→Abolishing AN/I: +reply |
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
Ohhh! Fortunately it is English Wikipedia, not the French; we are addressing an answer to what is evoked above in the english Wikipedia, not in the French (were we are, systematically blocked !) we do not have any problem [[User:Duvvuri.Kapur1|Duvvuri.Kapur1]] ([[User talk:Duvvuri.Kapur1|talk]]) 04:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC) |
Ohhh! Fortunately it is English Wikipedia, not the French; we are addressing an answer to what is evoked above in the english Wikipedia, not in the French (were we are, systematically blocked !) we do not have any problem [[User:Duvvuri.Kapur1|Duvvuri.Kapur1]] ([[User talk:Duvvuri.Kapur1|talk]]) 04:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
===Indef block=== |
|||
I've had enough of this sock show. I know Boubaker used to sock previously, it was clear "Luoguozhang" was a sock from the start, but we've all sort of tolerated him. But "Duvvuri.Kapur1" is quite obviously yet another, as quack as quack can be. I've indef'ed the whole lot of them, and propose to treat him/them as indef community banned from now on. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Lyrics == |
== Lyrics == |
Revision as of 22:43, 8 February 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
|
Edit/move war over Wikipedia:Editing policy
A handful of users are edit/move warring over Wikipedia:Editing policy to "demote" it to a guideline on the strength of a limited-participation discussion (with no clear sign of consensus). Please comment on the situation at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. It's my feeling that move protection would also be warranted until such time as a consensus is formed for the change -- though not edit protection: changes to the text are being negotiated.--Father Goose (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- In hopes that calmer heads prevail, I say we hold off on protection; we can always block the users who chose to be disruptive. Also, I have warned User:Father Goose. Tiptoety talk 07:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, good heavens. While I am one of five users who has been involved in this pagemove dispute (two on one side, three on the other, so far), do you understand why I have brought it to your attention?
- I came here for help in trying to get the situation resolved through discussion instead of getting snared in a multi-party edit war. I do not wish to be a participant in an edit war; it's clear at this point that the issue is far from having consensus and needs further discussion, and I wish to compel the parties who are trying to force the issue through warring to come to the table instead.
- So, given that, can I ask for anyone's help in resolving the dispute?--Father Goose (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm very concnerned by this approach on the part of Tiptoety: Two revert with full edits sumaries asking for discussion before coming to ANI is not edit warring. Anyway, I've placed a general warning on the talk page, and will watch developments. - brenneman 13:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, okay. Maybe I made a mistake here, and explaining myself will most likely not change anyone's mind but I will do so anyways.
- My attention to this issue was not brought upon by this AN thread, matter of fact at the time I had Father Goose's contribs open and was deciding what to do. He had not yet started a AN thread, and so far was the only one to make two page moves. To me pagemove warring is the most disruptive form of edit warring (which mind you, does not have to violate 3RR to constitute edit warring). Anyways, had it been me, I would have came directly here or took a step in dispute resolution after my first page move had been reverted instead of reverting. Because he was already on his second revert I thought it best to issue him a warning, in hopes that he would stop and no administrative action (blocks, page protection) would need to be taken. My ultimate goal was to stop the edit war from continuing, not blocking someone. Sorry if I cam across harsh, Tiptoety talk 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that pagemove warring is the most disruptive form of edit warring, which is why I raised the issue here. I chose to revert the pagemove (a second time) before raising the issue here because those who were not joining the discussion would have no motivation to join it if the page were protected on their preferred version. (Page protection is extremely gameable in this respect.) Should a consensus actually emerge for the "demotion" and the pagemove, I would accept it even if I disagreed with it.
- I think this case illustrates the wisdom of don't template the regulars. If you questioned my judgment in the matter, you should have contacted me on my talk page (or at WT:Editing policy) to communicate your concerns and to better ascertain my motives. Just chucking a warning (a threat, really) at me would have inflamed the situation even if my motives had not been honorable.
- Nonetheless, I take your comments above as an apology, and I appreciate it. I hope you can take to heart my advice about communicating; templating and other snap judgments tend to hinder dispute resolution, which I assume is the opposite of your intention.--Father Goose (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tiptoety did it to me, too. Someone reported me on WP:AN3. Admin William M. Connolley – not known for being a softie – closed it as "no vio. obviously, there are only three reverts". Tiptoety overrode this and issued a block threat against me. When I objected on his Talk page, he dismissed my objection, with a snide "nice try" in the edit summary. Like blocks, block threats can have a chilling effect on editors, and should be used with caution and judgment, not by application of WP:IAR.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you referring to User_talk:Goodmorningworld/Archive_1#Bethmanns_and_Rothschilds from November 2008? From what I can tell, WMC said there was no 3RR and Tiptoety warned you for edit warring. Those are two different things, so I'm not certain he overrode anything here. Maybe WMC or Tiptoety could clarify. MBisanz talk 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I remember that vaguely. If I recall, WMC declined as no vio simply because three reverts were not made withing 24 hours. Either way, the edits were counterproductive and constituted a waring (not a threat). Anyways, no administrative action was taken, and the warning issued was done so with the utmost care and respect. WP:AGF :-) Tiptoety talk 17:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- So one admin declined to block and another admin decided to issue a warning. It seems to me that there's no conflict between those two decisions. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tiptoety, as far as I'm concerned you've forfeited your right to AGF, due to your extremely arrogant and callous attitude. And don't tell me how to read the English language. A threat ("will be blocked if they continue") is a threat is a threat. "Utmost care and respect?" LOL.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I remember that vaguely. If I recall, WMC declined as no vio simply because three reverts were not made withing 24 hours. Either way, the edits were counterproductive and constituted a waring (not a threat). Anyways, no administrative action was taken, and the warning issued was done so with the utmost care and respect. WP:AGF :-) Tiptoety talk 17:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you referring to User_talk:Goodmorningworld/Archive_1#Bethmanns_and_Rothschilds from November 2008? From what I can tell, WMC said there was no 3RR and Tiptoety warned you for edit warring. Those are two different things, so I'm not certain he overrode anything here. Maybe WMC or Tiptoety could clarify. MBisanz talk 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
←Concerning the source of the dispute: please visit WT:Editing policy. For about half a year, I've been hearing this complaint of "not enough editors, not enough notice" in policy discussions, a lot. It's just more difficult to attract editors to policy discussions than it used to be, for whatever reason. (I suspect people are more interested in content issues than policy issues these days, which is good.) If we're not paying as much attention to these pages, that's all the more reason to either fix or demote them; policy is policy, and shouldn't be allowed to get out of sync with other policy pages or with community expectations. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,
The above-captioned article was created and, most importantly, deleted on a number of wikis (including this one) some time last year. It has been the subject of massive sockpuppetry and spamming on various wikis, particularly on :fr (see Wikipédia:Vandalisme_de_longue_durée/Mmbmmmbm and our own AN for a detailed list and background story in French).
The article has been re-created by Luoguozhang, who pretended to be editing from China. Well, not really.
This person uses the presence of the article on :en to pressure other wikis to restore their own version of the article. I'm not too familiar with your local practices, but do we have to restart an AfD request, or can you just wipe and protect the page?
Thx & Regards, Popo le Chien throw a bone 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm on the edge of speedying it as recreation of deleted material. Anyone disagrees? -- lucasbfr talk 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are other editors involved in the article. I don't want to prolong this if it is a blatant recreation, but I feel that some input should be requested on the subject from those who understand it. LeaveSleaves 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) I disagree. The current version at least has references (though I haven't checked them yet; I merely note that they exist) and it isn't the crawling horror that the original misformatted article was, so it does address concerns from the original AfD. I'd send it to AfD again, with a mention of the questionable notability and history of problems. Unless there's evidence this term is widely used, it will likely get deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Like Popo, I am an admin on :fr and was a protagonist of previous deletions and struggles against an obsessive and disruptive editor. Nonetheless, I have noticed that this last recreation was discussed on this wiki's Mathematics Project, with some participants supporting the existence of the article. Hence, it seems obviously outside speedy deletion scope, as sad as it may be for any person who has previous experience of its main author. French Tourist (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics pointing to this discussion. As French Tourist notes, this is not speediable, and I'm not convinced it would even be deleted in a full AfD. Some attention to the sockpuppetry seems warranted but other than that I don't see that there's any particular administrative action to be taken at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. The article is indeed a bit better than the stub it used to be, despite being referenced too. Not a mathematic expert myself, it would be interesting to see whether the problems raised in the first AfD are now moot. (At least there's no hint Scolas is around this time). I'd say WP:AFD it, then, Popo. -- lucasbfr talk 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a French contributor, and as I took part of the several deletion procedures on wp:fr, I can ensure that these polynomials are strickly unknown... There is no serious references, the displayed publications have not been made in recognized proceedings... Moreover, the pseudo of the author of the current article has appeared on wp:fr, asking for restauration ... And check users show that these contributions come from Tunisia... far from China as claimed... Ico83
- Just to confirm that indeed, there was discussion about whether or not to allow recreation at the WikiProject back in autumn. I was the admin who did the latest AfD closure ("delete with strong prejudice against recreation"), and I would have felt comfortable speedying it again, but people at the WikiProject seemed to think it might be worth giving it a chance once more. We were aware at the time that the alleged Chinese newbie contributor was another sock, but there didn't seem to be a formal ban in force against him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- The first incarnation was deleted basically because there wasn't enough there to be worth an article; the second was deleted for lack of scholarly references; the third HAS the references, so it's not a recreation. That's considered OK: It's not a recreation of deleted material if the reasons for deletion do not apply to the new article because of differences between it and the old one. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just want to point out that "Boubaker polynomial" now has several hits on Google scholar, which appear to be articles in serious physics journals. This seems to represent a major change in notability since the original deletion discussion. Jim (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I found this intersting paper in a Russian journal " Differential Equations and Control Processes " with authors from several Nationalities (China, Nigeria, Usa ...) about Boubaker Polynomials : possibility of downloading at :http://www.neva.ru/journal/j/EN/numbers/2009.1/issue.html Probably the nationality of the of the polynomials first extablisher was not welcomed in th French WP (In Africa many countries were French colonies until 1960). But as a scientific item, ther is no extra problem. Perhaps the question: why these polynomials were rejected in the French WP regardless WP rules can now have any answer ? Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just want to point out that "Boubaker polynomial" now has several hits on Google scholar, which appear to be articles in serious physics journals. This seems to represent a major change in notability since the original deletion discussion. Jim (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- The first incarnation was deleted basically because there wasn't enough there to be worth an article; the second was deleted for lack of scholarly references; the third HAS the references, so it's not a recreation. That's considered OK: It's not a recreation of deleted material if the reasons for deletion do not apply to the new article because of differences between it and the old one. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It was rejected here because (a) it's a trivial modification of an already-existing article, and (b) there was no credible source that the name is actually used in the field. Problem (b) seems to have been resolved, but we still have problem (a). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
We must update our information about Boubaker Polynomials
The rules of WP are clear ( EXTRACTED from WP Standards):
1. Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?
2. Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ?
3. Are they cited in in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)?
4. Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?
The polynomials were rejected in the French WP DESPITE FULFILLING ALL THE 4 rules ???? This is the Nonsense, One must not be very wise to understand the reasons ( when one just see the actual discussion in WP Fr about these polynomials http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bulletin_des_administrateurs/2009/Semaine_6#Polyn.C3.B4mes_de_Boubaker
Some translations:
On ne peut rien faire pour le virer ? Ico Bla = How to do to cick these polynomials away from En WP ??? C'est dingue qu'ils aient gardé ça sur wp:en, Quand on voit le contenu, la notoriété infinitésimale de ces polynomes ..., je ne vois pas comment ils ont pu laisser ça = It is Foolish, how did they (En. WP) allow these miserably notable polynomilas ??
Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is the English Wikipedia, not the French. If you have a problem there, then you should post to its noticeboard, not this one. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ohhh! Fortunately it is English Wikipedia, not the French; we are addressing an answer to what is evoked above in the english Wikipedia, not in the French (were we are, systematically blocked !) we do not have any problem Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Indef block
I've had enough of this sock show. I know Boubaker used to sock previously, it was clear "Luoguozhang" was a sock from the start, but we've all sort of tolerated him. But "Duvvuri.Kapur1" is quite obviously yet another, as quack as quack can be. I've indef'ed the whole lot of them, and propose to treat him/them as indef community banned from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Lyrics
Background reading: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs
After a long discussion last year into the appropriateness of fight songs, there was a consensus (not that one was needed) that lyrics should be removed from articles about fight songs, and that many such articles should be merged and/or redirected into the article about the sports team or the school. After User:NJGW and I tried to apply that consensus (see some of my contribs) a vast array of other editors have come back and restored the lyrics (which in many cases are copyvios) and/or unredirected articles which contained very little text and whose subjects were already discussed elsewhere.
Since there's already a consensus on this, I'd rather not reopen a centralized discussion or try to create a notability guideline for such a small category of articles, but I am at a loss as to how to continue. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- The consensus in the link you provided was to remove the lyrics from and to merge/redirect non-notable articles about college fight songs. Standard notablility guidelines apply, as do standard consensus-seeking procedures. The issue I had was that dozens of such articles were merged/redirected with no discussion or consideration of each article's notablity. Some of them should be merged, some should not. There's no reason to rush through and get rid of all of them without going through the usual procedures: tag, discuss, arrive at consensus.
- Also, a vital part of the "merge" process is to add the info from the removed article to the parent article. NJGW only deleted/redirected, so that the removed info disappeared from wikipedia. Zeng8r (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please be aware that NJGW has not deleted any articles. He just redirected them; others may have unredirected, but that's part of WP:BRD. As you say, there was no blanket consensus that fight songs should not have their own articles.
- "Consensus-seeking procedures" don't seem to apply to removing lyrics, though. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with the wording and conclusion of the "consensus" obtained on the lyrics. I also disagree on the interpretation seemingly applied by WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:LYRICS which does not forbid the use of full public domain lyrics as long as it is not the sole component of an article (to avoid it becoming a "primary source" as stated in WP:Lyrics). It also contradicts an established consensus on lyric inclusion (see below). However, concluding the general discussion with such narrow interpretation of both that discussion (where 5 out of 12 editors, not including myself, stated that lyrics were justified in some conditions) and the no lyrics policy is unfortunate because article quality suffers in several cases. For example, in the article Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, which has passed WP:GA with the lyrics included, the lyrics are wikilinked to provide additional information to their meaning and are essential for the subsequent discussion of the alternative lyrics and the historic development of the song. These sections become meaningless in this article without inclusion of the lyrics and, in my opinion, their inclusion does not violate a wikipedia policy in word nor spirt (see WP:LYRICS). Therefore, I see this as "consensus" decision as an unfortunate example of unnecessary rule creep. The purpose of wikipedia policy to not write articles solely consisting of lyrics is to avoid creating a primary source and prevent copyright violations. This is obviously not a problem with articles such as Rambling Wreck, Give My Regards to Davy, War Eagle, and others and the "consensus" policy trying to be enforced is unnecessarily and unfortunately hurting article quality in a well established category of articles.
- The issue of public domain lyrics is also spoken to by the Song Wikiproject according to Wikipedia:SONG#LYRICS which very clearly does not prohibit the inclusion of full public domain lyrics in articles. This speaks to lyrics in hundreds of well established articles and categories such as The Star-Spangled Banner, Amhrán na bhFiann, God Save the Queen, America the Beautiful, O Holy Night, Deck the Halls, 99 Bottles of Beer, My Old Kentucky Home, Rock-a-bye Baby, Hush, Little Baby, Three Blind Mice, etc., etc. in well established categories as Category:Christian hymns, Category:National anthems, Category: American folk songs, Category:Nursery rhymes, etc., etc. This includes Featured Articles such as Old Dan Tucker and Dixie. A blanket ban on lyrics regardless of context, such as was the conclusion that was reached in the discussion for fight songs, seems to be treading close to violating WP:CON: " 'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". The "consensus" on the fight song lyrics reached by the limited number of editors (7) contradicts established lyric inclusion "consensus" (as well as FA reviewed articles) and therefore appears to be faulty and should at least be reexamined per WP:CCC (with better promotion of the discussion than had previously occurred to editors with interest in song related articles). I also believe any discussion on lyric inclusion should take place at the level of the Song Wikiproject as opposed to the limited subcategorization of fight songs. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with the wording and conclusion of the "consensus" obtained on the lyrics. I also disagree on the interpretation seemingly applied by WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:LYRICS which does not forbid the use of full public domain lyrics as long as it is not the sole component of an article (to avoid it becoming a "primary source" as stated in WP:Lyrics). It also contradicts an established consensus on lyric inclusion (see below). However, concluding the general discussion with such narrow interpretation of both that discussion (where 5 out of 12 editors, not including myself, stated that lyrics were justified in some conditions) and the no lyrics policy is unfortunate because article quality suffers in several cases. For example, in the article Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, which has passed WP:GA with the lyrics included, the lyrics are wikilinked to provide additional information to their meaning and are essential for the subsequent discussion of the alternative lyrics and the historic development of the song. These sections become meaningless in this article without inclusion of the lyrics and, in my opinion, their inclusion does not violate a wikipedia policy in word nor spirt (see WP:LYRICS). Therefore, I see this as "consensus" decision as an unfortunate example of unnecessary rule creep. The purpose of wikipedia policy to not write articles solely consisting of lyrics is to avoid creating a primary source and prevent copyright violations. This is obviously not a problem with articles such as Rambling Wreck, Give My Regards to Davy, War Eagle, and others and the "consensus" policy trying to be enforced is unnecessarily and unfortunately hurting article quality in a well established category of articles.
Deleting and redirecting/merging are pretty much the same thing if no text is actually moved over to the main article. Poof! - it's gone. However, I agree that the cited discussion above is enough justification for removing lyrics without rediscussing it on every individual article, especially since that's general wikipolicy anyway. Zeng8r (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, not the same thing. The content is still in the history of the redirect and can be reviewed and added to the target if anyone cares to do so. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- The casual user/editor has no idea how to do that. All they know is, they search for "Dear Old Nebraska U" (for example) and end up on the main article for the University of Nebraska, which doesn't mention the fight song at all. Zeng8r (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the articles in question should go through AfD with a "Merge and Delete" request unless they meet the criteria for a speedy delete. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mergers should not be taken to AFD. AFD is for when one is requesting that an administrator hit a delete button. The "D" in "AFD" stands for "deletion". Do not nominate articles at AFD if an administrator removing the content and the entire edit history is not what you want. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the articles in question should go through AfD with a "Merge and Delete" request unless they meet the criteria for a speedy delete. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- The casual user/editor has no idea how to do that. All they know is, they search for "Dear Old Nebraska U" (for example) and end up on the main article for the University of Nebraska, which doesn't mention the fight song at all. Zeng8r (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I merged information which was not already at the target. In the cases where there were only a line or two ("X's fight song is Y. It was written by Z") the information was usually already at the target page. For notable fight songs (ie Anchors Away) I only removed the lyrics. Zeng8r has not looked at my edits closely. NJGW (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Anchors Aweigh should not have lyrics removed because, although it is used by the US Naval Academy as a fight song, it is the anthem of the United States Navy and does not necessarily fall under the auspices of the discussion about college fight songs. See WP:SONG#LYRICS.
As a further note, many of these articles would fail wp:NOTE and wp:V, making them AFD candidates (the short ones probably Speedy candidates). In my mind I was saving them from this fate by putting the information in a safe place. NJGW (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is fine to make an AfD (or a speedy for that matter) a merge and delete which would have preserved the information just as efficiently. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Merge and delete is not a viable outcome for GFDL reasons. Merge and redirect, or just delete. If any content is being kept, then the history needs to be kept. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, if something is voted on as a "Merge and Delete", it generally commonly understood to mean that it is just changed to a redirect and the information is moved to the article. (in essence what NJGW was doing, just with a vote) Perhaps I should have just said "Merge", as most AfD voters commonly take "Merge and Delete" to mean just "Merge" unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. (See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for further clarification) You could obviously be more clear in the wording if you wish, but we are talking about the same thing. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is not generally understood in that way at all. The general understanding is the one given to you by J Milburn. If your understanding is what you state, then your underestanding is wrong. Merger and deletion are incompatible. Merger is a form of keep, and can be enacted by any editor, even one without an account, as all editors have the tools to perform an article merger. Deletion is only actionable by people that have access to administrator tools.
