Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive170

Videos Used As A Reliable Source

Y issue does not require administrator input. Advice given below seems sound.

Hello. I would like to request clarification on Wikipedia's policy regarding use of videos as a source in articles. I understand that videos can be edited so YouTube.com should not be used to source articles. However, certainly in courtroom settings, videos are used routinely as evidence to convict someone even in a capital offense.

So are there circumstances in which videos are acceptable as a source in Wikipedia articles?

What about a those from site which reliably records entire unedited, television broadcasts?

What about when two or more uneditied amateur videos simultaneously record the same event?

It would seem that direct quotes from a video should be a more reliable account of an event, than someone's necessarily biased interpretation of the same event.

Could someone please clarify the Wikipedia policy, especially in light of the widespread availability of videos on the web? Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already use videos in articles (such as ejaculation), and if they come from a reliable website, I don't see why not. --Gwib (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Freedom Fan means as source, not in articles. To answer this: WP:V applies to videos just the same way as it does to text, see also WP:RS. I do not recall that there is ever been a difference based on the way the information is presented on the link that has been given as a source. For example, on Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 the whole cast section is sourced to a video released by EA[1] and that is just as reliable as if EA had written it down. SoWhy 22:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's allowed, as long as the video isn't a copyvio (so you can't link to a CNN video on YouTube posted by "Bobby54341" as a source), but you can still cite to a video if the source itself is reliable. So, if CNN said on Anderson Cooper 360 last night that a given breed of ducks are descended from elephants, then you can cite to the broadcast of Anderson Cooper 360 last night without actually linking the video if it's not available, but then you'd have to I'm guessing defend the use if anyone calls you on it. Non-copyvio videos are fine, though. here's an example I used in article. The facts it cites were all stated during the video, which is still available the last time I looked four days ago. rootology (C)(T) 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm guessing this is being asked because the user is trying to use a video as a source for something contentious, and others are resisting. Asking the question without the background is not good practice, as general advice may well not apply to the specific case. As it happens, Freedom Fan is one of those arguing over the inclusion of contentious material in Alex Jones (radio), noted elsewhere on the admin boards. Int hat case, the video is a primary not a secondary source, so drawing some inferences from it will violate WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 20

September 2008 (UTC)

True. That's one of the articles I have in mind; although I am unsure why a specific case would be relevant to an understanding of general Wikipedia policy, but here goes:

In this particular case, there were about a half dozen amateur videos recording an event. An administrator used verbatim quotes from the videos. Then another administrator deleted all references to the event citing WP:BLP and admin-protected the article. There were no inferences being drawn in the article -- the entire section consisted almost exclusively of direct quotes from the subject, recorded from multiple simultaneous sources. The specifics of the event were confirmed by a post on the subject's web site, which appears to be allowable per WP:BLP. So I questioned why all reference to the event were censored, since this was easily the most reliably sourced information I had ever seen in a Wikipedia article. Would inclusion of such material be a violation of Wikipedia policy?

In another case, references to transcripts from MEMRI have been questioned, even though they are always accompanied by unedited video from television broadcasts. MEMRI has never been accused of editing a video, although sometimes a particular word of translation has been challenged. Would inclusion of such material be a violation of Wikipedia policy? Freedom Fan (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Some comments:
  • Videos from reliable sources which have a fixed publication medium or a definite air-date/time/channel such as VHS should be fine. For example, a documentary from a reliable source about the making of Star Wars would be fine as a reference on Star-Wars-related articles. A fan-produced video might have WP:RS issues. Although YouTube is not considered a reliable source, if LucasFilm had a well-known YouTube account and it posted a documentary about Star Wars on YouTube, as an editor I would defend that as a reliable source.
  • Answers to specific questions: Courtroom videos: Treat as any other court proceeding. Sites that reliably record unedited television broadcasts: Be absolutely certain it's reliable and be cautions of "secondary infringement" for copyright violations: A site that is likely to be taken down for copyright violations is not appropriate. However, if you are talking about an archive of public-domain programming such as some material on C-SPAN then sure. Amateur videos should not be used except as backups to a reliable secondary source. For example, CNN and other sources probably host amateur video of 9/11 on their web sites. However, CNN has already gone to the trouble of vetting the video for tampering.
  • "It would seem that direct quotes from a video should be a more reliable account of an event, than someone's necessarily biased interpretation of the same event." Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It takes its information from news and other secondary sources with primary sources to back up the secondary sources when necessary for clarification. Where only primary sources are available, it's a good hint WP:Notability might not have been met. There are times when it is tempting to use an unpublished or not-reliably-published video to support a claim in an article about a notable topic. For example, suppose hypothetically that CNN has some amateur video about 9/11 but YouTube has a legally-posted copy of the same video only it starts 5 seconds sooner. In the first second of the YouTube version shows a flash of flame coming out of the bottom of the airplane 10 seconds before it hits the tower. Could you that video as a reference to say "A flash of flame was visible from the aircraft 10 seconds before it hit the tower" in an article about 9/11? Of course not. If CNN didn't air that 5 seconds, it's probably for a reason: Either it's suspect, it's misleading, it's unimportant, or as some would say but I don't believe, that in this hypothetical situation CNN is engaged in a great conspiracy. On the other hand, if this particular hypothetical YouTube version and CNN's hypothetical cut-down of the video became famous among conspiracy theorists and had its own Wikipedia article, you could talk about it in that article. In this case, the source doesn't need reliability because it is the subject of the article. A copy of that hypothetical YouTube video on another video-sharing service would need to be authenticated before being used, due to lack of being reliably sourced.
• davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

