Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Search bar for AN

How's this, maybe for the header? Try it out.

~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent; I would get it up on all the admin pages asap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice, this would come handy. --Tone 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Now I can see who's been spreading rumors about me. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It will make it easier to find archived threads if you know the name. Now we just need to put it in the header here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's making my job of updating links to archived threads much easier. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Another user has taken over my Userspace Talk page

Another user, Tb (talk) has taken over my Userspace Talk page. He keeps placing rude and offensive remarks there and has refused my polite but firm requests to leave. He also keeps reverting me -- on my own Talk page -- and has taken control over it. Since the vast majority of this user's edits are edit warring with others throughout Wikipedia and since he is edit warring in my own Userspace against my frequent requests to stop, I ask that he be banned. Thank you. Ad.minster (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted only to remove my own comments after they became the occasion for personal attacks on me, and when they no longer served any purpose. Since I did so, I have engaged in no further conversation with User:Ad.minster except for [1] which was an attempt to resolve this very discussion directly. I have hardly "taken control" over anything. Any user can examine my own edit history and see that the statement made on that regard is incorrect. Tb (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I counted at least 6 instances of reverting me on my own Talk page in 12 hours, so at least you can block him based on the Wikipedia:3RR rules. And then there are the issues of taking over my pages and hounding me there after he was asked many times to leave, to justify banning. Thank you! Ad.minster (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP:3RR rules are explicit that they do not apply to an editor reverting his own edits. I have only reverted my own comments, and left the rest untouched. By contrast, your reversions are not reverts of your own edits, and likely do violate WP:3RR, though I think that's really beside the point here. Tb (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

At a casual glance, I see no justification for banning. How about you just stop squabbling? I see some pretty questionable behavior on your part here. Other people are allowed to leave you messages on your talk page- that's what your talk page is for. Friday (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked to stop squabbling, but he will not. Further, edit warring on my own pages is still against WP. These are not articles, over which I am the moderator. If he realizes that what he said was wrong, there is no need to conceal that. Ad.minster (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)He seems to be trying to remove his comments and withdraw from the conversation, which you are both edit warring over. This doesn't seem to be productive. I'd suggest you allow him to strike his comments, rather than remove, and both of you consider the matter finished. Dayewalker (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Other people are allowed to leave you messages on your talk page- that's what your talk page is for." A user talk page is for communicating about things to improve the encyclopedia or to leave non-harassing messages. If a message is left and removed by that user, the communication was already made. There's very little reason to put it back except to be harassing. And if a person says such edits are not helping, there's nothing to be gained to putting more of the same kind there, so the other person should respect those wishes. DreamGuy (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy, you may have misunderstood the situation. This is not a case where I left a message, he deleted it, and I keep readding it. It's the opposite. I left a message, he read it, he added a personal attack, and I deleted the original message I had left when it seemed to be pointless to keep it around and the occasion for personal attack. Tb (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He is removing his comments, but not withdrawing from the conversation. Who controls your Userspace? Ad.minster (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop reverting and just leave it alone. I hope this will fix the immediate problem. No one editor has absolute control over your user talk page- this is a wiki, so it's a collaborative thing. Friday (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You do, to a limited extent anyway. Admins can put permanent notices on it in certain circumstances, or remove copyright violations or whatever. Certainly this other person doesn't own your talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a certain amount of control over your talk page, as you do over your comments. I've left him a message suggesting he strike the comments, which hopefully will end the discussion. Also, I've informed him of this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, I am permitted to revert my own changes according to WP:3RR. I may have misunderstood, since this situation seems rather unusual. Another editor suggests that I should strike through my comments, as a compromise, but I believe this is not sufficient. I believe that User:Ad.minster's comments constitute personal attacks. I note that he has now created User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing_with_difficult_people in which he thus identifies me as a "difficult person" by name--already not allowed--and continues the attack. As for whether I have withdrawn from the conversation, I believe I have. I have made only one edit other than to remove my comments, which was here [2]. This was an attempt to discuss it directly, following upon the suggestion I received in response to an admin help request here [3]. A satisfactory resolution for me would be for User:Ad.minster to agree to the removal of my comments from his pages (both User talk:Ad.minster and User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people, and he should feel free to edit or remove his comments however he wants provided he leaves me out of it. Tb (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ad.minster has now put the same comments in User:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people, labelled a "permanent record". ATM, User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people is only partial. Since the purpose of these pages is purely to continue to post the personal attack against me, I object to them. I would normally simply open a RfD on them, but it seems more productive to wait for some resolution of this complaint. Tb (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about just stop squabbling? No one is attacking you, my friend. Since you started squabbling, I am obligated to maintain a record. Had you dropped it like I and everyone else asked, there would be no need for that. If you had behaved appropriately, you would not be worried about the record of your actions, good sir.

Please stop! Ad.minster (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit logs are a sufficient record if that's what you want. In accord with WP:Assume good faith, I take you at your word that all you want is a record (preserved in the edit log) and the comments removed (which you say was your goal all along). I ask that you now

* delete my comments from your page, which you say you wanted, and could always have done, and

* allow the edit logs to be a fully sufficient "record" of whatever you think needs recording. Tb (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for resolution. I am distressed by this whole matter, and I am particularly distressed that resolution is so slow to occur. I believe it is clear that Ad.minster insists that his pages with attacks against me be left in some way. He seems willing to push the bits around, but always provided it seems that there is some attack left. I would like the whole thing simply removed, and I insist that I believe that WP policy is perfectly clear that I am permitted to revert my own edit, and that he is not permitted to add comments under my name. I would be entirely satisfied by the removal of my edits and the agreement by him to drop the whole thing from his user page. No admin here has seen fit to object to my actions--though I readily confess that there must have been a better way for me to deal, I could not find it, and when I asked, I was simply pointed as WP:DR, and I'm doing that the best I know how, miserably perhaps though it may be. I believe it's transparent that his comments constitute personal attacks, and equally transparent that the comments I left on his page do not. I would like to hear some kind of approach to a resolution. I believe what I think is a fair resolution is clear. It is also perfectly clear that "hey, you two work it out" is not going to happen. I do not appreciate being attacked, or laughed at, or treated as an object of ridicule, and that is what Ad.minster is doing, in my opinion. Tb (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he has a "story" which purports to tell the tale of my horrific actions, again with a link to the edit log--still a personal attack. He says "you're not mentioned in it", and then all a user must do is click twice to see my name, and his attacks against me. I would like an administrator to help me understand what I can do to have the attacks removed rather than obfuscated, moved to sub-pages, linked-to-in-edit-log, or otherwise kept. Tb (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he is deleting my own comments, not his own!

Please stop. That is a very gracious story. Furthermore you are not named at all. The worst thing you could say is that I called you -- or someone -- my friend. Are you my friend?

Further it is not a personal attack to say here or in a talk page that you are a difficult person.

Several people have asked you to stop squabbling, please stop. Ad.minster (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No you are not my friend. The story contained a link to me. Without the link, I have no objection, but with a link saying, "oh, and this is the original", it is disingenuous to protest that I'm not mentioned. The story, which you find so gracious, labels me as ego-ridden and unable to get over myself. If you were genuinely willing to let the matter drop--that is, dropped without any commentary on your pages, I would be quite content. Failing that, commentary without my name, without pointers to my name, and without my words, is an acceptible compromise to me. Tb (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested what I thought was an easy way to get past this, neither party went for it. Just for Ad.minster's reference, I think what you've done is questionable in nature and shows very bad faith against this editor. Please don't take my suggestion as endorsing your side of the discussion. This is not an instance of one side being right or wrong, this entire situation is ridiculous. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Let's drop it as I have been asking from the beginning. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Ad.minster (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "you" you're referring to Dayewalker, can you clarify? The story in question labels me as ego-ridden. Tb (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read my silly story, the ego part of it is in the first person, thus taking the onus on me, not anyone else. At most it labels an anonymous person as "my friend." But since you say you are not a friend, can you drop it now? Ad.minster (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)To clarify, I was speaking to Ad.minster, since his above comments seemed to imply that editors were asking Tb to stop, and by inference denying his own involvement.

Ad.minster, I see no productive reason why you would want to keep a record of this incident, but if you want to keep it without directly referring to Tb (as the page stands now), I see nothing wrong with that. If you insist on keeping his comments after he has repeatedly tried to end the discussion and delete them, this may enter into the area of personal attacks and edit warring, and admin attention may be required.

According to WP:3RR, you're both in your rights as to reverting what has already happened. However, not breaking WP:3RR does not mean that edit warring hasn't taken place. If you both can just say now that this is over and leave things as they are, that would be best. If an admin has to waste time sorting through this one, blocks may be handed out. It's best to handle this between the two of you. As I said, the way the page is now seems fine. Dayewalker (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We're back. :(: I thought we had reached resolution, in which User:Ad.minster would leave his little story up, but remove the references to me, including those via linking. He has apparently decided now that this is not ok, and restored the personal reference to me. I would appreciate advice about how to proceed next. I am not willing to simply ignore the personal attack. Particularly offensive is this: [4], but it is not the only present example. Is it appropriate for me to introduce a WP:RfC now? Is it appropriate for me to introduce a WP:MfD on User:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people now? Tb (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please consider waiting to see his response to my comments on his talk page. I'm hoping a word from an uninvolved person will be able to prevent the need for the hassle of RFC, MFD, etc. I know this is dragging out longer than you would like, but I'd still like to give it a chance. --barneca (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. I've given up any hope of speedy resolution. Perhaps my impatience is part of the original problem. Tb (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Better, but not done: An admin today removed the most offensive part of the personal attack, but I still object to being named in any context which is designed either to attack my behavior or ridicule me, and the pages still do that. Tb (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the entire page at User:Ad.minster/Dealing_with_difficult_people ought to be deleted. Even if technically it might not be suitable for a speedy deletion as an attack page, I don't think it is serving any constructive purpose, and my understanding is that we generally only allow users to make comments on (or store links that record) other users' behaviour when it's being done in preparation for some sort of dispute resolution. That does not seem to be the case here. This just looks like one user wants to create a permanent record of another user's behaviour, and to accompany it with their own commentary. And it most certainly is not what it claims to be, which is an example of how to use humour to defuse tension. In my experience, one has to make oneself the butt of the joke for such a tactic to work. Remarks like Did it ever occur to you that your pointless comments here are rude and offensive? You drip with anger and hate, like a fresh-fried squirrel in pecan batter. are more likely to be counterproductive. And Do I sense a whiff of intolerance? I pray God may the spirit of love soon fill your heart might seem innocuous enough - if you're an evangelical Christian - but if so, how would you feel if someone suggested, e.g. that you'd be less intolerant if you weren't crippled by your dogmatic religion, or that it'd all be okay if you just made a sacrifice to our lord Satan? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've courtesy blanked the page in the interim due to Ad.minster's tendency to edit sporadically. MFD may also be an option. –xeno (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad.minster???

I've never seen Ad.minster before, but I do have problems with his name and wanted to see what the rest of you thought. He is not an administer, but his name implies that he is. He has been established for about 3 months now, but wanted to see if others felt his name is problematic?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is officially approved and edits go back to 2006!! Approval: [5] and Establishment: [6]Ad.minster (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it, I assumed it was less of a admin thing and more religious, since he seems prone to religious tracts on his talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The fact that it has been discussed previously, does not mean that the name is acceptable. It still implies that you are something you are not, which is IMO problematic. The reason I didn't bring it up at UAA is because you do have a history here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the name that the RfD board decided in the final resolution. It was Wikipedia's choice for me. Ad.minster (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the link you all are looking for is here [7]. Note sure what the 2006 date is about; that was the old user name "Adminster". Tb (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend(?). And please laugh at me. Ad.minster (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Privacy problem: posting of IP address that were previously concealed

I am not sure if this is the correct place to report a privacy problem: i.e. the posting of an IP address that was previously concealed. When an autoblock is lifted, the unblock success notice reveals the IP address. Please can the IP address be removed from the template? Lightmouse (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the IP address is already revealed by the user posting the unblock request. I don't think that they can be unblocked without giving up that part of their privacy. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is actually some number like #XXXXXXX, which is not a real IP address. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The block message asks the autoblocked user to provide the IP address and the blockid as part of the unblock request. For an admin to unblock, all they need is the blockid which does not identify the individual IP. Woody (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what the complaint is actually about, is that afterwords the unblocking admin leaves the IP address written on the page. I believe that the solution should include replacing the body of {{unblock-auto}} (the box with the block info and the admin instructions) as I did here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now fixed {{unblock-auto}} per above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I just have two points of clarification:

• The IP address was formerly revealed as part of the request.
• The IP address was formerly revealed when the request was granted.

What is the situation now? Lightmouse (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Now:

• The IP address is revealed as part of the request.
• In granting a release from an autoblock, the recommended message no longer contains the IP address, although in other blocks the recommended message does. (Note that the admin is free to use a different message in the case of granting an unblock).

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. User:Ruslik0 said it "is not a real IP address" and User:Woody said "For an admin to unblock, all they need is the blockid which does not identify the individual IP". I don't understand what they both mean but can we eliminate the IP address from the request too? Lightmouse (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is useful to spot multiple unblock requests from the same IP, and to investigate what happened. If an autoblocked user doesn't wish personal informations to be revealed (the fact that they are on the same IP as a blocked user is a personal information), they can sit through the 24 hours block. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the response. Od Mishehu said that autoblock message now doesn't reveal the IP but "in other blocks the recommended message does". Can they be changed too? Lightmouse (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets take this in easy steps. Can somebody provide a list of templates that reveal the IP address? Lightmouse (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can regular editors decline blocks?

