A program following instructions is less arbitrary than a human, but my message was about Vassyana's speculation, as the problem with Gerard's block was that it was based on imagination rather than fact. (SEWilco23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
This goes back quite a way, so what the intent of the bot is at this point is unclear. The original block seems fine, if there is a new purpose for the bot it should go through theapproval process --pgk19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That's right. The information above about the bot is obsolete and is only relevant for people running the original version, which is about five versions older than mine. (SEWilco23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
FCYTravis
The following discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
AdministratorUser:FCYTravis today madethis edit to my talk page today and put a rainbow flag background on my the Wikipedia logo when I access my User page which I must admit is a neat trick that did make me chuckle, but how to I take it down?--Jorfer19:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That change has nothing to do with me, but now that you've brought this to my attention, I would suggest changing that userbox immediately, lest it be deleted underWP:CSD#T1 as divisive and inflammatory.FCYTravis19:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That edit to the userbox was made 4 minutes after the edit to the talk page. If I didn't know any better I would think that FCYTravis logged out and then proceeded to vandalize the user box.--Jorfer20:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw the userbox and decided to comment on your talk page. Apparently someone else saw the same thing, and decided to comment in an even funnier fashion. That IP is not mine, as can be confirmed by any CheckUser.
Oh, and if you post divisive, inflammatory and insulting stuff like that on your user page, you can expect to be mocked for it. I would suggest that you change its content post-haste.FCYTravis20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That is funny considering the history shows that your post was 4 minutes before the IP's post according to the history.--Jorfer20:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm so very close to deleting that template but would like to give JEF time to change it or explain why it should remain. So do please give your reasons, if you won't change it, why it should be allowed.violet/riga(t)20:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead speedily delete it. That is not the point. You would then have to delete the userboxes found atCategory:Wikipedians_who_support_the_LGBT_community to be fair. The point is that instead of using official channels. A Wikipedia Administrator likely vandalized it and then lied about it here on WP:ANB.--Jorfer20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you'll have to take FCYTravis's word on that he did that. If you refuse to believe him then there are ways to find out. It's not really a major vandalism and I'd suggest to you that you forget about it.violet/riga(t)20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I care more about if Administrators are logging out and using their technical knowledge of Wikipedia to commit acts of vandalism and then boldly lying about their involvement then the actual act; the actual act was quite funny.--Jorfer20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was hilarious. Now, if I was going to vandalize your userbox using my IP, why on Earth would I have posted using my regular username on your talk page four minutes before?FCYTravis21:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Now you're accusing me of lying? How bizarre. For the fourth time, I didn't make the edit. Any CheckUser may feel free to compare my IP with the IP which made the edit. As for the userbox, there's a rather stark difference between "supporting the LGBT community" and claiming that I chose to be gay.FCYTravis20:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I am supposed to believe that an anoynomous IP looked at the bottom of my talk page and then proceeded to use an advanced knowledge of coding to edit my userbox 4 minutes later?--Jorfer21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if he didn't do it, he still made a very unproffesional edit to my talk page. I expect better of Administrators.--Jorfer21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If you do not want other Wikipedians commenting on the bigoted nature of your views with respect to gays and lesbians, do not post them on your user page for all other Wikipedians (including gay and lesbian Wikipedians) to see. You are entitled to your belief, but you are not entitled to shelter from challenges to your beliefs. You may feel free to remove my post at your pleasure - it is your Talk page.FCYTravis21:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Does anyone want to help go through and tag the image contribs ofUser:Alexsautographs as replaceable fair use images? User has uploaded a large number of baseball card scans which failWP:NFCC. I also think a warning is in order as the user has already been asked not to upload baseball card images.Rhobite22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
My contributions
The following discussion is archived.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
My edits have not been showing up in my contributions history. I don't know why.22:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
My User Contributions page is not showing my most recent edits, and I earlier got a message saying that the DB was locked so that the slaves could catch up. Are there ongoing problems, or is it just something that will clear itself up?--SarekOfVulcan22:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it going to be fixed soon? Is my edits (the edits I made during the lag) going to show up?23:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a question for you, so long as the edits were saved, why does it really matter if they add into your edit count? Since they are being saved, just watchlist the article and move on. -Mask?00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
All edits to Wikipedia today are being experimentally swallowed by the Gnashing Mouth of Edits. Thus they do not appear in your contributions. If youdo find an edit appearing in a contribution history, please run for your life, as the Gnashing Mouth will be along shortly.Splash -tk23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This problem is making vandal reversion very difficult. We are unable to review a vandals recent contributions. Anyone with mad skills needs to fix this soon.—Gaffταλκ00:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oddly enough, my contribs never messed up....me looking at others did though, but never me looking at mine. -T:C02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
IP troll
Resolved
63.113.199.109 (talk •contribs •Info •WHOIS) is having lots of fun trolling thehelp desk, and intentionally or not a lot of users are taking the bait. Given that I'm having trouble finding useful contributions in the IP's recent history despite their argument of a shared work connection, is a soft block an option? (I'm having trouble finding a decent warning template to use first, but there may well be one.)Confusing Manifestation03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Combating vandalism, but RFCU declined. Now what?
Over the weekend there was constant vandalism atSkyline High School (Oakland, California). An editor would come in, vandalize the page repeatedly, and get blocked. Moments later another editor would arrive, make theidentical vandal edit repeatedly, and then that editor would be blocked. Repeat a few more times through the weekend. Most of the vandals I reverted myself have been blocked and the page has been semi-protected for a week. I asked for a checkuser on the editors doing the vandalism, but the request wasdeclined. The identical nature of the edits make me believe something more than vandalism is going on. How should I proceed further in the absence of checkuser evidence?DarkAudit01:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The vandals have all come from user accounts, not IPs, which was why I went the checkuser route. I also ask if I would be out of line to dispense with warnings and go straight to reporting if I see this same edit again, based on the established pattern of behavior.DarkAudit03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'd do. If you see identical vandalism, put it up onWP:AIV straightway and give a link to some of the previous incidents. If an admin removes without action, have a polite chat on their talk page about it. --pgk06:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep. If someone came in with something like 'Glit Glort Bleeble Durp' instead, a warning would be necessary (until *that* became the pattern :)), but I would show that the one reported without a warning fit the established pattern.DarkAudit18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Removal of citation needed tags -- vandalism?
Two days ago I added some citation tags to this list, because one of the main concerns at the recent afdWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar themes and release dates was that every film comparison should cite a reliable sourcecomparing each film, if there are no sources cited for a particular film then it's original reseach. I even provided a detailed explanation why I was adding the tags in myedit summary, including a link to the afd that said sources were required, but now somene has removed the tags with no explanation. There's an original research template at the top of the article but people aren't going to look at that when they read the list, or when they add more titles to the list that are unsouced. Is removing these tags classed as vandalism?172.143.108.24802:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
One of the images affected was the state flag of Kentucky. I have no idea what it is going on, but as a Commons admin, I know about it. Just keep us posted here.User:Zscout370(Return Fire)06:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Also,User:BrownHairedGirl has expressed that she would like to see this expanded to include all category editing. I don't oppose that, but I think I would like another admin "outside view" (or consensus thereof) for that, at this time. -jc3706:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I think I'll respond anyway. To the best of my understanding, a single user (except forJimbo Wales) isn't autherized to ban a user from such edits. However, ifPastorwayne created categories in some way against the rules of Wikipedia, after such warnings and blocks, he can be blocked each time for longer periods.OdMishehu08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response : )
To clarify, this isn't just a "single user" doing this, per se. I'm merely finally acting in response to what many others have been asking now for over 5 months. It's been slow going simply because I've strongly felt we shouldassume good faith and give every opportunity to allow the user to learn so that he may become an even more knowledgable/competent editor, and not be one who is (as he is now) currently disruptive. For the "reasons", just re-read the wholeUser talk:Pastorwayne#It's time section on his talk page. Also, this is considered a "partial ban", and should not be considered to bebanning the editor completely from editing Wikipedia. -jc3709:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support blocking Pastorwayne from making edits in category space. At this point, I think Pastorwayne has severe difficulties editing Wikipedia's category system. It would be better for everyone if he worked on something else. I also strongly suggest that Pastorwayne should not be allowed to add red-linked categories to articles. In Dec 2006 and Jan 2007, he was doing this extensively. At the time, he claimed that he did not understand that he was, in effect, creating categories (seeWP:CAT#How to create categories). It is unclear if he will try it again.Dr. Submillimeter08:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This would seem like a good idea, including Submilli's additions. In response to the opinion that "a single user can't do this", it could also be worded like "PW has been repeatedly disruptive in editing cat space, and we'll block him if he does that again, everyone cool with that?">Radiant<16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Despite numerous warnings and blocks,TortureIsWrong (talk·contribs) has continued to troll and disrupt RFCN so I have blocked him indefinately. He's been upset ever since he was made to change his username a couple of months back. Can someone give it a quick review?Ryan Postlethwaite18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support this block. This editor has a grudge against RFCN since he was force to change his username from MoeLarryandJesus(if I remeber correctly). Since he changed his name, he has continously trolled RFCN and overall engaged in tendittious editting.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, another thing to take into account. In his 4 months here, he has made a total of 653 edits where 221 have been to RFCN often very controversially and only has a total of 79 mainspace edits.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there's ample evidence as to the lack of positive contributions or improvement from this editor, and I wouldn't lose any sleep over the indef-block. Good call.MastCellTalk18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No amount of communication was able to change this user from being a general disruption. The user made it very clear that he intended to continue as he was. The block is preventative, and useful to Wikipedia.(H)18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can't say as I'm too upset about this; his overall attitude on RFCN has been very, very sour, and it seems like he always takes an extreme position just for the sake of doing so.EVula//talk //☯ //18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't recall a situation where TIW contributed collaboratively in an RFCN discussion -- even when he agrees with the consensus of the discussion he is rude or belligerent./18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll be honest, at first I really thought that indef was too much — it just didn't feel right. I then looked more objectively at the situation by reviewing the user's contribs and I was rather unimpressed. Certainly not constructive and a fair amount of disruptiveness - there is maybe a slight chance of reform but don't ask me to lead it! Indef? Perhaps, then again maybe not, it's borderline if you ask me,GDonato (talk)19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Was recently going to ask why he wasn't blocked, as he seemed to me a RFCN troll (as EVula says, always taking an extreme position for shits and giggles), or perhaps a sock of an established user used to troll RFCN. Very little useful collaboration. I'd support an unblock with the provision he not comment on people's names or sigs, though. Just a thought. Mahalo. --Ali'i20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering page full of warnings at his old account (link) and a couple of blocks (link), his inappropriate behavior has been consistent since he got here. A provisional block may just turn his inappropriate editing elsewhere. --Ed (Edgar181)20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support an indefinite block. It's been one bigWP:POINT violation from the beginning. Re a conditional unblock, nothing stops him from getting another username and doing something else (provided he's not doing so already, as seems likely.) As long as he stays away from RFCN and related issues, I can't see how he would be identified.Proabivouac21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
As long as he stays away from RFCN and related issues, and isn't a dick elsewhere, what's the problem? A clean slate could very well be what he needs.EVula//talk //☯ //21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it appears here that objections to his behavior largely stem from his activities at RFCN; thus I support overturning the indef block and indefinitely banning from RFCN. --Iamunknown21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
...and commenting on names elsewhere as well. You can take the troll out of Requests for comments/Username, but can you take commenting on usernames out of the troll? Mahalo. --Ali'i21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point; I would still support overturning the indef block; I like to believe (perhaps naively) that editors can reform. --Iamunknown21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something here guys? This user is the definition of a troll - look at his contribs, look at his talk page. To top all off, he's fairly good at making personal attacks (look at his talk page post block for a start). I really don't believe that a simple ban from RFCN is enough for this guy.Ryan Postlethwaite21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The main problem with this user is a bitterness over the username policy, by removing that temptation the constructive mainspace contribs may appear, there are some useful contribs if you look quite carefully.GDonato (talk)21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem in my eye is that the user has already shown he is unable to respect other editors that he is in discussion with. I doubt very much that he is able to work in a collaberative environment like wikipedia, he had his final chance, and abused it by continuing his trolling. He's not really here to edit the encyclopedia, he's now here to troll over usernames.Ryan Postlethwaite21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree; this is a user who chose to spend much of his time, unconstructively, atWP:RFCN to settle a score. If he's banned from RFCN, what happens the next time something on Wikipedia doesn't go his way? I don't see constructive contributions that offset the negative, and I suspect that banning him from RFCN will refocus the negativity elsewhere, not make it disappear. As above, I agree with the indef block.MastCellTalk22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think an indefinite block may be too much. The problem with this user is he has spend nearly all of his time atWP:RFCN. I support some sort of block, but indefinitely blocking this user is too much. Maybe a week while do? I think TIW is right in stating that some of the admins dislike him, and have it out for him, as they have disagreed with him in the past. I think posting this here was the right thing to do, as it allows more users to voice their opinion. Clearly this user is opinionated, but they can be so without being disruptive.I still think an indefinite block is too much for a "contributing" user. I would support a week, and increasing the time he is blocked for incivility.(Speak)£22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
if you call contributing making personal attacks and trolling then fair enough. He's been blocked twice before for exactly the same thing - short blocks do not help this user. He is basically an SPA with the odd edit scattered here and there.Ryan Postlethwaite22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call his personal attacks and trolling contributing. I think this user would be better to spend his time onWT:U, asWP:RFCN isn't the place for disagreeing with the username policy. I wouldn't call a week a short block either; the previous block was only three hours long. I think this user has the ability to contribute in a useful manner, and for only being blocked once for three hours, an indefinite block seems unreasonable.(Speak)£22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I use to contribute toWP:RFCN. I guess I would have to agree with you. I still think indefinitely blocking is a little extreme for a user who has only been blocked once for 3 hours, but seeing as your an admin, I would have to agree with your decision.(Speak)£22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2, how could you Ryan and Wikihermit!) First, I'll say, yes I'm very much involved, so my opinion may be a little weighted :) (or maybe not). Well, anyway, I fully support the block. If you look at his contributions, you'll see nothing but trolling RFCN (except for his talk page incivility and4 mainspace edits). This includes making things like questioning a trusted user's name, and allowing blatant violation for silly reasons. He continually denies doing anything, though many people who have been involved all clearly agree about what he's been doing (just look at the 26 sections of his talk page. Last time I checked, they were all about his trolling except one. And, when someone brings it up, almost every time he responds in a completely uncivil manner. Thanks Ryan. (And to Wikihermit, incivilty and trolling is usually something that people get long blocks for, and they usually don't even get a second chance.) --RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!)22:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Having observed this user's actions at RFCN and reviewed contribs, I feel (as I have felt for some time) that the account exists solely to disrupt RFCN and adds nothing to the encyclopedia. I feel this block is justified.talk23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Per R, let this go. He could have been blocked months ago when he decided to vandalize this Dick Cheney article with that nonsense (see his old talk page).The Evil Spartan00:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I often agree with the user, and I think he got some leeway because of the way he got dragged into RFCN to begin with. And rightly so. But at some point, the statute of limitations on petty injustices kicks in. If not now, then not long from now. Wikipedia isn't a bloody drama site. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm really debating as to whether to we should be violating ourfair use policy for the existence of this page. The MFD apparently closed asno consensus, which was correct, but the multiple violations of the fair use policy haven't been fixed. There are Images on this page such asImage:MainPage-Mozilla-RedWolf.png, a fair use Image, that exist soley to be on this page. —Moeε04:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Copyright issues make me want to cry sometimes... can we really not use pictures of our own websiteon our own website?EVula//talk //☯ //04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So why not do as was suggested at the MfD-take the photos, crop out the toolbars and scrollbars put there by the browser itself. I don't see that we'd really need to remove the Wikipedia logo even, though we probably should ask the Foundation. However, the Wikipedia logo can be removed too, if they say using it like that is not acceptable, and then all the screenshot contains is GFDL content.SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Because I wasn't involved in the MFD, all I know is I was going to nominate it for MFD an hour ago and saw the recently concluded one. Geez, guess if you want something done you got to do it yourself *frowns* I'll get to it later.. —Moeε05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Are we sure that these screenshots even need to be considered copyrighted? The incidental inclusion of a copyrighted logo in an image doesn't render that entire picture nonfree, if it isn't the focus of the picture. For instance, we have a panorama photo of Times Square on Commons, which unavoidably has a bunch of advertising logos in the background... but the photo itself is GFDL. Likewise, it's impossible to take a screenshot of Windows software without incidentally including the toolbar and buttons. But do these trivial elements really render the entire screenshot unfree, if the vast majority of it (and its purpose and focus) is free content?*** Crotalus ***07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
For instance,Image:MainPage-Mozilla-RedWolf.png (mentioned above) is comprised almost entirely of free content. The only non-free elements are the Wikipedia logo (and let's face it, the Foundation ain't gonna sue itself), and the tiny toolbar at the top. The toolbar is mostly empty, and the only potentially copyrightable elements consist of three Aqua spheres and a small button on the left. (Titles are not copyrightable.)*** Crotalus ***07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say its fine if the browser crap is cropped out, wikipedia logo non-withstanding, the only concern would be to make sure that the images on the main page really are free. Most of the time they are, but not all the time. (I really think the main page should have only free stuff, its fitting forthe free encyclopedia thats in the upper left hand corner of every webpage). ——Eagle101Need help?07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And if the images are not free licensed? And what about attribution for the free licensed ones? I did a little research on the revision pictured inImage:MainPage-Mozilla-RedWolf.png and the photo of the Irish house of parlamentis GFDL licensed, but using it witout any attribution is technicaly a violation of it's license terms. The photo ofEqbal Ahmad was a unsourced, non-free image with no fair use rationale has have since been deleted (main page standards where not always as strict as now) and I can't find that particular image of the Israeli wall anywhere (we have lots of others though) so presumably it's been deleted too. The pope image is presumably PD so no issue there. Bottom line: You need a very steady hand in order to ensure that what you get from hitting print screen while viewing a Wikipedia page is actualy all free licensed and otherwise in compliance with the license of the various included content. --Sherool(talk)08:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Ancient History
Somewhat inspired by the BJAODN fiasco, I took a look at some of the oldest Wikipedia pages, likeGeorge Washington. The edit history of that article seems to start on 23 November 2001. If I go tothe nostalgia wikipedia, it shows 4 earlier edits... and the article seems to have existed before the earliest edit on that site.