One note, contrary to popular myth the vast majority of C-SPAN programming is copyrighted material and not in the public domain. - Dravecky (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin bot approval proposal

There is a proposal to change the bot policy on whether or not administrators need approval to run bots under their account. All are invited to comment. Prodego ^talk 14:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user The undertow editing through his block?

Resolved

 – Blocked users can still edit their talk and Pedro needs to remember that in future

Ex admin The undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made two edits today (Special:Contributions/The_undertow), yet the block log shows him as, well, blocked [2]. To be honest I'd like to see him back, despite past disagreements, but am I missing something as to how a blocked account is editing? Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked users can edit their talkpage. In this case, I'm wholly confused why The undertow is doing so... Maxim_(talk) 15:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, blocked users can only edit their user talk page, they cannot edit anything else. D.M.N. (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not being to clever here am I :0 Obviously blocked users can edit their talk (which my brain managed to ignore) but, yes, Maxim raises a good point as to what he's doing. Nevertheless, my initial comment was wrong - clearly he's not "editing" as per the encyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The why? is probably because it was just recently unprotected. Otherwise, it would seem sort of random. :p Haha, I think he's just playing around. He spelled his name out in images. XD Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC bot

Resolved

 – harej is working on the problem and will no doubt prevent any erratic bot behavior until the problem is solved

Two errors have been noted on the talk page of the RFC bot. An email to the bot owner was replied to, but there is no indication whether the bot owner has stopped, or is attempting to fix, the bot. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

1. (cur) (last) 20:32, September 21, 2008 Messedrocker (Talk | contribs | block) (279,928 bytes) (→RfC - Are curly quotes acceptable in mature articles?: ok) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 20:31, September 21, 2008 Messedrocker (Talk | contribs | block) (279,621 bytes) (→RfC: Are curly quotes acceptable in mature articles?: let's try without colon. maybe colon is throwing bot off) (undo)

Beg to differ. --harej 20:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand harej's response. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. What I meant to say is, I have attempted to fix it. --harej 20:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Egads. This is a pretty aggravating error. I do wonder what is causing it. This shall be investigated. --harej 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre

Resolved

 – Sceptre has withdrawn his request for unblocking --Rodhullandemu 21:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Sceptre (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

Sceptre is requesting an unblock on his talk page. Hersfold has already denied the initial request, however it seems this may be a extended discussion given the topic of his reason for wanting to be unblocked. Caulde 21:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore. The hypocrisy here is staggering. And the childish attitude is depressing. Sceptre seems to think he can do whatever he likes, because in his mind, Kurt is worse, and Kurt may be unblocked. Well, no. This kid needs to go away and grow up. Moreschi (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That was entirely inappopriate, Moreschi. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How so? It's factually correct. The problem here is nothing other than maturity. That's not in our hands, either. Moreschi (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Go away" and age discrimination are not the way Wikipedia works. Corvus cornix_talk 21:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly get off the moral high horse. "Go away" is exactly what Sceptre needs to do. He's invested far too much emotional energy in this place - the sort of emotional energy you'd usually put into a marriage, FFS - and as a result his editing has become incredibly irrational and erratic. Real life, I suspect, has been marginalized. Wikipedia has become a drug, that, due to his being blocked, Wikipedia Review is now feeding. Obviously his age is a factor, to say otherwise is just silly.