The procedures described at Wikipedia:Merge and delete are complex, easy to get wrong, and for truly exceptional cases only. (That page doesn't even describe the requirement of §4(j) of the GFDL for such procedures — an important requirement that is often not met.) The main case in which they were employed, transwikification, stopped needing them years ago, when Special:Import was invented. I've performed these procedures myself, following every part of the GFDL to the furthest extent practicable, and they are not simple. (See some of the transwikification contributions of User:Uncle G's 'bot across several projects.) Anyone reading Wikipedia:Merge and delete would not get them completely right. You would not get them right. Most editors wouldn't. (Many people performing transwikifications the old way didn't, and I had to use the 'bot to fix the results on several occasions.)
For all common purposes, including AFD discussions, merger and deletion are, and should be considered, mutually incompatible. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is not generally understood in that way at all. The general understanding is the one given to you by J Milburn. If your understanding is what you state, then your underestanding is wrong. Merger and deletion are incompatible. Merger is a form of keep, and can be enacted by any editor, even one without an account, as all editors have the tools to perform an article merger. Deletion is only actionable by people that have access to administrator tools.
- Yes, if something is voted on as a "Merge and Delete", it generally commonly understood to mean that it is just changed to a redirect and the information is moved to the article. (in essence what NJGW was doing, just with a vote) Perhaps I should have just said "Merge", as most AfD voters commonly take "Merge and Delete" to mean just "Merge" unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. (See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for further clarification) You could obviously be more clear in the wording if you wish, but we are talking about the same thing. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Merge and delete is not a viable outcome for GFDL reasons. Merge and redirect, or just delete. If any content is being kept, then the history needs to be kept. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is fine to make an AfD (or a speedy for that matter) a merge and delete which would have preserved the information just as efficiently. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I am pasting here my recent addition to the centralized discussion:
After a decision was reached here, I attempted to apply it to several articles and was met with strong opposition in several instances. Schools with only a few supporters on Wikipedia saw the fight song lyrics removed and not added back in. Other fight song articles had the lyrics added back in immediately and repeatedly. Editors felt that this centralized discussion carried little or no weight. Until all articles on this subject are treated alike, I think trying to enforce the removal of lyrics is unfair.
Here's one example of the kind of response I received when attempting to follow what was decided: "Fight On" →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Some users are going to have very strong opinions on this matter, what with the emotional attachments many have to their alma maters. With all the potential 3RR warnings and mediations and bannings that are sure to result over this, is it a fight worth fighting, really? Zeng8r (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion, no. That is why I reversed myself on all articles where I removed lyrics. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The conclusion of the "consensus" was seems faulty in light of WP:SONG#LYRICS and at best over interprets wikipedia policy. As noted above, there are whole categories of songs (e.g. Category:National anthems, Category:Anthems, Category:Christian hymns, Category:American folk songs, Category:Nursery rhymes, and on and on) where articles on songs with full pd lyrics have maintained WP:SILENCE for a long time and have been favorably reviewed (even FA). Certainly there are articles that are better than others as far as have content that relies to heavily on the song lyrics, but clearly no ban on public domain lyrics within an article, and at best it is WP:CREEP, at worst it seems to violate WP:CON: " 'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". CrazyPaco (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- If there are lyrics in those other articles, they should be removed as well. In any case, the lyrics in the fight song articles are mostly copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- No they shouldn't. Only lyrics that are not in the public domain should be removed. Articles that consist only of lyrics should be nominated for WP:AFD for lack of context according to WP:LYRICS. The vast majority of articles about songs in the public domain include their lyrics, including those that have passed WP:FA. Your interpretation goes against the prevailing consensus established at WP:SONG#LYRICS, WP:LYRICS, and by WP:FA review of articles like Dixie. Again, no ban exists on public domain lyrics in those articles as long as those articles do not solely consisting of those lyrics thus risking WP:Primary sources. If you want to change that consensus on policy, it seems that you would need to work to change the wording at WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:LYRICS and WP:SONG#LYRICS to explicitly state your current opinion. Again, "Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Af far as fight songs violating copyright, that may or may not be true as many fight songs were written in the late 19th or early 20th century. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- If there are lyrics in those other articles, they should be removed as well. In any case, the lyrics in the fight song articles are mostly copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The conclusion of the "consensus" was seems faulty in light of WP:SONG#LYRICS and at best over interprets wikipedia policy. As noted above, there are whole categories of songs (e.g. Category:National anthems, Category:Anthems, Category:Christian hymns, Category:American folk songs, Category:Nursery rhymes, and on and on) where articles on songs with full pd lyrics have maintained WP:SILENCE for a long time and have been favorably reviewed (even FA). Certainly there are articles that are better than others as far as have content that relies to heavily on the song lyrics, but clearly no ban on public domain lyrics within an article, and at best it is WP:CREEP, at worst it seems to violate WP:CON: " 'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". CrazyPaco (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion, no. That is why I reversed myself on all articles where I removed lyrics. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I know you all mean well, but I disagree with the original logic/solution of the, frankly, so-called "consensus" that didn't do a good job of informing those of us who've edited multiple articles on fight songs. With that said, it would behoove anyone acting on that policy position to be more careful: if you're going to impose an 11-person "consensus", you better be willing to do the work and not only do half (i.e. deleting only, and not transcribing something that's very clearly PD). Simply going in and deleting lyrics without making at least an attempt to move them (if they can be) isn't the right way to do things. --Bobak (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Based on this discussion here I think it should be obvious to anyone that there is clearly no "consensus" on removing public domain lyrics from articles. To those of you still trying to maintain that farce, please stop removing lyrics from articles on those grounds. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The consensus exists as policy at wp:NOT#LYRICS, not the centralized discussion. It reads "The lyrics of traditional songs may be in the public domain, but even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary about them." The centralized discussion merely agreed with the policy. WP is not a lyrics database for fight songs, or any songs. NJGW (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand if you have a long song with dozens of lines it might make sense to link to WikiSource, but when you have a fight song with 4 lines it makes no sense to do that. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- No such consensus exists at WP:NOT#LYRICS for the removal of PD lyrics from articles if it is not the sole content of that article. Please stop inferring what is not there. This policy is further clarified at WP:Lyrics and backed by the consensus consensus drawn at WP:SONG#LYRICS and by song articles that include PD lyrics which have passed WP:FA. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The consensus exists as policy at wp:NOT#LYRICS, not the centralized discussion. It reads "The lyrics of traditional songs may be in the public domain, but even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary about them." The centralized discussion merely agreed with the policy. WP is not a lyrics database for fight songs, or any songs. NJGW (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- From wp:Lyrics: "A Wikipedia article on lyrics or poetry should have an analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact." Which of these articles "have an analytical framework" or discuss the "cultural impact"? wp:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos states: "It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point." Just like you originally ignored my actual edits, you are now ignoring what you are quoting. NJGW (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here is what WP:LYRICS states, you continually seem to miss this part or read something into it that is not there: "In addition to the main point of not violating copyright, do not write an article that consists only of lyrics. This would be considered a primary source. It may if it is GFDL-compatible free content, be transwikied to Wikisource, but it could also be speedy deleted by an admin for lack of context." Many of articles in which you have removed the lyrics provide plenty of commentary on the lyrics and cultural impact. Those include articles such as Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech that has passed WP:GA review and never should have had the lyrics removed. Some of the articles you have rightfully questioned like Dear Old Nebraska U. There is no criteria for how well or thorough these descriptions must be, but the later clearly fails to provide sufficient context and with that I agree with you. Remember an article does not have to be FA (like Dixie) to exist or contain public domain lyrics. All that is stated is that if the article consists solely of lyrics and doesn't provide context it may be nominated for AFD, it actually says nothing of wholesale removal of all lyrics regardless of how they are presented in the article, unless they are not in the public domain. You cannot inject policy where none exists that ignores previously existing consensus at WP:SONG#LYRICS that is demonstrated in FA and GA peer reviews as noted above. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the issue is that you are misunderstanding the terms "commentary on" and "cultural impact". Dixie (song) has both. Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech has neither. NJGW (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I (obviously) thoroughly disagree with that assessment, and likewise, your opinion certainly doesn't appear to be the consensus (per, among other things, GA assessment and WP:SONG). CrazyPaco (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please give us an example of the "commentary on" the lyrics or "cultural impact" discussed at Ramblin' Wreck for which the lyrics are needed. Also, reread wp:SONG - "It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point." You may have missed that sentence, but it's there. NJGW (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've already provided examples regarding the Rambing Wreck article in my comments above. The quote you are referring to at wp:songs is for cases of using copyrighted lyrics according to WP:fair use. For anyone that hasn't done so already, please feel free to view and consider the following policy/guidelines in their entirety at WP:LYRICS and WP:SONG#LYRICS. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- You've provided false and unrelated examples (saying that the lyrics are used to show historical progression when actually the progression is from before the song's lyrics were written), but you haven't said anything about "commentary on" the lyrics themselves or the "cultural impact" of these lyrics. Again, please give examples.