Now, I don't think anyone would advocate deleting the article on George Washington. But I'm wondering: in order to comply with the GFDL, shouldn't such pages have a link to the edit history on nostalgia (and any older edit history that exists)? —PyTom06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on GFDL; I haven't readthe document nor do I intend to. But I think there are a couple of answers to your question. First, it would have been the responsibility of whoever transwikied the article from elsewhere into Wikipedia to look after GFDL issues. If they failed to do so, for whatever reason, it's not our job to clean up the mess six years later. (Heaven knows we have enough other problems to worry about.)
Second, the article has changed so much since then that probably the only two words from the original that are still there now are "George" and "Washington." In other words, BJAODN was deleted because it containedcurrent copyright violations, i.e. text which had been copied without attribution and had not been edited since then. The George Washington article has been edited thousands of times.
Third, there is no precedent for the action you suggest. Wikipedia is very strict about attributing content to the1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and otherpublic domain sources. However, there is no similar precedent to attribute material to a pre-Wikipedia wiki. If it's never been done, there's probably a reason.
If someone wants to cheers themselves up by deleting lots of dead redirects (or, even better, finding a good new place for them to redirect to), special redirects is pretty backed up. I've cleared half of it or so (254 of 524) but am starting to flag.Neil╦14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I was tempted to tag it with a{{cfm|Redirects from alternative names}}, but the larger issue came to mind so I raise it here;how many 'other' such "orphaned" categories might also exist? Or is there a historic discussion and someone never carried out an implementation, or is this a "busted" CFD loose end. Hence the 'yelp' for "collective memory and skills assists"!
I don't really have the skills with special pages searching to run this down, but suggest that someone should run this kind of thing down that can and update the redirects reference pages accordingly. Basic documentation and editor help like this is rather important to keep up to date, IMHO. Best regards //FrankB16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocking Standards for Anonymous Users
Are blocking standards much higher for anonymous users? It seems to me, the offense of71.142.212.115 deserves only a{{uw-vand2}} warning instead of a block, considering it was a first offense, and the vandalism only amounted to adding "(Big Deal!)" on theCraig L. Thomas page. What makes this offense so egregious that it merits a block without warning? Is it because the subject of the article is recently deceased, or was one of the admins just a little trigger happy? It just doesn't make sense to me.Talmage16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
While I might not have blocked it right off the bat, the blocking admin was well within his judgment to make that block. There is a lot of editing going on at that page because of the death of the senator so often it's easier to just block users right away to prevent further disruption and vandalism to a highly visible and very active page.Metros16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the fact Thomas recently died is what warranted the instant block. I've given out instant blocks myself to anon users, but usually they're just for three hours (long enough to make the kiddies lose interest, but not to hopefully effect a good-faith editor who happens to get a rapidly changing IP).EVula//talk //☯ //16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get some more editors (and admins) to keep an eye onWarriors (book series) and all the related pages (books in the series, characters in the series, etc.). The majority of editors there are younger, inexperienced editors who do not know the proper ways of Wikipedia. This means there's a lot of original research going on (see the recently AFDedList of mistakes in Warriors (Book Series) for example) and using talk pages as fan forums. Over the last few days I've had to deleted dozens of threads onTalk:Warriors (book series) which were just gossip about the books.
So if a few more editors could please watchlist some of these articles, I'd appreciate it greatly.Metros16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Watchlisted a number. Some of the plot summaries are phrased in a - promotional? - way. My copyvio sensor in the corner is bleeping like nuts. Would someone like to check? I'll tag 'em for tone, at any rate.MoreschiTalk17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've had the same thought but can't find anywhere they might be coming from online. My other thought is that it could be off a jacket cover or the back of the book.Metros17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And what do you know, by a strange coincidence some of my siblings are really into these books. I'll go and check. Be back in 5 minutes.MoreschiTalk17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, the first few sentences of a number of the plot summaries on the articles on the books are copied off the back cover, which I assume isn't allowed. These are the ones that sound promotional and employ more complex syntax than your average ten-year-old would use. Easy to spot.MoreschiTalk17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Except for the Wikipedia logo, everything is under one free license or another. As I understand it the logo can be used more or less freely within Wikipedia, but reuse and derivative works of it are limited. Images that don't contain the logo are free.Christopher Parham(talk)03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's exactly the reason why I was asking. The text is GFDL'd and Monobook (and all other MediaWiki skins) are GPL'd, so the only non-free element is the logo. So, what do we do with all the pages inCategory:Screenshots of Wikipedia? There are literally hundreds of images with the Wikipedia globe, and the licensing template makes it appear that it is a valid free content licensing tag.Titoxd(?!? -cool stuff)04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the text and the logo these screenshots also frequently contain the user's browser and a variaty of embedded images that are not nessesarily GFDL licensed. Even if only free licensed elements are shown you would have to actualy include proper attribution for the authors of all of them in order to fully comply with the licese for most of them. So IMHO most of these are anything but straight forward... --Sherool(talk)02:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably. But what about nonfree fonts like arial and tahoma? You wouldn't have this problem on a Linux box since they use Deja Vu fonts, but Windows and Mac computers display non-free fonts by default. —Crazytales (public computer)(talk)(main)15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That is stretching it. If that were the case, theoretically you could sue any advertising agency for copyright violation, as the ads they use almost always use non-free fonts.Titoxd(?!? -cool stuff)22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Apology To Wikipedia
I would like to apologize to the Wikipedian community for my recent disruptive actions. Now that I am aware of the polices that I was violating, I can further better the future of Wikipedia. The actions that I have made were entirely out of good faith and with the intention to better Wikipedia. That is my goal, like many others here at Wikipedia. I will study the polices here at Wikipedia to try and better understand them. My recent rejected nomination had opened my eyes to my actions and hopefully, in the future, these will be ultimately minimized.Redsox0404:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you are referring to. (Perhaps you should copy this message to the individuals who pointed out your mistakes.) I am willing to forgive vandalism or test edits if you resolve not to repeat the mistake, and especially if (as your userpage indicates) you continue to prevent others from causing harm. If you have edit-warred or committed personal attacks against other users, you need to apologize to those individuals.
I personally have found that some members of the community are not willing to forgive me for indiscretions I committed when I was a newcomer. I may have more to say about this on another occasion. However, as I relate to others, I am willing to forgive the past and look forward to a promising future.YechielMan05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to rephrase my initial statement. I did not intend for this message to be directed towards the entire Wikipedian community, just the users that my recent disruptive behavior offended or effected in some way. Many users held strong beliefs that I was a vandal (which I am not) due to my recent behavior. I think that many users feel that I am a distraction, disruption, and one of great immaturity and I feel that I should address the issue at hand. My contributions are only made out of good faith for Wikipedia, not harm. I do not intend to cause such disruption but further better the operation of Wikipedia. My recent behavior in which it appeared that I was impersonating an administrator may have been misconstrued. I was not fully aware of the blocking policies at Wikipedia and may have made many mistakes as far as that is concerned. I imposed punishments that were outside of my jurisdiction and authority with the intention of blocking users who I deemed unable to follow rules that are brought forth by Wikipedia. If you look at the userpages that I have blocked, you will find proof of long term detrimental behavior and many "to-be-blocked" threats. I felt it would be in the best interest of the Wikipedian community and Wikipedia itself if I blocked them from editing Wikipedia. I think that maybe adminship would be just what I need. Then I would be able to have my opinion taken more seriously and considered longer and harder rather than posting my opinions here as an ordinary user.Redsox0419:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Redsox, you realize that you didn't actually block anyone right? You only put{{blocked}} templates on pages, which was inappropriate, but does nothing to actually restrict user access to editing privileges. You learned, you know it was wrong, now rest easier and don't do it again./20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It might be more apropos to suggest that his comments don't belong here. He's claimed to block people as an admin at least twice, has not a clue about much of anything (such as applying for MedCom with something like 150 actual article edits since February and the aforementioned "blocking" nonsense), and has been starting threads about his actions on AN and ANI for no real apparent reason other then to maybe gain attention. It almost seems like he came to WP because he thought he could be an admin right away or something, and the continued behavior he has exhibited shows that he keeps making mistakes and ignoring policy even when he claims to have "learned better", not to mention that he apparently has some recurrent issues about being just a "regular user". I know plenty of regular users whose opinions are taken seriously, but theyt aren't of a self-aggrandizing nature. Might I suggest that someone mentor Redsox04?MSJapan20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
All I am trying to do is make a good gesture by apologizing for my mistakes. Take it easy. I am NOT trying to gain attention but just commit a good gesture (as mentioned earlier). And if my apology doesn't belong here, than where exactly does it belong?Redsox0419:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't belong here although the gesture is appreciated. Apologize to the users whose pages that you "vandalized" and then put the above apology onyour user page or User talk:Redsox04|your talk page]]. It wasn't that great a sin and, despite what Yechielman says, Wikipedians do forgive. Just don't submit an RFA anytime in the next 30 years (heh, heh, just kidding, 3 months and 3000 edits is a good minimum).
In the meantime, if you would like to be mentored as MSJapan suggests, I am willing to serve as your mentor. Just let me know onmy Talk Page.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have askedUser:Calton now 5 times to leave me alone and to not post on my talk page. He continues to do so. I have asked nicely, he continues to do so. I have threatened to report him for WikiStalking, he continues to do so. So, could an admin please helpUser:Calton off my talk page and tell him to leave me alone. I didn't ask for his assistance, I don't need his assistance, and I don't want his assistance. I just want him to leave me alone. Your help is appericated. Thanks....T:C22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Calton, I had to switch usernames cause you could leave me alone, like you can't now. Leave me alone, stop bothering me, means just that. It doesn't mean troll around Wikipedia trying to find my posts, harrassing people on their talk page after they have asked you to stop. It means to leave them alone. You don't get that, you didn't when I wasSVRTVDude and you don't now...and you won't until you are gone and banned.
User:A Man In Black and I have a difference of opinions on the TV stations here on Wikipedia. We don't see eye to eye, but we don't fight like cats and dogs like we once did. There are sometimes when we actually can have a civil conversation without getting to snippy at each other. You can be civil and not see eye to eye...and it isn't WP:OWN either. -T:C23:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I think Calton went slightly over the line here. Neutralhomer, it is JUST FINE for someone who has a problem with your edits to discuss them with you. Your request to be "left alone" cannot mean that you accept no input about your edits. On the other hand, Calton, after one reply to his message about leaving him alone, the rest was pretty much unnecessary, and seems to have been done as the perpetuation of some kind of flame war or something. What worries me more is the edit dispute, because the way you two are communicating, that is not going to resolve anything.Mangojuicetalk23:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If Calton wants to have civil conversation with me, not berate me, then that's great, I won't mind talking to him. But when he goes on and on and on and on and has to berate you every six words, it's to the point I want to put my head through my desk. But if Calton wants to help, wants to give input without being rude, crude, etc, then I don't mind talking to him. But if he can't...then there is nothing we have to discuss. -T:C23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If Neutralhomer aka Orangemonster2k1 aka SVRTVDude aka whatever-he's-calling-himself-this week wants to start having conversations, he ought to try NOT replying with utter nonsense, outright falsehoods, paranoia,psychological projection, and insults to my intelligence. Like this bit:It doesn't mean troll around Wikipedia trying to find my posts -- has anyone ever explained the concept of a Watchlist to you? Making changes to an articleon my Watchlist, whichI've edited before, regardingthe same issue I edited on before is about as far away from "troll[ing] around Wikipedia" as you can get -- unlike, say, edit warring over someone else'svanityedits immediately after I've removed them. The only reason I know it's him is because he's simply repeating the same behavior in the same places -- and because he said it was him, outright. And "communication" with Neutralhomer aka Orangemonster2k1 aka SVRTVDude aka whatever-he's-calling-himself-this week consists of him makingownershipdemands untethered from policy, guidelines, practices, and (occasionally) reality, having a hissy fit when challenged, stalking my edits/inserting nonsense until called upon it by an admin, issuing a non-apology apology ("Calton made me do it!"), and swearing he won't do it again, rinse, lather, repeat. The person on the platform waiting for the fast train to Banville? Not me. --Calton |Talk01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh Calton, give it up! Let's go through these, shall we?
"utter nonsense, outright falsehoods, paranoia" - ya, what now? I don't think the truth any of those.