We don't need this. We need editors who able to act with maturity and can cope without their wikidrug. Editors who can put aside the emotion and act rationally. Qst managed it: took three months off after his ban and came back a totally changed man (and I said man there for a reason. Think about why). If Sceptre can do the same, fine. If not...but for now he just needs to get off the computer. Moreschi (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the unblock request has been withdrawn by Sceptre. Corvus, would you be kind to remove this thread? I'd remove it myself, but I initiated it. Caulde 21:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The behaviour elsewhere of someone you've been blocked for harrassing/abusing/stalking (delete as appropriate) doesn't make any difference to your own block. Also, this discussion resulted in a consensus that Sceptre's block time be reset to three months for evading his original block. This was on 9 September, so even if Sceptre is unblocked at some point, it shouldn't be before this block runs out on 9 December. It's worth noting that before that discussion, his block was set to indefinite. Black Kite 21:41, 21 September 2008 (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.

Location of ban discussions

I've attempted to clarify the documentation about where ban discussions should take place. WP:BAN already stated WP:AN as the location. WP:CSN was, according to the MfD, spun off from ANI and merged back there. Discussions in the past seem to have taken place in both place. Being bold, and if there are no objections, I'd like to formalise the preferred location as AN for a few reasons:

• (1) AN (administrators noticeboard) has less traffic than ANI, but still enough traffic for a wide-ranging ban discussion.
• (2) AN is smaller in size, so there is less need to create subpages (if any) and discussions can hopefully finish on the noticeboard.
• (3) AN is possibly less drama-inducing than ANI (though that depends on the subject of discussion as well as the participants).

If there are no objections, the following diffs probably don't need changing, but if there are, could people look at them and decide what would be best? Please, if you do change something, try and keep everything consistent? Diffs are: [3], [4], [5], [6]. I've also left a note at ANI pointing people here, and one at WT:BAN. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that here is a better place, except where it naturally follows a discussion elsewhere. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this change, (and if the community sanction noticeboard wasn't full-protected, I'd have reverted that in the way I reverted the other links). For one thing, although we use this place often for notifications and announcements (such as when sanctions have been imposed and arb-cases have been closed), I don't think this venue will often have enough traffic for these sorts of measures to go through one way or another. In most cases, ban proposals stem directly from incident reports, and a lot of sanction proposals end up stemming from there (eg; GoRight's community sanction). In part, the natural way in which these proposals come out was what made it convenient for the community - I'm not surprised why the community sanction noticeboard remains completely dead. Yes, I note (and have noted more passionately before) that the size of ANI is always going to be an issue, but people have been listening and things are being done to deal with them appropriately. In the case of the particular incident that sparked this bold move, the consensus for the community ban was clear so it should've simply ended there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for a block was clear, it was not, and is not, clear for a ban. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