For clarification - can and should non-admin contributors decline blocks? --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to defend myself here: the case was clear cut, and I was helping to keep the backlog down as much as possible. Non-admins are encouraged to close AFDs and decline CSDs where it's obvious no admin action is needed; why not extend this to blocks and protections, if it isn't already (in very limited cases, mind)? What's the harm? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, Afds and Csds are on highly watched pages. Unblock requests are not. Don't do this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blunt answer - people will only complain if you get it wrong. Long winded answer - I don't mind, to be honest, although there's two camps, some editors believe you need to have the trust of the community to deal with blocks, so you need to have passed RfA, whilst other editors would argue turning down a block is something any editor can do as long as it's done properly. The reaction you'll get will depend on what you do, whether it's right or wrong, and the persons philosophy. Nick (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet a bit of clue suggests that non-Admins can't and shouldn't do this. Suppose a non-Admin decides that unblocking is appropriate? We're no further forward. --Rodhullandemu 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, things like ability to view deleted contributions can be an important factor in unblock requests - if the user reviewing the unblock can't see the 3 attack pages a user has created and then goes onto agree unblocking is in order, they're not really helping either, but if it's a straightforward unblock request that will only ever be declined, say something like a prolific sockpuppet or something, there's not much a non admin can do wrong if they're doing things properly. Nick (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I declined it. If there was any reason why the unblock would be granted for that request, I would've not declined it. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not power, but responsibility. Whereas all editors are accountable in some way, Admins are given the trust of the community to be able to take these decisions, and that trust is based on their perceived experience, ability and, er, trustworthiness. I'd say that whereas many non-admin editors *could* exercise that discretion equally properly, the community has not given it to them. One reason is that whereas de-sysopping is a very real sanction for inappropriate use of discretion, which concentrates the mind, there is no effective sanction for other editors and thus a rogue editor (as opposed to a rouge admin) could refuse unblock requests, thereby taking them out of the category and preventing their review by admins. I don't think that's what is intended by WP:BLOCK. Worse if they purport to grant them, because the blocked editor then wonders why they can't edit. I take the view that unblocking is not an asymmetric function of an admin, and therefore should not be delegated. WP:SNOW Afd closes are quite different, because a discretion doesn't really arise. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins are only really responsible for making sure that the wiki doesn't asplode if they use one of their buttons. (seriously, we have a lot of really dumb admins atm, this was never different). Everything else is determined by consensus. So sure, 2 or more regular editors can discuss an unblock request, and it be upon the head of the admin if they then go against the consensus! (up to and including losing the bit). An admin does not delegate their responsibilities to the community, the community delegates certain responsibilities to the admin. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're worried about rogue users, well, they can already do that kind of thing right? Even if nothing else, the probably the template needs to be hardened against that particular abuse? Would you be able to think of a way to do so? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there now (or ever) a significant backlog in this category? If an unblock request that's going to be denied anyway sits in the queue for a while longer, no harm will come to Wikipedia. If an unblock request that should be granted sits for too long, there's nothing that a non-admin can do (directly) anyway. Feel free to add a short comment or recommendation (if you must) to requests that should be denied, but you probably shouldn't close them yourself. Frankly, the really clear-cut closes cases don't take very long to examine, and while your intentions are good, I suspect that you're probably not saving anyone very much time.

If there's an unblock request that you think should be granted, then drop a note on AN/I. Those are the requests that are worthwhile to answer quickly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely so! --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I can make a coherent argument too ;-)

Gainsaying is not helpful. If you are interested in making a cogent argument on the subject, I'm welcome to it, though what is in place immediately below doesn't really cut the mustard. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's always seemed obvious to me that non-admins shouldn't be responding to unblock requests; as I recently warned Ncmvocalist, non-administrators do not have the technical capability nor expressed community trust to block and unblock users. While I have no issues with non-admins leaving comments for blocked users on their talk pages to offer advice or something else, the backlog of requests is never so long that non-admins need to be attempting to take care of them. GlassCobra 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, regular editors can help decide to place or decline blocks and unblocks, provided their judgment is sound. I've never had any trouble doing so.

It is extremely important for normal editors to be able do as many tasks as is possible and safe, to avoid a situation where we creating an elite that effectively rules over the wiki. We want the community to be in charge and stay in charge. There's no reason to disenfranchise ourselves.

I also really like Nick's answer. "No one will complain as long as you get it right". Heh, wikipedia in a nutshell! ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"AFAIK, regular editors can help decide to place or decline blocks and unblocks, provided their judgment is sound." This premise is not true, or I can find no evidence of it at WP:BLOCK. Also, since block reviews are a stickier sort of matter--the review of the block may result in a situation where an administrative decision will be reversed or revised against the will of the original administrator--more care must be taken than with simply recommending blocking. Since that skirts WP:WHEEL, the utmost care must be taken by administrators in reviewing and discussing block reviews. Specific, detailed coverage of this exists in Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block_reviews. The function of the block review is to get the process right and to proceed gingerly. Simply getting the "outcome right" is shotgunning and relying on getting that outcome "right" to justify the act itself fundamentally misses the point. Further, {{Unblock}} notes: "Administrator use only: If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following as notification.", templates are not policy, but common practice and a lack of positive identification of administrator status in signatures would lead a rational person to believe that a non-administrator should not use that template. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nail, head; head, nail. --Rodhullandemu 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it was fine, turns out it's not. No harm done, really. And we've got clarification on the matter :) Sceptre ^(talk) 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: Why would the judgement of an administrator be any better than that of anyone else in this case?

This is not a disingenuous question: You see, you can't argue that "the community said so at RFA" because rfa is judged mostly on numbers of edits to paticular pages, which says absolutely nothing about admin ability to actually judge an unblock request.

If you happen to accept the current RFA criteria as sufficient to become an admin, you can't then turn around and claim that admins are more capable of judging this kind of thing than any other person.

But this leaves the question as to what grounds there are to actually have this template only be used by admins.

My own take on this is that admins are trusted to not use their buttons to abuse the wiki. I agree that the current admin criteria at RFA don't exactly test for this either (and in fact, I have complained about this). Nevertheless, new admins do get the buttons put into their hands, and they are expected to not break the wiki. So de facto, this is true.

I would then at least put forward that anything that *can* be done safely by a none-admin should be doable by a none-admin. This has actually been how wikipedia has worked for as long as we have had admins.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC) One reason for having my admin bit set to "off" is that it is a lot easier to catch these situations as they occur. If I'm forced to make a choice between telling people off, or having my bit set back to "on" to retain a particular functionality; I'll try telling people off first :-P

You are turning this into an existential question where the matter at hand neither requires it nor is our discussion sufficient to resolve it. We cannot tell whether or not your decision making capacity is "greater" than mine simply by looking at the admin bit. You could list a host of reasons why you aren't an admin or why RfA is a bad proxy for "decision making ability". None of that is in question. We live in a micro-society. As such, we have to dole out responsibility within the community to certain individuals. Some process must exist to do that and some distinction must exist between those who have that responsibility and those who don't. Most of the things on wiki are lightweight and look nothing like processes to determine "responsibility" in the outside world. Often, the process is (by design) self-selection. In most cases that works well. Sometimes there is a formal selection process, sometimes there is an informal selection process. Where RfA fits in that taxonomy of processes is not important to the fact that some process exists and some distinction exists. I note above that you say that "Admins are only really responsible for making sure that the wiki doesn't asplode if they use one of their buttons." At the risk of being tautological, I would have to disagree. We can't just have admins responsible for that or otherwise we wouldn't need administrators--there would be no one to block, ban, or otherwise restrict in a world where admins are only responsible for policing themselves. Since we aren't in that world, we have to deal with the fact that some responsibilities get parsed out and some (see Rodhullandemu) are less devolvable than others. As such it is not useful to diverge from speaking of responsibility to speaking of pure decision-making capacity. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First up: you ask what we still need admins for, and the answer is really that we hardly need the separate flag at all anymore. Adminship has been thoroughly nerfed. Originally admins got particular buttons that could actually damage the wiki (deletion was permanent, you could run arbitrary mysql SELECTs, including queries that could run forever, etc.) So we really don't need admins for many tasks anymore. What we do still have admins for is for the split-second decisions: block a vandal before they make a bigger mess, or to speedy delete the pages the vandal just created.

Practically anything else can be done at a more leisurely tempo by the community. So also an unblock review. If we review the process you linked to yourself, you'll see that most of the steps involve discussions and gaining consensus. This can de facto be done by any user: discussing and gaining consensus are things any user can do, after all.

You are only supposed to edit the template as the final step in the process. If you have followed the process correctly, then you already know that what you are going to say in the template has consensus of the involved admins, and of the community. If not, you have made a mistake (it doesn't matter here whether you are an admin or a normal user either).

The only thing that a normal user can -not- do is that they cannot hit an unblock button if it turns out that unblocking is necessary. If they have been discussing with the admin in question, they can ask the admin to do the unblock. (once again, if this is being done by an admin, it would still be wise for the admin to get a second opinion from another admin who might then push the unblock button themselves, so once again, the difference between an admin and a regular user is minimal)

So checking the process itself, there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to require that the template be edited by an admin. Any conscientious user can do so safely.

Is there anything I've missed? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC) This is essentially part of my argument why the admin flag is redundant for sufficiently experienced wikipedians. I think I already demonstrated that the basic argument is correct a long time ago. I'm getting bit tired of demonstrating though. So I'll admit that sometimes I'm terribly tempted to just ask for the flag back and tell people "see? I'm an admin, look at my shiny flag, now stfu", but that would set a terribly bad example. I do not think admins should be able to do that at all.

I'm a strong supporter of devolving administrator rights. I believe that almost every part of the "bit" that can be technically moved to specialist usergroups and controlled through a less...colorful process than RfA should be. However, we have not devolved the right and responsibility to block/unblock so we should not act as though we have simply because we feel we are better judges of who is responsible than RfA. And frankly, discussing the unblock (a perfectly reasonable thing to do) is a far cry from declining/accepting it and removing the trancluded template. It doesn't even bear on the subject to say that any non-admin can discuss blocks--we aren't talking about that. The responsibility of declining/accepting unblock requests or 'dealing' with them substantively rests with administrators--not because of some special gift in the person between the keyboard and the chair but because the community has already determined that will be the case. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone has really discussed it much until now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (Best note I've found so far: Template_talk:Unblock#Notice_to_Admins_and_why_Admins_only.3F. No one replied)

(Undent)TL;DR, but, there is no written policy anywhere that non sysop persons can or cannot deny unblock requests. Its worth noting two things. First, that sysops are the only ones who can accept unblock requests - you need the tool to lift the block so there is a certain amount of parity expected that sysops are the ones doing the unblock requests - if for no other reason than it may (unintentionally) confuse the blocked user. Second, pretty much everything on Wikipedia relies on an editor's ability to "get the message." when they're acting outside of what a relevant portion of the community wishes.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your position. I'm looking at this from the pov that (I hope that) the unblock review is being done by at least some small group of people, rather than by an admin all by themselves (that's what typically happened/happens when I did/do unblocks, with/without admin buttons). In that case it doesn't really matter which member of the group really does the typing in the unblock review template. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In theory yes - in practice many unblock reviews are done by a single (user acting as an) administrator --Tznkai (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

*Nod* and that might not always be a great idea.

Naturally, it would be foolish to tell people off for following the best practice, while allowing a common-but-not-so-good-practice to flourish. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to accept on faith that claim. You would have to provide some compelling evidence to say that a single user accepting or declining an unblock is inferior to a group of users doing the same thing. In some cases I can see how that would be the case, however in others I can see how the result would be worse. So what is your evidence that group discussion of unblocks represents best practice? Protonk (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As you probably *don't* know (because someone has been editing the page that documented the fact... grrrr), in November 2005, I stated an interesting experiment. I quietly asked User:Angela to remove my admin bit, but I didn't actually stop doing any of my normal duties. It took roughly 6 months for the first person to notice I was adminning without actually having the technical admin bit ;-). By handing in my bit, I was forced to go to other admins to double-check my positions whenever I wanted to take a hard-security action. And the interesting thing is that in 2006, AFAICR I really did get into rather less trouble and wikidrama than in 2005.

I think it takes roughly a year of experience as an administrator before you can do without the bit. Some people with good mediation skills have been a tad quicker about it, while other people never become skilled enough. In your case, I think you'd have to wait 'till october of this year, correct? Otherwise I'd have challenged you to simply try it out and see. ;-)

I agree that looking at my own experience is just one data-point. Previously, Wikipedia:Former Administrators listed other people who decided to do the same thing; but someone has evidently removed that documentation from the page, possibly because it wasn't clear enough, for some reason.

One reason I'm making a bit of noise here is due to the fact that I'd like to continue to actually take all/most appropriate admin actions without resorting to asking the bit back. That would not be cool, because it could mean mean that the admin bit has taken on a non-technical role as a badge, and that the wikipedia community has taken a step towards the hierarchical governance model (a model which is fine for armies for instance, but it is not particularly suitable for wikis).

I agree that it's just a small thing, but over time, a lot of small things have slowly been adding up to much bigger things. This is evidenced by the fact that a lot of people here seem to push for admins having more than a purely technical role. (To wit: by arguing that (a) certain template(s) should now be restricted to admin use only. -Note that at the time of the creation of the admin role, said template definitely did not exist, so this is clearly a fairly new thing)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) There are many reasons why one can act as an admin without an admin bit. The better you get at meatball:SoftSecurity, the more effective you can become at it, to the point where the admin bit can actually become a hindrance.