- Your interpretation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos is a personal one. Not only have you repeatedly called it a policy/guideline when it clearly is not, but the sentence also does not indicate a strict application to copyrighted lyrics as you suggest. You are grasping at straws, as your blanket statement on notability below proves. NJGW (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Of course my interpretation is a personal one, as is yours. However, it seems that my interpretation is shared by the majority of editors that have worked on public domain songs within the Song Wikiproject. There is no point going back and forth on this. You have made your case, I have made mine. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've already provided examples regarding the Rambing Wreck article in my comments above. The quote you are referring to at wp:songs is for cases of using copyrighted lyrics according to WP:fair use. For anyone that hasn't done so already, please feel free to view and consider the following policy/guidelines in their entirety at WP:LYRICS and WP:SONG#LYRICS. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please give us an example of the "commentary on" the lyrics or "cultural impact" discussed at Ramblin' Wreck for which the lyrics are needed. Also, reread wp:SONG - "It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point." You may have missed that sentence, but it's there. NJGW (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I (obviously) thoroughly disagree with that assessment, and likewise, your opinion certainly doesn't appear to be the consensus (per, among other things, GA assessment and WP:SONG). CrazyPaco (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the issue is that you are misunderstanding the terms "commentary on" and "cultural impact". Dixie (song) has both. Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech has neither. NJGW (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here is what WP:LYRICS states, you continually seem to miss this part or read something into it that is not there: "In addition to the main point of not violating copyright, do not write an article that consists only of lyrics. This would be considered a primary source. It may if it is GFDL-compatible free content, be transwikied to Wikisource, but it could also be speedy deleted by an admin for lack of context." Many of articles in which you have removed the lyrics provide plenty of commentary on the lyrics and cultural impact. Those include articles such as Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech that has passed WP:GA review and never should have had the lyrics removed. Some of the articles you have rightfully questioned like Dear Old Nebraska U. There is no criteria for how well or thorough these descriptions must be, but the later clearly fails to provide sufficient context and with that I agree with you. Remember an article does not have to be FA (like Dixie) to exist or contain public domain lyrics. All that is stated is that if the article consists solely of lyrics and doesn't provide context it may be nominated for AFD, it actually says nothing of wholesale removal of all lyrics regardless of how they are presented in the article, unless they are not in the public domain. You cannot inject policy where none exists that ignores previously existing consensus at WP:SONG#LYRICS that is demonstrated in FA and GA peer reviews as noted above. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- From wp:Lyrics: "A Wikipedia article on lyrics or poetry should have an analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact." Which of these articles "have an analytical framework" or discuss the "cultural impact"? wp:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos states: "It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point." Just like you originally ignored my actual edits, you are now ignoring what you are quoting. NJGW (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fight Songs and College Football my opinion, based on prior discussions at WP:CFB--Linking a "fight song" to the college "football" team is inappropriate. The fight songs typically apply to not only all sports but to the student body of the school in question. While the fight songs are typically a part of the "pagentry" of college football, the football team does not play the song--the band does. But also college choirs sing the songs regularly. Therefore, I see no real reason to have any special reference or exclusivity to college football and school fight songs. So from there, it goes outside the realm of my enthusiasm in Wikipedia and becomes an issue of songs, lyrics, etc. That's not to say that a fight song couldn't be notable or even worthwhile to have the lyrics in the encyclopedia, but I would take the stance that not all college fight songs are notable (especially when one consideres that many smaller college have "taken" the fight song of a larger school and simply changed a few of the lyrics).--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to note what occurred at the university article of my alma mater, so that this process can be made better. I get involved when I see an article I wrote blanked without my involvement or discussion, and then part of that article dumped into the main university article without a merge discussion or any attempt to work the text in. That was a bad move, and it upset me. It gave me little respect for the "centralized discussion" editors. Their consensus, as I understand it, was "there a place for fight song information in the article about the institution" not that all fight songs must immediately be merged without discussion with relevant parties. The lyrics are a separate issue from the "redirecting" of fight song articles. I don't believe "centralized discussion" has any authority to bypass traditional discuss and merge routes.--Patrick «» 06:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Are these even notable?
Fight song lists 3 notable college fight songs. Is that really all? Perhaps it's time to delete any that do not claim notability. Also, that article is a mess... it has no refs, uses lots of peacock terms ("steeped in tradition"), and is mostly a list of American college fight songs (and some Alma Maters). It could use a section about Hakas and other types of fight songs. NJGW (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would dare say that there are more than three notable fight songs. I am not sure exactly how many are notable, and many of the current articles likely are not notable, but I don't think I am venturing too far out on a limb guessing that it is more than three. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Most fight songs from universities competing in major NCAA Division 1 athletics could be notable, as long as they are not derived from other school's fight songs. I would define major universities as most of the school in conferences comprising the BCS and the Ivy League, with some other exceptions. The fight songs from these schools are often heard on TV, radio, movies, used in video games, and find their way into other promotions and products. Most have had multiple examples of professional recordings made of them in the past, and today, almost all are available for purchase either on CDs or for download and as ring tones and have shelf lives well outlasting the typical top 50 pop song. Compilations of college songs sheet music is continually being produced. Many of the lyrics have themselves become slogans and greetings for alumni of the schools absent of the accompanying music. Keep in mind WP:LOCALFAME as well. I agree that many of the articles need to add additional material regarding their notability, use, and history. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The essay you cite does not mean local fame=notability, only that local things CAN be notable. Saying that "most" of the songs from some of the schools "could be notable" is a non-argument, and the existence of recordings are not proof of notability (we don't have an article about every single Brittney Spears song for a reason). Instead of blanket arguments against anything I might possibly say, how about considering the fact that most of these song articles are 2-3 lines with no sources (and no sources available)? How about considering how derivative most of the songs are? How about considering improving the crappy Fight song article, which would actually help people see the cultural significance of these songs, rather than fighting tooth and nail for articles which would clearly fail speedy deletion requests? NJGW (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I cited many reasons why they could be notable. I do not support unsourced articles or blanket notability. However, size of the song does not denote notability (e.g. Happy Birthday to You). I also disagree with your assertion that most of the songs are derivative. It is your right to nominate individual song articles for AFD if that is your opinion, however, I believe more research into the topic of collegiate culture, fight songs, and songs in general would be beneficial. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The essay you cite does not mean local fame=notability, only that local things CAN be notable. Saying that "most" of the songs from some of the schools "could be notable" is a non-argument, and the existence of recordings are not proof of notability (we don't have an article about every single Brittney Spears song for a reason). Instead of blanket arguments against anything I might possibly say, how about considering the fact that most of these song articles are 2-3 lines with no sources (and no sources available)? How about considering how derivative most of the songs are? How about considering improving the crappy Fight song article, which would actually help people see the cultural significance of these songs, rather than fighting tooth and nail for articles which would clearly fail speedy deletion requests? NJGW (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment summary for involved editors
- Summary comment as framed below, point by point (move up here to keep the bottom clear per request of NJGW...I put these mostly because I haven't commented on all of the arguments, just lyrics).
1) I do not feel all fight songs are notable. Songs from major universities (Ivy League) as well as those competing in major NCAA Division 1 athletics (e.g. BCS) do have the potential to be notable based on the pervasiveness of their songs throughout popular culture. I do not support blanket notability for fight songs.
2) Merger is not deletion and is acceptable. However, editors considering merger, or reversing a merger, should remember WP:GOODFAITH. Editors considering a merger of an article that has not previously worked on the article should considering first applying a merge tag in order to work cooperatively, and garner consensus with, the authors of the existing articles. Editors should not be surprised by merger reversals if they have not attempted to obtain a consensus on the notability, importance, or quality of an article.
3) I feel it was obvious that the centralized discussion did not reach a consensus on Lyrics. Lyrics discussion should not have occurred at the level of the specialized category of fight songs, but rather at a broader level of those editors who work on all types of song-related articles. I feel this contradicts the primary conclusion of the general discussion: "Fight songs do not need special guidelines". I believe the consensus obtained on the points specific to fight songs, other than lyrics, are valid.
4) This argument is now split into five parts, not all of which seem to be separate arguments but rather a series of supporting quotes from wikipedia policy/guidelines for the original argument. My feeling on complete public domain lyric removal has been made clear above. I do not disagree with the final point about turning Wikipedia into a lyrics database. However, there is obviously a disconnect over what an "analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact" means. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Summing up
Here are the main arguments as summarized by NJGW and CrazyPaco. Please note that the discussion on the inclusion of lyrics make up the final 6 points and may be considered together. Please, can some third parties comment on what they think?
For removing lyrics and merging short articles | Against removing lyrics and merging short articles |
---|---|
Many of the songs' articles are too short and unreferenced to be considered notable enough to remain on their own. | Their notability is inherent in the fact that they are the fight songs of notable schools, and that they have been recorded and performed many times. |
The non-lyrics information has not been lost, only merged. In many cases the small amount of information in the individual song articles was already duplicated at the main College or team athletics' article. | The information has effectively been deleted. |
There was a consensus built at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs that "Fight song lyrics do not belong in Wikipedia articles. If free, they should be in Wikisource; if copyrighted, they should not be included" | The centralized discussion decision stating "Fight song lyrics do not belong in Wikipedia articles" institutes a prohibition on any use of lyrics in one subcategory of song. It contradicts a wider overall consensus for song articles as well as the primary conclusion of the general discussion: "Fight songs do not need special guidelines". |
There is consensus outside of the Centralized discussion for the removal of whole-song public domain lyrics to WikiSource except where the lyrics are used to demonstrate textual analysis or to illustrate points related to cultural significance. This is demonstrated by the following passages in the relevant Policy, Essay, and Wikiproject: | No consensus, policy, or mandate exists to force removal of full public domain lyrics as long as they are not the sole component of the article. Consensus on this issue has already been demonstrated in three existing policies and guidelines (see below) as well as the successful GA and FA review of several articles containing full public domain lyrics. Therefore, inclusion lyrics in fight song articles, as well as inclusion of full public domain lyrics in Wikipedia articles, is acceptable, as long as it is not the sole or primary component of the article thus rendering it as a primary source. |
"Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary upon them." | WP:NOT#LYRICS: "Lyrics databases. Most song lyrics published after 1923 are protected by copyright. The lyrics of traditional songs may be in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary upon them." |
"A Wikipedia article on lyrics or poetry should have an analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact." | WP:LYRICS: "In addition to the main point of not violating copyright, do not write an article that consists only of lyrics. This would be considered a primary source. It may if it is GFDL-compatible free content, be transwikied to Wikisource, but it could also be speedy deleted by an admin for lack of context." |
"It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point. Lyrics and music videos that are in the public domain may be entered at Wikisource." | WP:SONG#LYRICS "Do not include the song's entire lyrics or embed the song's music video in the article unless you are certain they are in the public domain. Most lyrics and music videos will be copyrighted so we cannot legally put them in an article. It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point. Lyrics and music videos that are in the public domain may be entered at Wikisource. Links to external websites that provide lyrics and music videos belong in the "External links" section." |
Simply placing lyrics in an article with no textual analysis of the lyrics turns Wikipedia into a lyrics data base. This is specifically ruled out by WP:NOT | Used correctly, inclusion of public domain lyrics can enhance the understanding of the topic, is convenient to the reader, and therefore may improve article quality. Placement of public domain lyrics on Wikisource is encouraged, although not necessary, and should not come at the exclusion of those lyrics on Wikipedia when they enhance article quality. |
Unethical conduct by User:Russavia