An overwhelming consensus existed for the (de facto) community ban; I think the strong consensus was actually towards the outright community ban too (although that's obviously debateable given the summary in that subpage). And note, I made no view on support/oppose/otherwise in that matter. The reason there's uncertainty over what exactly Kurt would need to do in order for the unblock is due to the mixture of concerns, and I do think that if an appeal was left to the discretion of any single administrator, then whether they decline or accept, it is more than likely to carry some level of controversy and drama. I'd suggest that any appeal be handled by the community as a whole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Ncmvocalist: The obvious solution to through traffic is to leave a non-timestamped notice at ANI, directing people to AN This is no different to linking from ANI to a subpage of ANI. The logical conclusion of driving traffic to ANI because you think AN is too low-traffic is to reduce traffic still further at AN and increase the size (and hence number of subpage spin-offs) of ANI. The other solution is to resurrect some form of CSN (which, BTW, is completely dead because it got closed down at an MfD), but in a very different format to avoid the previous concerns. Note also that community sanctions are different from a complete ban proposal, though they may involve topic bans. Also, all administrators should check both AN and ANI. If that is no longer the case, that shift in culture needs to be reversed. Finally, see this diff. You didn't revert me - you changed what had been on that page in the previous version (as edited by Elonka). Previously it had said AN, now you've changed it to say ANI. There has been consensus for this page to say AN since October 2007. See here: " Consensus is that AN is a better place to discuss bans than ANI". Ncmvocalist, would you consider reverting yourself? Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - the thing about subpages is that they're only moved after quite some time of it being on the original ANI page itself (after the proposals are made, and after it's received a decent amount of attention - they become long and that's when they're subpaged). What should happen isn't necessarily what happens in practice, anymore anyway. ;) And it's not that admins do/don't check both - it seems users prefer a centralized location where one proposal stems from the same dispute, which is often the case with sanctions/bans proposals. Coming to your other point, October 2007 was quite sometime ago in wikitime, and I do think according to current practice, more ban discussions occur on ANI rather than AN. I haven't reverted myself, although I've made a note of it in my subsequent bold edit just now. You're welcome to revert that though, but I do think that sort of defeats part of the purpose of your bold edits in the first place - to keep it consistent with how it is now. Maybe we should reopen that discussion too? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted back to Elonka's version. I'll asked User:Jehochman, who wrote that back in October 2007, if he remembers where the consensus came from. You are right, of course, that things might have changed since, and that policy should be descriptive. Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Picking up your other points. Having a ban discussion ensue directly from a preceding discussion has both advantages and disadvantages. Events are still fresh in people's minds, so the impetus for a ban may still be there. Equally, that can lead to "heat of the moment" decisions, and a bias in participation. I think a break, to a different venue, and in time, of a few days or a week, can help ameliorate these problems. If things are urgent, a block can be carried out, but if there are no preventative reasons for a block, then waiting a week to start a discussion won't matter either. If community discussions are a valid way of doing things, it shouldn't matter either when a discussion is carried out. We don't insist RfAs or AfDs are done at a particular time when certain people are available. So ban discussions can start at any time, and the community members that are around during that week can take a look and se what they think. Those that want to participate will still turn up at the discussion, so that shouldn't be a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support holding discussions of longterm community sanctions (including bans) on WP:AN. ANI subpages are notorious for their ability to derail discussions; twice in my recent experience, discussions that were progressing well to a conclusion under the eye of the community as a whole were disrupted and left unresolved because of Ncmvocalist's arbitrary and undiscussed decision to move them to a subpage. The issues being addressed will undoubtedly rear their head again, instead of having been resolved. The objective is to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of the community, as best as possible. It isn't to have an easy-to-read noticeboard. We're a diverse community, on significant issues we should anticipate extensive discussion. Risker (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• If there is going to be consensus for a ban, there is going to be consensus for a ban. It really does not matter if it was discussed on ANI or AN. The venue of the discussion really does not matter, as long as the issue at hand is resolved in a dramaZ free fashion and is in a public enough place for the community to be able to comment if they feel so inclined. I really do not see why we need to make yet another rule when it comes to banning, I mean if a user brings concerns to ANI and the discussion gains consensus for a ban, it will no longer be enforceable simply because it was not discussed at AN? That seems a bit, ridiculous to me. Tiptoety ^talk 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not about any specific incident, but more moving forward to see what can be done better for next time. There was a similar discussion before, but nothing really got documented or carried forward from that. What I'm concerned about is ban discussions started in the heat of the moment. Banning is a serious step and should be done in the cold light of day, with clear presentation of the history, and after calm reflection. ANI, by its nature, deals with specific incidents, and as such is poorly structured to deal with ban discussions. The incident should be dealt with, and then a move to a ban discussion can be made, but that discussion should, to recognise the severity of the sanction being called for, be done at a different location. There is a reason that arbitrators, for examnple, don't turn up on a noticeboard and arbitrate there. People go to where the arbitrators are and things proceed from there. Similarly, a ban discussion should take place at a venue separated from the noticeboards. It might seem that I'm calling for a separate venue, like WP:CSN (closed down), and in a way I am, but not the old CSN. Something better. For now, though, deflecting such discussions from the at-times-frenetic pace of ANI, to a calmer discussion at AN may help. Once a discussion has started on ANI, it is normally too late (in the very early stages, it could be carefully transplanted and a note left behind), but if people start to actually follow this October 2007 consensus (I'm waiting on a reply about that), then maybe things will improve slightly. For all I know, most of the ban discussions have taken place on AN, and the recent ANI ones are the aberrations? Carcharoth (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think people are getting too bogged down in process. A ban is a block that nobody will lift, and consensus on that can change. I don't see a huge difference myself. The idea of formalising "community ban" discussions was rejected, for good reason, I think the more productive use of time would be discussing other community-imposed sanctions (specifically editing restrictions). I still think we should try to resolve more issues through restrictions, since these very often clarify the matter speedily - if the editor is unwilling or unable to ifnd another focus then they will either leave or be blocked, if they do find another focus then everybody is happy. Is X blocked or banned is a pretty sterile debate and usually not a very pleasant spectacle, it would be better to debate the simple issue of whether people think a block should be lifted. Every block imposed by any admin is a unilateral act and always will be, the only body corporate with the power to require blocking or banning is, I think, ArbCom. It doesn't matter if the blocking admin is at the head of the mob with torches and pitchforks, it's his or her call to make the block. The established mores here are that we don't lift other people's blocks without discussion, and if that discussion results in an unblock then the editor is unblocked, if it doesn't then they are not, and that's about it, I believe. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• After seeing ban discussions like Koh's, Kurt's Scetpre's, Steve Crossin's, and Prom3th3n's, I've written up User:MBisanz/RfBan as a proposed way to better handle such discussions in the future. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