Shorter version: An alternate argument for those who TL;DR, and/or "must follow policy": it takes at least 2 people to discuss an unblock request in the case of wanting to unblock, because it is policy: The original blocking admin, and whoever it is who is doing the review. Further, (as also argued at WP:BRD for edits), it's generally wise to let someone reverse their own actions, rather than doing it for them, as that reduces the chances for conflict. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly one to put the "role" of admins on a pedestal, but this like closing an AFD as "Delete" is one of those things that only admins with tools should be doing. The wiki-way, besides being a talking point, obviously does not and was never intended to go to "all things", or else every IP user would have the tools. rootology (C)(T) 06:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I am often critical of our admin concept here in Wikipedia, I admit that there are some functions that need to be the perogative of admins. Making an unblock decision is one of them. Non-admins should stay away from unblock requests except to help advise the deciding admin on the decision to make. Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an additional problem here with desyopped ex-admins? Hasn't the community (in that case) explicitly noted that they do not trust that class of editor to be involved in broom work? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get it, why are there all these drama why are there all these technical fuss over something so insignificant. This user is obviously trolling around with the unblock requests. Are we trying to create some-sort of burocracy for how things are done here? If we are saying that only admins can decline that sort of unblock request, we might as well say "you can't revert vandalism unless your an administrator" as well, because he might as well placed an unblock reason like this, {{unblock|FUCK YOU ALL WIKI AMDINS FOR BLOCKING ME}} and are we saying that the only person who can respond to that is an admin? Y. Ichiro (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I must not see it. Where is the drama? A general question was asked and people are debating it (as we are wont to do). No one is getting butthurt over it, no one is slinging invective. This is a reasonable discussion of where people feel comfortable with admin/non-admin rights. If you want drama see the thread below. Protonk (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I should reword that then. :) But it's all these techinical fuss that makes us so buerocratic. We need no admin to say that unblock is invalid, anybody with common sense can see that. Yet why is an administrator needed to respond to this. I think it's all these little things probably making Wikipedia administrators more of a position of power than just being a janitor. I thought adminship was no big deal. Y. Ichiro (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That's fair. I think that the literal issue isn't a big deal, but that the abstract one is. We can both think of examples where a declined unblock would be obvious--a vandal making a facetious unblock request or a vulgar one, or an obvious sock posting an unblock request that names the puppeteer. But we can also realize two things, one practical and one founded more in principle: First, there is rarely a backlog of any significance in the unblock category and an administrator can most easily deal with the abuse of the unblock request (roll it back and modify the block or protect the page). Second, we void the premise of unblocks as a 'review' of administrator action if we leave the declining of an unblock up to the judgment of any editor who feels that the issue is clear-cut. To whit, we have editors who misuse the speedy keep criteria frequently, confusing (deliberately or otherwise) a 'keep' vote with a call that the nomination be cut short procedurally. Those editors see a clear cut case where most of us see nuance. To say "we leave the decision of whether or not the unblock request is remotely reasonable" to any editor is (in some cases) tantamount to just leaving an unblock up to that editor. We then only rely on a third party having the blocked user's talk page watchlisted as an oversight mechanism--that works rather poorly, especially for IP editors.
    • As for the janitor vs. NBD, those two thoughts are not in opposition, nor is it universally accepted that admins are best thought of as janitors (I prefer plumbers). Blocks and unblocks are pretty contentious areas, so that technical 'power' feels a lot like interpersonal 'power' and shares a lot of its characteristics. I think the claim that the tools are agnostic vis a vis those power relationships is not always true (for good or ill). As such we can't proceed from that premise and argue that only technical capacity should drive distinctions, IMO. Protonk (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • {{unblock|FUCK YOU ALL WIKI AMDINS FOR BLOCKING ME}} should be handled only by admins, as we might decide that the abuse history in the user's talk page warrants readjusting the block or protecting the talk page. Besides, generally speaking, there's no real upside to having non-admins do this, as there's a) no way a non-admin can unblock someone, b) a user might [somewhat validly] make a fuss about having someone who has been judged to not have the community's confidence (or at least not judged to have it) reviewing his unblock. That's the same reason non-admins shouldn't close controversial XfD's: It just causes less headaches all around. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And I am equally opposed to not letting non-admins close controversial XFDs. There are non-admins in medcom and IIRC also OTRS these days, and I trust each and every one of those people more than I trust J. Random Admin. ;-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Protonk: You argue that a normal user might decline an unblock by themselves, and that this would go unchecked. But... an admin should not decline an unblock unchecked either, because then it's "admin acting unilaterally", which is actually considered a much bigger deal than when a normal user does it (we call the latter "user being WP:BOLD", go figure ;-) ).

In the case of blocks/unblocks, people should always sanity-check their actions with at least one other admin (preferably the blocking admin) and/or with other (experienced) users. Two heads always know more than one. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think there's probably a case to be made for NAD (non-admin declines) based on NAC; when it is mindbogglingly blatantly obvious that an unblock will not be issued, there's a reasonable argument that any sufficiently clueful user could decline the unblock along the lines of 'no admin action needed'. Stuff like CU-verified socks, blatant incivility in the unblock request, etc. I've seen a bunch of unblock requests that, had the community indicated that everyone could decline requests, I would have declined on sight for the aforementioned reasons. That being said, though, the points above regarding lack of community visibility are not only compelling, they are much, much stronger than any arguments in favour of NAD. When a non-admin closes an XfD, hundreds of eyes see it, and any problems come to light more or less immediately. When an unblock is declined, only talkpage stalkers see it. For new users especially, that may well be a grand total of zero eyes. This is an obvious concern, especially given that blocked new users tend to be upset anyway; having an unblock declined capriciously (in their view) could mean the difference between a new user who learns their lesson, and a new version of He Who Shall Not Be Named.

If it were possible to have unblock requests transcluded via bot to a page that all admins watch (as opposed to the cat they're in now), with a note (via bot) when the unblock is declined and by whom, I think we could probably support at least a trial of non-admin declines. 1600 people would see when unblocks are declined, and if there's a trend of bad decisions then the experiment could be stopped and policy updated/clarified to reflect the practice. If, on the other hand, unblocks are declined reasonably, perhaps it's not a bad idea. But again, as with NAC, only in blatantly obvious cases where no admin action is required; CU-verified socks and incivility in the unblock request. Given the enormous headaches in setting up that sort of situation, the simple issue of visibility of actions is enough to state categorically that non-admins shouldn't decline unblocks, quite apart from issues of trust, usage of the tools, etc. // roux   10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC) After ec, Titoxd makes an excellent additional point.

I've made (non-admin) comments on unblock requests, but I wouldn't actually handle one. Just my $0.02. shoy (reactions) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I was of the opinion that non-admins should be able to do anything that doesn't actually require admin tools. As an admin, I still feel that way. If you see an unblock request that registers as a "speedy decline", then, sure, go ahead and decline it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

With the always-present caveat that, if you are found to be declining blocks that shouldn't be, then we will block you. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Policyfied

OK, I'm late to the discussion, but I agree with the rough consensus expressed above and conforming to current practice – i.e., non-admins should not decline unblock requests (including patently inadequate ones) because they don't have the tools (including unblocking and viewing deleted pages) to deal with unblock situations, and because unnecessary drama is avoided by not giving the blocked user a chance to complain that his request was declined by someone who could not have granted it in any case.

I've taken the liberty to boldly policify this in WP:BP as: "Only administrators may decline unblock requests, even disruptive ones, but other users may also contribute to the review process, such as by leaving comments on the blocked user's talk page." Maybe WT:BP would be a better place to continue this?  Sandstein  08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a move in the wrong direction, because it assigns a non-technical role to an administrator (which is defined as a technical role, determined by an entry in a mysql table (to wit: user-rights)).

I'll continue discussing at WT:BP. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this up there if anyone tries to oppose the change, since it's a good one. We're not bound by clerical dogma here, or ancient (relative) practices, or adherence to old ideas that modern practice doesn't skew to. Since modern (today) practice is policy, Sandstein's edit was spot on. rootology (C)(T) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good move sandstein. rootology (C)(T) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call Sandstein. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

MiltonP Ottawa

MiltonP Ottawa (talk · contribs) is planning to delete the FA article Jack Sparrow after I objected to his mass deletions to Titanic and Transformers where his only statement is that information he admits is interesting is "trivia". I believe his last edit crossed over into the realm into bad faith. This editor has already been warned about general incivility and I cannot assume good faith on his constant "this is trivia" rants on the talk pages of Titanic and TF. I didn't want any more of his nonsense and removed his messages on my talk page, but this is not good editing or discussion. He called me a "pissed off" person who treates Wikipedia as a "fan site"! Alientraveller (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Though a disagreement over what is trivial should be regulated to a talk page, I cannot agree with Milton's actions of prodding Jack Sparrow, a featured article on a fictional character because he deems the article to be "trivial". I have to agree with Alien that it is hard to take this edit on good faith given his previous edits of removing "technical" information (Milton's word for describing production information on a film) as "trivial" (Milton's word again).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from his talk page, Milton is somewhat resilient to constructive criticism. I'm not sure what immediate admin action is needed here, so long as he stops and or tones it down. Also please make sure you let him know that he is being discussed here. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I notified the editor of this discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In acts of vandalism, the editor moved Anarchy and moved User:Alientraveller. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I reported him to WP:AIV. They put him on ice for the next 31 hours. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

His personal comments aimed at AlienTraveler don't look promising: [8] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ATurnerIII blocked for legal threats

As a FYI, I have indefinitely blocked ATurnerIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making legal threats after an AfD on an article he wrote did not have the result he wanted. Mr. Turner's various threats of litigation are as follows: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. Keeping WP:DOLT in mind -especially since dealing with litigious editors is not my forte- any other admin with more expertise in this area should feel free to adjust the block as they see fit without contacting me first. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good block. We don't need twats like that. I'd regard indef as a minimum --Rodhullandemu 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We can add two more threats to the collection. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Threats continuing on talk page after block; reblocked with talk page editing disabled. --barneca (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Antitrust" lol. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in to say "good call". I doubt you're going to find anyone who objects to this block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Dude had more froth going than my latte. Impressive, really, especially with the whole antitrust thing thrown in. Good block. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-visiting an indefinite block - Betacommand

There is a thread here regarding setting a specified duration for Beta's currently indefinite block. Because Beta cannot edit elsewhere and in the interest of keeping discussion centralized, please comment there, not here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that discussing the block here is a more appropriate venue, so that's what I'm going to do. Beta is (of course) free to reply on his page, and I'll read his reply.

"Madness" has been defined as "Doing the exact same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." It's unclear to me what, exactly, has changed since the other 40 (or however many) times Beta has been blocked. Certainly, I've seen no indications from him personally that he's had a change or heart, or that he recognizes the seriousness of his misbehavior. Until such time as we see that from him, rather than from his advocates, I strongly oppose any sort of unblock. Nandesuka (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, MZMcBride is suggesting that BC is unblocked, with the same old restrictions as before and that we all go on our merry way. The thing is, that will not work, as in the previous discussion he did not even acknowledge the restrictions placed against him (he was well aware of them, he just chose to give two fingers up to them instead). Besides, a month for a block is far, far too short, particularly when you consider that some people have been indefinitely blocked for much less than this. He will only merely "ride it out" as usual, as he himself says, rather than learn anything from it. Time and time again there's big debate about it here at AN, and it's nothing but a drain on Wikipedia's resources and waste of time for everyone involved. He "apologises", then he snaps at someone or whatever, and then he's blocked again. No other editor on Wikipedia has had as many chances as him. Betacommand is a problem. And rather than dealing with the problem, it is simply being left to spiral out of control, as we have seen already. This method of dealing with it simply does not work. It's time to put the foot on the floor and lay down the law. He may one day wish to return as a civil, collaborative, editor, but this will never happen unless he is made to realise that what he has been doing is simply unacceptable both now and in the future. Giving him the easy route out, yet again, is not the way to do it. He needs time, at the very least. --.:Alex:. 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we just move the whole discussion here? It would be best to have it in one place and AN is a better forum for this discussion than Betacommand's talk page. He's got enough people watching his talk page that if he wants to comment, somebody can copy it over. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There's something surreal about someone making edits that nobody seems to question, and getting indef blocked for it. The block isn't for the edits, it's for who made them and how. Even if that merits a block, "indef" doesn't fit the normal escalating block pattern. Some definite time frame should have been set. Personally, I have a difficult time justifying any block longer than double the previous longest. Gimmetrow 18:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is sort of a surreal argument. By my count, Betacommand has been blocked 26 times (not counting blocks of his various Bot and known public sock accounts). If we imagine that the first block was a 1 hour block, and that we doubled the duration for each violation, the present block should last for 33,554,432 hours, or 3,830 years.

