constitute a legal threat? - user possibly active again
I removed the following that was just added to the archive on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive546#Does this constitute a legal threat?:
- Since this issue was looked into, an admin changed the GoDaddy page and this user has since gone back and added his content back in. The user has also added a section mentioning Dotster on the "terrorist" page.--Dotsterrep (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This may need attention. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've indef blocked the account; a look through the contribs shows that slamming this company was the editor's raison d'être. Did not respond to the previous ANI thread and resumed the same pattern of behaviour. Clearly not positively contributing. – Toon 01:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
RfC 3rd party Admin Request
Due to the highly political nature of the RfC at Talk:Golan_Heights#RfC:_Terminology_in_regards_to_the_Golan_Heights, I would appreciate a neutral, 3rd party administrator to close the discussion. I opened the RfC on June 16th, and feel that it has been throughly discussed, however in the interest of neutrality and fairness to all, I would like to request an Admin who is not associated with the discussion to take the closing action. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikihounding
User:Rterrace who is the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation, has singled out my prod tags for a mass deprodding. He gave no explanation for the deprodding, as is required by policy. I ask that these prod tags be reinstated, as they are not deprodded in good faith. Abductive (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- For a little more context, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like obvious sock puppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz. To stop the abuse we need a checkuser to verify that these are socks, to find any additional sleeper accounts, and to block all the underlying IPs for a while. A thorough job is needed. Blocking a few known accounts would just turn into a game of whack-a-mole. Hopefully a checkuser will notice this comment and act swiftly to prevent further wikistalking. Jehochman Talk 05:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Response by Rterrace. *Abductive is a disruptive SPA serial prodder who made his first edit (an AfD nomination), only a month ago. Since then his only edits have been to randomly prod over 130 articles, and to nominate another 50 articles for AfD. He fails to make any attempt to verify or improve an article before adding the “prod” tag. Abductive claims to be an established user who continually changes his account names, but he has refused to disclose who his many different ID's were or are. I am not the only user who has deprodded his deletion nominations. More than 40 different editors have been forced to contest Abductive’ prods. Infact, every single one of his 150+ prods have been contested. The following established editors have all been forced to remove Abductive’s prods on multiple occasions.
- User:Colonel Warden
- User:DGG
- User:Kyle1278
- [User:117Avenue]]
- User:ThaddeusB
In summary, it is true that I have contested several of Abductive’s prods. It is my right to contest a prod, and I have not done so in bad faith. I have contested several of his prods because Abductive apparently randomly selects articles to prod. In his haste to prod articles, Abductive does not follow WP:BEFORE. These articles that I have deprodded can all be improved, and need not be deleted. Policy on this topic is clear (see WP:CONTESTED), a prod tag should not be restored, “even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith”. If Abductive still believes that the articles needs to be deleted, then he should list them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Rterrace (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we want change?
I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Admin abuse by User:J_Milburn
Please see this diff
It is part of a discussion on my talk page.
"if you can't use non-free content fairly, please stay off Wikipedia."
I thought admins weren't allowed to tell registered users in good standing to stay off Wikipedia. In fact, I thought that was exceedingly frowned upon, and considered an abuse of admin power when used as part of a content dispute. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well being that there is no actual tool abuse here, maybe you should place this at Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts? – (iMatthew • talk) at 11:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I thought registered users in good standing weren't allowed to abuse non-free content. In fact, I thought that was exceedingly frowned upon. Seriously, will you stop playing the victim? I hate to say it, but you really need to stop resorting to accusations of personal attacks. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)