unblock Sz-iwbot

Resolved

plese unblock Sz-iwbot, now have a global bot --Shizhao (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked per Wikipedia:Global rights usage#Global bots. WJBscribe (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness

Resolved

 – Nigel McGuinness reduced to semi-protection by Cirt. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness has been full protected for an unusually long time now — since June 23. I'd have unprotected, but way back in early December 2007 User:FCYTravis cited OTRS:#2006092210008209. Regrettably, he has been inactive since mid-July, not long after the protection of this article. Would an admin with OTRS access please review the situation and lift the protection to see if the problem has gone away? Thanks, Splash - tk 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The full protection was because a minority of editors wanted to put Nigel McGuinness's real name into the article (gleaned from private information). The person objected to having his real life name put in the article, and proved that he had not made it public. So, if we can get assurances that there will be no attempts to put the person's real name in the article, I see no reason not to drop the protection. If there are further attempts, then I would support the protection on there indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we obviously can't 'get' assurances and it'd be better not to go pinging the people in question anyway. We could, though, suck it and see with the oversighters at the ready. Splash - tk 20:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I stepped it down to semi-prot, please monitor for above-mentioned issues and other possible WP:BLP concerns. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted a notice to WP:BLPN. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that none of the other edits revealing his name have been oversighted, I doubt further Oversight is necessary. I suppose there's no harm in me watchlisting it for further eyes on it however. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to still be blocked. It would be nice if someone could at least clean up the References section; it's a real mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.218.223 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A user that keeps changing names

We have a user who makes poor edits, faces criticism, leaves, opens a new account, and repeats the process over and over again. This user is on their fifth account by now. Is there anything that we can do about this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a case for SSP. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

SSP can't enforce anything though IIRC... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, but it can prove that it's the same user, and take further action as it's needed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• AL2TB (talk · contribs), Dabby (talk · contribs), Splat5572 (talk · contribs), Must eat worms (talk · contribs), open 4 new accounts. Even if it is not a sock he's just randomly being disruptive. I don't know how many accounts he open so far.--57Freeways 03:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to file a request at WP:RFCU. This will do two things: 1) Confirm that these are indeed the same user and 2) determine if they are editing from one of two static IPs or a small range of dynamic IPs. Before you do this, be certain that you can demonstrate that there is an obvious pattern of disruption. A cursory glance at the users' contributions does not show much disruption at all. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's known that they're the same; the problem is with conduct. I personally don't see it as very disruptive, but he has on occasion been annoying to clean up after (as has Freewayguy, for that matter). It's a decent question in general: can someone restart under a new account and continue making edits that are [annoying/disruptive, pick one]? --NE2 12:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

More history can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive130#Problem_with_Rschen7754 --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Britney Spears 2008.jpg and a certain editor

Resolved

 – Image deleted and permission being reviewed as otrs:1929435; editor blocked and unblocked an hour later. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If admins could look at the edit history of this image they will see that Ogioh removed a deletion tag without resolving concerns, probably preventing the image from being deleted on the 19th. Ogioh has a terrible history when it comes to images, he has deliberately lied on occasions (see warnings on his talk page), where he uploaded a copyright image, claiming it belonged to his Uncle. When I pointed out the copyright AP symbol in the corner, he cropped the symbol out and claimed it was a T.V. image. He's overdue a block as it is. — Realist² 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. It can always be restored if OTRS gets meaningful proof of origin. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over User:Ogioh's contribs and left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at his uploads--all but one of them has been either deleted or flagged for trouble. Is a warning enough at this point? Blueboy96 13:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's worrisome but the last upload was 8 days ago. Let's see if the warning gets heeded. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, been away all day. Thanx for taking care of that, should I report back here if there are most of these problems with Ogioh? — Realist² 17:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The user left a reply to my warning and I've answered with another warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this another copyvio? He claims the owner licensed it under Creative Commons. Any way of verifying that? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it got deleted while I was posting, but he uploaded it after Gale's warning and before he replied to her. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely pending the outcome of this thread. This needs some input, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture taken at the MTV Video Music Awards, it seems. No way that image is free. Block endorsed. Blueboy96 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