When someone keeps digging a hole this deep, at some point adults are required to step in and take the shovel away. Nandesuka (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also a surreal argument because it ignores the fact that these were not "edits that nobody seems to question". See among many others [15][16][17]. The fundamental misunderstanding here is that BC supporters look at the edits themselves and see no problem. For the admins constantly dealing with the shitstorm that comes when people question the edits and BC inevitably tells them to fuck off, the problem is not the edits: it's their timing, their labelling as vandalism reverts, the ensuing unresponsiveness and aggressiveness on the part of BC. There's something surreal about an editor that needs to be indef blocked before he acknowledges any kind of responsibility for his actions. BC did do a lot of good on the project but over the last months, his unwillingness to change how he does business has made him a liability. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The shitstorms are at least partly, if not largely, due to quite a few editors' failure to deal with these cases in a mature, adult manner. Nothing seems to have changed. Gimmetrow 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-visiting your most recent block

Moved from User talk:Betacommand

An indefinite block here seems inappropriate. Generally speaking, a user is indefinitely blocked when no admin is willing to overturn the block, however, in this case, that is not the case. I propose setting the block to a specified duration on the condition that Beta not make any further automated actions (or bot-like actions) from the account (things like using Twinkle for CSD / AfD tagging excluded). If Beta resumes bot-like editing, the block can be re-set with an increased duration. However, I hope (and believe) that will not be an issue in the future. I propose a specified duration of one month. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me - the user is clearly a good-faith user who has problems with understanding when automated editing is problematic. I think, though, that we should be more specific with what's meant by "things like using Twinkle for CSD / AfD tagging" - since this user has a history of not using proper judgement when deciding what's appropriate in this area, this clause is one which I believe he will apply beyond what's meant. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No a user can be indefinitely blocked by any admin. You are are referring to a de facto ban, which does not exist in this case (because some admins like yourself have expressed their willingness to unblock). Beta remains indefinitely blocked because there is consensus for that to happen - should consensus change he will be unblocked or a duration will be set. Remember that indefinite does not mean infinite. Viridae^Talk 08:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? That's a bit too much parsing of block versus ban for my tastes. :-) Regardless, I want to specify a duration for the block as I feel the current duration isn't appropriate. Whichever steps head in that direction I'm in favor of. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Agreed. If MZMcBride would like to revisit this he should start a new discussion at WP:AN (but I'd wait; the other discussion from WP:AN/I is only a few days old and no consensus was reached). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I put a note at WP:AN pointing here and explaining my choice of venue. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a note on my talkpage, especially as you feel my indef block was inappropriate, as I would argue that the case is for Betacommand to provide a basis for unblock rather than find fault with the block - which had consensus at the time. I see no proof yet that consensus, rather than the views of some, has changed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support unblock: I strongly support the review of the indefinite block of BC. The block may be only for a specified duration and BC should be able to continue to contribute to the project ( and may be without the bot like edits). -- Tinu Cherian - 08:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose unblock, nothing seems to have changed since the last time we seemed to get consensus for the indef block, thus I don't see why we need to be revisiting this at this stage. Additionally, I object to the choice of venue for this, a place like WP:AN would get more views and a greater diversity of input, and any conclusion arrived to there would be seen to have greater legitimacy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose an unblock until we have a clear indication from beta that he knows why this situation continues to occur and that he understands the community is losing (has lost?) patience. I also disagree with the venue. Viridae^Talk 09:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support immediate Unblock just as soon as Betacommand accepts that what he did was outside of the terms of his restrictions, that the restrictions still apply, and he will be indefinitely blocked again should he violate them again. I would comment that should he be unblocked and later blocked again for the same or similar violation of the restrictions - which does include a civility parole - that the demand for a ban might be so considerable that it would be unlikely there will be a sysop willing to unblock. Providing the Betacommand understands that, then there is no need to serve any further definite period of sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, I made that statement already. [18] β^_command 15:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me; I trust you also understand it also, but per AGF I am therefore inclined to support unblock per your post as linked. However, it still requires consensus from the entire community for it to happen. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support immediate unblock - per LHVU. I would further suggest that for the time being, Betacommand has his process generate lists of the content he would like to remove, for review at VP or a subpage in his userspace, per Newyorkbrad's suggestion above. //roux   13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Madness" has been defined as "Doing the exact same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." It's unclear to me what, exactly, has changed since the other 40 (or however many) times Beta has been blocked. Certainly, I've seen no indications from him personally that he's had a change or heart, or that he recognizes the seriousness of his misbehavior. Until such time as we see that from him, rather than from his advocates, I oppose any sort of unblock. I also concur with Viridae that this discussion should be taking place on WP:AN, and I will encourage people to talk there. Beta is free to read that page and respond here if he likes. Nandesuka (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose unblock - it's far, far too soon since we last failed to gain consensus. What exactly will have changed in this short time? Also, I too dispute the choice to hold this discussion here - a central location such as AN will attract more (much needed) attention. _TalkIslander 14:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose unblock per Islander.--Berig (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose unblock per Nandesuka. I'm not convinced that Betacommand will be able to edit in anything resembling a collaborative manner. I'm concerned that we will be going through the whole circus again in a week if he's let back in. *** Crotalus *** 14:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support unblock with the clear understanding that this is Beta's last chance. I disagree with the latest block in the sense that the task was not at all controversial (removing images w/o valid rationales from pages) but only merited the block on Beta due to the community restrictions. Beta needs to be absolutely clear if he decides to take a task that may appear automated, per the community restrictions, but also make sure to get any clarifications he needs to make sure he doesn't violate them even if he gets the necessary consensus to proceed. If unblocked, admins need to be aware that there are people that will likely want to goad Beta into some type of violation, so if another (and effectively final) block is called for, there needs to be a thorough review of the evidence to make sure it was truly in Beta's means to avoid. --MASEM 15:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support unblock, FWIW. The choice to have the discussion here instead of at AN is perfectly acceptable; as MZMcBride pointed out, Beta is unable to contribute anywhere but here. The statement that he linked to for LessHeard vanU is sufficient for me. GlassCobra 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this choice of venue, the timing of this request for reconsideration, and I strongly oppose the unblock at this time. We've really only just concluded the previous community discussion affirming the indef block and it seems bizarre to try to resample the community in this way after such a short duration. The feeling there, which I share, is that we seem to have offered Beta many, many so-called "last chances" to collaborate effectively, but at present seems unable to do so. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose a limited duration block, but this is not the venue this should be discussed at and any unblock not decided in a forum with lots of eyes is going to cause more problems and be quickly overturned and invalidated. AN it... rootology (C)(T) 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• This situation is ridiculous. A handful of users have been hounding Betacommand to death. There's no way they could be happier than the day when Betacommand is banned from the site for life. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to block him or not. I look at his last 100 article contributions, and what he was doing was perfectly within policy. He gets blocked. In fact, he gets blocked indefinitely. I conducted a similar set of edits, and nobody blocks me.
• Now we're in a situation where we have to have consensus to unblock him???????? That'll never happen. The people that want Betacommand gone from the site permanently have won. The ban is permanent now because there will never be consensus to unblock him. What a bunch of hoo haa.
• Some administrator needs to have the guts to unblock him and take this matter to ArbCom for review, rather than let the lynch mobs run Betacommand off the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• My point was just that if anyone unblocks Beta based on a consensus formed on this page, or anywhere but AN or ANI, it will start a fire that will end at WP:RFAR and probably leave Beta reblocked in the meantime. Unless if the goal is to rocket launch it to RFAR, then go ahead... it sucks, but I can't imagine it going any other way. rootology (C)(T) 16:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The situtation is hardly ridiculous - it is unnecessary distracting large scale drama. BC earned his block through repeated incivility and by ignoring the terms of his continued participation here. Trying to perform some sort of end run through a meaningless vote on a talk page is far more ridiculous. I for one am content to see him cool his heels on the sidelines for an extended period so that there is some measure of peace, and when and if he does return he needs to clearly demonstrate through his actions and demeanor that he gets it. It might start with some selflessness and acceptance of the current circumstances and what drove it to this. Wiggy! (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose unblocking BC. We have already given BC way too much credit. Any other user would have been indefblocked a lot earlier. Everything we have done to try and make him change his ways (desysopping, ArbCom, restrictions, you name it) has failed. Why allow him to return under restrictions when he has already blatantly violated those restrictions? How many last chances can you give to someone? Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock for the time being. While this may be considered an apology and/or admission of wrongdoing, I am not comfortable with an immediate unblock, given the comments raised in the past. seicer | talk | contribs 18:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• I've hesitated to get involved in this, and this will be my only post here, but after reading Hammersoft's accusatory post, I must respond. As a user who has (under a previous account) tangled with BC, and received the blunt end of his personal attacks, I feel that unblocking now would be a major mistake. Are there some users who annoy BC? Sure. Does that justify the way he treats almost anyone who dares disagree with his interpretations of policy? Not in the least. I strongly support a long block, until BC fully grasps that his interpretations of policy aren't the only interpretations of policy, and that the personal attacks he traffics in are completely unacceptable, and pledges to never engage in such behavior again. SDJ 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Immediate Unblock - Unblock and next infraction keep lengthening blocks. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Beta has shown contrition and indicated a (partial) plan to edit in a more acceptable manner, which is good. However, much of the problem arises because of Beta's focus on NFC issues and his apparent belief that his interpretation of NFC policy is the policy. If Beta would agree to confine his NFC activities to talk spaces (let's say for 3 months), that would give him a chance to show improved civility and communication skills. Having an interlocutor and overseer (not necessarily Roux though) would also be good. If Beta would also adopt NewYorkBrad's suggestion for putting proposed edits on sub-pages of his talk, then I'd support an immediate unblock. Existing restrictions would of course continue to apply. Franamax (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fran, I certainly wouldn't want to be said interlocutor. Apart from whatever other issues people will happily invent to say why I shouldn't be, I simply don't know enough about the NFC rules to be able to comment on them with any degree of insight. //roux   20:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think a much safer option (along this line of thinking) would be to just give Beta an outright topic-ban on NFC. That's where he's caused most problems, so take that out of the equation and perhaps it might help. Having said that, I oppose an unblock at this time, as I've stated above. _TalkIslander 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, a topic-ban might be "safer" but I'm not sure it would be a net benefit. Beta does have extensive knowledge and perspective on NFC issues and an ability to make large-scale tools to gather and analyze information. That's not the problem - the problem is Beta's method of executing on these abilities, which consistently gets him into trouble. He makes direct actions in live spaces and when questioned adopts a (shall we say an, ummm, somewhat) defiant approach. Take away the temptation to "edit-first, defy-later" aspect and Beta can have a chance to demonstrate an expanding diplomacy skill-set - or not, as the case may be. He does have valuable skills, it's his implementations which are problematic. Given Beta's own input so far, I'd agree not to unblock. If he can agree a way out though, I'd say sure, one more try. One more. Franamax (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock We just had this whole discussion less than a week ago with a strong consensus for the block to stick. We can revisit this in a month but now is not the time. The same old arguments are being made by those supporting yet another last chance for BC and none of them are reality-based:

1. Betacommand has shown contrition. Yes, he did so after being blocked indefinitely. May I remind people that his initial reaction doesn't show much contrition. In response to an earlier request to stop automated runs of edits he responded with this. When I blocked him a few days prior to the last incident, contrition was not exactly evident either [19]. So AGF and all, it's kind of hard to take the apology seriously.
2. If these edits had been made by someone other than Betacommand, nobody would care. That's true of any editor who isn't under editing restrictions. Betacommand was under clear, unambiguous restrictions. And as I said in the debate a week ago, the mass edits were made in the middle of a contentious RfC and though they were indeed in line with policy, the timing was certain to generate useless drama. This is precisely the kind of shoot first ask questions later attitude that led to the editing restrictions.
3. Betacommand is being stalked by a lynch mob. I, for one, have never seen myself as a rabid extremist and generally support tight restrictions on free images. Ryan Postlethwaite is not a maniac just waiting for BC to slip up. Jennavecia and CBM who were involved in formulating the last restrictions are not out to get him. While there are indeed people who wish to see BC banned for eternity, the fact is that many people have tried to find reasonable ways to resolve the problems posed by BC. We've tried to engage him, tried to explain as clearly as possible the blocks we put in place, tried to warn him when he was stepping over the line. And we failed.
4. Betacommand is just enforcing NFCC. Yes he is. But you can enforce NFCC without resorting to hostility and bullying. And because NFCC is the source of so much bickering, enforcing it requires tact and patience. It also requires conflict resolution abilities which BC seems to lack. As such, his involvement in enforcing NFCC is a net negative for the project.
5. Betacommand is well intentioned. Yes he is. This is unfortunately irrelevant. You can be well intentioned and still hurt the project. When you're unable to tolerate dissent and criticism, your well-meaning edits will inevitably be dwarfed by the ensuing drama.