Please react to extremely rude personal attacks of Russavia: [1]. Also, the user continues to play with the rules placing unwarranted tags without presenting any valid grounds.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently some other editors were also complaining about the same lately: [2].Muscovite99 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Please note that Muscovite has been found by the Russian arbcom committee to be a persistent POV-pusher.[3] [4] [5] and is currently enjoying yet another week long block ru:Обсуждение_участника:Muscovite99. There are issues with the article as mentioned, and which are discussed, but Muscovite in his own words has persistently removed dispute tags which have not been resolved, as in his own words he wants to make the "most grotesque" article possible. I also warned him that if he should accuse me of being in the employ of the Russian government again, as he did here I would take that further, as per the arbcom decision that found that accusing editors of being in the employ of governments is not helpful, and considering that it was because of insinuations made by the user on whose talk page that accusation by Muscovite appeared, I am somewhat appalled that said editor not only did not tell Muscovite this, but has actually encouraged him somewhat. One will note that Muscovite comes to enwiki and engages in persistent POV-pushing and disruption only when he has been blocked from ruwiki. And if he thinks that the tagging is frivolent, then he is mistaken, as whilst I am not wanting to write a glowing positive article, I do want a NPOV article, and it is impossible to do as such when someone admits they want the most grotesque article possible. As to other things Muscovite brings up, that is under discussion and will be a soon to come case at WP:AE. --Russavia Dialogue 18:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- As has been said elsewhere, this is a content dispute, and should be handled as such. Please use those channels. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean the use of such language as "<…> This does not mean that you need to come back to en:wiki, and continue with the same sort of bullshit you pull over at ru:wiki." (See the first link above) is a content dispute? What are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA then about?Muscovite99 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I mean that. I suggest you both avoid climbing the Rechstag dressed as Spider-Man (after searching through a multitude of essays to find the most appropriate one). get back to worrying about the article and stop arguing about "baw, User:X insulted me and it was teh personal attacks!!11!1" Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean the use of such language as "<…> This does not mean that you need to come back to en:wiki, and continue with the same sort of bullshit you pull over at ru:wiki." (See the first link above) is a content dispute? What are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA then about?Muscovite99 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. That was quite educating in showing up (by way of contrast) how ludicrously politicised and KGB-controlled the RuWP is.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Step right up, get your tickets here. Don't miss out on the comedic stylings of Muscovite99. Don't be disappointed, buy your tickets now. That has got to be funniest damn thing I have heard all day Muscovite; well actually no, the funniest thing was the message on my talk page where you claimed that you got banned on the orders of Putin. This is the second funniest thing. --Russavia Dialogue 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- The above is not the only example of Russavia's incivility against Muscovite99. See the edit comment of this diff, which refers to Muscovite99's request to refrain from disruptive tagging as "nuttery". In background of other related uncivility issues in very recent pass, I can only ask: wikistress? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Query: Is the FSB/KGB's control over the Russian WP as complete as The Cabal's control over the English WP?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- No it isn't. Any editor who doesn't agree with him is also a member of the Russian security service or the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs super-secret Wikipedia propaganda department (this is who I am employed with according to him), so their control over Russian WP is more complete than the Cabal's control over English WP, becuase now the FSB/KGB's control also extends to English WP. I can see a ring of cuckoo's flying around one's head right now. --Russavia Dialogue 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, Russavia continue to attack fellow editors even after receiving an official warning from an uninvolved administrator. The nuttery is propagated by Russavia who said about himself: "I can confirm that I am a member of the secretive Russian government team of internet agents." (at the bottom of this diff).Biophys (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Muscovite came to my talk page with his attitude, and got my response, well before that. And my confirmation was a hypothetical statement in order to show this is all one would have to do to prove Arbcom wrong...of course, anyone with half a brain in their head can clearly see that. I'm off, back to editing, which of course means that I am really back off to increasing the KGB's influence on WP (if some people's insane opinions are to be believed). --Russavia Dialogue 05:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just for the record: Russavia's statement "the funniest thing was the message on my talk page where you claimed that you got banned on the orders of Putin" (see above) is just another downright lie by this editor. Funny though, that this statement of his can be seen as his own recognition that Putin equals Putinism, which happens to be the exact opposite of what Russavia had been arguing all along when insisting on removing the material in the relevant article that speaks of only "Putin" (rather than "putinism").Muscovite99 (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding Russavia' "Please note that Muscovite has been found by the Russian arbcom committee to be a persistent POV-pusher." First of all, other projects are not relevant. This comment is nothing but an attempt to smear an editor. Frankly, given the dreck I have read on RU Wikipedia regarding just areas of interest to myself (e.g., Baltics, etc.), I would be edit-warring on a daily basis deleting outright lies. As far as I'm concerned, the whole of Russian and Soviet history on RU WP is suspect and I applaud any editor with the cajones (to use one of Russavia's terms, I'll spare you the diff) to combat it. What I see is an increasing escalation by Russavia attacking editors with whom they disagree. PetersV TALK 22:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Per-article blocking seemed to have consensus back in 2005, and bugzilla:674 was adopted, is there any chance of this extension being activated any time soon? This could be a valuable tool, especially with rangeblocks that would otherwise cause too much collateral damage. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- This would be great for enforcing topic bans. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support per WP:WTHN. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of this, per Guy and Viridae, but note to Tim: I was dejected to discover, when this was mentioned a few months ago on WP:AN or WP:ANI or somewhere, that rangeblocking specific articles would not be possible. I had hoped it could replace article semiprotection or site-wide rangeblocking for an article-specific vandal on a dynamic IP, but was told it could only be one account/IP per article block. --barneca (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- This would be really handy for enforcing topic bans - no admin should waste their precious time monitoring someone when the software can do it for us. Dcoetzee 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
... and reverted on SVN again. Looks like we have to wait. MER-C 01:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The last comment on the bugzilla page[6] is from Brion, and seems to show this was removed in r45241[7]. If it is indeed enabled, this would make article and topic bans enforcable by software. Has anyone tried it on a test wiki to see if it would also generate page specific autoblocks? But I concur that turning this on would be a good thing. GRBerry 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Per-article blocking was also discussed this week at WP:VPR. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: admin-only pages
There's a constant tension between maintaining open discourse on Wikipedia and avoiding leaking information to malicious parties. WP:DENY prevents us from publishing information about vandals, but as admins cycle in and out over the years, many a vandal is forgotten and gains another chance to wreak havoc. Many oversight issues have to be handled with great care to avoid further publicizing the private information involved. In particular, I think it would be useful if more of the sequestered discourse of ArbCom on their mailing list were visible to all admins. Copyrighted material that may still be under discussion also needs to be quickly removed from public view.
I don't believe there's currently technical support to restrict pages so that only admins can read them; I propose that such a feature be implemented and some pages created for some of the types of information I describe above. An alternative would be a private wiki configured so only admins can read it (an existing setting I believe), with all En admins automatically made admins on it.
The most obvious objection to this is that not all admins can be trusted all the time and they might leak information as a means of vengeance, or if they think they're just doing someone a friendly favor. I don't know, what do you guys think? Dcoetzee 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see two sides to this. One is that it makes it easier to share information that would make admins' life easier, while not enabling the trolls. The other is that a private wiki/admin-only pages makes it a lot easier for people to say "zOMG teh cabal iz taking over!!!1!!11". I don't know, personally, which concern outweighs the other — just giving my two cents. Hermione1980 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- zOMG teh cabal iz taking over!!!1!!11
I see how an admins only forum would be useful in some cases but I think propensity for overuse is just to great as compared to benefits. If DENY gets in your way, ignore it. There is nothing terrible about discussing a vandal on wiki, frivolous discussion of them should be stifled but it does not do that much harm if we do: most vandals worth discussing are already so dedicated a little recognition wont make much difference. Cases so sensitive that they must be discussed in private should be referred to the ArbCom, silent discussion of users for no pressing reason, to which I imagine what ever was set up would devolve to quickly, is a bad thing. The admins IRC has already proven itself a failure. Icewedge (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- zOMG teh cabal iz taking over!!!1!!11
- I can't really think of many uses for this TBH. The type of vandals that last for years are the type that WP:DENY isn't going to make a significant impact on, but there's only a handful of them (see also WP:LTA). The vast majority of wiki-related things discussed in the admins IRC channel are much better discussed in a real-time forum like IRC than in wiki-style discussions as they're either trivial things that need only minutes of discussion, or they're things that need urgent attention. If we did do this for some reason though, it would have to be a separate wiki, as MediaWiki isn't designed for per-page read restrictions. Mr.Z-man 02:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Z-man here... I don't see much use for it and see the negatives outweighing the positives.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Zomg the cabal is taking over. Can't imagine the use for this. Isn't there already an admin only IRC channel or something? Protonk (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Past experience suggests that this would play really badly with the community, especially those whose agitation it is most designed to avoid, and it would undoubtedly be compromised anyway, as the admin IRC channel is. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I can think of something. It relates to a problem which may, or may not exist - a way for vandals to cause trouble it might be hard to detect initially. I don't know whether it is minor or potentially serious. How should this be raised? Ben MacDui 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- An admin only page isn't needed, as much of the corporate memory is not invested in admins but all the contributors to the noticeboards and requests pages. There will be editors who have the knowledge that it is proposed may be kept in an admin only page who will therefore not know that it is being called upon. I would also suggest that having another perception of the difference of value between having and not having the sysop flag is not worth any potential gain for the existence of such a thing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- WP:DENY is an essay. I wish people would realise that, and stop treating it as though it's some sort of policy, which we all must follow. Majorly talk 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- My question above is perfectly serious. There are several editors, including admins, aware of the problem but my take on the discussion is that no-one wants to raise it at Village Pump or here in case doing so might have significant consequences. Discreet suggestions here and there seem to have achieved nothing. It is my suspicion there is no way to address the issue directly. Ben MacDui 12:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no need for it justified in anything Wikipedia uses to describe administration duties. That it is suggested in seriousness suggests to me that some WP:Administrators are very confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking a question that I notice nobody seems to be able to answer. Ben MacDui 15:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest emailing the person(s) you feel are in the best place to handle...whatever it is you're talking about—a trusted admin, ArbCom, or whoever. I understand why you can't be more explicit, as that would defeat the purpose of your question, but without more information, it's hard to answer. Hermione1980 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I outdented my response, above, Ben MacDui, to make certain you understood I was replying to the primary post, not yours. E-mail me, don't describe your issue, it doesn't matter, but I'll tell you the name of an admin you can e-mail to ask a question, who can maybe steer you in the correct direction. --KP Botany (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm only responding because the question was asked. And I do understand that 1600 admins to 8 million editors forces a certain unity (even if sometimes contentious) simply out of the sheer numbers. But there are email and IRC options, and with an already prevailing paranoia of admin cabalism, I'd seriously question the value of an admin only page. All IMHO — Ched (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for attempting to help. Of course, if I knew who to email I would do so. It would need to be someone who was motivated to help, had sufficient wiki-experience to know whether the problem was real or not, understood something about anti-vandal fighting, had some serious technical knowledge and the clout to get something done. I'm not familiar with IRC and nearly fell asleep reading about it. Perhaps that's the answer, although I am not sure what the difference is in principle between an "admin-only page" and an "admin-only IRC". I have no interest in cabals but this is a conundrum it seems hard to nail. Ben MacDui 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Can someone have a look at this article? It seems to have suffered a recent dose of WP:SCFT. I've been speedying images from it as replaceable fair use and/or blatant copyvios. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
CSD backlog
There is a major backlog at CAT:CSD. feel free to help and remove this post after wards.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- And in other news, this guy subscribes to this view. Backlog cleared. GbT/c 06:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Donadio
Donadio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This is an obvious single purpose account. Check that all his edits are dedicated to promote disruptions in the article White Brazilian. This user was already blocked 2 times (on the same week) for disruptions in this same article.[8] He keeps manipulating sources in Portuguese, so that nobody can read them, then he feels free to include any informations not even listed in the source. Moreover, he keeps attacking any informaton about Italian people in this article. Seems like a persecution. It's a clear disruptive single purpose account. Opinoso (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Moreover, he also uses sockpopets (see 200.198.196.129). Opinoso (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is the 5th time this editor has been brought to the attention of an admin board this year ([9] see this). Can whoever has the fortitude to review this indef ban either the complainant or complainer - or both - for once and for all. I would like to point out that by suggesting the complainer is blocked I am not prejudging the validity of the complaint, but I am getting so tired of it that my deja vu is getting flashbacks... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Trying to move an article I've written from my homepage to a new article page...???