"psychological projection" - You just love going for that one, don't ya? Leave my Aspergers out of this, OK?
"insults to my intelligence" - Please, if you were as intelligent as you claim to be, you would have gotten the point long ago.
"...I've edited before" - You have editedKXGN before? Really? Are ya sure? Don't think so.
"edit warring" - lets seeyouarebigtimeguilty there...even after an AFD you started was decided as "Keep".
"having a hissy fit when challenged" - I can't even go there without laughing.
Now...anything else you would like to accuse me of? "Hissy Fits"? Get the point, leave me alone and drop it or you will be on that train to Banville. I hear the cabin cars are nice. -T:C05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I saved this page in html. What User:Calton is doing here may constitute practicing psychology without a license. It is reportable to the Internet Crime Commission and the APA. I must urge him to check himself very carefully, for his own protection.76.166.123.12907:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? "Get the point, leave me alone and drop it or you will be on that train to Banville. I hear the cabin cars are nice."? Um, I think you've made Calton's point for him rather nicely. Calton is a respected and trusted member of the community and part of Calton's role asan admin a responsible member of the community is correcting those who are out of step with the community's rules and conventions. And you've just demonstrated by your own actions you are such a person. So I suggest that you take take Calton's warnings to heart or you'll likely find that you have more than just Calton to complain about.FeloniousMonk05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note: Calton is not an admin. In any case, it is not just an admin's duty to enforce community conventions, it is everyone's. I think Calton could try to be a bit less rigid - not with regards to enforcing policy, but his manner of enforcing it.Riana05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought he was one already... That he's not is an obvious oversight on our part. He's been doing the work of one for a very long time.FeloniousMonk05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, as I see it Neutralhomer has amply demonstrated that it's not Calton who's got the problem here.This,[4].this andthis from Neutralhomer indicate a pattern of abusing Wikipedia processes such asWP:WQA andWP:AN to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute. I've cautioned him such disruption violatesWP:HAR andWP:DE and will likely result in a block if it continues and that I suggest that he finds a corner of the project away from Calton and edit quietly there for a while.FeloniousMonk05:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I can demonstrate that Calton is not the great guy you make him out to be. He puts on his little act for the admins to stay out of trouble and then slams the editors. The admins not calling him on it, just makes him worse. Gimme an hour and I will get you proof of his behaviour. -T:C05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And Calton has not been at the very best of his behaviour either. Picking one user and warning him of abuse of process and asking him to "quietly edit in another corner" is completely inappropriate on your part. Please consider removing your warnings from NH's talk page. —{C}06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My contributions were erased completely. User Calton has ongoing and persistent WP:CIVIL problems. These comments should be re-instated for the record.76.166.123.12907:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What User:Calton is doing here may constitute practicing psychology without a license. It is reportable to the Internet Crime Commission and the APA. Internet Crime Commission? Are those the people fightingthe World Crime League? Or maybe it's theBrotherhood of Evil Mutants? Is BJAODN still active? I may have a candidate.
Since the "Internet Crime Commission" is as imaginary as the "World Crime League", I'm not concerned with your "reporting" anything. And I'd call threats to tattle to an imaginary authority figure pretty childish, myself, not to mention calling it alegal threat -- a particularly nonsensical and easily dismissed legal threat, but a legal threat nonetheless. --Calton |Talk19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, for very poor reasons. User: Calton misuses his position on Wikipedia for personal vengence, ongoing WP: CIVIL, and to deflect his transgressions, as is apparent here.76.166.123.12918:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Very poor reasons"? Perhaps you ought to take that up with the admins who did the actual deleting, andthe people here who supported it. So what "position" am I misusing, other than as a spotlighter of your attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion? --Calton |Talk19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I see Calton BeingUn-civil. He is a massive troller, he is always looking to fight. His personal attacks are very many, he needs to stop. I do not know why lots of people defend him, if he was someone else he'd been blocked weeks ago. He left 2 nasty comments on my talk page (one is on the archive). He was obviously looking for some mad response back. He is severely disrupting the project.--T. Wiki20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a clear example:"Could you please buy a dictionary so you can use words properly?" of his trolling. I must have used the wrong variant of (their)(there)(they're) when nicely asking him to stop attacking users on his talk page. --T. Wiki20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you misused the words "trolling" and "harassing" in your messageCould you please stop trolling and harassing users on their talk pages. Hint: those words don't mean what you think they mean. --Calton |Talk06:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
... I understand that Calton can be abrasive at times, but I don't think very many people would accuse him of acting in bad faith, of trolling, of disruption, or of looking to fight. He has been around a lot longer than many of us here, has done a lot of work to improve the encyclopedia, and we should at leastassume good faith on his part. He is uncivil at times; aren't we all? --Iamunknown21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to make a few observations without giving Calton an opportunity to retaliate against me. First, Iamunkown, we all snap at people occasionally. But, the frequency and tone of Calton's language clearly shows a level of premeditation (i.e., bad faith). Trey Wiki mentioned being blocked "weeks" ago, but Calton has been insulting users on Wikipedia foryears. It's very obvious to me that no one could maintain this sort of intensity without actually trying to be rude. He's literally had too many arguments to count. I'm talking about dozens of serious disputes that have involved multiple users and discussions. These have wasted countless hours of time and chased away many contributors. (You mentioned his value as a contributor, even though I think he's derailed Wikipedia more than anyone else.) I strongly encourage all participants in this thread to look through his talk archives. His tone doesn't seem angry, just insulting. These are long, drawn out arguments over very petty issues and with all types of people. When I get into a shouting match or a flame war, it's because I've lost control. I don't make well-thought out arguments with evidence and I don't continue shouting (or flaming if I'm online) for weeks. Some people actually do troll on purpose. Some think it's funny; others think it's entertaining; others think they're so superior to others that insulting them will teach them a "lesson."
But, ironically, that doesn't matter. We have policies against talking in an uncivil manner toanyone, and forany reason. It doesn't matter who started it first, who the participants are, and who is acting in bad faith. If there's more than one offender, block them both. But, if Calton isn't punished for violating this essential rule, he will continue his heinous actions indefinitely. He won't even admit what he is doing is wrong. I strongly believe he is planning his personal attacks, so if he realizes that his behavior will no longer be tolerated, he will adjust his planning accordingly. Any action would do, even a 48-hour ban.--Honesty 6400:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This is just plain artless. Here's this guy Honesty 64 claiming that Calton "has been insulting users on Wikipedia foryears" -- and he joined Wikipedia one hour ago! He also claims that Calton has "wasted countless hours of time and chased away many contributors." I'm reminded of the Zen koan: How many heads can a sockpuppet have? Folks, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an axe-grinding association.Griot02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Good answer. So, because my account is new, everything I am saying is untrue? We're talking about Calton--not me. Facts are facts. It doesn't matter who says them, and these are obvious and easily verifiable. You can start a new thread about my account if you are really upset about it. You're supposed to comment on the content--not the contributor. I made six arguments above, and you didn't disagree with any of them. Does that mean you don't think they're wrong? Anyone who defends Calton is defending incivility. Is incivility OK with you?--Honesty 6406:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So, because my account is new, everything I am saying is untrue? Yes: either you really are new and therefore can't logically have the knowledge you claim, or you're an experienced user posting under an assumed name. Neither really speaks well of your honesty. Though if you're who I think you are -- the overblown username gives me a hint -- truthfully, I'm not surprised you'd pop back up on your crusade, since your previous attempts (if you're who I think you are) to put the blocks to me were pretty much laughed off.
I just wanted to make a few observations without giving Calton an opportunity to retaliate against me And what form would this "retaliation" take? "Halt! Or else I'll say 'halt' again!"
I know how I'll retaliate against you, in my evil, viscious way: I'll ask you for the slightest bit of evidence to back up your hyperbole! Man, am I evil, or what? --Calton |Talk06:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well, to be fair, it's kind of a big deal. There's already a big red banner at the top of the template and I guess someone with the bit could modify it to link back here but, as I see it, that's pretty much it. --Seed2.021:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if this is related to theSpecial:Contributions lag a few days ago? It was caused by a bit of code confusing the English Wikipedia and Commons database servers. That was fixed, but if the error is still hapenning the devs need to be told if they haven't been already. --ais523 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The devs know already:bugzilla:10128. I wonder if the comments there mean the bug is fixed? --ais523 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Issue is resolved (and I got confirmation on Commons); I'm removing all relevant warnings from templates and categories.EVula//talk //☯ //21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing them isn't the problem (copy+paste into gvim,:%s/|.\{-}|\s*\(<!--.\{-}\)\?\[\[Image:.\{-}\]\]\s*\(-->\)\?\s*\(||\|!!\)\?/|/i and such, copy+paste), it is getting it to stick. I did every page from 300 down to 40ish (except a few character articles, and from my list which is slightly different) over the weekend and someone with a bunch of sockpuppets and IPs reverted all of my edits for the previous two days.Kotepho07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Kotepho, I noticed that actually, my contributions were mostly going through the work of one of those socks and reverting about 50 articles back to your version. -Mask?08:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible for an admin to remove my user name or anything from the databases or whatnot? If not... just... do something about. I've pretty much decided I don't want to be a part of Wikipedia anymore. I'm just tired of putting up with all the people, all the people wanting everyone to "follow the rules", the rules of Wikipedia being forced on others, ect, ect... it's getting too stressful for me, and with my life being so complicated these days it's getting harder and harder for me to keep my mind friendly to the place and it's people.
So I want to erase ever being here.
If it's not possible, like I said, just do somethin' to have me removed or something. I probably deserve whatever anyway. XD
I was hoping my history of existence could be removed from here. Oh well.
I'm convinced I'm not needed here. Heck, one guy claimed I hate him and that every game information must come from a manual, and I don't think he's gonna listen to me... wait, that's irrelevant... and leaving my account existent makes me feel I might end up coming back and causing more damage.
Well, it might be possible, to delete your userpage and its editing history if it qualifies forspeedy deletion and any subpages, provided they meetU1. If you're using your realname to edit Wikipedia, you may also want to readWP:CHU. Please note that there will be a record of any name change performed.
Personally, I would recommend readingWP:COOL andm:Wikistress before you do anything drastic though. Consider taking a wikibreak. Go outside and relax. You might feel differently about things in a few weeks. --Seed2.012:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to take a wikibreak. But... if I do, I wanna start over from a clean slate... then again, due to the people here and what I mentioned, I don't know if I ever want to return to Wikipedia again. You can only take so much stress from a community before you just don't ever want to come back to it again, you know?
I'll look those over though, and hopefully if I do put myself up for speedy deletion, they'll understand it's a request. I'm just tired of all the trouble this place gives me... :( --RalfLoire(Annoy)12:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Even the signatures could be changed if you ask someone who runs a bot that is approved for that particular task nicely. With the way your current username looks I would in particular recommend that after you have changed your username to something non-descript.Agathoclea21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Do what you will with it. If you wish to change the name, be my guest. Anything will do really. - Ex-Wikipedian who started the topic— Precedingunsigned comment added byRalf Loire (talk •contribs)
Request Deletion of "Arbutus Volunteer Fire Department"
Now you would, yes. But an hour ago this article existed as an article and not a redirect.Metros21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Page deletion request
Resolved
–You can still edit them as usual in fact
I suspect a database hiccup. I'm developing a set of templates in my userspace sandbox, and two of them became inaccessible late last night local time, just as I was getting ready to debug them. When I attempt to navigate to them I get the error page with the message at the bottom:
I don't see any alternative but to attempt deleting them and typing them back in, which is annoying for one of them because it was slightly complex, but what can you do? The pages areUser:Csernica/Sandbox/Sumo/Basho andUser:Csernica/Sandbox/Sumo/Sumo basho awards. Obviously, I cannot request deletion by the usual method of tagging them so I'm asking here instead.
What I half expect will happen is that no admin will be able to delete them either, and I assume the issue will be escalated at that point. I'd contact the sysadmins myself, but we're told atWikipedia:Contact us/other: "All errors are logged, and the web site is closely monitored. Technical staff are aware of these problems whenever they happen. Please do not email us regarding them." Not that I don't believe them, but no one appears to have noticed yet.TCC(talk)(contribs)21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
On it, seems the problem is with your syntax in fact, I have them on my notepad. I'll see if I can fix it. --lucasbfrtalk21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Taking a quick look at his edits, it looks like they are a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia by adding images. Yes, there are messages from Orphan Bot, which he seems to have reacted to by adding the images to articles. I think an indef block is unnecessary here.OdMishehu06:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Convert from AfD to Speedy Delete?
Hi, I'd like advice on the process for converting two related articles from "AfD" status to "Speedy delete."
In one case (the book), nobody objected to deletion, in spite of lively discussion.
In the other case (the author), one editor objected strongly, but changed his mind upon (1) learning of a copyright violation in the article, and (2) communicating with the author or his agents.
Please either make the conversion to "speedy delete," or advise me what I can do to hasten this process, in which it appears there is pretty much universal consensus. (A couple of editors expressed mild opposition to deletion early on, but have not returned to defend those views after the copyright violation came to light.) -Pete22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see there are several "keep" votes for the author and several "merge" votes for the book. I don't see an obvious consensus here as you suggest.Metros22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The copyvio issue was unknown through most of the discussion. I am making this suggestion with the strong belief that I'm representing the interests of the editor who initially objected most strongly (please see histalk page for the clearest bit of the discussion) and in the belief that an unaddressed copyvio issue (which would have probably justified a "speedy delete" to begin with, had it been known) is a threat to Wikipedia. That said, I defer to your judgment, with the mild request that you take a closer look at that talk page before making a final decision. -Pete22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If it is a blatant copyvio, use {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} at the top of the page. You don't have to "convert the AfD;" it can be put up for speedy deletion at the same time if it's a copyvio.Phony Saint00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's clearly a copyvio, tag the article for speedy delete, then close the AfD yourself (as a Speedy Delete for copyvio); the procedure is given atWP:AFD. You don't have to be a admin to close an AfD.Herostratus00:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Although if I do this, I usually leave the AfD open until the article is speedy deleted, in case the tags are repeatedly removed (has happened in the past).EliminatorJRTalk08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would also recommend to leave the closing of the AFD to the one that deletes the articles. Only if he overlooks the AfD it could be closed asdeleted alreadyAgathoclea08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Admins might want to know that there's a backlog of about 500 or so entries atC:CSD. Of course it's been worse before but this is still quite a significant backlog that someone should probably clear. –Chacor09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A lot seems to be becauseUser:Tecmobowl is going round tagging pro baseball players as{{db-a7}}. I have asked to to stop and take them to AFD if he doesn't like the articles.Neil╦09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
By a vote on an open motion made on the mainRequests for arbitration page[5], the indefinite ban on Koavf is replaced by revert parole. He is limited to one content reversion per page per day, and may be reblocked briefly for each violation, extending to indefinite after 3 blocks, depending on the blocking administrator's discretion. Blocks and bans should be recorded atWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Koavf#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. For the Arbitration committee,Thatcher13112:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I get the little red cross on the image, and "Unable to forward this request at this time." if I click on the image. I had the same problem earlier today when putting speedy tags on a couple of unused images I had uploaded. I presume it's a temporary glitch.EliminatorJRTalk15:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Its showing properly here. Maybe your proxy or adblocker (if you are using one) is blocking certain strings which happen to be a substring in the image name, thereby blocking the image as collateral damage. (IE7prop adblocker blocks certain images in wikipedia, turn it off for *.wikipedia.org) --soumtalk15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting the same error, from one of the squids.(knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org) It may depends on where you are located. This probably belongs on the technical village pump, not here.Secretlondon16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have run acrossUser:Socialdemocrats a couple of times recently - (s)he has a history of apparently disruptive edits, including numerous blankings of histalk page (that seem to be the product of frustration rather than malice). I genuinely don't believe that his edits are intended to be vandalism, but they are upsetting other editors (eg page reformatting without prior discussion or edit summaries). Advice seems to go unheeded, and warnings are ignored.My question is: is this editor salvageable, or should I just have left this withWikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? I'm not sure what the procedure is with editors that are clearly keen, but don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works!EyeSerene16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Comments removed
Hi I asked a (what seemed) legitamate question onuser:ElinorDs request for adminship, I just wanted an assurance but this question was quickly disappeared, as "trolling", perhaps because I chose to edit anonymously, I am concerned about the comeback if I ask it logged in. When I asked on the talk page of the request, this question was also immedeately removed as trolling, it was also removed from the history as well. I would like to know why this reasonable question was trolling, I will not ask the question here again in case thats also removed as being trolling. thanks.195.189.142.24316:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The comment was removed as trolling because itread like trolling. If what you alledged was true, show it. Show where you heard it (with diffs), under what circumstances, et cetera. Otherwise ... it just looks like mud-slinging.WilyD16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Your allegation will not really help the community develop a consensus on promotion, and I agree with its removal. If true, theuser should not be promoted no matter what the consensus the Arbitration committee should be asked to investigate privately and determine whether some legitimate reason exists; if false, the allegation is a nasty smear seemingly intended to derail the nomination. There is a difference between a good editor trying to open a new account for privacy reasons (to give one possibly legitimate reason) and someone abusively using multiple accounts. If you have some facts to back up your suspicions I suggest you e-mail one or more members of theArbitration committee.Thatcher13116:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Deletion summaries for attack pages
Now that the deletion log is shown directly on deleted pages, we should probably start being more careful about our deletion summaries, especially withattack pages and with regard to the prefilled deletion summaries automatically offered by MediaWiki in certain cases. Otherwise we may end up with caseslike this.