Well he was unblocked after just one hour. Could those with banhammers play close attention to what this guy uploads. I've been monitoring this guy and reporting his various lies for weeks and all it's resulted in thus far is a slap on the wrist. I thought we took copy right infringement seriously, or at least I did... — Realist² 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Resolved

 – Rollback removed from Majorly at his request. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please remove my rollback privs. I don't wish to do anymore accidental rollbacks. Majorly ^talk 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. WODUP 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, as the user apparently reverted, I oppose this removal. I interpret this as an accidental-click, which can always be changed using Undo and an edit-summary. Franamax (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose Majorly having rollback, but if he doesn't want it-for whatever reason he doesn't want it, I'm not going to force him to have it. I've accidentally rolled back edits while looking at a diff, too. It's not a big deal, and if Majorly would like rollback back, I'd be glad to give it to him again. WODUP 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And as the editor who spotted the reversion and pointed it out to Majorly, he did immediately apologize to Franamax, which I always think is a Good Sign. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to do any vandal fighting, or make use of it, so I don't really want the hassle of having it. If I get back into vandal fighting, I'll ask for it back, but right now, I hardly ever use it, and it's not worth the risk. Majorly ^talk 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:HoiTuCorp

Resolved

 – User page deleted as spam. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody speak Vietnamese? Is User:HoiTuCorp advertising? Corvus cornix_talk 07:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't but I'd give it a pretty high chance..--Crossmr (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask at WP:PNT to get someone to translate it and tag it accordingly if needed. SoWhy 10:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As Crossmr could tell you, I make use of user categories when I hit those questions. Category:User vi or Category:Vietnamese Wikipedians might help. Sometimes it can be difficult finding somebody whose active on the project, but right away I see a very active Wikipedian, User:YellowMonkey, who might be able to help you out. (Of course, Crossmr also reminded me that we have to make sure the user has sufficient proficiency. :) In this case, he's tagged level 2, which ought to suffice.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It was advertising for a Vietnamese business and I've speedy deleted it as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Corvus cornix_talk 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin assistance with watchlisting

Resolved

 – Semi protected by Master of Puppets for seven days. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Womanizer (song) is a high traffic article, it's the next release by Britney Spears, so you can imagine. I'm the only active editor trying to maintain it from all the unsourced junk etc etc. Could I have some assistance please, would rather not go down the semi protection route. — Realist² 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD mess

Would it be possible to get some admin eyes here? The template Template:Mpdb movie was nominated for deletion, but there's a previous TfD still open, and questions about whether the website it links to is eligible under WP:EL rules. (The template is used to place external links to MoviePosterDB on film articles. An article about the website was deleted a while back for lack of notability.) Some help in cutting the knot would be good, I think. (I'm involved in the discussion, but I've tried to avoid rehashing any arguments here.) Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I should note a small side discussion here as well. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have closed Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 6#Template:Mpdb movie as "stale". p.s. I think the old discussion shouldnt be duplicated in the new discussion, as it makes it more difficult for people to figure out where they should comment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot approved.

Hi, I have recently approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot, an adminbot that has currently been running for a month. I believe that all concerns are taken care of. Please feel free to add comments. Xclamation point 03:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Look a few sections up. Hesperian 03:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please reopen the discussion. I am awaiting responses to #Approval of FA Template Protection Bot before deciding whether there is consensus for such a bot to be sysopped without RfA. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if the request remained open for community comment. WJBscribe (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

impossible to create the page "Virb"

Hello,

It's look like the title "Virb" is blacklisted. Why? Is it not a social networking website like others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Ranska (talk • contribs) 08:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Has been used as a redirect for VIRB°, which in turn was deleted many times over because of this AfD. If you have reasons why the reasoning from the AfD is not correct anymore, please tell us them and we can decide if notability can be established to allow creation of such an article. You might want to provide some reliable sources for such claims though. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbrowll

Resolved

 – sock tags removed as unnecessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dbrowell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• 69.105.112.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dbrowell (a new user) was accused of IP Sockpuppeting by VasileGaburici (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and requested a CU which was rejected, his explanation is here.