Hi. Sorry for my ignorance here, but I've been searching everywhere for how to do this and I haven't been successful...it's making me nuts.
I have created an article (I created it on my own home page: BluesBoy1) and I want to move it to another stand-alone page I'm trying to create.
If you can help me move the content I've created on BluesBoy1 to a new article page entitled PETE HAYCOCK, that would be fantastic.
Thanks very much for your help. My article is objective, thoroughly researched, cross-referenced, accurate, unbiased, and should meet the guidelines of Wikipedia.
Please notify me on my talk page.
Gracias!
BluesBoy1
BluesBoy1 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'll move it for you, and I've also given you a "welcome box" on your talk page to help you find your way around. By the way, requests for this sort of help should really be made at the Help desk, but we all got confused when we started out! DuncanHill (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Protected template edits needed
Per discussion on User talk:Erik9bot, certain WikiProject templates have incorrect defaultsort code, such that failure to provide a "listas" parameter causes an explicit defaultsort as {{PAGENAME}}, creating a defaultsort conflict when affected banners are used on the same talk page as a Wikiproject banner with a listas parameter other than {{PAGENAME}} supplied. The code can be fixed by replacing {{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}} or {{DEFAULTSORT:{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} with {{#if:{{{listas|}}}|{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{listas}}}}}}} [10]. While I edited all affected WikiProject templates that are not fully protected to fix the problem, Template:WikiProject Greece, Template:ScoutingWikiProject, Template:WikiProject Ireland, Template:WPFlorida, Template:WPBooks, Template:NovelsWikiProject, and Template:WPBiography still use the incorrect code, and are fully protected, so administrative help is needed. Thanks. Erik9 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Updated Template:WikiProject Greece, Template:WPFlorida, Template:WPBooks, and Template:NovelsWikiProject. The others didn't have the exact line of code you referenced as the original, and I didn't want to just wing it. :)
If you give me the exact lines of code for the three remaining templates, I'll be happy to make the edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)- Thanks. For Template:ScoutingWikiProject and Template:WikiProject Ireland, {{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|}} }} is replaced. For template:WPBiography, {{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }} }} is updated. In both cases, the new code is {{#if:{{{listas|}}}|{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{listas}}}}}}} Erik9 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Expreienced user PAing, assumes bad faith, and more...
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
per Guy307 comment of 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
User:pdfpdf created the article Rick Neigher, which I came across while New Page Patrolling. I marked the article for Speedy (a7), and PDFPDF then reverted. Then, he addded a comment [11] to my user page. I had then replied, very calmly, in his talk page [12]. User then added this edit [13] to my talk page, which is considered a personal attack per WP:PA. We had then went into a long conversation, each writing in the other's talk page (see the history of User talk:Guy0307 and User talk:pdfpdf. User has accused me of harrasing multiple times (which, I never did) asserted his right to delete a csd template while being the creator of the article (wrong), and claimed that he is not PAing me. User has then deleted all of the discussion on his talk page (which shouldn't be done per WP:RPA.) User has also referenced MoS to prove that he is right each time, even when MoS had nothing to do with his/my actions. Guy0307 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have warned him. The article needs to be deleted, it doesn't assert notability and cites no sources. As for the attacks, well take those as a sign of your good work.--Pattont/c 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- The current version of the article asserts sufficient notability, although adequate references are still lacking. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 19:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- A7 is is not about establishing notability, it's about asserting it. I agree it could do with some references to support the latter, though. --Rodhullandemu 20:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- One minor note, he is perfectly entitled to remove the discussion from his talk page, per WP:TALK. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Scrap this. Everything is OK now. Guy0307 (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Long term copyright infringement redux
There is an active effort to address extensive copyright infringement, possibly inadvertent, by this user. Infringement ranges from minimal—a few sentences or phrases—to major, with whole sections copied from coyrighted sources. Several editors have responded to my last call for assistance (and hooray for them), but this is a big job and more would be very welcome. The user's self-noted major contributions are listed in my sandbox. Articles that have been checked have been struck out. Articles where infringement (even minimal) has been confirmed are checked off. Generally, we've been cleaning slight or piecemeal infringement (sometimes I've simply added quotation marks to small matters, in compliance with WP:NFC) and listing major problems at WP:CP with the standard copyvio template. I've found it useful to compare against the listed sources, as this contributor often does cite the sources that are being infringed upon, although sometimes not at the point where the text is copied. If you have time, please consider helping out. Even if you only address an article or two, you could shave days off of the completion of this project. Thanks for any assistance. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- How come this guy hasn't been blocked? We've given long-term blocks for less serious copyright infringement than this. Blueboy96 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- No kidding. I doubt you'll find enough help to actually gain ground if Mgreason is still allowed to edit. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- That is a concern. :/ As I work more through the backlog here, I have wondered if blocking immediately would have been the best option even if the contributor is well-meaning, since well-meant infringement is still infringement. My thought had been to monitor future contributions and, now that the contributor has been explicitly warned of the potential of block, block as necessary if infringement resumes. As you can see from his talk page, I've made an effort to address these concerns with him, but he doesn't actually discuss much, so I'm unsure if the situation is any more clear for him now than it was after his first copyright notice in 2007. He does seem to have understood GFDL issues, though, after our conversation, based on this. As focused as I've been on cleaning past issues, I have not yet checked to see if the problem is ongoing, which might easily decide the matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- (P.S. I'd more than welcome other input on whether blocking is appropriate. This is a tedious and time-consuming process, and I must admit to being discouraged by it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
- That is a concern. :/ As I work more through the backlog here, I have wondered if blocking immediately would have been the best option even if the contributor is well-meaning, since well-meant infringement is still infringement. My thought had been to monitor future contributions and, now that the contributor has been explicitly warned of the potential of block, block as necessary if infringement resumes. As you can see from his talk page, I've made an effort to address these concerns with him, but he doesn't actually discuss much, so I'm unsure if the situation is any more clear for him now than it was after his first copyright notice in 2007. He does seem to have understood GFDL issues, though, after our conversation, based on this. As focused as I've been on cleaning past issues, I have not yet checked to see if the problem is ongoing, which might easily decide the matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(un-indent) I'd support indef block, as he doesn't seem to be heeding the warnings on his talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, well meaning or not, until the editor can display a proper understanding of copyright its in the best interests of the project that he not edit. Shell babelfish 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support an indefinite block, for the reasons I stated earlier. I have to admit, I was pretty close to blocking him myself earlier. Seems to me that a long-term block for copyright infringement is SOP in my book. Blueboy96 20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked Mgreason indef. Some of the copyvio's are quite recent, made after being warned by Moonriddengirl. See for example Episcopal Diocese of Florida. No objection to an unblock if the user ever gets a clue. Garion96 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Possible links in breach of copyright
Perhaps someone can point us in the right direction, or perhaps it can be discussed here, but I've got a bit of a doozy here. The article Lubyanka Criminal Group includes the statement, "In response, the authors had withdrawn from their copyright. The book can be freely printed and reproduced by anyone." This is sourced to Prima News (archive.org copy) (to replace the dead link, and the copyvio source it was replaced with). A link has then been supplied to http://www.compromat.ru/main/fsb/litvinenkolpg.htm, where the entire source of the book can be found. I have removed this link from the article, after coming across it whilst removing other compromat.ru links, as they do host articles from other media in violation of copyright, and also because they are not a reliable source for information. I do realise that I have breached 3RR, although this is a good faith breach due to what I believe may be a breach of copyright. The first problem that I have is that the statement published by Prima News, I am unable to find confirmation of this withdrawal of copyright elsewhere, including on runet. I have searched current and archive.org versions of kolokol.org and kolokol.ru (these are the websites to the Foundation for Civil Liberties, and have been unable to find anything on those sites. The second thing is on http://www.compromat.ru/main/fsb/litvinenkolpg.htm, at the top there is a copyright notice "© GRANI, New York, 2002". The same notice is also on individual chapter pages, e.g. http://www.compromat.ru/main/fsb/litvinenkolpgg1.htm, has "© GRANI, New York, 2002, "ЛПГ-Лубянская преступная группировка", Александр Литвиненко". Now I realise that that book is copyrighted in 2002, and that the Prima News article is from 2004, but the existence of that copyright symbol and the lack of results in finding is enough to make me wary about having a link on the article in relation to Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions_on_linking. Also, given the nature of the website on which it is hosted, WP:ELNO #2 also gives me cause for concern in linking to it, but WP:COPYVIO and Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions_on_linking is my primary concern. I have asked one of the editors of the article about the copyright and its suitability for Wikisource (which if it is in fact been released into PD, this is the best place to link to), and he isn't too sure either, so it is better to be safe than sorry and remove the link. I have attempted to send email to GraniContact@earthlink.net, as provided in the prima link, but it is not a valid email address. I think some further assistance may be needed in helping to determine the copyright status of these books, but am unsure where to bring such concerns, hopefully we can determine it here? --Russavia Dialogue 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well even the archive "releasing the copyright" says "our Foundation has received a license to print and distribute these books in Russia, and we grant this right free of charge to anybody who wishes to do so", my emphasis on the "print and distribute" and "in Russia", that's fairly restrictive anyway, no rights for derivatives, debatable as to if electronic distribution is permissible and the geographic restriction. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I was thinking when I was looking at it. In that, if it was released into PD, there would be nothing stopping me from printing it, but substituting other people's names or whatever (the derivative), and the "release" is also pretty vague. Does it only apply to Russian language book? Or English language? For example, it is possible to copyright a work in English language, but release its Swahili translation into PD, whilst still holding copyright over other languages. That's the problem I do have with the release, and which I thought I mentioned but didn't, so thanks for raising that also. --Russavia Dialogue 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- As copyright holder you have fairly broad rights and the language of publication wouldn't affect that. If you released into PD you waive all your rights, so derivatives, publishing translations etc. would be fine. So you couldn't release the Swahili translation into PD, you could however grant a license to anyone to reproduce that version, whilst retaining control over versions in other languages. The intent (in my eyes) appears to be to enable free publication within Russia without the restraint of the state, that issue doesn't occur outside of Russia and so is presumably still a normal commercial market which I suspect they would still be able to exploit. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I was thinking when I was looking at it. In that, if it was released into PD, there would be nothing stopping me from printing it, but substituting other people's names or whatever (the derivative), and the "release" is also pretty vague. Does it only apply to Russian language book? Or English language? For example, it is possible to copyright a work in English language, but release its Swahili translation into PD, whilst still holding copyright over other languages. That's the problem I do have with the release, and which I thought I mentioned but didn't, so thanks for raising that also. --Russavia Dialogue 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Possible compromised account
I bring SoUnusual (talk · contribs · logs) this editor here for review; the edits are out of character and continued past a final warning, adding personal attacks. Accordingly, I take the view that this is a compromised account and cannot be trusted until its rightful operator makes it clear s/he has retained control of it. I've also disabled email on the account on the basis that whoever currently has the password may use it to troll. Either way, it does not reflect well on the account operator. --Rodhullandemu 23:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Checkuser indicates that the account is not compromised. --Deskana (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- The trolling behaviour is not new. See [14], where the information is false and the ref fabricated.-gadfium 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Unauthorized bot?