There is quite simply no basis for an unblock this early. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -when Beta's block eventually ends up getting shortened down, please spare the stomachs of those who have been actually paying attention by not bothering to say "Awright, but this is REEEEEALY your last chance this time!". Saying so only proves that you didn't bother to read the last three (yes, three) "Last Chance" unblock agreements Beta agreed to. We have now entered the Groundhog Day zone. Bill Murray will be along at 00:01 to create an identical clone of the last Beta AN thread so we can pack this one into the attic with the others. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking to prevent Betacommand from engaging in further extensive bot-assisted disruption and severe incivility. John254 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblock with complete tool strippage, unless the tools do not involve contact with other users. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Beta was not a fan of this option last time it was suggested. [20] Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking per reasons stated by Pascal.Tesson. Beta's post-block contrition rings hollow, especially when it comes after his usual threats against the blocking admin failed. Enough's enough, and I don't see any proof that BC's behavior will ever change. BrownHornet21 (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblocking with conditions. I made the original report and I was frankly astounded by the magnitude of the response. I know everyone is fed up with Betacommand -- and I am too -- but I don't think this is the event that should get him banned. He needed to be blocked for breaking his agreement and basically giving his agreement the finger, but (as it was quite a minor violation) it's not the kind of thing we should be banning for, and this block is a ban if we never lift it. I'm not gullible enough to suggest that we should put things back the way they were and say "last chance", though. I think that at a minimum, we need to:
  • Include Betacommand's editing restrictions and civility probation in his Arbitration decision.
  • Establish that "escalating block" means something. Blocking Betacommand for 24 hours is like giving someone a tip of five cents. It's worse than not doing it at all.
  • Recommend that Betacommand removes most of the tools that he is running on his account, whether they are implemented in JavaScript or any other language, and particularly require that he removes the fake rollback that he has overused in enforcing his favorite policy, as well as any tool that speeds up the removal of images. It may be true that Betacommand's account is so thoroughly cyborgified that his normal editing looks like an automated tool or a bot -- but this is his problem and not ours. Making bot-like edits comes with a subtext of "don't mess with me, I can't be stopped", and this is exactly why his editing restrictions ban him from making long patterns of edits no matter how they are produced.
  • Recommend that Betacommand should not be working in non-free image policy, whether it's debating what the policy should say or enforcing it. He's incapable of working with this policy without making everyone hate him. It might not be a literal ban from this area of policy -- that is, we shouldn't be watching and holding a Taboo buzzer to see if he says anything about non-free content -- but what everyone but Betacommand can see by now is that if he tries any further to accomplish what he wants to with the non-free content policy, he's going to end up banned and no one will shed a tear.

rspεεr (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not paid any attention to "conditions" on previous occasions when he's been unblocked, what makes you think he'll pay attention to these ones now? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

Well, the first two are out of his control, and the third and fourth are basically my recommendations for how he can fix things, so that he doesn't end up back here on AN a few weeks later and get banned. I'd just like to see some indication that he will change the things that have made him such a pariah. If he's actually making an effort to do so this time, great. If his response is something along the lines of "hell no policy is policy and I'm going to enforce it", well, might as well leave him blocked to save time. rspεεr (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for second chances (in fact I actually supported BC's re-sysoping) but I don't think BC should be unblocked for now even under the conditions detailed above. It should be noted that Rspeer's condition 1 is actually already in place. This did not stop BC from collecting block after block since his return to editing in November. Condition 2 certainly makes sense which is why I can't support an early unblock: the current block should be for a longer period than any of the previous blocks and I won't support anything shorter than a month. BC is obviously not getting the message: he was blocked 14 times in 2008 (and that number would be higher if the civility restrictions had been enforced more strictly), agreed to restrictions that he then ignored, refused to recognize any of the blocks as legitimate, repeatedly ignored warnings and continued to view and portray himself as a martyr. Some of his supporters are now perpetuating this meme and scream "lynch mob" at every turn, conveniently ignoring the fact that the civility restrictions were first put in place by ArbCom and that the set of extra restrictions was put in place by a trio of cool-headed admins. There may indeed be a group of users who want BC to rot in hell but they're not the ones dictating the community's response to BC's continued failure to keep his promises. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, you're probably right. I've also realized that unless I can make my suggestions really clear and concise, they'll just be full of loopholes and impossible to follow up on, so it basically does amount to saying "okay really last chance this time" like a gullible tool. It still makes me a bit uncomfortable that the relatively minor event I reported might have led to a ban, but I suppose the point is that he should have been banned the last time. rspεεr (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gullible tool? Your words, not mine. :-) Betacommand isn't banned, he's blocked until further notice and this can be revisited when the dust has settled (and this should take a while given the amount of dust). The terms of the unblock should probably be drafted carefully before the discussion on the wisdom of an unblock and BC supporters need to realize that they can't expect much support if they propose this too soon or are unwilling to impose restrictions more stringent than the previous ones. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I originally supported the indef block because Betacommand not only violated his restrictions, he was denying that he even had to follow them. Now that he has agreed to follow a very strict interpretation of the restrictions upon him, I don't really see a good reason not to go back to a schedule of escalating blocks. This current block should be in the 1-3 month range. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Question BC has been subjected to a block for barely more than a week. If this request is rejected (or fails due to lack of concensus), does that mean his apologists will return in a week to ask again? -- llywrch (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Question If BC is unblocked, does that mean his attackers will return in a week to block him again? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

restoration request

Resolved

 – Page was restored per request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

could an admin please restore this article: Redstone American Grill. It was prodded as being non- notable and the nominator failed to post a prod warning on the WP:Food or WP:Foodservice pages so that we could take a look and see if it was salvageable. I believe that I have found several sources that meet WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PSTS.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Restored. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it now a requirement that people posting PRODs notify the relevant Wikiprojects? I've never done that, and I've never heard of anything suggesting we needed to. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)\

No, but I believe others can request undeletions of prods. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement, but it would be a nice thing to do. Thanks for the restore. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bubblesmcfuglyguy userpage claims

On his user page User:Bubblesmcfuglyguy states that "bubblesmcfuglyguy is a Wikipedia user who fixes wrong edits.and makes other accounts to mess up the peoples pages that he hates such as Johnny Rotten,Andy Taylor of Duran Duran,and many more". In checking those pages, no specific shared editor stood out to me, but I'm if a note should be left with bubbles asking if his claim is true and if so to self-identify those other accounts and socking explained to him, or if a checkuser should be done to find them? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the account as a obvious troll and saying that he wants to make socks to vandalize, no need to warn him. Secret ^account 14:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, see [21] and then Special:Contributions/Musicfreakrat -> Kanon Wakeshima and related edits and compare it to "madly in love with Kanon Wakeshima" on User:Bubblesmcfuglyguy. As simple as that. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also have a look at Special:Contributions/Dudeguysomeonepersons and other red links from [22] and compare them to [23].--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking more, User:Dudeguysomeonepersons and User:Ilovethings2 are likely his too, particularly considering[24] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd file a checkuser; sounds like there's a whole hosiery department involved here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As an update, 11 socks found, blocked, and tagged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible spammer

User:Betty_Logan has inserted a paragraph including a link to an advertising-supported site on many of the beer articles with the subject "Dietary Information". She has broken WP:3RR here: [[25]] [[26]] [[27]]

I asked her to offer a reason, rather than just reverting, here: [[28]], but she just kept reverting. After reverting three times, she finally put an explanation on the talk page.

Her own talk page has multiple complaints from other editors, which she has removed from the page.

One reason I believe this is spam is that she has placed these links on multiple beer articles, rather than having one article with all the information assembled in one place. She calls these placements "product information", but I don't understand how the type of glue used to put a label on a bottle is "Dietary Information" (unless someone plans on removing the label and licking the bottle) or how this qualifies as "product information."

Whether she is found to be spamming or not, she has certainly broken WP:3RR and has engaged in edit warring on several articles. We don't need this. Mikebe (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have never violated 3RR - Mikebe is a bare faced liar, and this can easily be checked. I have only received one complaint from another editor and we reached a compromise where the information was incorporated into a section. I removed the other dialogue from my talk page as the issue is now resolved, a consensus having been reached. Mikebe repeatedly removed cited dietary information from the Hoegaarden Brewery article regarding the various brewey products offering no explanation. He did not take it to the discussion page or offer his reasons as to why it was irrelevant. Also, I am not the only person to have problems with this editor. If you check out the Beer styles article you will see that he is edit warring on there too. He clearly has no interest in resolving our disagreement and has not addressed any of the points I have raised on the discussion page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Betty_Logan (talk · contribs) has carefully avoided formally violating 3RR, but has reinserted the same out-of-place material into the article seven times since Jan 3, in opposition to three other editors. Looks like edit-warring to me. Looie496 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. 3RR is not an entitlement. I was going to point that out earlier but I'm using Chrome and it is becoming rubbish with Wikipedia, I keep getting cache problems (even though I empty my cache. I'm not too keen on the 'bare faced liar' bit. In fact,I'm not sure how happy I am with the external link. dougweller (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It would though be a good idea to discuss the link on the article's talk page. As I've said, I think it's dubious. dougweller (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect 3RR is the rule so I don't break it. Considering that Mikebe contacted an administrator to "take action" for 3RR violation then I think I'm entitled to take exception to taht, especially when he is already edit warring against the majority opinion on another article. Do I constantly revert his changes on that? No. As for revrting the changes, is it wrong to revert changes that remove your work when the opposing editor doesn't give a full explanation for doing so or make an effort to discuss his concerns. I have been included in two prior conflicts previous to this, and while both instances invariably included a bit of edit-warring to the extent that they always do, both resulted in consensus without resulting to dispute resolution so I'm clearly able to take on board other people's concerns. I have stated my case for why I believe the references are valid on the discussion page. Saying that the material is "out-of-place" is a rather cheap dig I think. If the editor above believes it is irrelevant then he should respond to the reasons I give why he thinks having dietary and product information below the products is irrelevant. If by 'out-of-place' he thinks the section isn't very well integrated into the article then why doesn't he rearrange it in a way he thinks would be better and we can see if the result is more satisfactory all-round? The fact of the matter is I'm the only editor stating my case on the discussion page in attempt to reach an agreement but other editors just by-pass the discussion and revert the article. Clearly information about the products that the brewery produces is not 'spam' so I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me in such a derogatary way. It is clear that my honest intention is to add to the information value of the article, and I don't honestly see what the problem with in saying that a brewery's beer range is suitable for vegetarians, or that it doesn't use isinglass in the brewing process etc, or listing the ingredients and nutritional information. Do you disagree that someone might be looking up Hoegaarden to find out such information? The strength of interest in vegetarian beers is clearly indicated by the number of 'vegetarian beer' sites that have sprung up on the internet. Betty Logan (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:3RR - in italics, it says Editors who engage in edit warring may still be blocked from editing even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period. . dougweller (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but surely all editors who continuously revert changes to an article which are at the very least arguably legitimate have engaged in edit-warring. 3RR applies to a particular violater, edit-warring applies to an article and EVERYONE who participates. You can't take action against just one person for edit-warring, because at least two editors have to be involved. I would argue that since I'm the only editor that has presented their argument on the discussion page then edit warring hasn't effectively taken place. Two other editors have repeatedly removed information without stipulating and explaining their reason or attempting to discuss the matter in the appropriate area. I would say that constitutes vandalism because they are making changes within the context of a dispute and making no concerted effort to resolve it and I am entitled to revert that.

For the record I would dearly like the issue to be resolved because I would like to continue with my project but there is no point if the the ultimate decision is to remove my contributions. There seems to be two separate issues: the relevancy of the information and the legitimacy of the references. Now I'm not going to add any more sections to brewing articles until the issue is clarified, but I would dearly prefer it if my work was not completely excised in the meantime until the issue is resolved. As for the Hoegaarden section then surely it would be best to leave the section there so people can see what they're discussing? So basically I am suggesting a freeze on my contributions and similarly the removal of my contributions until it is sorted out. I think that is reasonable. If the decision goes against me I would be prepared to go through the articles and remove all my contributions myself.

But I want the decision made in a fair manner. I want the editors who have problem with it to discsuss their concerns rather than just reverting and see if we can come to a compromise. If we can't I can request a third party opinion, but as yet I can't do that because there isn't even a second party opinion to consider! If that doesn't resolve the issue then there is always dispute resolution which I suppose could culminate in a decision that goes against me, but at least it will have been reached through the standard protocol rather than some ignorant editor excising my contributions on the basis they are "not relevant"