In light on the Checkusers response, Im wondering if we can remove the suspected sock puppet templates as they seem overly WP:BITE to be accusing a new user of sock puppetry because he may have removed a AfD tag whilst logged out (most likly accidentally logged out, as well as not knowing removing tags is wrong)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tags - as Sam Korn said, it's not an abusive sockpuppet. I suggest the pages be deleted, with a careful reason as to not BITE him when he decides to create a userpage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of this thread until now; I discovered it serendipitously. After checkuser was denied, I've removed the stuff added by TW to the talk pages of the two users on my own initiative, and blanked the sockpuppet request as well. But I forgot to check Dbrowell's user page; thankfully, Od Mishehu did that. It looks like 69.105.112.249 was engaging in repeated vandalism (others warned him before me), and it was an unfortunate coincidence that he removed that AfD. Asking for sockpuppet/checkuser is a pretty laborious job when done manually. Twinkle alleviates this to some extent, but it "spams" the users with sockpuppet warnings, which not only look scary, but aren't of any help to the "accused" user since realistically only checkuser can provide any real evidence. Telling the user to "defend himself" on the case page, which what TW's warning does, seems pretty pointless (how can someone prove he's not a sockpuppet or master?), and indeed WP:BITEs. I'll be more careful with TW in the future. VG ☎ 16:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Banning proposal

After seeing ban discussions like Koh's, Kurt's Scetpre's, Steve Crossin's, and Prom3th3n's, I've written up User:MBisanz/RfBan as a proposed way to better handle such discussions in the future. Please comment at the talk page. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• ^ Its worth a read   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I like it, as these types of discussions do happen, and it isnt helpful to have them linger on AN or ANI. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since this appears to be a special case of an RfC, that is, an RfC with a desired outcome of bannination, could it not be handled through extension of the normal RfC process to include implementation of sanctions which have widespread support? Guy (Help!) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • My primary fear is that by combining the discussion of a user's conduct and the discussion of the sanction on the user, people will jump over and ignore the discussion on the user's conduct to focus on what sanction shall be given out. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Um, didn't we go through this song and dance before? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • User_talk:MBisanz/RfBan#Not_CSN is meant to reduce that terror :) MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I like this idea. See comments there. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev again..

I'm sorry to bother you guys but User:Dilip rajeev is back, this time the battleground being Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China#WP:RS, the so called Phenoix TV stuff removed (yes we should really do something about that long title). He repeatedly (twice, up to now) removed a source that's agreed by consensus to be notable and is deemed RS from WP:RS/N. Can someone keep an eye on him if he ignores my 2nd warning on the talk page and start reverting again? Thanks. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff please to something being removed, or another objectionable edit? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought i put up diff links in the talk page but I was mistaken. 1st removal and 2nd removal, he basically twisted it around and retained only the bits that are addressed by the report author, making it even less npov than it originally stands. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Dilip rajeev to stop removing the content, and left a query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Phoenix TV reliable source? --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to point out that I believe had made my reasons for the edit clear on the talk page before I removed the content[7]. I have attempted to further clarify my reasons for removing material from the particular source, here:[8] Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IPBE and softblocking

Does the IPBE process make sense if the range is only soft-blocked - i.e. if logged-in editors can still edit? If no, then should the two rangeblocks here be changed, to put into effect Thatcher's apparent intention when issuing them? As the blocks stand, the editor in question is still easily evading his ban.[9][10]  —SMALLJIM  12:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was an error; have you tried dropping Thatcher a line? Stifle (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for endorsing what I thought. It seems to be pretty uncontroversial, so I'll amend the blocks myself and let Thatcher know (his talkpage says he's on a short wikibreak).  —SMALLJIM  18:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think I just forgot to unclick the boxes. I have an unfortunate tendency to do that :( That range should be hardblocked since the editor in question just goes elsewhere to make accounts. Thatcher 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also note that as of now, there do not appear to be any unblocked Bsrboy accounts on those ranges, so if someone asks for IPBE you can grant it first and ask a checkuser to followup, rather than requiring verification first. Thatcher 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah - thanks for the nicely-timed reply! I've just amended the blocks. Incidentally, could this have been blocked as a single /20 range, or would that have had a different effect?  —SMALLJIM  20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Same thing. I probably saw him on one of the smaller ranges, then later realized he was on the neighboring one too. Thatcher 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the explanation - I'm gradually learning. Have this smallbarnstar: * for all your good work :)  —SMALLJIM  21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 3RR noticeboard

Resolved

The last admin activity was at around 13:00 hours. I have a report on there that is still pretty new, but there are a couple on there that are getting to be several hours old. If any of you have the time would you mind helping out over there? Cheers! Landon1980 (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... Tiptoety ^talk 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Landon1980 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 21:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Misza13

Refer to relevant ANI thread; no need for two concurrent threads. —kurykh 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mpvide65 indefinitely blocked for harassment

Mpvide65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I have just blocked Mpvide65 indefinitely for harassment. As a series of anonymous users, he has harassed both Ryan and J.Delanoy. Much of the worst of the harassment has been oversighted.