It's not quite as bad as it might seem, since deleted pages are marked with<meta> tags that keep them from being indexed by Google and other search engines. Still, it's worth keeping in mind that, at least for now, there'sabsolutely no way, short of direct database manipulation by a developer, of deleting a deletion summary.
This would be a good time to plugWP:CSDAR. Using that program will ensure that this problem with deletion summaries isn't a problem. --Alabamaboy18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A wonderful program - it fixed me dinner and washed all the dishes. It also made working on CSD a much easier.Pastordavid18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we request a feature to get rid of certain blocking and deletion summaries? I've heard of proposals for something like this in the past. Maybe something similar tooversight (or even a new add-on to the oversight tool?)21:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never been a big fan of the automatic deletion summaries. Attack pages are the most serious problem, of course, but I also always make sure to remove any content from the summary for a copyvio, because otherwise the deletion summary itself is an (uneradicable) copyvio. So the percentage of pages for which it's helpful is not that big.Chick Bowen21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not as big a problem with copyvios, though, since the amount of the content that fits in a deletion summary is in general likely to bede minimis. For attack pages, however, even a brief quote could be offensive and/or libelous. —Ilmari Karonen(talk)20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's a solution:User:^demon has created a script (available from his userpagehere) which automatically pops up a list of CSD criteria when you go to delete a page (so you don't even have to type anything). It's saved me tons of time and provides a quick and relatively informative deletion summary, plus it avoids the problem of including part of the deleted article in the deletion summary. I'd encourage everyone to give it a try - it's been very helpful and will make this problem go away.MastCellTalk15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Clicking the word "deletion" on most CSD templates gives a nice deletion page with pre-filled deletion summary.Kusma (talk)20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Inspired by^demon's script, I wrote a piece of javascript that detects if the prefilled deletion summary contains "{{db-attack}}", or any variant thereof, and if so, replaces it with a more appropriate summary. You canfind the script here and, once installed, cantest it here. (I've wrapped the tag in "<nowiki></nowiki>" on that page so it won't actually show up onCAT:ASD.) Of course, like the solution suggested by Kusma above, this will only work if the page has actually been tagged properly. Even so, I'm wondering if this might actually be worth including inMediaWiki:Common.js. —Ilmari Karonen(talk)21:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The section placeholders does not help much increasing visibility. It will soon be lost amongst a pile of other threads. Maybe a notice at the top of the page should be considered, if a better visibility is needed. --soumtalk17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Xihix is persitently reverting removals of a fair use image that has no rationale and is not discussed within the article atRed Hot Chili Peppers. If you check outTalk:Red Hot Chili Peppers and thehistory you can see that he is ignoring everyone else's opinion and refusing to acknowledge any view other than his own (I think it's fine. Don't take it out. If you do, I'm simply adding it back in.). Can someone step in and sort this out? I'm not sure how Wikipedia deals with these issues.Kamryn Matika00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I added a note about fair use images and the importance of generating (and following) consensus to the 3RR block notification; hopefully that will get him to realize the error of his ways.EVula//talk //☯ //00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Merriam-Webster hosts an "open dictionary"[7] (read: user submitted, no notability or reference required) on the same URL as their normal dictionary. I only noticed it when a user tried to cite MW Dictionary in their article on a neologism they made up.
Let's say we have an article about an organization. Said article has no references except for the organization's own website. Does an article without any references that are independent of the subject (the subject's own website) fulfillWP:V andWP:N?
Now, let's say the same article has ONE secondary source, a PhD dissertation. Is this enough to establish WP:V and WP:N? I'm still kind of new here so sorry if I'm asking this in the wrong place, but I really need to get some straight information. Thanks!The Parsnip!22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
For those just tuning in, he's talking about his utterly retarded nomination ofSCA for deletion. I suggest you stop nominating for deletion articles you know absolutely nothing about. I would equally strongly suggest you learn what the words you say actually mean. First, notability is a guideline, not a policy. Notability is not 'satisfied', notability is an attribute something has regardless of whatever is written in the article. You also clearly don't understand any reference system besides the typical footnotes system. The article uses external jumps extensively, which is non-standard and frowned upon, but there very clearly are references in the article independent of the subject.Chris Croy00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
ThoughSCA is clearly notable, whilstWP:N istechnically a guideline as opposed to a policy, an article that fails to show notability will almost certainly be deleted if proposed, so the content of the article is important - notability does have to be 'satisfied'.EliminatorJRTalk00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Now people can see the kind of absurd garbage I've had to put up with over the last few days from people like my good friend Chris Croy up above. Yes, I'm talking about the SCA article, and no, I'm not necessarily talking about deleting it. What I'm talking about is satisfying guidelines and policies, which the article doesn't appear to do. I'm trying to follow the rules the best way I understand them, but instead I get rudeness, people talking to me like I'm an idiot, and even an admin on the article talk page who basically told me that the article was fine without any reliable secondary sources. I was even trying to help out by requesting that reliable secondary sources be added to the article and instead I got flak and people telling me that the SCA website satisfies all requirements. In any case, I'm glad to learn here that I'm pretty much right, just like I thought I was. Thank you for helping to clarify.The Parsnip!02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I am the admin in question. The Parsnip!, is not representing what I said correctly. In my understanding of the relevent policies and guidelines, the SCA website meets the guidelines established atWP:V for self-published sources in articles about themselves, and so can be used to source certain types of statements, even statements that touch on notability. (For example, membership numbers). I do not and have not claimed that a self-published web site is sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. I have argued thatWP:N talks oftopics, notarticles, and that notability is an attribute of topics and can be satisfied even if the article does not cite sources. The Parsnip! disagrees.Dsmdgold12:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, that's a good idea. (And, purely curious: feature requests get made at the same place as bug reports? Or what?) --Masamage♫02:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(A) This bug report is a duplicate of one I filed months and months ago. (B) Masamage - bugzilla is used for filing both bugs and feature requests. At the time of filing it, you mark it accordingly.Raul65402:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Damn. Thanks for showing the duplicate, Raul. Last I heard (from him), AmiDaniel was trying to develop such a feature.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
In the mean time Ryulong - I would suggest setting up a filter to filter all that users emails into the trash. I know gmail and hotmail have that ability.ViridaeTalk07:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Removal of fact tags
What can be done to prevent editors from removing tags while they refuse to add references to the tagged sentences?[8] For some reason people disallow addition of tags and notices.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution is down the hall, second on the left. Try discussing the matter with the other editors. Sometimes, a fact is indeed supported by references but simply has not been cited inline. At other times, people do indeed do it to attempt toown an article and prevent others from questioning it, even if what they're writing is questionable ororiginal research. There are procedures in dispute resolution to request opinions from uninterested parties, if discussion fails, it might not be a bad idea to try them. There's no specific prohibition against removing such tags, even though doing so is generally discouraged, especially if removed without explanation. But it's generally considered polite to provide an explanation forplacing such tags too.SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
HHO gas is not that interesting to me to warrant such efforts. Nevertheless I am still wondering how oneperson can remove valid tags or even {{totallydisputed}} without addressing the problems voiced on the talk page. My understanding was that removing tags (and it is made clear why they are there) is at best uncooperative. Thank you for responding.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton08:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Server glitch?
When I go to My Contributions, and I enter my IP address to see what edits I've made while I wasn't logged in, I'm automatically led to the contributions on an unknown person. That in itself is not so strange, since I'm on a semi-public computer. The strange thing is that among the contributions arethis edit byNickyt3030 (talk·contribs),this edit byFrank116 (talk·contribs),this edit byPinto a (talk·contribs), and many others. Even stranger is that it doesn't matter what IP I enter, I always get this contribution history. Is there a server glitch somewhere?Cows fly kites(Aecis)Rule/Contributions12:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is nothing but personal harassment. He should be banned or should i apply for 3RR as he reverted more than 3 edits.Racky pt13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Racky pt is a block-evading sockpuppet ofVinay412. Many of his edits are irrelevant or misinformed and he has become increasingly disruptive (seeVinay412's talk page) so I've decided to keep an eye on him. He has ownership issues over a couple of rather grubby articles about large women, one of which has been AfD'd and the other of which I and several other editors have been trying to tidy up in the face of determined reversions. The example he gives atTalk:Female_body_shape#deletion_of_.22Other_descriptions.22_section pretty much sums up his approach to WP editing. Sorry you've been bothered with this.andy13:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Number 1 is questionable because it regards a policy on Wikipedia. You were bold to change it, and since it was reverted, you should go to that user's talk page (as is onbe bold). Number 2's edit has bad quality. Asking people to search for sources by searching on Google is a bad idea. Some sources are available only on books, especially old ones. Number 3 is moot. You are calling another user a sadist - seeWP:NPA. Number 4 is directly contradicted by the sentence after the one you added. I'm no expert on relativity so I would suggest you go todispute resolution. Blocked users evading blocks go toWP:AN/I, too.x42bn6TalkMess13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
During the recent AfD forPeter Openshaw, his talk page was moved improperly, and associated with a different article. Can someone cleanly put it back where it belongs?
I have deleted most of the sub-pages fromWikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense as a violation of the GFDL. In nearly every case, the content in the subpages had been copy-and-pasted from elsewhere. In the case of existing articles, content was copied without crediting the author(s) of the revisions. In the case of deleted articles, without fail in the pages I deleted, the content was not properly moved to preserve the history. In every single case, there was no non-infringing content worth saving.
As can be seen, I have not deleted all of the BJAODN subpages - in the case of much of the April Fools pages, content was properly moved by conscientious editors over the years. Now I know that this will upset some folks, but that is not my intent. Nor were these deletions a liberal interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria - in every single case, the deletions were to keep Wikipedia in compliance with the GFDL, the license by which every single page in every single article in every single language in this great Project is based. If we cannot abide by our own license, how on Earth can we ensure that those who wish to use our content do the same?
These actions should not be interpreted as a fiat against the existence of BJAODN (although one must wonder if our collective creative energies could be used more effectively and whether or not such content is more appropriate for Uncyclopedia - but that is neither here nor there). As long as content is properly moved to preserve the history of "deleted" content, or proper linking to diffs and authors for specific edits on surviving pages, then it would be in compliance.
Not a comment on the appropriateness of the deletions, but did you honestly think that people would notview this as a rouge interpretation of policy to do whatever you want if you explained it? -Amarkovmoo!02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, to the admins reading this, PLEASE do NOT undelete all of these without discussing. Let's not get into a wheel war. No comment on the merits of this deletion.Sean William@02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like something doesn't add up here: A unilateral deletion is acceptable, but a unilateral undeletion is not? It's bad enough thatbold, revert, discuss isn't an option for editors when faced with administrator actions, but I never imagined that admins were similarly hamstrung. This is strictly an observation about the power imbalance between a deleting admin and practically anyone else. It should not be construed as an argument on either side of thebad jokes vsGFDL discussion. --Ssbohio04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Has this been discussed at all? It doesn't seem like something that should be or needs to be done hastily, given the length of time it's existed (and the lack of possibility the GFDL will ever be enforced against us in this manner). Also, as has just been discussedhere, it's not clear the GFDL should be interpreted this way.The way, the truth, and the light02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
See the last MFD, and it was discussed on ANI at the time too. Also, every time you subst a template without following the conditions of the GFDL (there is even a whole section on this, 5) God kills a kitten.Kotepho02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm pretty sure this shot the job queue to hell. It's currently fluctuating between a 30 and 60 second delay. -Amarkovmoo!02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
IMO, you might as well nuke the whole thing. It's unfortunate; some of it was quite funny and the Upper Penninsula war deserved to be archived somewhere (WP:DENY be damned), but if we are killing a good portion of the content it is probably worth just delete it outright... otherwise it will just get filled again.--Isotope2303:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
(moved my comment over from ANI)
Escanaba vs Marquette? Did Manistique seize the opportunity to occupy the Garden Peninsula? Did Wisconsin push its border up to the timezone boundary? Hell of a fight regardless....Mackensen(talk)03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, I'm glad I got to see it one more time before it got deleted... it still makes me chuckle.--Isotope2303:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The history of that article, at least the good part of it, seems to residehere. In any case, the main contributor was apparentlyUser:Tjproechel. Can we salvage this?Duja►10:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
AHEM... I just looked at the article and it's a complete riff onToledo War, an article I contributed a substantial amount to in order to get it to featured status. The Toledo War, involving Michigan's 22-year-old governor at the time, is quite amusing. It also has the benefit of being true.67.149.103.11922:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Theres long been talk of doing this, off and on. Theres no record of authors, breaking GFDL requirements, it's unfunny, failsWP:DENY and in general is just all around stupid. -Mask?02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? If so, a 17-year-old admin doesn't die easily. And I changed my username because my earlier one sounded stupid (at least to me...now). —Kurykh03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan says "Copy and paste moves are evil. If you usethe rename button to put daft pages into BJAODN, you won't violate the GFDL and I and my friend M. Gustafson won't have to thwack your page over the head with this administrator broom. Hello M. Gustafson. It is nice to meet you at last. Stand back a bit please. Aiiiie-ah!"