Betty Logan (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That Betty is engaging in edit warring is beyond discussion. She is now on her third edit war (third editor) on that article. For her to say "I want the editors who have problem with it to discsuss their concerns rather than just reverting" is, as I have posted above precisely what she does NOT do. As I wrote originally, this seems like a possible spam case. If Betty genuinely felt that this is such a vital issue, why does she not write an article about it rather than placing links to a questionable site on literally dozens of beer articles? Answer: because then the site in question would not get as many visitors. Mikebe (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Separate from Betty's conduct, consider adding the websites to the local blacklist. If they are truly useful (and they don't even look like reliable sources to me), then fine. Otherwise, technical stops can be much more effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, since I know nothing about the website, other than it is advertising supported, I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people than me to take appropriate action. Mikebe (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, back to Betty's conduct: she has now reverted your (Ricky81682) edit [[29]], thought better of it, then deleted part of the article that was there originally [[30]]. Spammer or not, this is really unnecessary disruption. Mikebe (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a series of three edits while I split the article into separate business product articles along the lines of the pesi company/pepsi products articles. They were transitory and not intended to be permanent while I made the adjustments and only took a few minutes. The business information goes on one article, the product information on the second. I brought the section back so I could start form scartch, collect all the information together and then systematiclly remove it once it was transferred to the other article. The fact is the split accommodates product information on the Hoegaarden products article now, and since you refused to discuss the matter I don't think you're really in a position to criticise. It is consistent with the Pepsi articles now, and the new page allows eidtors to contribute information about the beers so what excatly is your problem? I think it is a pretty good solution. I outlined the idea first on the discussion page, and as usual you wouldn't discuss it Mikebe. You acn't complain if you don't offer a counter suggestion. Please explain why following the structure of the pepsi articles is a bad idea. Betty Logan (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside edit warring, Betty Logan needs to be refrained from making personal attack. Like one she made above -Mikebe is a bare faced liar.--NAHID 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Betty Logan has now created a content fork at Hoegaarden products - not the way to handle this dispute so I've raised an AfD. dougweller (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the Hoegaarden products article and closed the corresponding AfD under CSD G3. This article was obviously created for the sole purpose of adding information previously rejected by the community to the encyclopedia while avoiding 3RR. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think we can say that this situation is under control now. When Betty Logan created the content fork, she also provided new references and a reworked "Dietary Information" paragraph. She brought this to my attention, so I pulled them from the deleted article and added the information to Talk:Hoegaarden Brewery for discussion, since the main beef with the addition before was that the sources did not meet WP:RS. The new sources look like they may. Aside from that, I must say that I'm very disappointed with everyone involved that this made it to AN without so much as genuine discussion on the article's talk page or the user's talk page. This user is clearly new to Wikipedia and is not familiar with our policies and guidelines or even our way of doing things for that matter. She seems to be very frustrated, but editing in good faith, and I can find very little evidence that anyone has tried to genuinely help her in understanding the way things are done here. I think we should all try to do a better job so avoidable situations like this don't happen in the future. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment, but I saw clearly new and so far as I can see, Betty Logan has not asserted that. The account was created in November but from the editor's first contributions I assume that they had some experience before. I could of course be wrong, the editor might just have read up on Wikipedia quite a bit before creating an account. But it isn't clear that the editor first started editing in November. In any case, things such as the comment 'bare faced liar' may have affected the way she was perceived here. dougweller (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have called Mikebe a liar but after reporting me to an admin who promptly told him "I can find no evidence of her violating 3RR" he came here and made the same allegation despite an admin already having told him so. I shouldn't have called him a liar but I honestly believe this editor knew I hadn't violated 3RR. I shall retract my accusation and merely accuse him of being disingenuous. As for being new, I have sporadically edited as just an IP number through most of 2008 but because it kept changing it made it impossible to keep track of edits. I wasn't very familiar with the guidelines basically because I was lazy and didn't read them when I should have, so I admit I have brought some of this on myself. But I was prepared to discuss the edits, and tried to and it was difficult getting people to engage. At least the discussion is moving forward now thanks to Ioeth.Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, which is more or less what I thought was the case about your editing history. Please, however, remember that 3RR is not an entitlement, read WP:3RR again. If you keep reverting, even though you don't revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, it may, depending upon the context, be seen as edit warring. I've added a long Welcome message to the top of your talk page. And, oops, only after that did I realise that another editor had added another version at the bottom. Still, you can't be welcomed too often. dougweller (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mikebo isn't entirely innocent himself. He too engaged in editwarring by repeatedly deleting the information without explaining why he considered the info irrelevant or spammy in his edit summary or on the article talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Request undeletion

Resolved

 – Request referred to deletion review Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I request undeletion of User talk:Encyclopediaofalabama. I did ask the deleting admin why he deleted it, but although he was still active, he did not make any response. DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll restore it if you want, but why do you need it? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record of how Wikipedians responded to a new user, particularly with reference to the apparent antipathy of some admins to contributions from information professionals. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review. seicer | talk | contribs 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have three months available in which to work out the instructions for DRV. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking into it, I'd recommend keeping this deleted, since the editor concerned is editing under a different account. Unless they personally ask for undeletion, I'd opt for maintaining their privacy. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure they are? As I recall, when they followed the suggested course of starting a new account, it was promptly blocked (wrongfully in my opinion) for sockpuppetry. DuncanHill (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He created a bunch of accounts (typos)...it threw up some alarms...the typo accounts were blocked...his main account 22star (talk · contribs) has never been blocked. --Smashville^talk 20:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Encyclopediaofalabama. One of the accounts wasn't blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Reading the SSP, he was left one account unblocked on the promise on October 8th he stop adding the links to his website...then turned around and went back to doing the same thing on the 15th to some 200-250 articles, after which he has not edited again. Not sure if those should be reviewed or not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Forget it, it was stupid of me to expect admins to restore a page which includes criticism of heavy-handed admins. DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see anything on there that is critical of anyone, just a bunch of welcome messages and a request to change the user name...but again...we already told you DRV is the place. The only thing on the page a welcome notices, templates and a random rant by you about Wikipedia telling him not to bother creating another name. Quit stirring up drama. We already told you to go to DRV. It's not really anyone else's problem if you would rather stir up drama than actually follow the process. --Smashville^talk 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you finished changing your mind yet about what was on the page? DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I struck through it because I didn't see that the page contained a rant by you. When we view deleted pages, they look a lot like the edit page feature. Is there any reason for your response to be so uncivil? Again, quit stirring up drama. If it's so important to you, why don't you take it to DRV, as you have been told to do now 3 times? --Smashville^talk 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

When someone has already indicated that they do not understand the DRV instructions, it is not generally helpful to parrot "We told you to go to DRV" at them. When they then get an edit conflict on a reasoned reply, only to find that the edit conflict was caused by someone changing the substance of the post being replied to, they do sometimes get a bit shirty. "Quit stirring up drama" is a wonderful way to encourage someone to calm down! Anyway, like I said before, forget it, I really cannot be bothered anymore. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You know you can check the history and see what I changed instead of accusing me of whatever you are accusing me of...other than the first time when I found that you had a rant on the page you were trying to get undeleted, I have not changed the substance of anything. And you never said you didn't know how to do DRV, you said that you didn't have time to figure it out. And you are stirring up drama - you are making bad faith accusations...accusing me of changing the substance of my posts because I *gasp* made a typo! And added a part reminding you to go to DRV. And decided to use a clearer term and told you again to take it to DRV. And you accuse us of not undeleting it because it is critical of admins...no, we are not undeleting it because there is no reason to. There is nothing of substance on that page. --Smashville^talk 20:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• You changed the substance of your post when you changed your mind about what was on the deleted page. That was the edit conflict which led to me abandoning a much more reasonable reply, and replacing it with "Have you finished changing your mind yet about what was on the page?". Saying that I don't have three months to work out the instructions should convey pretty clearly that I do not understand them - and was phrased that way in what was intended as a light-hearted piece of self-criticism. DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DRV#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review. Please contact me on my talkpage if you have problems following these instructions, and I will do my best to talk you through them. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, but I really cannot be bothered. Kind of you to try to help though, and appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK then, no problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Something that occurred to me in reading the userpage - the user was blocked for a promotional username, and the talk page automatically added to Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, or CAT:TEMP and deleted a month later. However, after the username was already blocked as promotional, it was also found to be a sockpuppet. Sockpuppet userpages do not fall within CAT:TEMP as they are required for tracking purposes. In summary then - shouldn't this userpage actually be restored, not for the reasons advanced by User:DuncanHill but because for the reasons outlined at CAT:TEMP abbout sockpuppet pages? Euryalus (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of sockpuppet userpages being deleted, so I'm not sure if that instruction in the temp category reflects common practice. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't sockpuppetry, let's not brand their old userpage with an undeserved scarlet letter. I've undeleted the talk page for a while in case Duncan (or any other non-admin) wants to verify Smashville's fairly accurate description of the contents (it was only deleted a few hours ago, so I'm not exposing any dark secrets), then I'll redelete. If someone wants it undeleted permanently, DRV is the place to go. --barneca (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no DRV has yet been opened, I'll add a comment here. If DuncanHill's interest in this page is to review the conduct of admins I think it's fine to keep it restored. There is *no* privacy issue, only possible embarrassment to an institution called Encyclopedia of Alabama, and conceivably to the admins, if they did anything wrong. The only regular user (still able to edit) whose reputation might take a hit has not edited since 15 October, he used a pseudonym, and his last contributions were rather spammy (adding links to Encyclopedia of Alabama to multiple articles). People are responsible for their own behavior on Wikipedia, and neither the admins who participated nor the surviving user account should object to having their conduct scrutinized. It turns out that there *was* abuse of multiple accounts, though not to the point the guy would be prevented from editing in the future, if he agreed to comply with WP:SPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed makes a good point, but I've still re-deleted for a couple of reasons.

• There really isn't anything to see there; perhaps it demonstrates the clunky way we handle username problems, but lots of pages do that; there was certainly no admin abuse.
• No need to treat this page differently than other Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. If we want to change the way we handle those pages (and I'm personally torn between the opposing arguments on this) then it should be discussed in a more appropriate forum than an obscure {{resolved}} thread at WP:AN.

I'm not sure offhand what forum would be best for such a discussion; WP:DRV is one possibility, WP:VPP is another. --barneca (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing very solemn or serious about a page being included in CAT:TEMP. The {{indefblockeduser}} template *automatically* puts the page in cat:temp unless you invoke it as {{subst:indefblockeduser|historical}}. ('Historical' = generally means 'the blocker thinks this is of possible sockpuppet interest'). Alternatively, apply your blocks using a different template. I do not think that restoring one of these pages should be taken any more seriously than restoring a PROD on request, unless there is defamation, copyvio, etc. etc. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New user tries to add racist pro-nazi content

Resolved

 – user was shown the door. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/KrcKrcKvrc

I believe this is a rather serious offense. Zazaban (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be an immediate infinite block. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering he was not warned about proper conduct on Wikipedia, I would consider that a bit much... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Well, if you think that such courtesy should be shewn to the author of "Aryans, whites and other uebermench have mistreated subhumans, apes and other creatures through centuries. PETA has often violently protested treatment of chimpanzees, while Jews have exaggerated "holocaust". Nowadays, even Niggers have a say. Gypsies and Moslems are viewed less symphatetically, and no PETA protests have been staged for these beasts. Its a shame, for Muslims like to eat swarms of crickets, preserving the desert with its oil for the use by the superior creatures, like George W Bush, Nikolas Sarkozy, Tony Blair and Adolf Hitler" then I really have nothing to say to you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get in a twist about this. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I'd have blocked for longer, but if any similar edits are made once that block expires, then an indef block. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to say what Tim said. Warning for that kind of thing makes no sense; if they don't already know it's not appropriate, I don't want them editing here. --barneca (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A brand new user with a name that's "KKK" making racist edits to Übermensch, and no other contributions? Why is this here? Why are we talking about warnings and week blocks? Someone indef block, and forget it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale just extended it to "indef" - given that he also made an edit to Allah which is pretty much just vandalism (of the silly sort) I think she made the right call. This user has only three edits and they are all trash. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bot

Could someone block User:91.198.174.201. It says its registered to Toolserver, and certainly acts like a bot. It also has been spamming my talk page with the same DYK credit. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• It was blocked for an hour and I extended that to three months (softblocked only). No reason for a bot to be running from an IP, even one registered to the toolserver. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me to be a case of a bot somehow getting logged out and continuing to edit under an IP. Not so much a case of someone deliberately running an IP-Bot, as a harmless mistake. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

This is the Toolserver, according to the list of sensitive IP addresses. Is there any reason for any anon edits from the Toolserver? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See here. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Attention required

User:Lalit Jagannath has made several edits to India-related articles and most of these edits have been massive - removing large chunks of well-sourced content and replacing them often a biased, narrow-minded content. The user's talkpage is flooded with requests to discuss any outstanding issues he has before making such edits and yet he fails to seek consensus. It would be great if Wikipedia's Administrators would also advice this user. Thanks --67.180.5.41 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, a look at his edits to Culture of India (he removed lead images and replaced them with those that represent a fraction of India's culture) and Economy of India (removed all images related to India's business schools, manufacturing industry and IT-service industry) raise questions about the motive behind his edits. --67.180.5.41 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted his edits done to Culture of India and Economy of India articles. If I have done anything wrong, please let me know but my opinion about his edits is shared by many as evident on Talk:Economy of India. --67.180.5.41 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute (unless violating 3RR/vandalism/something similar) and you are free to follow the procedures of Changing-Reverting-Discussing. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And here we go again

Resolved

 – AGF, people. Everyone should pay more attention to this, but let's keep the banhammers safely holstered ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did I just have to do this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected for 26 hours to err on the safe side. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned by the fact that no one remembered to upload a copy from Commons! Same with File:Kamianets-Podilskyi-1.jpg, which went live a while ago. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cbl62 repeatedly placing unprotected images on the main page

Just two days ago, Cbl62 added File:Rev Dr Alexander Scott.jpg to template:did you know when the image was neither uploaded locally nor protected at the commons [31]. His sole response to my concerns regarding his actions was to remove my comment from his talk page without an edit summary [32]. Today, Cbl62 again placed the unprotected image File:Kamianets-Podilskyi-1.jpg on template:did you know [33], though thankfully, as described above, Fvasconcellos uploaded it locally five minutes later. The edit page for Template:Did you know/Next update explicitly instructs administrators to upload images locally before placing them on the main page. Since repeatedly adding unprotected images to the main page may result in disgusting shock-site images being displayed in Wikipedia's most highly visible location, it may be necessary to more forcefully advise Cbl62 that his behavior is inappropriate, and to warn him that if he continues, his account may be blocked or desysopped. John254 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not been actively involved with DYK maintenance for a while now, and was confused about whether there was cascading protection currently. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any template, image, or other content local to Wikipedia is automatically protected through cascading protection when displayed on the main page. However, the current problem with unprotected images arises because cascading protection does not extend cross-wiki to the Wikimedia Commons. Thus, when an image which is unprotected on the commons and not uploaded locally is placed on the main page, image vandals have the opportunity to replace the image with disgusting shock-site fare by uploading vandalized content at the same filename as the image on the commons. To prevent main-page vandalism, all images displayed on the main page must be uploaded locally or protected on the commons. John254 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What became of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Main page protection robot? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot is currently still listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Bots_in_a_trial_period, though the trial seems to have been completed. John254 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cbl62 is aware of this need, and has apologized for uploading images without protection. I have pointed him in the direction of Category:Protected main page images, which contains detailed instructions, and I hope he'll remember to do it before updating the template in future :) This is only symptomatic of a broader issue, though; recent SA images have gone without protection as well. I haven't checked ITN images recently but some may very well have been on the Main page without local upload. I don't think anyone needs to even consider blocking or desysopping at the moment. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud, we aren't going to desysop someone for messing up an image upload. Protonk (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The DYK bot is not functioning currently, and so when the update went more than 2 hours past due, I went ahead and shifted the next queue to the main page. I immediately left a note on the DYK discussion page asking for help making sure someone checked to make sure the image was protected. Fvasconcellos immediately jumped on my request for help and took care of the protection. As I discussed with Fvasconcellos, I will make sure I figure out how to image protect before doing again. See my note to Fvasconcellos here That said, I really don't appreciate John254's snide aggressive tone. Remember, we're all volunteers trying to help. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Longterm campaign at Rick Reilly

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked by admin

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

This editor has resumed a campaign on the Rick Reilly page that appears to go back to at least 2005.