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
User:LilHelpa claims to not use a bot for reverting, but this mistake seems so blatant that it appears likely to have been made in an automated manner. I think this should be investigated. TubeToner (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Curps
Does anyone know what has happened to Curps over the last two and a half years?? Is he still alive?? Egebwc (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't really something for immediate admin attention; they are not here to keep tabs on your social life. You might want to check out the big sign on his userpage saying 'I'm on very long-term wiki-vacation. Good luck to everyone'. Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
This issue has been going on for more than a week now, and with the latest developments, I personally think that the case is clear. User:Wapondaponda made on change that probably was covered by wp:bold: diff Then, I made one revert that would be covered by wp:brd, accordingly: diff. On the talk page a discussion about the issue developed, which actually turned out better then I had expected. But, then user:Deeceevoice made another full revert, restoring Wapondaponda's suggestion diff and asked that I should be banned from the article on the talk page diff .
The article Ancient Egyptian race controversy ancient Egyptian is placed on probation:
- "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information."
Changing the lead (not to mention adding four to five new subtopics) is, of course, a substantial edit. The new first sentence of the article: "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times.", is not supported by any citation and is, as far as my knowledge about the topic is concerned, definitely false. I am not going to start an edit war about this. I am simply going to place {{TotallyDisputed}} on the article and leave. But some uninvolved admin better take a good look at the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting to see Zara back here on this. She's just finished a massively disruptive rewrite of the article that involved sweeping changes. For the second time now, she's unilaterally slapped an "in-use" tag on the article and then edited against talk page consensus, completely failing to notify anyone of her intentions or to participate in the ongoing debate about article scope. And now she's back here, presumably in an attempt to get the article locked down again (which she succeeded in doing after the last time she shut the article down for her personal use). Let Brenneman do his thing as a facilitator for a while and see what develops. Perhaps Zara's (threatened) exit (this is the second time she's said she would leave) is a good thing. Her actions at the article are just amazingly willful and extremely disruptive, and whether she stays or goes, it's got to stop. I've stated my intention, if she persists in such destructive conduct, to request a content ban. Hopefully, that won't be necessary. deeceevoice (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just a correction to Zara's comment: the diff was not calling for an immediate ban from the article, but warning that further such unilateral edits would result in DCV calling for a ban. Also, there is already an uninvolved admin, User:Aaron Brenneman helping with the article, and doing a more than decent job of it, especially under the circumstances. I'd say if Aaron wishes further admin assistance that's fine, but to let him make the call.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- The statement "Zara behavior needs to be dealt with" is admittedly open to interpretation. If you want my opinion, Tom Harrison has evaluated the situation correctly User talk:Tom harrison#Banning. If you look at the history of the talk pages, you will see that previously another editors had also been banned from the article. The very same issue of the scope of the article is now recurring. Zara1709 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, what Ramdrake said, on all points. And he's correct. I didn't call for a ban on Zara, though, to my way of thinking, I'd have been perfectly justified in doing so. The fact of the matter is Zara's done what she's (inaccurately) accused me of doing. She earlier branded me a troll when I called her on it the first time she shut down the article, then called for my banning.[15] And, yup. It happened, but it was wholly unwarranted, utterly unjustified, and it didn't stick. So, it is in this atmosphere that Zara did it again! She put up an "in-use" tag, made massive edits against a developing consensus without prior notice, and with no attempt at explanation/justification. All things considered, I think my response has been a fairly measured one. ;) So, if anyone is tempted to intervene -- and, again, I don't think it's warranted -- please don't jump in with both feet. I know admins are busy people with a lot of demands on their time. But take a moment to familiarize yourself with what's really been going on with the article first. Aaron Brenneman's efforts at shepherding (as opposed to bullying) the article and maintaining some semblance of order there deserve at least that. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I admit that the sentence about banning was worded rather badly and I should have been more precise. What I meant should become more clear if you look at Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 14. I have, there, been of the opinion that that article should have a broader scope, but after some discussion if started to reconsider my opinion and didn't defend that any more. But there was another editor, user:Big-dynamo who continued the discussion. And in that discussion Moreschi wrote at one point:
- "Can someone please bite the bullet and ban this troll? To say that Afrocentrism is only part the controversy surrounding the ancient Egyptian race controversy is so wrong I don't even know where to start. It's all about Afrocentrism, and Big dynamo has just conclusively proved he should not be editing this topic area."
- This is what I was referring to. After August 2008 I spent some more time on the issue. You can find some of my result in the old revisions of Race in ancient history. And I actually came to the conclusion that Moreschi was right concerning the scope. The article has to be very largely about Afrocentrism. In other issues Moreschi turned out to be wrong, like that about meme. Anyway, if you want to have an article with a broader scope, you should have either 1) participated in the discussion or 2) allow the time for a throughout discussion now.