This had to be done. Its a good idea in theory, but there's some pretty nasty stuff about living people there. And Wikipedia is based on the GFDL - edits have to be attributable to the accounts that made them. Signed posts are alright to just be moved, but where chunks of text have had many editors we need to preserve the history. That just isn't possible with a lot of BJAODN.WjBscribe03:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If there's nasty stuff about living people in there, change the names or change the characters to some fictional characters. No prob. —Rickyrab |Talk22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
When pages that have existed as long as this, and have been viewed (and presumably enjoyed) by so many people, get deleted suddenly and it supposedly is required by policy, then either policy (i.e. the GFDL itself) is broken or interpretation of it is.The way, the truth, and the light03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't be fun. Got it. In that spirit, I suggest we now delete other non-encyclopedic essays, like BEANS, HORSE, FISH, KETTLE, REICHSTAG, and any other essays which all clearly violate AGF? Thanks.ThuranX03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, these actions do not mean that future BJAODN, properly done, cannot exist. Quite the contrary, there is still a fair amount of material at BJAODN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -Shazaam! -<*>03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot imagine that in most of these cases a solution couldn't have been found that would have satisfied the GFDL and preserved this page. But if not, fair enough.Phil Sandifer03:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No comment for now on the deletions—I've exceeded my quota for controversial deletion activity for one week—but I'll take a link to the Upper Peninsular War, please.Newyorkbrad03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do hope we're going to follow this through by deleting all the articles that have been created by merging and/or splitting other articles, with consequent loss of history. And we'd better get onto the other language Wikipedias about their unattributed translations. We might start with the German Wikipedia's featured articlede:Yagan, a translation of ourYagan article without any author attribution whatsoever.
Yes I know it sounds like I'm being sarcastic, but I really do think this issue needs to be tackled. I just hope that Jeffrey et al realise that this problem is really really big. It isn't going to be solved just by deleting BJAODN.
Translated articles should have a link saying that they were translated and linking to the revision of the source article they were translated from (either on the article page or talkpage). Where merging happens, the source article must be redirected to the target article to ensure GFDL compliance.WjBscribe03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
He opines that thelocation of the link to the original is not required to be in the article itself, and can be on the talk page or in the edit summary. He does state that there is no GFDL reason to include such links. As an editor who has been through the GFDL requirements for copying things between wikis in meticulous detail, and has been transwikifying articles and fixing other people's transwikifications to be in accordance with the GFDL for several years now, I can tell you that he is wrong about that. The GFDL does require that. The relevant clause is 4(j).Uncle G10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. As much as this may shock some people, Jimbo can be wrong, and sometimes the community can be wrong, too. I knew there would be an emotional "oh noes" reaction, but the GFDL is the GFDL, period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -Shazaam! -<*>10:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
A thought as a random user and BJAODN fan -- it seems to me that there's more at stake here than just GFDL enforcement. Wikipedia has a wide perception of being a humorless and rule-obsessed place, despite policies such asWP:IAR andWP:OWN (the simple fact that one much of the time cannot type "articles for deletion" into the search box and be taken toWP:AFD because of restrictions on cross-namespace links is telling, since a usability issue has been sacrificed to protocol). Inasmuch as Jeffrey O. Gustafson's actions embody the letter ofWP:IAR and the like, they also seem to trample over the spirit of it completely. It seems to me that the elimination of much of such a long-standing Wikipedia tradition as the BJAODN archives is a rather hamhanded way of dealing with the attribution problem, as well as contributing to the project's increasingly negative reputation. I propose that the deleted pages be put on ice somewhere pending a community discussion on the issue.Haikupoet03:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
A lot of content is still atWP:BJAODN, so there's still plenty of humour. Its just the elements that are not attributable to the contributors who made them that have been deleted.WjBscribe03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And if they're properly attributed, we'll chip them out of the ice, if I may continue your analogy. We can restore what we deleted. —Kurykh03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What do we do withthis template? I sent it to TfD, unless one of you wants to delete this without going through that pretty-much unneeded process. —Kurykh03:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. There's such a thing a leaving room in life for some freaken common sense. Taking away one of the little inside jokes rips at the heart of an organization, and we are not doing this for the money. Jeffery I sure wish I had your self-confidence, to be so sure I'm right as to undertake such a task without first consulting my colleagues.Herostratus03:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is something that has been discussed on and off amongst admins for a fairly long time. And my "self confidence" in this only comes from supporting and upholding not just policy, but the basis of this whole Project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -Shazaam! -<*>03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community isn'tjust the Admins, Mr. Shazaam. There are the editors and the anons, too. We have a say, too, and we help with policymaking, too. Just remember that. —Rickyrab |Talk22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If the page contained copyvio, it should not be here. A pity, I am sure we lost some good stuff, but hey, we were doing things right lately, and needed to do something controversial from an outsider's point of view to give them something to talk ;-) --ReyBrujo03:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
(Note: not an admin) I grieve over this loss, and I would gladly help to look for diffs for mine and others' contributions to the pages if given a chance. I'm certain other editors would too with BJAODN at stake. --LuigiManiac03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This strikes me as an interpretation/application of policy that should require discussion before action. Among many other examples that come to mind, mirror sites often lose granularity of attribution. They often permit an end-user to view only a complete version of an article, not the whole history with all authorship properties, just like BJAODN. Should we shut down/cut off mirror sites that fail to implement this interpretation of the license perfectly? Should we do it instantaneously, because "policy says so", regardless of consequences, agreements, or other policies? Best, --Shirahadasha04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
GFDL-compliant mirrors should contain a link (or other reference) back to the Wikipedia article, from which the full edit history can be retrieved. This is rather different from cutting-and-pasting content from deleted pages into BJAODN. --Visviva04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) We contactthem to suggest changing their methods, many indeed break the GFDL by not linking back to provide a full history attribution. However, we must first and foremost care about Wikipedia "health". If we are deleting decorative fair use images from templates, why not decorative texts copied from another source? --ReyBrujo04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
perhaps with the bar of keeping GFDL people will, in future, only bother with the genuinely funny ones.Guy(Help!)06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused.. many people probably didn't know this was even an issue, and would have been glad to help correct the situation had they known. Why not do that now? It sounds like a painfully easy fix. --Ned Scott06:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have said "Rouge interpretation" anyway, but I would call the deletion a rougeaction.WP:BOLD is meant to motivate editors to do things that have not yet been done and/or tried, but it is not meant to flout community consensus. If BJAODN had not been deleted yet, it seems obvious to me that no consensus has been reached. Why not start aprocess meant to determine consensus instead? --Renesis (talk)07:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough... but that only reinforces my feeling that this was not the correct action to take, no matter the interpretation. --Renesis (talk)07:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive me for suggesting this, as I'm sure this manpower and resources needed to do this could probably used in a more productive manner, but: maybe we could start a task force of volunteers to go through each BJAODN item one-by-one, find the original diffs, and merge it into the edit history?Krimpet (talk)07:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that the minimum level of compliance is to list the names of the contributors and the year in which they contributed. A text dump of the history tab would be quite satisfactory, and that is what is usually used for pages transwikied to meta or wiktionary or wikibooks or whatever. In the most common case, a funny article that is quickly deleted, you're probably at about 5 edits by 1-3 distinct users, which really is trivial to document. Also common is a humorous paragraph or sentence or "funny vandalism" if you will, entirely created by one user, and added to an article that still exists (but quickly reverted). For this it is probably adequate to link to the diff of the edit and list the user name and timestamp (like this:Pigsonthewing 20:25, 28 June 2004) directly above the text excerpt. —CharlotteWebb08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The GFDL argument is pretty weak, many entries contained at least a link to the vandalized article. These actions seem like they were based on a selective enforcement of a legalistic interpretation of Wikipedia licensing to further the goal of getting rid of questionably humorous content. Not that these deletions were a horrible injustice, but I doubt that they will prevent editors from nominating a future, properly attributed and GFDL-compliant version of BJAODN for deletion. Oh how I wonder what excuses will appear then... >:) ˉˉanetode╦╩07:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should assume good faith rather than accusing a long-standing editor of malfeasance - If I wanted to make up some reason to delete BJAODN then there would benothing there. I have no problem being rouge, but in this case my actions are very clearly spelled out not just in policy, but, again, in the license that forms the foundation of our Project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -Shazaam! -<*>07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
While I generally do assume good faith, this was a rash action on the part of an admin, and thus I put the pages up on deletion review - because this deletion shouldn't have occurred. —Rickyrab |Talk22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever accusation implied was not serious, I have no problem with you or your standing as an editor. As this deletion dealt with BJAODN, it seems only appropriate to bust your chops a little. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (To clarify: I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of how GFDL applies to Wikipedia, but I don't suspect any malfeasance and I don't think the deletions counted as a significant loss to Wikipedia. ˉˉanetode╦╩07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC))
Again if we lost anything that was actually funny, just do some research, figure out who actually wrote it, and include that information when adding it back it in the next volume. —CharlotteWebb08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Bringing the license problem to light was a good idea. But this was just the sort of responseWikipedia:Don't panic warns against - a drastic and inflammatory action without discussion to gain consensus. There were alternative solutions here that many of us would have been glad to support, such as tracking down sources and citing them properly, that were not given consideration. This isn't impractical; each segment noted the article it was copied from and the history revealed the rough time. I say, undelete these and give supporters a few weeks to find sources. Then kill whatever's left.Dcoetzee07:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I support the idea of undeletion to make it so they are attributed, it only seems fair, although of course it's only sysops who will be able to useSpecial:Undelete to view deleted pages (which many of them are). --WikiSlasher10:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
How many more years do we have to wait before the people who say that they support making the pages GFDL-compliant actuallydo that? This is not the first time that people have offered to do this. And nothing happened afterwards.Uncle G10:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to help out with the BJAODN attribution now and again. Give Wikipedians a certain period of time to get the job done, then delete anything not yet attributed. Then institute a rule in WP:BJAODN requiring attribution with each and every thing. --WikiSlasher10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Better yet, institute a rule in BJAODN requiring the content to be actuallyfunny. Randomness isn't funny.
Says who? Whether something is funny or not depends soley on the user, just because one person doesn't find a joke funny doesn't mean the next person in line won't. --IvanKnight6915:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's a thought--how about we focus on the content that we actually want to keep in theencyclopedia? (laughter ensues).Mackensen(talk)11:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me just say it is a shame it was deleted. BJAODN was an important part of wikipedian culture and history. And there was actually some funny stuff there. :(. It should be brought back, or at least undeleted, copied to a mirror site / user page / or somewhere else so it can preserved for those who DID enjoy it, and then re-deleted. --IvanKnight6912:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
For those that worry that Wikipedia has become devoid of mirth, I should point out that the above category is quite well populated, and unlike the rather aptly namedbad jokes andnonsense, most ofthis category consists of "good jokes and kept witticisms". See alsothis policy.>Radiant<09:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Attribution can be found
Forgive me if this has been mention previously. It would be relatively easy to get the attribution information. All you have to do is find when the content was added and from where (in most cases this is given on the BJAODN page) and then look in the history of the article around the time the content was added to BJAODN. It would be extremely easy for an admin to find the stuff from deleted pages. I could do it myself, but I am busy with other things both Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia related and do not have enough interest in BJAODN to give it priority. To transfer the attribution, I suppose that you could put the usernames in edit summaries, like we have done before in unusual situations. However, since these are BJAODN pages and not articles, it might be better to put them on the page itself, next to the content that each contributed. --Kjkolb12:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There's more useful work to be done than trying to find histories for the random junk on BJAODN. If we're going to keep using BJAODN, and I've no reason to believe we shouldn't, histories need to be preserved and BLP crap needs to be kept out.Nick12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It's part of Wikipedia's history. Yeah a good chunk of it is crap but not all of Wikipedia has to be serious :) --WikiSlasher12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not think it would be too much harder to provide attribution for the deleted content than it would be for new content, especially in the case of joke articles and bad articles that were deleted immediately. --Kjkolb13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, don't people have anything better to do? Like an encyclopedia to write? Wikipedia is not a joke shop, nor Myspace. It's anencyclopedia. Our job is to actuallywrite the damn thing. Not to spend hours playing around with 60-odd hours of idiotic subpages of BJAODN.MoreschiTalk13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
"60-odd hours of idiotic subpages of BJAODN"? Also, as I previously mentioned, I do have better things to do. --Kjkolb13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If there is a case where the addition of humour sections are harming the encyclopedia and sidelining people from improving the article, nay violatingWikipedia policy and the GFDL, then the involvement of humour within Wikipedia needs to be discussed within the community, and if necessary, deleted. If the humour sections are harmful to Wikipedia in terms of contributions or legally, they will sadly need to go. --tgheretford(talk)21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize people were taking jobs here. Where can I put in my application? I now regret all the time I spent for free just because I thought this was fun. What a rube I am!William Pietri04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The contributions of users were being attributed only to whoever copy and pasted the material instead of the actual author in violation of the license under which the original author released the material, thus, Copyright violation twice over. But that is really ancillary to the true reason, which, as noted, is the utter GFDL violations (section 4.B of the license). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -Shazaam! -<*>15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I get all that, but my reading of G12 doesn't allow that as a reason for speedy deletion under G12. Does the material have to meet all the parameters or just one of them? And I think this is important, because if it doesn't meet G12 then you're claimingWP:IAR.HidingTalk17:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand how it violated the GFDL, I just can't see violating the GFDL as being a parameter listed under G12. It wasn't copied from a website with an incompatible license, therefore G12 cannot apply. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.HidingTalk19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Somebody has got to revert this idiocy. Copyright paranoia can only go so far, before it becomes an utter and complete farce.WP:IAR, undelete, and ban Jeffrey for beingWP:LAME. Grue 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jeffrey, and the failure of MFD to discard thiswalled garden nuisance does not speak well to our community. Even keeping the current page is questionable, but the archives were without value. --nae'blis17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I will resist the temptation to start adeletion review because I know that will only cause more trouble. However, my strong opinion is that Mr. Gustafson should not have deleted anything unilaterally. I really don't see how this is any different from whenUser:YankSox deletedDaniel Brandt by implicitly invokingWP:BLP, and started a deletion war with catastrophic results. In both cases, the pages were nearly perennial subjects of discussion, but nobody could muster community consensus to get them deleted. Then some admin goes ahead and deletes them unilaterally. Our community dynamics depend on trust, and it's hard to trust administrators who don't reciprocate that trust for those of us who have contributed to BJAODN.
I support the idea of trying to rescue citations to page history so that some of BJAODN can be recovered. This presents technical problems for non-admins like me because I don't have access to deleted articles. I'm referring to the sources for BJAODN items, not to BJAODN itself.
Going forward, I suggest the following:
Restore thetitles of the BJAODN pages. I find them amusing, and they do not violate GFDL.
Recreate BJAODN as a category instead of a list. The category would have three subcategories:
Deleted pages.
Reverted diffs from existing articles.
Special items such as April Fools jokes.
In appropriate situations, a newpage patroller could bypass CSD G1 by adding a template that says "This article is deleted and is viewable only for humorous purposes" and would automatically be categorized by the template. I'm not sure how it would work for diffs. I suppose special items could already go inCategory:Wikipedia humor, but then, the entirety of BJAODN belongs there.