I'm requesting a community ban or indefinite block. Relevant info may be seen at:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive265#Block_evasion_by_banned_vandal June 2007 ANI archive and

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive45#Rick_Reilly April 2008 BLP noticeboard

This article was recently semi-protected due to "Chronic vandalism and BLP violations that show no sign of ever subsiding" by SarcasticIdealist in December 2008, presumably that is why this account has been re-activated. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tanninglamp was previously blocked 99 hours for sockpuppetry. How did he escape without an indef-block? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation

I have reported Tanninglamp at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:sinneed

Resolved

 – A simple misunderstanding, followed by an apology. Euryalus (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Please get a French speaker (I have not spoken French heavily in 26 years, I can't help) who has better English to help you understand" these are words from User:sinneed on my talk page after i had made a typo, i find this very rude and uncalled for Jeremie Belpois (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing rude with finding someone who can communicate with you if there is a language barrier. //roux   04:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

you didnt see my point, he was saying that only because i made a typo, therefore mocking me. im not even french Jeremie Belpois (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wish you had answered me when I asked why you felt I was incivil. I would have explained. I make many typographical errors, and would have made no such assumption. You seem to not be able to understand 2 key points: you have broken a page (it now has errors on it), and you have restored a page that was deleted by AfD. I do appologize for not explaining why I thought you spoke French. You use a French name, and we are discussing a French cartoon. Nothing else. I do understand how the remark could have seemed offensive, and I apoligize apologize even for the seeming. As I once spoke French, I attributed the problem to the one I was familiar with.sinneed (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing rude here at all. If he thinks there is a language barrier, you have a French surname and have heavily edited several French articles, then a logical assumption would be that your primary language was French. Perhaps a simple correction of his assumption would have been a more constructive response. Kuru ^talk 04:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

threshold afd

Resolved

 – Already at DRV. Protonk (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Threshold (online game) afd was less than 4 days, I have requested it be reviewed, but I was told by an editor [34] that I could bring it up here as well. I have found some previous discussion about the 5 day rule on this board, but nothing of real consequance. The deletion review is here [35], where you can find links to the deletion pages and whatever else you require. It is absolutely clear that the matter was in no way settled at the time of closure. I would like to know if the 5 days is a policy we intend to hold to, or considered optional. Thank you for your input. --Theblog (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep it at DRV for now. You know my feelings on how the AfD arguers were canvassed, but personally I would have liked to see it run the full 5 days because we knew it would be a controversial one...however, since I know nothing of the subject and the AfD is a nightmare to go through, I won't comment on it...My issue was with the canvassing/sockpuppetry...I have no knowledge/vested interest in the actual article staying or going. I recognize you actually are doing this request in good faith, but it could be seen by some as forum shopping. --Smashville^talk 06:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does using an image 700+ times count as "minimal" usage?

That's what a majority of editors at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos are asking us to accept.

The argument in a nutshell; Whether the use of non-free team logos on season, rivalry, and specific game articles in College football is acceptable under policy, guideline, mission and Foundation resolution. Example uses: [36][37][38]. Rationales for use are for identification, not for critical commentary on the logos.

The RfC on this issue has been running for more than two weeks now. Early on, there was some attempt at assessment of where consensus stood. This resulted in no consensus. Now there's a straw poll running. This keeps going in circles with no sign of ending.

But regardless of the RfC, the bottom line here is whether the use of team's logo several hundred times across the project is acceptable minimal use of a fair use image. I demonstrated this number, and its no exaggeration. Prior to the RfC beginning, one of the logos was in use over 100 times, which I made note of.

Proponents of the usage have, using editing, prevented the removal of the images. They claim that there must be consensus to remove the images, yet policy says the burden of proof lies with the people wishing to use the content, not with those wishing to remove the content.

Opponents note the Foundation's stance on minimal use, policy and guideline and further note that major sports do not follow the pattern of using team logos on season articles, etc.

We are at an impasse

1. If we conclude the RfC as saying the usage is allowed, team logos on College sports could be used several hundred times per logo.
2. If we conclude the RfC as saying we must remove the usage, edit warring will erupt. It already has (example).

I'm not looking to start a new debate. I'm not forum shopping. What I am asking for is either support by administrators to place option (2) into effect, or advice on where to go next if option (1) comes out of the RfC. No rational argument can be made that using a logo more than a hundred times counts as minimal use. I don't think ArbCom is the appropriate route. They don't accept such disputes as a rule. Looking back to the dispute over per episode screen shots in episode lists, ArbCom didn't get involved. That use was deprecated essentially by brute force. The same happened with deprecating album covers from discographies.

Help? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of:

1. You calling my actions edit warring. I reverted twice in which YOU are edit warring: Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. You made the change when consensus does not support your conclusion, ergo, you are "warring". Stop intentionally miscontruing/distorting my contributions to Wikipedia.
2. you asserting that policy requires that images must be removed if there is no consensus to use them. This is not policy and is a distortion of policy be used to further your agenda. Please stop, slow down, and just talk it through on the RFC. Remember there is no deadline. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the potential harm to either the logo owners or to wikipedia itself? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Following from that thought, could we not just start contacting the rightsholders to get permission, via OTRS? // roux   15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Baseball, as I said I'm not looking to start a new debate. I already know your position, as everyone else on the RfC does. If you want to debate it more, take it to the RfC. This is not the place to debate it, yet again. Roux, obtaining free license rights for team logos (not just permission to use) for every college sport is impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not understanding my question, though. The argument (i.e. the policy) against widespread use of a given fair use image in wikipedia primarily has to do with potential future harm to wikipedia. I want to know where you think the harm would come from in this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I understand perfectly. Please use the appropriate forum. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're the one that raised the question. If you yourself don't know what the problem would be, then why are you raising the question? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please use the appropriate forum. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are looking for the process outlined in closing_of_a_consensus_decision_making_procedure. I suspect the issue isn't as clear as "all or nothing", since it seems this is an interpretation of a policy; even Mike Godwin, the Foundation's lawyer, differs with various interpretations of image policy [39]; so there is quite a broad range of ground, akin to what is described in the_relationship_between_policy_and_consensus. Basically, it seems like you need to find an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion and decide how the community is interpreting whatever section of NFC is related to whatever content is under discussion at the RFC. Any uninvolved admins handy? MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about having one uninvolved administrator close such a huge discussion involving dozens of people with such a wide disparity of opinions. The likelihood of that decision being accepted, regardless of what it is, is rather low. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well that is how Arbcom said it should be done. I don't know of any other way to do it that follows past practice. MBisanz ^talk 15:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok so the best tool is a hammer and we're treating it like a nail when it's really a bolt :) Then next question; assuming an uninvolved administrator closes it, and wars erupt...what then? Block everyone that wars? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well first we warn, then we block, but yes, that is what the Arbcom decision says, people who are recalcitrant to the close may be stopped from disrupting it. MBisanz ^talk 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you get too much rebellion, you undercut wikipedia itself. Then you have to consider whether the policy itself is either wrong or is being misinterpreted - especially as "minimal" is a slippery term. 700 might indeed be "minimal", compared with 7,000. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• I am also concerned that if the decision is to allow the usage, the problem scales rapidly to one of using fair use logos across more than 100,000 pages. I'm at a loss as to how this could be a rational close if it closed that way. So if someone wants to appeal that decision by the single administrator, then what should they do? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Point of an RFC is to find a consensus, otherwise each side would appeal endlessly. MBisanz ^talk 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Which I would concede probably does not qualify as "minimal". Then it comes back to the question of the reason for the policy. Which poses the greater potential harm to wikipedia: Letting wikipedia's version of the fair use rule slide? Or trying to stop everyone? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am not going to debate harm issues in this forum. If you want to debate that (and it already has), then please use the appropriate forum. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ironically, you are being told the same thing that you're telling me. Thank you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was this posted to the administrators' noticeboard? If all you require is an informed opinion, then please post to one of the half-dozen or so venues more suitable than this one. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because it's an administrator issue. I asked for administrator support to place option (2) into effect, among other things. Asking across a half-dozen or so other venues that aren't specifically to administrators doesn't help. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you are looking for someone to close an RFC, this is the right place to find them; if you are looking for someone to close it a particular way, that is forum shopping and not helpful. MBisanz ^talk 15:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I said at the beginning I am not forum shopping. I was looking for support from administrators if option (2) were put into effect, and avenues for appeal if option (1) is put into effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Um, no. It's a policy issue and policies are determined by the reasoning and consensus of all users, regardless of the sysop bit. You shouldn't post here unless an issue can only be resolved by the intervention of an admin. If you have no objections, I'd like to move this thread to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (e/c)
    • • I do object. This is an administrator issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Why isn't this a Foundation issue? Isn't the worry about possible legal action? dougweller (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The proposed usage is well within the limits of what is generally considered fair use, if perhaps not in line with WP:NFC. If this was a foundation issue, I assure you that WMF council would not require an invite. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
      • (ec)Not really, the Foundation isn't legally responsible for content on Wikipedia under Sec. 230 immunity, and as long as community's have an wmf:EDP (ours is at WP:NFC), the Foundation leaves it to the communities to handle. MBisanz ^talk 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree it's not a legal issue for the Foundation, but it is a free content issue as part of the mission that really can only be addressed by members of the Foundation as per what their intent is for WP in regards to free and non-free content. There is no "middle" point for the logos on season pages - either they are or aren't acceptable across the tens of thousands of possible pages, and consensus (not !voting) is clearly split evenly, so there really is no compromise position to speak of. This isn't the type of case ArbCom takes up (though I'm exploring that) since it's content related. Really, this entire issue revolves around how the Foundation wants to see the extent of keeping WP about free content and how much non-free content is allowable to keep that goal going. --MASEM 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I should point out that 230 immunity doesn't apply to copyright infringement (guess who got that passed *facepalm*) Sceptre ^(talk) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone posed the idea of asking the sports authorities or leagues for permission. That would be a reasonable thing to do, as it would probably settle it. They would either say, "Sure, go ahead," or they would say, "Sure, go ahead after you've sent us the following amount of money as a licensing fee." If it's the former, then no problem. If it's the latter, then we would have to fall back on the legal fair use rules - which would provide solid justification for deletions, warnings, and blocks in case of violations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that all those US universities are going to release their team logos under a free license. CIreland (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Do the individual schools own the logos, or does their conference own them. In any case, assuming a logo is being used in 700 articles, theoretically there should be 700 fair use arguments for it on its page, right? Enforcing that rule might slow them down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to host copyrighted images with permission from the copyright holder which did not extend to third parties. Sometime in 2006 those were all quickly deleted by rule of Jimbo. Permissions are no longer a factor in fair use rationales. Also the NFC are not impervious to common sense, each unique usage requires a separate fair use rationale, if anyone insists on 700 duplicate tags then they can be rightfully told to bugger off. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The non-free content criteria specifically require a specific rationale for each use of the image. I find no other way of reading that than that each use has to have a rationale. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugger off. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (no offense intended & to clarify: yes, each use, but no, not every instance when and if such instances number into the dozens or more ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