- On second though, therefore, I can't allow the scope of the article to be changed like that. I will revert to the more narrow version, and if we get an edit war, I have to request that the article is fully protect while we discuss the issue ( or for 3 months, which ever is less). I am really disappointed that most editors from the old discussion aren't showing up (Wikiscribe being the notable exemption) and I am largely the only one who is defending the previous consensus. Any any case, if deeceevoice gets her version pushed through, then some admin please apologize to user:Big-dynamo.Zara1709 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- What you can or cannot allow? Actually, deciding upon article scope isn't the prerogative of a single individual. But reverting back to the previous version is fine. It's something I probably would have done had I realized the scope of that editor's changes (even though they appear to be somewhat in line with a developing consensus on the talk page -- and I stress "consensus") -- before seeing your shut-down of the article and your massive changes against consensus. And, once again, I don't have a version I'm "pushing", and however you want to brand it, you can't make it so. There are others who find my input useful and valid. I simply want the lead paragraph and the article scope to reflect the true nature of the controversy. But this is all subject matter for the article talk space -- not here, Zara. We have an admin presiding over the article at the moment, so there's no need to keep running to AN/I whenever something doesn't sit well with you. Try some patience. Stay and work through it collegially and collaboratively. Or, as you keep threatening to do, edit somewhere else. Because ongoing disruption and article lockdown are neither constructive nor acceptable. deeceevoice (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's not my fault that Dbachmann, Moreschi and Woland aren't actively participating in the discussion at the moment. If they would show up rather soon, that would make things a lot easier. However, you can't call it consensus if you propose a reversion which they wouldn't agree on, which is obvious from the discussion archives. Zara1709 (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nor is it the fault of anyone still working diligently on the article, trying to come to some sort of agreement. You can't tell me that Bachmann and Moreschi are unaware of the discussion. You referred to the talk page "archives" -- and for a reason. They haven't been participating. I visited Woland's talk page and specifically asked for his input. Collaborate with the rest of the editors to discuss the issues around article scope and other matters or don't. Participate or don't. Absentee participation, or collective participation by one-person proxy -- such as what you're attempting -- runs counter to the spirit of the project and, ultimately, is unhelpful. Again, this is not about what you "cannot allow." The discussion continues. deeceevoice (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Of course I can collaborate. Simply state sources in support of the sentence: "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times." Simply explain why you don't want Afrocentrism to be mentioned in the lead. And we were making some process in the discussion, which was only interrupted by you breaking wp:BRD with the last revert. Zara1709 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's good to know, Zara, because it's not a skill you've been strong on lately -- at least not at the above-referenced article. Please. Take it to the article talk space, Zara. As it is, I've had to refer the participating editors here so that they can see for themselves what your approach to the article is. For my money, there's something exceedingly wrong with that picture. deeceevoice (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Fast copyedit required Giles Hattersley
Can someone check this stub for grammar and spelling etc - ASAP for obvious reasons. Thanks. Giano (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gave it a look, should be passable now. Does anyone know what this business about false claims in the apparently non-existent article is all about? Skomorokh 16:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is why I have written the page, 1000s must have looked for it today. It is important that we defend ourselves from these allegations when ver possible. Today's was totally spurious. Wikipedia's PR, or rather lack of PR, is more than worrying. Giano (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- For what it's worth: "15:48, 2009 February 8 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) deleted "Giles Hattersley" (pending further investigation)" [16] — Gavia immer (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is why I have written the page, 1000s must have looked for it today. It is important that we defend ourselves from these allegations when ver possible. Today's was totally spurious. Wikipedia's PR, or rather lack of PR, is more than worrying. Giano (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That's just great, now Mr. Hattersley can point to the deletion log and claim that Jimbo's deletion of the article is some kind of acknowledgment that the article contained exactly what Mr. Hattersley previously claimed it contained (before it existed). — CharlotteWebb 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is it possible that the article DID exist, but was oversighted (leaving no trace), perhaps seconds or minutes after Hattersley's article hit the press? Or that Hattersley is talking about an article on another Wikimedia property than the English Wikipedia? Just an extremely "assume good faith" concept from a banned user here (check with Alison). Delete this question, if you must. But, I think the idea is worth considering. -- 76.98.14.41 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Related conversation at User talk:Jimbo Wales, but right now, no one can find any trace of the supposed claims on Wikipedia-en.--Tznkai (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is it possible that the article DID exist, but was oversighted (leaving no trace), perhaps seconds or minutes after Hattersley's article hit the press? Or that Hattersley is talking about an article on another Wikimedia property than the English Wikipedia? Just an extremely "assume good faith" concept from a banned user here (check with Alison). Delete this question, if you must. But, I think the idea is worth considering. -- 76.98.14.41 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well...I'll say it now. It was not wise to create an article which had never existed purely because a person complained (falsely) that a wikipedia article on him contained errors. It was also unwise to delete this article, turning a minor complaint from a minor journalist into an issue that "looks" bad. Regardless of what we tell ourselves, we can't prove positive to the public that no article containing falsehoods ever existed. All that is publicly available is the deletion log. A deletion log which notes permanently that Jimbo deleted it--a triviality that I'm sure the British press will ignore. We need to get out of the business of self-referentiality and into the business of maintaining an encyclopedia. The next time that a blog in the guardian says, without evidence, that we have done something untoward, let's not trip over ourselves to look as guilty as possible. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Blog in the Guardian? Which blog in the Guardian is this? DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
drake circus
There has been a long history of countless editors who have been blocked or banned for attempting to publish any fact or article that might conflict with the promotional activity of a handful of other editors To summarize Drake Circus is an area of Plymouth which is home to the university of Plymouth, the Art gallery, the Museum, the Art College, grade 1 and 2 listed buildings, the planetarium, the Drake reservoir, the scene of the great bomb shelter tragedy etc etc and yet all and any attempts to publish articles or facts on these topics have been deleted in favour of an advert for a shopping mall. I recently entered this debate when I tried in vain to point out the mall is not even in the Drake Circus area (the only similarity is its name). The co-ordinates in the article will, on any map (e.g. Google earth), point to Drake Circus the area and not the mall which is located further south. My attempt to discuss this issue rationally has been met with hostile abuse and deletions from webhamster a.k.a hoary and jolly janner. If you look at the history of both the article and the discussion pages you will see the endless number of people who have been blocked. On one occasion somebody in Indonesia was blocked as being a sock puppet for somebody who was online and with an IP in the UK. Various ip's from all over the world have been constantly blocked. So why are these handful of editors so desperate to protect and preserve an article which is factually wrong and a blatant piece of advertising. The only inference one can draw is that they are going to these extraordinary lengths in order to benefit the mall. If you Google search 'drake circus bomb shelter' the first web-site contains many interesting comments that in the long term will lower the reputation of Wikipedia. There has already been an attempted deletion however so many useful facts and comments were edited out by the pro-mall spammers it made a discussion pointless. Those same few editors are gaming the system to skew any reasonable discussion, debate or introduction of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.96.112 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
A proposal to remedy en:wp's chronic incivility
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki
Incivility is standard on en:wp. Actual personal attacks are routine and expected. This drives people away from the wiki and leaves a hard core of borderline sociopaths as the only people willing to put up with each other. This is despite Wikipedia:No personal attacks supposedly being hard policy.
Precis: the AC to warn that it expects better behaviour, and then to start knocking heads together. Likely to start with the admins, as the ones most expected to set a good example - hence me posting this here. Those of us with the magic bit must lift our game. Or else.
Commentary at the above link (or even just "great idea!" or "terrible idea!" will likely be read by the AC.
Let's make this encyclopedia project suck less to be involved with. - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- (splutter) "... leaves a hard core of borderline sociopaths as the only people willing to put up with each other"? And that doesn't breach WP:NPA? Dear pot, meet kettle. Black Kite 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't think there's any problem at all, by all means say that - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I just thought it was incredibly ironic that a posting about how to counter personal attacks on Wikipedia was presented in the form of what was effectively a personal attack against most editors... Black Kite 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, that would include myself! I consciously try not to snap at people, and occasionally succeed ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I just thought it was incredibly ironic that a posting about how to counter personal attacks on Wikipedia was presented in the form of what was effectively a personal attack against most editors... Black Kite 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't think there's any problem at all, by all means say that - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Firstly, I agree that it was completely uncalled for to call editors who stick to policy "sociopaths" - and re: the proposal, I don't understand it. Is your proposal to have the well-known policy announced and enforced? Because I believe that that is already the procedure here. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- So far it isn't being enforced and it isn't reining in gross incivility. See proposal - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd hope you could assume some ongoing good faith - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I do not understand why you are making a proposal that the community enforce its own policies. Suggest that they could be more rigorously adhered to, by all means, but it is not a proposal (novel idea, new solution etc.) to "begin" blocking people for incivility, is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is for the arbcom to notify that it's taking a special interest in enforcing it - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You mean like if the British government were to announce that it was particularly interested in prosecuting drug-users, drug crime would be significantly reduced? Just no, I don't feel that this idea will remotely affect the level of incivility. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hence the other bit, actually doing so - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can't really face continuing this much further, it being very dull indeed, but your "proposal" - to announce and enforce well-known policy - will make no impact, and since it is neither new, innovative, original or novel, it scarcely constitutes a proposal IMO. Thanks for taking my criticisms on board so well! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
TreasuryTag, what in your eyes will affect the level of incivility here? It is a growing problem. Kingturtle (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
A lot of the inciwikity is actually caused, IMHO, by WP policies aimed at preventing use of WP as a "community." It is easier far to lose one's temper at a person one knows nothing really about than to lose one's temper at a person one has met. Collect (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- My sense is that the civility of Wikipedia's editors, like the quality of its articles, ollows a normal distribution. Yes, Wikipedia is home to some real bullies, and an even greater number of irritating but not quite abusive editors. It is also home to some real decent, generous, helpful and receptive people, and a larger number of people who are often abrupt or slow to get someone else's point, yet nevertheless relativly easy to work with. And the vast majority fall in between. I think as long as we try to make this th encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we just have to accept the fact that anyone includes some jerks just as it includes some gems. perhaps we notice the bullies more because there is an understandable tendency to make things "better." I think we should resist that and be more accepting of the good and the bad. I am speaking generically of course. I am all for solving problems if they are more narrowly and specifically defined than "incivility." For example I do not think our active community of editos comes close to reflecting the diversity of our readership and this means that some bodies of knowledge and access to views get left out. Any way to remedy this,l I would be all for. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Abolishing AN/I
The Incidents noticeboard is an unhealthy plague on this project. I would like to see it marked historical. How can we accomplish this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- We can't. GARDEN 22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it just spill over here? rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not feasabley possible IMO. Where would people go if they had an incident to report? Where would all the reports currently on ANI go. For any proposal concerning the abolishment of ANI, I'd strongly oppose. Something like this would need community wide discussion. I'm guessing Jimbo would oppose abolishing ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- You could just...awwwwww! C'mon! Protonk (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Duh! --Rodhullandemu 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The question is, why is Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents an unhealthy plague? —harej ;]
22:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- (4ec) Could be done if we abolish admins. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, let IPs delete the main page... GARDEN 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Its the atmosphere of the place. We need a more village pump-style place. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- As much as I regret the frequent drama there, I doubt that any change in format will improve the atmosphere there. We need a place where frustrated people can ask for admin help; by definition, people who bring things there are frustrated. Tempers will flare and drama will exist. Frankly, I'm always impressed by how calm many of the participants are.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the most ridiculous idea I've heard all year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Hey wait, AN/I hasn't existed forever. What did we do before it? Why couldn't we go back to that? Hermione1980 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- It would certainly be possible; most of the real incidents there have other places to report them: the various noticeboards like WP:BLPN, WP:NORN, WP:AN3 or general reporting areas like WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:SPI. Most of the rest of the reports are just noise. Mr.Z-man 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the solution is simply to pay less attention to it. If you're an admin, only post here if you have a real solution to what is clearly a real problem. Cut out the drive-by opinions and let the bullshit reports simply be archived without attention. Without fuel, the fires will die. Tan | 39 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think ANI is overused, but the inverse of that is the other boards are often ignored by admins. I've had notices at SSP and Edit War go unanswered for twelve or more hours. ANI (and AIV for the simplest of cases) is the only board that's regularly maintained. Dayewalker (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the solution is simply to pay less attention to it. If you're an admin, only post here if you have a real solution to what is clearly a real problem. Cut out the drive-by opinions and let the bullshit reports simply be archived without attention. Without fuel, the fires will die. Tan | 39 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The idea here is to do what Mr.Z-man suggested. Diffuse the drama to various places rather centralizing all of it (and thus creating a powder keg). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Where would the civility ones go? As they make up a big bit of ANI? rootology (C)(T) 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)