Let us not confuse GFDL issues with personal preferences. Just because BJAODN violates some rule that most of us honestly don't know about, it doesn't justify unilateral action, and it also doesn't mean that we should disparage any and all attempts at humor, as some of the folks above have been doing.YechielMan20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because BJAODN violates some rule that most of us honestly don't know about — Any administrator —any administrator — who is not familiar with the requirements of the GFDL has been given access to administrator tools too early, before xe is actually ready to use them. Many of the tasks that we use our tools for from day to day, including history mergers, fixing bogus copy-and-paste moves, and renaming over existing articles, involve the requirements of the GFDL. We are required to delete content that is not licensed under the GFDL, and to preserve edit history andnot delete when (GFDL-licensed) content has been merged. Our tools are here in part for us to ensure thatthe project's copyright policy is adhered to, and to repair the errors made by those who have not followed that policy. Not knowing what the requirements of the project's copyright licence actually are is a fundamental deficiency; it is something that one should have learnedbefore becoming an administrator.Uncle G23:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Realisticaly you are going to have to accept that most admins have not read the GFDL. Just as you have to accept that most admins have not read our full disclaimers.Geni01:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but just because we should be willing to forgive ignorance of our copyright policy doesn't mean that after its consequences have been pointed out people should intentionally disregard them.>Radiant<08:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we can all do without that collection of unattributed libel. We can instead, oh I don't know,write an encyclopedia?13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just as a sidenote, can an admin please undelete and do ahistory merge onUser:SunStar Net/Persian Panda and merge the history ofPersian Panda (now deleted) into it to keep this within the GFDL?? - since the original author's work is not included, because I did a copy-and-paste job on it. The article is tagged with{{humor}} so people know it is a BJAODN article.
Crikey. This makes me sad, as Wikipedia isn't a job to me, it's a pleasure. And even were this a job, I feel like a shared sense of humor is a vital part of a healthy workplace culture. This sudden action seems roughly as reasonable to me as tearing through the office one day and ripping down all the photocopied cartoons. If I grab the ultra-full dump and write something that rummages for attribution, would people accept the attributable BJAODN fragments back? Or is there some unexpressed issue that's driven this?William Pietri04:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would accept it if:
It was properly attributed (which may lead to "you did this to make fun of me" wikidrama), and
It is actually funny (which is subjective, because one person's funny and hilarious joke is another's stupid and lame one)
Otherwise, it's better to keep them deleted. I was about to flush out the archives because most of the content was just plain stupid, and they were funny to the point where I did not laugh at the subject of the joke, but at the joke itself. —Kurykh04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read this thread exhaustively but I've done a quick text search and this doesn't seem to have been raised. Doesn't the exact same interpretation of the GFDL also result in practically every talk archive subpage on Wikipedia being a violation in need of immediate deletion?Help:Archiving a talk page gives detailed directions on how to do a copy-and-paste move of material from talk pages to archive subpages, and I know this has been the method I've always used myself.Bryan Derksen07:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages and pages like these are actively signed by their participants. That is the attribution.— ()07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but some users don't sign their names, and anon users often don't, and those who are identified by IPs are pretty much worthless, as if their IP is dymanic it means pretty much nothing. --IvanKnight6914:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but if they do that the anons don't want attribution, that's why they're anonymous so there's no issue there. --WikiSlasher02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm very happy this was done. If we don't take the GFDL seriously, there's no reason anyone on earth will, and the license will become unenforceable. Derksen: talk pages should be fine because the edits can be found on the main talk page. Time stamps make this easy.Cool HandLuke20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If I am looking at that page right, it is just a list of article links (instead of the content themselves) or I am missing something completely different.User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I see that someone ultimatelydid undelete the Deleted Pages. Seems like therewas quite a bit of potentially non-infringing content worth saving in the Deleted Pages after all. —Rickyrab |Talk21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Are newscast schedules, like the schedules seen onWABC,WAVY,WBAL,WSAZ,WFOR, etc covered underWP:NOT#DIR or are they protected since they only show the programs that the respective TV stations produce and broadcast, which are all part ofWP:TVS? Many thanks....T:C02:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No, being part of a Wikiproject doesn't protect directories of television schedules from falling afoul ofWP:NOT.
Hey, I am just asking admins for their opinion. If a group of admins say it is strictly out, then whether I like it or not, I have to go with it. I ask for opinions, that's all. -T:C05:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's not the world's greatest proposal,but it'll do. If someone would like to write down some legal, technically mumbo-jumbo, go right ahead. -T:C05:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It's an atrocious idea. Sooner or later you have to realise that the reason so many people have told you this crap is not encyclopaedic, is because it's not encyclopaedic. Schedule information is the job of the stations' webmasters, not an encyclopaedia.Guy(Help!)12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing I do is going to get this changed. You all are having a good ol' time threatening me and having a good laugh at my expensive. Laugh it up and knock yourselves out. -T:C19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Can't login
Hi. I was and still amIspy1981. Recently, I uploaded something to my monobook. When I recently tried to login, my computer basically crashed. Any advice? I understand this sounds odd, but I would gladly provide any proof necessary that I am Ispy. Thanks.
Thisnew essay being developed troubles me. The premise appears to violateWP:AGF, and the effect of something like this being made into policy, guideline, or even an accepted essay in WP namespace would be to quash or dismiss valid debate by simply labelling it "policy shopping". The user is asking for community input, and I have made a couple of comments on the talk page, but I would like to see others weigh in, so I am posting it here. At the least, I think this user needs some guidance from someone other than an editor whohe views as a "policy shopper". -Crockspot12:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea this guy would get so worked up as to call it an incident in need of admin attention.
The essay isn't even done yet, and is full of lorem ipsem.
The essay isn't an incident, and doesn't need administrative attention.
Essays of this nature do not fall into the jurisdiction of administrators. Just because this user doesn't like what is being said certainly doesn't give him the right to go and ask for admins to quash it. That seems an awful lot like censorship, no?
Being that it hasn't existed but a few hours, and we already have one other editor in full support of this concept, there is more support for it than there are detractors! Give it a little more time -- I've asked for opinions from many editors, and none have yet had a chance to respond. This is an attempt to harvest a crop before the seed has even sprouted.
I didn't post it here as a incident, or it would have been on AN/I. I want wider input from people who understand policy better than I percieve you to understand it. -Crockspot12:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, it would have been better to post such concerns at the pump rather than trying to limit it to admins. Also, isn't it ironic that you question my understanding of policy, when you often confuse policy and guideline, and you think that they're anointed by ArbCom? ;-)
Jz, couldn't you have waited until it's finished before sending it to MFD? This is jumping the gun entirely. /Blaxthos13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Then you should have waited until it was finished before posting it in the first place.Neil╦10:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
New Admin with a Question
Okay, who wants to help a relatively new admin with a question? Can i delete userpages such asthis one on sight as the user has no other contributions and it seems to be pretty clearly nothing but disruptive content? If not, how do I proceed? Thanks.GoodnightmushTalk21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, delete away. As a general rule, I advice against deleting usertalk pages tho- they often contain a useful record of past events.Friday(talk)21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Only thing to remember is that the threshold is a little higher for the userspace. Needs to be pretty clear attack/vandalism to delete. --WoohookittyWoohoo!07:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Nothing more to say or see here, so before we have to courtesy-blank this discussion, :-) I am closing it. If there is an issue with the policy, please gohere.IronGargoyle15:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The following is an unconventional request, but I believe it makes sense in this case. The AfD discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOULJAZZ: The Heart of the Music, which was recently closed as "delete" with agreement from the editor who initially contested the deletion most strenuously, contains an extremely long rant that editor directed at me (the original nominator.) That comment contains numerous personal attacks.
The editor has expressed regret about those comments, and attempted to delete them several times. (He is a new editor, and not very familiar with the technicalities or policies of Wikipedia.) I believe he and I reached a place of mutual understanding during the AfD.
Personally, I would also prefer that the comments be removed; although I understand that it's quite unlikely that a random web surfer would happen upon them, it would be nice if I could put this unpleasant experience behind me.
In considering this review, please also take a look at the comments atUser talk:Dave99hist, which represent our most recent and most direct communication.
My preference, and I believe Dave's, is that the entire AfD be deleted from the database. If that is unacceptable, please consider simply removing the lengthy comment, which another editor summarized later in the discussion.
Please look atWikipedia:Courtesy blanking to see if the{{afd-privacy}} template would meet your needs. Complete deletion of an AfD may cause problems when issues have to be discussed later, since no pointers to the deleted material can be given. Since there is no suggestion of any BLP, legal or OFFICE issues or any publication of personal information it appears that simple blanking ought to suffice.EdJohnston03:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither the guideline nor the template give any mention to blanking AfDs for the purpose of removing comments made by editors only rather than the article subject and/or related people, though, of course, a simple invocation ofWP:IAR may suffice. —Kurykh04:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, basically, fuck what the guideline says. Get the offending comments out of sight. This is what courtesy blanking isreally for, whatever the guideline may say. And fix the guideline so it says something sensible about cases like this. It shouldn't be necessary to delete the AfD, but if required it might be possible to get an admin to agree to that. I haven't seen the comments so I don't know how serious it is.
Endorse blanking as closing admin. I made a procedural edit to the blanking template, but other than that, things look good.IronGargoyle04:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I know it isn't. Pete left a nice message on my talk page asking me to weigh in. I did bold-face because I definitely endorse this. I agree that there is nothing more to talk about here.IronGargoyle15:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something?WP:CBLANK says "Courtesy blanking is the practice of blanking closed deletion debates in order to avoid potential harm. This includes privacy protection as well as avoiding embarrassment due to opinions expressed during these debates, which sometimes include unflattering terms such as "vanity", "spam", "non-notable", or "vanityspamcruftisement." soooo courtesy blanking would very much seem to be in order.Sethie05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Embarrassment there refers to that which may befall the subject of an article in the deletion discussion about which such terms might be used (often, for instance, an individual is irked when the first Google hits to his name return terms such asnon-notable or suggest him/her to have created avanity page); it has never been understood to reference embarrassment by participatory editors, and, pace Tony, the guideline was absolutely not adopted for situations such as this (which have not, to my knowledge, been contemplated by the community in its developingWP:CBLANK, which was initially suggested by Jimbo to codify the common practice of blanking an AfD upon a biographical subject's making an OTRS request).
In any case, it is altogether unclear to me why full courtesy blanking was necessary here. It is well understood that except where excision should fundamentally impair a discussion (e.g., by rendering out-of-context the comments of other editors or removing information the presence of which is crucial to a debate), an editor mayrefactor remarks he makes that he later thinks to be improvident. The ostensibly offending comments may surely be stricken out or simply deleted, and I think the application of{{afd-privacy}} to be quite bizarre here. There seems to be no point in one's reverting the complete blanking here (this is surely an entirely insignificant issue, and one to which I need not to have devoted all these words), and so I'll not remove the template and return the body of the AfD, but I would suggest that we dispose of future situations simply by telling an editor that he may remove or strike out comments in situations like this; that has, after all, been our practice for some time (AFAIK).Joe05:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop arguing about what this or that document says. If they don't cover this kind of commonsense blanking, then they're wrong and need to be rewritten. Sheesh! It isn't a bureaucracy and an editor doesn't need permission to remove a self-authored personal attack from view. The editors in this discussion had a bit of a squabble about this and have agreed to use a courtesy blanking. Move away now, nothing to see here. --Tony Sidaway05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Bingo - he expressed regret over the comments, and wants them to be removed. I don't see any reasonable argument for including them, given that no one seems to object to remove them, other than basically arguing over whether it technically meets some guidelines. The heart of the law is the meaning, not the wording. --Haemo08:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Schedules
As per the above topic, I have removed all newscast schedules (and any other schedule) from all TV stations pages, perWP:NOT#DIR. While removing the schedules, I also had to remove several syndicated schedules as well, also in violation ofWP:NOT#DIR. I made two attempts to remove the schedules from the US national broadcast networks (ABC, etc) only to be reverted byUser:Calton. These are also in violation ofWP:NOT#DIR, unless there is an exception for the national broadcast networks, if so, then I apologize. If not, could an admin please revertUser:Calton's reverts and let him know that they also aren't allowed underWP:NOT#DIR.
No response at the Help Desk; can anyone fix this? There is a note visible at the Talk page, in the Archives box, which explains the problem.Joie de Vivre15:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed up the archivelist page - seems just fine now, only the names could be better (they're just "1", "2", etc) -Alison☺16:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Alison, thanks for your effort, but it's not fixed. The note I left was clear that just adding links to the archivelist page would not solve the problem (I could have done that); theautomatic population of the archive template is what needs to be restored. I have reverted your changes so that if anyone who knows how to fix it sees it, they will be aware that it needs to be done. Thanks for trying.Joie de Vivre16:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I've set the "auto=yes" option on the transcluded template now. Unfortunately, documentation ontemplate:archives is minimal, which is the root of this problem. Take a look now but if it's still not right, I can delete the archivelist file. Suspect it auto-populatesunless the archive list is present! -Alison☺16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, OK, I blanked the page to see what would happen, and now there are 5 archives visible. I tried blanking it before and it didn't work. How did it get fixed?Joie de Vivre16:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
H is taking a very long Wikibreak because the foundation has decided to enforce the unblock of a person who has harassed me in my place of work and at home. This shows a real disrespect to my volunteering to this project and dismisses the danger to my employment and physical safety that the outing of my personal information caused. Not sure when I will be back, perhaps when this is resolved. SeeUser talk:ColScott andblock log.(H)16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I would be extremely interested to know why he was unblocked, and would seriously consider reblocking if Bastique didn't hold some form of official role.Ryan Postlethwaite17:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I asked that ColScott be unblocked two months ago because it was one of the only ways that he would stop harassing users--by listing their personal information on his personal blog. He is a semi-notable individual who has a lot of followers. If you had been one of the users who were put up on his blog, you would know how stressful it was at the time. I'm sorry that H feels that the foundation has betrayed him, but I took the least damaging measures I knew how, to benefit the most number of users. I regret that H feels he has to leave.