It's only a proposed policy. Therefore I can safely ignore it until it does become policy and then I'll have to follow it to the letter of the law. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That RfC looks like a "no consensus" situation. I don't suppose anyone was actually convinced to change their mind during discussion?--Tznkai (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread has gone away from the title question you asked, but for the sake of representing a different side, I would consider your question irrelevant. I have always understand "minimal usage" as operating on a per page basis. In other words, non-free content on each page should be limited to what is necessary and appropriate for the topic at hand. If we have 700 pages closely identified with a single sports team, and each one individually and separately meets the non-free content criteria, then it would be appropriate to use a logo 700 times. So I consider this focus on total uses to be a red herring. For me the question is: do we really have 700 pages that individually meet the criteria (I would guess no), and why should we have 700 pages related to a single sports team anyway? Dragons flight (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The 700-plus has to do with the number of occurrences of the team in various season result pages and such stuff as that. The argument for using the logo in those situations is that it's a quick reference to the team. However, the name of the team is unambiguous, whereas the reader may or may not know anything about the team logo. In effect, the logo is merely a decoration - unlike on the team's own page, where it connects with the team's identity and reasonably fits the wikipedia fair use rules. National flags are used much the same way - as decorations. The only real difference is that the flags are considered "free content" and thus they are allowed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, and as someone totally uninvolved, I don't really see 700 uses as minimal (though I'm not certain as to what that figure refers to). But if people want to get permission to use the logos, they should just do so, as this instantly renders the argument moot - and then the logos with permission can be left in articles, and others can be removed. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, referring to teams using logos when you could just use the name is ridiculous. What happens if you don't know the logo of some teams? You're stuck really... Why would logos ever be better than names in this regard? Ale_Jrb^talk 18:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And you're not likely to know that many nations' flags, either. Logos on lists of games, and flags on lists of players - both decorations, and the only difference is that the flags are "free content", so they get to stay based on consensus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, my comment on their usefulness wasn't aimed towards the discussion at hand - the concept is just strange. And I know of most countries' flags, so meh. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Those objections about them being decorative in certain cases is orthogonal to the total number of uses. That should be addressed, but it needs to be addressed regardless of whether they are used once or 1000 times. Again, the number of times being used strikes me as a red herring. Dragons flight (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly the best way of fixing this is to get permission from the copyright holders. In the absence of that, N uses does indeed require N non-free rationales, and in most cases N-1 of those will be invalid because the image is used on the parent article and further uses are clearly decorative. Black Kite 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, Black Kite. Very well put. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's another issue at play regarding the requirement of one rationale per use; the ability of the content to be machine readable. This is referred to at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. That was a driving reason behind the non-free templates all being renamed to begin with "non-free", for example. In the case of rationales, it's required to allow bots to scan the image description pages to determine if rationales exist (not whether they are good rationales; just exist) for each use. The idea that one rationale can exist to cover many uses is not supported anywhere in policy or guideline. We can go that route (though I doubt we'd get consensus to do so) and simply add a blanket rationale to all fair use images that covers the legal base, and have the text be the same for all fair use images. If that be the case we can eliminate many of the points in WP:NFCC and dramatically reduce the amount of arguments that are always taking place with regards to WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Um. You'd still need to explain *why* that image is *necessary* on that particular article, though. That couldn't be done through blanket text. Black Kite 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• As a historical note, some of the people writing the Foundation Licensing Policy did expect there would be broad justifications covering many uses at once with some substantial degree of blanket behavior. It was our community that decided each use would require a distinct rationale and rejected the idea of cookie-cutter templates (even though in practice many rationales are cut and pasted). Dragons flight (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the "legal" issue and the "permission" issue

Because an administrator who is heretofore uninvolved with the subject may come directly from here and close the RfC, I want to ensure that this forum is crystal clear on two things:

1. Wikipedia's non-free content policy is derived from the foundation goal of building a free encyclopedia and as such is considerably more restrictive than the most conservative reading of US fair use law. Don't assume that images in violation of our fair use guidelines (or alleged violation) automatically expose the foundation to legal trouble. Further, do not assume that being arbitrarily more conservative on the legal subject is better. You may be a lawyer. I'm not. Neither one of us is the foundation's lawyer. But it is just as detrimental to the encyclopedia to chart a course too cautiously as it is to skirt the boundaries of our non-free content policy. Again, unless your username is User:MGodwin, don't assume that you are doing the foundation any legal favors closing this either way.
2. Permission from the copyright holder (at least permission we are liable to secure) will not eliminate the fair use consideration. Parallel to my point above, the issue here is our goal to be a free encyclopedia, not the legal exposure from hosting 700 transclusions of a logo. Since these logos are trademarked and copyrighted (the latter where possible) and serve to make millions of dollars for their owner, release into the public domain is a vanishingly small possiblity. At best, we will receive permission to display the image only on wikipedia, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. That permission is a non-binding constraint to the encyclopedia as we assert fair-use anyway. More importantly, that permission does nothing to our fair use policies. They still apply. We limit images to minimal use not due to lack of permission but due to out desire to remain free (and Free).

I don't want to push anyone in a single direction, but I did want to ensure those two points are clear. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

GlobeStar Systems page removal

Can someone please advise what I can do to re-post the article for GlobeStar Systems? This was removed 18:42, 15 December 2008 NawlinWiki (Talk | contribs) deleted "Globestar systems" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globestar_systems. I would be happy to make whatever edits are necessary, but I don't run to run the risk of having it deleted yet again. I need to know why the article is "Blatant Advertising" as it was posted for some time without complaint. Nonetheless, I would like to revise and repost it once I know what would be most appropriate.

I am not sure if the admin NawlinWiki received my inquiry; his talk page does not display what I wrote to him...it appears to be protected and so unfortunately I can't discuss this with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanna4 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created you a sandbox here, write what you think is a suitable article there and we can discuss the content and if it is suitable for an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron, I realize the previous article posted (and removed) was not neutral enough to meet the criteria for Wikipedia. I hope the article in the sandbox fits those guidelines more closely. Please let me know what else I can do to develop appropriate material.Bobanna4 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cambios RFC

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to list this here, however as so many users attempted to resolve the dispute and got involved I think I should. I have opened an RFC on Cambios here.--Patton^t/c 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Improper username

I can't remember how do we deal with that: Feel like cock (talk · contribs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Uw-uhblock should do the trick. seicer | talk | contribs 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems like this are best handled at WP:UAA. Cheers, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Need a second opinion on copyright

See User talk:Coren#"Why God Never Received Tenure" and the corresponding item on Coren's userpage. I'd appreciate a second opinion as to who is correct wrt. to this being a copyright violation. Thanks. Giggy (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that on a joke website before, and it predates Coren's version. Therefore, yes, it is a copyvio and should be removed. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a fine line between proper handling of copyrights and flat out copyright paranoia; in this particular case, we are talking about a point so far beyond the line and moving away so fast it redshifts all the way down to radio frequencies. I'll remove the bit of humor from my user page, but use the opportunity to wag my finger at you and suggest you consult legal counsel that actually knows something about the copyright statutes before you embarrass yourselves when something of importance comes up. — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to attack my knowledge of copyright. I'm asking you to show how this text is freely licensed. Considering you have a blurb about this in your talk page header (wrt. CorenSearchBot), I'd have hoped you wouldn't consider this an unreasonable request. The tone is not necessary. Giggy (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is quite reasonable fair use. It may be against the policies of WP:USER, but it is not a copyright violation. In a sense both Coren and Giggy are right--we often forget to make a distinction between WP copyright policy and US or international copyright law, but it is essential that we do, and indeed that we are vigorous in making that distinction. Chick Bowen 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, last time I checked, the prohibition against fair use on user pages only applied to images; I'm guessing the intent was to prevent galleries most of all (but it's always touchy trying to guess at intent after the fact). — Coren ^(talk) 01:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that an allowance was made for text, but if policy says so, I'd be interested to see that. Giggy (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not an allowance for text; the prohibition specifies explicitly images. — Coren ^(talk) 01:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question of "fair use" because the story is not copyrighted. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's as old as Coren says, it pre-dates automatic copyright, and is in the public domain. --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) That's not something I know, but something I'm guessing based on the style of the humor, and its provenance. — Coren ^(talk) 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people making assumptions and declarations of fact (some of which are ludicrous legally speaking, such as "fair use" -- that seems to be a catch phrase for anyone who wants to use anything for any reason) but no proof of anything. We don't just assume something is in public domain because someone is arguing strongly on a talk page that it is. DreamGuy (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is SLOW

Wikipedia is VERY slow to load, what can we do about this please. --82.5.174.194 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment in edit history suggested I ask Jimmy Wales. Will do. 82.5.174.194 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Food

Could some one please unlock this so I can make some fixes/changes? I know the admin who locked it, but he is unavailable right now. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it was protected for being difficult to edit. Not really. Anyone with experience in featured portals, like myself, could easily figure out what goes where. I recommend not reprotecting it.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell was this protected for? --NE2 03:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection downgraded by original protecting admin --Stephen 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good, but does it even need to be semiprotected? --NE2 05:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why, and the reason given in the protection log is not provided for in the protection policy. I suppose the intent is to prophylactically prevent damage, but as this is a mere portal rather than a high-use template that doesn't really apply. I'll go an unprotect it all the way now. Splash - tk 13:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Block review invited

I have just blocked User:Watkinsian for disruptive editing beyond a very clear warning posted on his talk page. This user has been editing against consensus, by insisting that certain companies located at or near Centennial Airport in Colorado are in one city when their published addresses list them in a neighboring city. It's a rather arcane subject to pitch a battle on, admittedly, but nevertheless, a number of users and at least two admins have tried to reason with this editor, and to convince him that he needs to discuss and achieve consensus before continuing his campaign, but to no avail. The reason I'm posting this note here is that one of the articles he has edited, Air Methods happens to be the parent company of my day-job employer, and I want an extra measure of transparency of my actions. If other admins feel I have overstepped my bounds, please don't hesitate to let me know. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks decent to me. Blocks are supposed to preventative...he continues to edit against consensus...you prevented him from editing against consensus...he's also edited a ton of articles that are not related to the parent company. In addition, you are probably employed by said employer because you work in something that is your expertise/interest...it would therefore reason that you would watch articles in that field...--Smashville^talk 05:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the question of in which city the parent company of the one you work for is, is relatively irrelevant when it comes to COI issues. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant here, but do you realize that the place names used in addresses do not always correspond to the municipality that the company is in? This usually happens with unincorporated areas, but it probably happens in some cases with incorporated entities, especially where annexation has happened recently. --NE2 07:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does. See Shawnee Mission, Kansas for a particularly large example of several smaller municipalities which are treated by the Post Office as a single entity. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at the edits, and I'm confused as to exactly what's being argued over. This edit, for instance, (1) fixes the grammar in the footnote and (2) changes Centennial Airport to Centennial, Colorado. The former seems to be an improvement; the latter, not so much (since it's an aviation company, it makes sense to list the airport). A map of Centennial (PDF) shows that it is much closer to Centennial; Englewood is off in the upper left corner, and is only its address because of a quirk in the USPS addressing system. Aviation Technology Group is located in:

Unincorporated Arapahoe County, Colorado

The Centennial Airport

The area covered by the 80112 ZIP Code, which has historically been known as Englewood, but for which Centennial is an accepted alternate

It is not located in:

Centennial (which borders the airport in places)

Englewood (several miles away, on the other side of Centennial)

It seems that it might be best to say "Centennial Airport", and describe the airport's location once in its article. --NE2 07:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

AIV problem

This might not technically be the right place to post this, but I thought this is one of the pages with the most people on it these days. There is a problem with WP:AIV. I blocked the users in the "Bot Reported" sections. The HelperBot didn't remove them, even though it says it did, so I tried to remove them, and they won't go away. Any ideas? Academic Challenger (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider purging. ^LeaveSleaves 07:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I did that. It still didn't work for a long time, but luckily it's fixed now. Sorry about that. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Fritzpoll

This is a notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. APologies for the delay getting this notice out, but I've been busy over the holidays etc. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Track transition curve PDF code drops

Please feel free to move this to a more appropriate place

Track transition curve (Euler curve) has gained a new editor who is doing their working in MS Word format, then providing "code drops" as PDF files and screenshots-of-PDF files. The first code drop[40] pasted eight page-sized JPEG screenshots into the article. Attempts have been made to persuade the editor to contribute in Wiki/TeX-format and to keep draft material in a subpage (User:Ling Kah Jai/Track transition curve) until it is of a suitable quality (and format) to consider for inclusion. The editor has been assisted with large amounts of TeX/Wikifying, some of which has been rendered superfluous by subsequent PDF-drops. The latest drop of File:Euler Spiral.pdf is five pages of mathematical working and was at the same time introduced on to the Main article in copy-and-paste text-only format[41].

The article in the past has benefited from very high quality and referenced contributions by Raph Levien (who has written specifically on the history of the curve). At present the core of the article has been swamped by the (probably prematurely added) code-drops. Gentle coaxing and provision of assistance appears to have had less impact than hoped. —Sladen (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question, User:Ling Kah Jai has today begun to translate his work into wikicode, see this set of diffs. It looks like your coaxing has worked. Whether the material should remain in the article, following translation, is a different question not suited to this noticeboard. But it does appear at a non-exhaustive study that the pre-Ling version and current version contain the same referenced material, and the new material has not been primarily used to replace the older (all the references are still there, for example). From the talk page, it sounds like Ling has been having a bit of trouble using the TeX facility in MediaWiki; fair-enough really, as it's a pain in the neck having to endlessly preview things and look up syntax on that well-hidden help page. Splash - tk 13:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, that paste corresponds to[42] (the cut from the draft page), on which attempts had been made to assist with wikifying by myself and User:Michael Hardy—but which had/was/is/and has not been competed by LKJ. I, myself have hit WP:3RR for politely (after discussion) moving the unfinished material back to a drafting page[43][44][45][46] (each time along with suggestions and the provisions of further editing assistance), three of which have been immediately reverted by User:Ling Kah Jai without discussion or comment. I count this is the fourth time that substantially the same material has been pasted back into the article, with very little change/improvement by Ling Kah Jai, other than shortening. Compare [47] (treat as WP:BOLD+WP:BRD) [48] (straight undo 1)[49] (straight undo 2) [50] (copy-and-paste unformatted text from draft subpage over images) [51] (straight undo 3). Note first three have small diffcounts as they insert eight [[Image:]] sequences (the screenshots of PDF pages). —Sladen (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: CheckUser and Oversight appointments

Your opinion is sought on a proposal from ArbCom for handling future CheckUser and Oversight appointments. The proposal in full is here and all comments are welcomed.

Proposal: CheckUser and Oversight appointments

Your opinion is sought on a proposal from ArbCom for handling future CheckUser and Oversight appointments. The proposal in full is here and all comments are welcomed. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)