H reblocked him two months after the fact, citing events that occurred before his unblocking and any negotation. As you can see from ColScott's talk page, the situation deteriorated rapidly. ColScott may not be much of a benefit to our project at this time, but he can do a lot of damage to our editors, and this is the last thing I want to see. If we leave him alone, and only block him if he begins resuming the old behavior, which he is aware, then this is the best possible conclusion in my view.Cary Bassdemandez17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious why you wrote, "Should not have been blocked. No rationale for blocking." in your second unblock. Why, when he gave a rationale for unblocking? --Iamunknown17:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the background details, so would prefer not to make a judgment on the actual issue, but I think administrators should be very reluctant to use a block log to criticise other administrators, since, as far as I know, block logs are permanent, and you might find afterwards that you had made a mistake.ElinorD(talk)23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is somewhat of a Catch-22: Bastique's reasons are a valid reason to unblock, but because we are dealing with a user who has outed individuals by exposing their personal information, everything is hyper-sensitive. :-( --Iamunknown17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Is extortion(saying you will remove personal information about other Wikipedians from your blog if you are unblockedis extortion) really a good reason to unblock? That would seem to encourage others to follow suit.(H)17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
H is one of the good guys.What the fuck is going on here? If you harass someone like this you get blocked and stay blocked. Unreal.Burntsauce17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
He has harassed HighInBC at his place of work, thatalone is sufficient grounds for banning. Why are we even having this conversation? I mean, I am right at the front of the Cary Bass fan club, but it looks to me as if ColScott's agenda is in large part to get his "official" Tate-LaBianca murders blog (WTF? "official" murders blog? Weird shit) linked from Wikipedia articles, and to ensure that we carry what amounts to a small novel on this, most of which is referenced to a small number of sources - which looks a lot likeWP:UNDUE to me. See[15] for the links. If these links are removed, he appears to go nuclear.Guy(Help!)17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify that I am not leaving forever. Just trying to limit my activity to this issue while I am upset. I am happy to see the community respond as it has.(H)17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll tel you what annoys me about this block, the unblock reasoning, basically saying H was completely wrong for blocking, No justification for the block? I think there's plenty with this severe harrassment.Ryan Postlethwaite17:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Bastique says there's more then meets the eye to this. There better be one HELL of a good reason, because otherwise allowing someone who's taken things OFF-wiki like this.. well.. makes me question why anyone should edit Wikipedia or become an admin and be exposed to such harassment.SirFozzie 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC
Because this involves a public figure, who was contacted by the foundation. Today's events are all the result of hotheadedness.Cary Bassdemandez18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, hence my question (up a little ways), "I'm curious why you wrote, "Should not have been blocked. No rationale for blocking." in your second unblock. Why, when he gave a rationale for unblocking?" The unblock made it appear that (1) H blocked without reason (2) H abused his admin powers (3) H was wrong. Unfortunately all of that is wrong. --Iamunknown18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure who you think I called a terrorist, but judging by your comment, you're wrong. The only people I called terrorists wereterrorists; this is not an attack on any Wikipedian (unless, of course, we have terrorists editing Wikipedia). --tariqabjotu21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets calm this down guys. We can recognise that(H) is rightly upset while acknowledging thatCary is trying to act in everyone's best interests. Its obviously a difficult balancing act. Lets hold off for a while and see what happens...WjBscribe18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
WJBscribe is right. This needs to be dealt with but not so fast, Cary is not a monster and while I disagree strongly, I believe he is acting in good faith. Please remember that.(H)18:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I miss my balls already... (that isn't directed at Bastique, it's just a general comment about how insanely stupid this is).EVula//talk //☯ //19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are we going to allow this user, regardless of his problems with H? This user haspersonallyattacked users,given out information a user doesnot want let out,trolled, ect. Why are we allowing this now? Because the user says they want to work it out? --(Talk •HermesBot)00:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Besides the ongoing extreme incivility, already, at least one oversight was needed.[16] Allowing him back has failed to solve the problem, but only provided him another platform from which to harass our editors. If he has BLP complaints, they may quite legitimate and we should act upon them, if necessary guided by the firm hand of the foundation. However, by the same principle, ColScott must be removed from Wikipedia before he causes further damage, as his talk page makes crystal clear he intends - and believes he has a right - to do.Proabivouac01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Cary was acting in the best interest of everyone, but I'm afraid it sets a very bad precedent. We're basically advertising that you can do whatever you want to around here with no worries, because if you get blocked, just find some personal information about any editor and stick it on your blog. Presto! You're now unblocked. I'm pretty sure that's not the message we want to send. I hope this doesn't come back to bite us all. --Kbdank7101:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, Cary is the official something or other. He doesn'thave to explain himself, and he doesn'tdeserve all this second-guessing. If you think he is doing a bad job, the foundation board is thataways. There isn't anything more to discuss here.Picaroon(Talk)01:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe he does. This is being claimed to be an office action, yet I don't see how a user ban falls under the purview of office actions. I'd like a clarification on why the office is handling what is purely a user access situation. --Golbez01:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I assumed it was because it involved off-wiki troubles, which we can't do anything about, but presumably the office can. --Masamage♫01:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I imagine that the Foundation does have the power to keep him around, but I cannot see how why this should preclude the community from discussing the matter and arriving at our own conclusion, contra this morning's aggressive closure of discussion (see below.) If the Office overrules it, then it does.Proabivouac02:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
OFFICE (which I haven't read, by the way) says "take the spider-man costume off and step away from the grappling iron." It's being taken care of by people who are actually paid to do it. --Tony Sidaway02:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Sometimes it is best to rest assured that the foundation sort-of knows what it is doing. H can work this out with Cary. Everybody else needs to take a step back and settle down, starting... now.Picaroon(Talk)02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
But that's not really how things work here. The Foundation does not insinuate itself into matters such as this, and the community is entitled to ban any editor the net effect of whose contributions it adjudges to be negative. Irrespective of what Cary might work out with ColScott or H or anyone else, then, the community may dispose of this at its discretion (surely no one at the Foundation is going to object to the community's deciding that, all other productive discussions to the contrary notwithstanding, ColScott should be banned), and so whilst Picaroon, et al., are quite right that we all need calm down here (not least because this is, IMHO, an exceedingly insignificant issue), it is not because those who work for the Foundation are "handling things"; in the absence of an explicit directive from Cary or someone else acting as an employee of the Foundation (and with the ostensible sanction of the Board) that the community is not ultimately to dispose of this as it chooses, to which directive we might then object, we should not, I think, feel bound to alter our community ban procedures in any way (I take, to be clear, no position on the substance of the underlying question or on whether a consensus for reblocking has been reached).Joe04:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
'THIS IS NOT HELPING. Calm down, talk to Cary.
This is being handled by OFFICE. In any case a "vote" on a community ban would be inappropriate at any time. We don't do the pitchforks and torches thing here, remember? Thanks. --Tony Sidaway17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I'm astonished. Does everyone know exactly how valuable H is to the Project? I can't think of any better way to undermine volunteer support than to allow this sort of despicable, vile behavior~to go unpunished.RJASE1Talk17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure most of us have a pretty good idea, which is why everyone was rapidly pissed off about this. H is clearly one of the best admins around (I'm not sure I know a better one - I'm sure as shit not.)WilyD17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Endorse community ban. As soon as this jackass was unblocked he immediately resumed the trolling and personal attacks. I'm still in shock that Bastique had the audacity to reverse the action in the first place, he usually shows good judgement.Burntsauce17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Endorse community ban. I can't believe I'm reading this. Giving into extortion only leads to more extortion. And for this person we are willing to throw away good editors? This cannot stand. This person needs to be blocked and permabanned.Herostratus17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't even think we need a discussion onWP:CSN on it (although one can certainly be created, if folks want). Behaviour is absolutely beyond the pale.SirFozzie17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Do NOT endorse - Based on what I've heard today about the person behind that username, I'm quite concerned by what he can accomplish. Banning him would ONLY make things worse. Let the Foundation handle this one.Sean William@17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This will not happen. Stop acting like a mob. Stop discussing this situation. You do not know the full extent and I don't have time to explain it to you while still dealing with it.Cary Bassdemandez17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, since we don't want to add an archive template,please do not ban this person. Let the Office deal with it, for heaven's sake.Sean William@17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There will be no community ban so long as everyone involved (including myself) is pulling their respective hair out. People get angry. I agree that ColScott's bad comments on his talk page were unprovoked. I also believe that H's ban was unmerited given that it occurred two months after the unblocking was engaged. I did discuss the matter with all admins at the time, including H (see his talk page).Cary Bassdemandez17:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Comments from a concern user I have also seen the good work that HighinBC has done and am sadden to see his activity limited because of this. I am most concern at thisChamberlian-likeappeasement of a very disruptive wiki-editor. So he says there will be no more "off wiki" harassment? And how solid of a guarantee is that? It seems that the word of ColScott is valued more then the contribution of those he has harassed. History is littered with examples that this type of approach is just plain wrong.AgneCheese/Wine18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That the harrassing blogpost for Hremains in ColScott's blog archives is very troubling to me. But I'll reiterate the calls to wait if Office is dealing with this, or H's concerns are being addressed (preferably both).WilyD18:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I just went through all blog archives and there is no reference to HighinBc's abusive contact anywhere. Am I missing something Wily one?ColScott18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm satisfied that it's now removed. It's possible I was viewing a cached page, though I don't recall ever visiting the site, my girlfriend has used this computer, so who knows? Anyways I'm satisfied that it's not there any longer.WilyD18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have agreed to disagree with him. Not sure there is anything left to say, but I am listening.(H)18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because he was contacted by the Foundation to stop asking his forum goers to stalk Wikipedia editors who wronged him as well as removing personal attacks against a single user from one of his website's pages. I think I contacted Jimbo about the situation at the time, when Don Murphy was seeking the personal information of one of our younger (read under 18) administrators.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)02:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the background, but you haven't really answered the question. Did the Foundation cut a deal with him?Hesperian02:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It appears that in a case where the highest of the "powers that be" were involved, an administrator's simple and reasonable request that he/she be consulted before his/her actions were overridden - in a case that apparently involved personal safety - was simply ignored. Is that true? If so, is that really the precedent that Jim Wales wants to set for others in the community? Or does he disavow his status as a role model? Jimbo, are you listening? I expect some commentary from you would help the situation. -Pete02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to answer all your questions but it seems another overreaching editor thought it was okay to delete them. If you want a detailed explanation of what happened see my talk page.ColScott04:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
H was notified a dayafter the unblock occured. By no reasonable definition is that notification before the unblock. -Amarkovmoo!04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
while I don't believe that is true (the link says that he has REQUESTED an admin to unblock me) please explain the LIE told by abusive admin wherein he said last night, while banning me that he had NEVER been contacted before?ColScott04:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
#No attempt at all was taken to contact the blocking admin(me) prior to unblocking, so the unblocking admin probably did not know the level of harassment you have engaged in.
You can see here, that H was contacted (and replied) before the unblock occurred.[19]
This individual has contacted the foundation (by telephone). I've requested an admin unblock him. A good deal of his issues have to do with his interaction with Philip Gronowski.
We should not be experiencing any issues of the like that earned him a block in the first place, and if there are any issues with the biography that interests him, he will contact me directly.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness regarding that. Cary Bass 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This user harassed my userpage with spam for weeks after the block, it is all in the history. I fully expect these sorts of problems from this user in the future if this user is unblocked. Related difs: [49][50] and the contribts of 72.89.210.235. For the record I oppose an unblock of this user. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The unblocking of this user is in accordance with additional events. The actions of this user regarding your userpage were regrettable. He admits his wrongdoing, and I am asking him not to engage you in the future. Please note that I am watching the situation closely, and should any behavior such as this recommence, we will not hesitate in taking action against it. Cary Bass demandez 12:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
Well I hope there is a good reason then. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
Here is the unblock an hour and a half after the discussion with H (from April)
14:52, 18 April 2007 Phil Boswell (Talk | contribs) unblocked ColScott (contribs) (has promised to behave, and will be kept on a very short leash)
I have blocked ColScott for 24 hours for personal attacks. This is his seventh such block, so it probably should have been longer, but I was wary of stepping on Foundation or Office toes.Hesperian04:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And in response I have received the following:
"Well, I'll see you WELL before the 24 hours are up. And maybe, since you are on a power trip, maybe I should show you some of mine? ColScott 04:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)"
Any other time, that's an indef block for trolling and threats. But like I said, I don't want to step on Foundation or Office toes. Can someone please step up and deal with this? Jimbo? Cary? Someone? Anyone?Hesperian04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It has been months and months and months since my user or user talk page was vandalised; I just don't make that many enemies. Since I blocked ColScott for 24 hours, my user talk page has been inundated with vandalism. Lucky for me I don't give a fuck. Now who is going to put two and two together, decide that I am under attack by ColScott, and apply an indef? Or is he untouchable now?Hesperian06:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a comment -- ColScott's contribution over a 2 year period has been 113 mainspace edits. I can't even imagine what 113 edits could be so good as to outweigh so much disruption.Poindexter Propellerhead07:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Does the Foundation have something better to do than to intervene in such an obvious case of disruption? ALL of us have better things to be doing. -Pete11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
My (semi-protected) talk page just got hammered by a vandal account created nearly a year ago. So it seems ColScott has been using sockpuppets to inject puerile vandalism for that long. I just hope the Foundation is big enough to say "sorry everyone, we fucked up this time", and fix it.Hesperian11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The Foundation is not going to say, "we fucked up." I have asked users to stop posting to his talk page and you all persist in doing so. This was a situation that was handled a month and a half ago, and now more and more users persist in stirring up a hornets nest in spite if my best efforts. This user's talk page is a lion's den--some people are like that. I'm sorry, but stop attempting to communicate with this person on his talk page. Blocking him for attacks on his user talk page will only serve to create more antaganism.
Don't post to his talk page. Don't try to communicate with this user about his behavior in any way. I beg of each and every one of you.Cary Bassdemandez12:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you agree that ColScott should be blocked indefinitely? If that's done, I think (most) editors will be satisfied and consider the matter closed.ChazBeckett12:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Please leave the situation alone for the moment. A block would be punitive here, and if Cary is right (which I assume), keeping ColScott unblocked is better at preventing damage to Wikipedia than blocking him. While support forH is good and necessary in this situation, it doesn't have to come in the form of interaction with ColScott.Kusma (talk)12:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I've just unblocked after being nicely asked to by Cary.
Notes to self:
The Foundation says it's okay for me to use personal attacks so long as I only use them on my own talk page;
The Foundation says it's okay to threaten people so long as I only do it on my talk page;
The Foundation says it's okay to use sockpuppets to vandalise other people's user talk pages so long as those people have pissed me off first;
If I ever find myself blocked, I can arrange for the Foundation to unblock me by posting other users' personal information on an external website, then cutting a deal to get it removed.
Cary, it saddens me that you seeus as the problem here.
Yes, yes, this is my last word on the matter. I'll go write an encyclopaedia now.
No, I'm not saying this at all. You've highly over-simplified the situation. This is one person and a very unique situation. This user is an already difficult person who ran afoul of our culture in the beginning and reacted badly. I'm trying to defuse a situation which seems to be on the verge of going nuclear. Some users have acted badly, while others acted without knowledge. Some have been exemplary and have stepped on land mines. I'm not pointing any fingers.
This user is not exempt from acting badly. When it comes to editing the encyclopedia, his rules are actually somewhat stricter than others, and he remains on probation. Any complaints can be directed to myself orUser:JzG.
Not sure about others, but I've tried to comply with your request not to communicate directly with ColScott. I may have made an edit or two before noticing your note, in which case I'm sorry. My commentshere are intended for WM foundation folks, not for ColScott. It looks like heavy hitters of the Foundation have chosen to involve themselves, but not to the point of setting a good precedent. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how it looks right now, and that's why I've commented here. -Pete12:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
We had a lot of facts to weigh a month and a half ago. In the long run, the short-term interests of having harassment end on a number of our editors was more important. Blocks are not punitive, but preventative. This user stopped the harassment and the problems with editing. I was at fault for not putting a disclaimer on his user page or not following up with one of the editors in question, and I apologize.
No precedent is set; no policy is made. This is a unique set of circumstances--the only reason the foundation would have gotten involved in the first place.Cary Bassdemandez13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not up on all the details, but this explanation, and the one above, seem adequate to me. Thanks for explaining a bit more about what is going on. -Pete22:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: i've posted a clarification to his talk page about how he is not exempt from the same policies that affect us all. This is going forward, the issues in the past are all with which I will involve myself.
I am grateful thatH is still with us. I've discussed things with him privately. He doesn't agree with my actions but he will continue to be a valuable asset to this project.Cary Bassdemandez14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that the current solution has been to unblock him and ask that nobody communicate with him on his talk page. Fair enough, hopefully everyone's willing to accept this as a short term solution. But, obviously, a long term solution is needed here. We can hardly have an editor who's allowed to edit, but nobody's allow to talk to, particularly when his editing behavior is still problematic. Does this guy understand that he can use Wikipediafor research all day long without ever logging in or making an edit? Is there a plan for a long-term solution? Is there a plan on how to come up with a plan?Friday(talk)15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What we really need is a plan on how to design the plan on how to come up with a plan. --BigDT17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
How to deal with SPA's in a straw poll
I've been here awhile but this just mystifies me. A few anon users kept removingImage:banhammer.jpg fromBanhammer as inappropriate (one of them may have broken 3RR, but I can't be bothered to add it up). ThenUser:Chr1z, a brand new account, got the page protected for edit warring. Trying to be a civil editor, I started a straw poll onTalk:Banhammer. There are presently 5 opposes, including one established editor and three ips and the brand new account. I'm not ready to throw out accusations of sockpuppetry yet, but these do all appear to besingle purpose accounts (except for the established editor). 3 of them suspiciously voted within minutes of each other. What can I do to a) keep my cool and remain civil and b) deal with what is apparently an attempt to rig the system by single purpose accounts? -N06:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sethie looked at it, and the timing of their voting does look pretty fishy. Technically they are probably meatpuppets, not socks.
A) don't freak out.
B) Sethie would say that if any of those accounts or IP's do any other disruptive editing, report it here [[20]].
:) As it is, Sethie agrees with the probably meatpuppets, the image doesn't belong! If this poll doesn't knock the image out, it will get knocked out at some point.
Hiya. As you can probably tell by this edit history[21], a new user and I have been having a disagreement. I'm not entirely familiar with the 3RR rule, so I may have violated it (I removed a section, then reverted someone re-adding it 3 times). If so, I apologize. The problem I'm having is that the user doesn't seem to understand that a food fight and a theater aren't notable unless something really interesting happened with the two of them. Seemy messages andtheirs. I can't revert the article again (I know for a fact that would violate 3RR) and the user just won't listen to me - help? --18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Dropped a 3RR warning, an NPA suggestion surrounding a fight on someone else's talk page, and reverted again. I'll monitor as well - if the info's replaced, it's definitely a 3RR problem and an admin might want to break out the clue bat...Tony Fox(arf!)20:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Fix a slightly scrambled AfD, please?
Before I wandered into thediscussion, The content in the articleGreen Light was what is now inGreen Light (song), with some odd redirects. I fixed the redirects and put the article on the song where it belongs, but the main link in the AfD should not be pointing toGreen Light, but toGreen Light (song). I put the template on the song article when I was done, but did not start a new discussion. If someone can sort through and fix this, please?DarkAudit22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I fixed it now. I had to close the other AfD, but no one should be any the wiser. --Haemo22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up, this template survived two tfds (barely) as no consensus, and on the talk page they've "reached a consensus" to deprecate it. At least one of the images on my watchlist was marked by someone else as having no source data because of this. U.S. government images can be alternately tagged{{PD-USGov-Military-Badge}}. -N12:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
BalanceRestored (talk·contribs) agreed to the following restrictions, under zero tolerance (up to and including reinstatement of the indefinite block):[23]
1RR. You may only make one revert per article per day. All revertsmust be accompanied by apolite explanation on the article's talk page.
Ifconsensus is against your view, that you will not continually push the issue.
You will notdisparage other editors, even if provoked. If someone is being uncivil, you could request sysop intervention fromWP:AN/I.
You will not edit from alternative accounts nor will you edit while logged out as an IP user.
If you cannot resolve content conflicts through a reasonable amount of discussion, you will seekdispute resolution instead of continuing to debate the issue on talk pages.
BalancedRestored is unblocked under the assumption that he earnestly regrets his errors (assuming good faith) and the principle that a user is only banned if there is no sysop willing to lift the block. Trumpetband expressed faith in BR and I'm willing to second that good faith since the user agreed to stringent zero-tolerance restrictions.Vassyana15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (This is archived atUser:Vassyana/Unblock01)
The shock fodder imageImage:Harlequin_fetus.jpg (don't look unless you have to), which was uploaded by a user with more than one vandalism warning, has been given 7 days to get a legitimate copyright status. It is now capable of being speedily deleted. Can an admin please do so? Thanks,Andjam06:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
One could argue that it's a lot better to mention things like this somewhere else instead of tagging them and harming the virgin eyes of the admins looking throughcat:csd. Some people don't have an appreciation for shock images. -Bobet07:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Dannycali (talk·contribs), who seems like a good editor, but was recently reported at AIV forthis edit. It seems like it is done on purpose (see edit summary) or perhaps compromised. What should be done? Warn (dont think its necessary, an editor this experienced most likely will know all procedures)? Block (and grant semmingly what is his wish)? Or wait? --soumtalk17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Iamunknown. After I had posted it there (actually, evenwhile I was posting it there), I began to wonder was I doing the right thing, as it obviously wasn't a standard case of a vandal needing a quick block before more damage was done.ElinorD(talk)17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It may well be just someone intending to leave, and wanting to go out with a small bit of drama. It certainly doesn't look as if any drastic admin intervention is needed. I think an indefinite block for would be overdoing it, and there seems little point in a short block for someone who, for the moment, is leaving, even if they change their mind in a few weeks from now.ElinorD(talk)18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
What if his edit is not a one off incident? What if s/he has choses the path of disruption to prove his point? I think the best thing is to ask him/her for a clarification (warning probably wont have any effect) and wait. --soumtalk18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that inquiring about this incident might only incite him to pursue such a path. Contributors burn out on a fairly regular basis, his statement atWikipedia was probably not a threat. ˉˉanetode╦╩18:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If this is the first step on a path towards vandalism, we can address it then. If you think someone should talk to them,be bold and do it yourself. Nothing I've seen here involves administrative intervention (don't get me wrong; I'm not chastising you for being concerned, I'm just saying that it isn't an admin-only issue, which is what this board's purpose is).EVula//talk //☯ //19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Possible new category of users?
I've seen discussions about administrators who used to edit a lot before becoming administrators, who edits wikipedia, adminstrator title not being a promotion, and similar topics.
Has anyone ever considered a mechanism similar to "request for adminship", except for editing? For example, there could be a board of "senior contributing editors" which people would hold the title for, say, 3 months. This might encourage long term, quality contributing. Later in time, a position of "editor in chief" might be created, though probably not for now.
I mention the idea of senior contributing editors because I see the possibility of me creating 500-750 new articles in the next 10-15 years and possibly 50,000 quality mainspace edits (150,000 total edits). This is because I have yet to scratch the surface to what I have in mind of writing.VK3518:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this almost entirely on principle alone; we shouldn't be pushing for "tiers" of contributors. The reason for a "separation" between admins and regular editors is based solely on the fact that the former have privileges that, if widely available, could be very detrimental to the project. There's no reason to create an imaginary "intermediate" step.EVula//talk //☯ //19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need to classify editors? From anons to everyone else, all out editing abilities are some (keeping protected titles out of equation, as they are a special case). What will we gain by such a tiering? --soumtalk19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Adminship is not a prize, I've read. My idea was similar to a community awarded barnstar. The idea was also to be temporary, that is, not being a long term senior contributing editor, just one for 3 months. What will we gain? Encouragement for editors to write! I don't want to be an admin but I wouldn't mind a little recognition in the future (and something to strive for in the present). If everyone hates the idea, it's not an issue that I want to fight for. Happy editing!VK3519:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, after reading your response and re-reading your initial post, it definitely sounds like you're talking about an award.EVula//talk //☯ //20:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
... is always getting a mention on here due to the massive backlogs that accumulate. Well, take a look at it today :-) I didn't have much to do with this but note thatTony B. has been working there tirelessly for ages, amongst others. Good work, all -Alison☺20:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
For the record coelacan restored everything and the user sebsequently made it clear she was sticking by the decision not to edit again. Her user/talk pages have been deleted (after her request by blanking them) and the images deleted too. Thanks/wangi17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh yEs itS caRly(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was blocked indefinitely by Ryulong aftercreating an inappropriate username. This occurred after another user nominated many of her images for deletion.This was by no means an uncontroversial action, and while she may have overdone the images on her page, she was nevertheless an otherwise helpful contributor, whom I am now worried that we have driven away. I believe the username creation was a frustrated backlash, and certainly a personal attack, but an isolated incident. I would hope that the user can, if she chooses, return with some dignity without getting the "you are blocked" message in perpetuity, and other users have posted to her talk page asking her to come back, without realizing she currently cannot. She's now been blocked for about 91 hours. I would like to unblock now and let the block be "time served".Ryulong disagrees, so I'm posting here for discussion. ··coelacan01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The image deletions are spot on, the block is too long. But hey... I don't think it's that big a deal to unblock just now and then reblock if anything untoward happens... /wangi01:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The image deletions by Ryulong went hand in hand with the indef-block; it doesn't make sense to keep images around for an indef blocked user. But if we unblock, I'd like to letthe IFD discussions run the normal course; or perhaps relist them on today's IFD since there have been extenuating circumstances that may have affected the votes. I'll be content with any result from IFD. ··coelacan02:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ifds for personal images usually only result in delete if the image is not used and is not going to be used. I would prefer they be undeleted and then wait and see if the editor comes back to use the images. --Iamunknown02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets not piss around and waste time. We're not here to host around 10 unused personal images. If the user wants to upload another and use it on their user page then fair go, but lets not waste effort in undeleting and redeleting images just do be policy kranks. Ta/wangi02:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, well, the reason they're not used is because the user blanked her page in "I'm leaving!!!" mode. They were previously used. I think I am readingMartinp23's opinion correctly to summarize that the images should have been left in place; Moreschi seems to say the same below. I think I would agree. Perhaps it is best to simply undelete the images and close the IFDs. They're in the server anyway; we don't save any disc space by having them displayed or not. I think restoring her page would be the most likely way to invite her to return, if she ever looks here again. ··coelacan02:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from... But personally I can't see the point. If the user returns then they may choose to resurrect their user page. If so we can undelete (a few!) or they can reupload - it's not a big deal. (I'm not really bothered if someone else undeletes them) /wangi02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't want her to have to run through the steps of figuring out how to petition for undeletion, and I'm willing to go ahead and do the work now. Since there was initially substantial opinion that her userpage should never have been handled in this way, I'm going to bring it back to the pre-incident state and hope for the best. I will also leave a note for her asking that she not use Wikipedia formore personal uploads, and I'll point her to flickr for that. If that plays out well, it should be a happy balance. ··coelacan02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocksshould not be used for punishment, so this is not only a controversial indefinite block, but now that it is not "indefinite" it should just be over. Are we afraid this user is going to continue creating inappropiate accounts? Seems highly unlikely to me, so the block should be lifted unless it is to be seen as punishment. --Renesis (talk)02:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree, indef is too long. Unblock now, seeing as how he or she has already been blocked for 91 hours, and block (not indef, plz) regularly for personal attacks, inappropriate usernames, etc. --Iamunknown02:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Improper review of 3RR and tag-team editing
An edit war involving myself, several other editors and the admin Raul654 has been going on atHouse demolition. Today,User:Raul654 violated 3RR on that page, and wasreported by me. The reviewing admin,User:Tariqabjotu improperly closed the report with the incorrect claim that there are only 3 reverts, even though 4 reverts are very clearly listed. He then proceeded to protect the page, butUser:Raul654, in an abuse of his admin tools, continues to edit the page, alleging his edits are non-controversial.Isarig23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to respond to this again; Isarig contacted on my talk page about this and I just gavea response to most of this. The allegations oftag-team editing are common andusually unfounded (as is the case here). In addition, the last sentence in Isarig's statement is an exaggeration. --tariqabjotu00:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
How is it an exaggeration ? has he not edited the page after it was protected by you, with an edit he has not discussed on talk? If you really want to dispel suspicions of tag-team editing, the proper response would be for you to caution Raul654 about this practice.Isarig00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You make it sound as if Raul has been making multiple edits to the page (...alleging his edits...). If you see Raul's edit (singular) as controversial and related to the dispute, perhaps you should explain why you think that way on the talk page for the article (or else it would not be anabuse of his admin tools). As for dispelling suspicions of tag-team editing, I don't feel the need to do that; you are the only one who has them and I don't give into extortion on days that end with y. You seem more interested in getting me (or someone else) to give Raul some sort of reprimand than simply halt the conflict; that is not what blocks are for. --tariqabjotu00:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You have the process ass-backward. It is not up to me (or anyone) to explain why an edit made after a page has been protected is improper - anyone wishing to make edits there after th epage was protected must first, at a minimum , describe what he wants to do on the Talk page, and if it is truly non-controversial, have anon-involved admin make them. For him, as an active participant in the edit-war, to edit the page after it was protected, for ANY reason, is a gross abuse of his admin tools. The way it was done - with Raul violating 3RR, then you improperly closing the 3RR, then you protecting the page, then him editing the page after it was protected, and then you teaming up with him again, making excuses for his behavior here and inviting him come here and voice baseless accusations at me stinks. You should really review your conduct here, as you are out of line.Isarig04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Isarig is POV pushing on that article, and his behavior in general is quite irksome. Almost every word he writes is either a misrepresentation or an outright falsehood. I'd appreciate an admin taking a clue-stick to him.Raul65400:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You have been POV pushing on that page AND violated 3RR there AND proceeded to edit the page after it was protected. It takes some gall to make the accusations you have made here, especially the request that someone take a "clue-stick" to me, which sounds like a threat. This is disgraceful behavior from a policy flouting admin. You've been blocked for this kind of behavior before, and should be once again.Isarig00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you guys are looking for dispute resolution. If Raul were to abuse the tools by making edits related to the dispute or any controversial edits, then there's something administrative that needs to be done ... but until then? There is nothing anyone can do other than mediation. --BigDT05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect.WP:PROTECT explicitly says "Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However,this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page." Raul654 did not do so. A note of some kind from an uninvolved admin pointing him to proper procedure is in order.Isarig17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Username issue
Hello, I'mRahk EX, and would like to ask what should be done with the accountAFYFAF. As I'm being nice, I will not say who changed the password of my AFYFAF account, but someone did, and rendered it useless. Does anyone have a suggestion of what should be done with it? I am thinking of soft redirecting the AFYFAF user page and talk page to Rahk EX's. Thanks -Rahk E✘[[my disscussions |who am I ]]13:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think the user is going to edit with the compromised account? You can set a redirect if you want. You didn't set an email address on the first account so I'm not sure what we can do. Obviously if the account behaves in a disruptive manner it may be blocked. Otherwisealways look after your password and make sure you don't use an easy to guess/crack one like a dictionary word.Secretlondon21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the person who changed the password changed it to some random gibberish, so it cannot be used anymore. My currant password is much more secure now, and I will trust it with no one. Thank you -Rahk E✘[[my disscussions |who am I ]]19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This user is a almost surely a sockpuppet of banned multiple puppet and puppet masterUser:BryanFromPalatine permabanned during theFree Republic case. His first edit was to Free Republic and within minutes he was editing Democratic Underground. Both these articles are on probation. He already 'knows' WP, all the issues and long-time editors. Just like socks Bryan and Dino Hinnen, he claims heclaims to have been 'lurking' and studying up on WP. Highly doubtful. Please investigate.64.145.158.16322:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
is gone too, by looking atWP:GAC.David Fuchs (talk/frog blast the vent core!)20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
ResolvedBlocked already. --Gavia immer(talk)17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