I don't see any reason at all to set anything other than an indefinite block here.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sam for nailing this guy and thanks also to J.delanoy, WBOSITG and East718. Much appreciated, —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

deleting articles

Is there a way to delete really bad articles on wikipedia and rewrite them? I've never really edited an article, my brother used to but that was a while ago.--76.16.216.41 (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Article can be deleted by administrators, but usually not because the article is really bad. Usually we just ask you to edit the article and make it better so that we can attribute those who helped create the article. Feel free to edit any article and make any improvements. Also, check out your talk page where you will find some helpful links to help you to edit successfully. Lastly, if you have anymore questions, feel free to ask at our help desk, where people can answer just about any question you have. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to you on your page. The article sucks, I don't know anything about cars but these people have to be cutting out stuff, GM is really terrible right now, and there'snothing in the article but a lot of stuff about how they're so great. that's a lie even if they were doing awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.216.41 (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the article (which you have not named) is not written with a neutral point of view, you can add verifiable and sourced information about how the cars are "really terrible", but bias is not a good reason to delete, according to policy.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The article in question was General Motors. If you want farther commentary on the situation, feel free to read the bottom of my talk page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:JohnathanCheechoo

Jonathan Cheechoo is an NHL player. JohnathanCheechoo (talk · contribs) is using his name (though spelling it wrong). I reported it to WP:UAA and was told it isn't a blatant violation. WP:USERNAME says You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name. Any inputs? Corvus cornix_talk 05:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen WP:UAA ignore things that were obvious, blatant policy violations. Just keep trying. Bstone (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But, my dear Bstone, this isn't a blatant policy violation. One of the other comments on UAA was that there was a vandalism problem- if so we may need to block for /that/. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes looking at his deleted contribs he did create a page that was speedily deleted, however it's not vandalism. Just non-notable. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, L'Aquatique you are indeed correct here. Sorry! Bstone (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique made this incredible comment: Yeah, probably not a blatant violation. For one thing, it's not a hugely famous name (I, for example, have no idea who that is). In other words, if L'Aquatique has never heard of the person being impersonated, it's not important. And note that I made no claims of vandalism, the only edit the User has made was to create an article on an nn person, not vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 05:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are we having this conversation in two places. If you're going to quote me, for G-d's sake at least quote the whole thing: "For one thing, it's not a hugely famous name (I, for example, have no idea who that is) and the fact that the first name is "misspelled" suggests to me that it might be the person's actual name.". Now, this seems like forum shopping to me, but I'll give you my opinion; two admins have told you it's not a blatant violation. Why don't you go ask him if it's his name? L'Aquatique[talk] 05:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I brought it here because the response at UAA is wrong, since it is a violation of the USERNAME policy. Your being an admin has no bearing on the fact that you are wrong. Corvus cornix_talk 06:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure. If you can find someone who will block him, more power to you. But this discussion has run its course. L'Aquatique[talk] 06:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you guys try talking to the user himself (and please don't use that entirely unhelpful template if you do...)? Sometimes that works wonders, if he does not respond you can discard this as stale and if he refuses to change his name then maybe something should be done then (I am not certain really), this username I would say does not express any particularly bad intent and so does not merit an instant block-hammer. - Icewedge (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you know? An admin who actually understands policy blocked him. Corvus cornix_talk 06:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction, an admin blocked him pending identify verification. And you need to lay off the sarcasm, it's unbecoming. L'Aquatique[talk] 06:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This leads to a point of - how well known does a person have to be before using their name is a violation of UAA? The example above is probably correctly handled, since it is an unusual name, but most people outside the USA would have no clue who that person is (I didn't). What about really common names - would there actually be an issue with, say, User:Michael Owen or User:David James if they stayed away from football articles? Black Kite 06:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In that vein, how exactly do you measure famous-ness? There isn't exactly an SI unit for this purpose, although there probably should be. The truth is, it's not exactly recommended that you use your real name for your username anyway, but that's not part of the policy. I think this should be handled on a no-harm-done basis- if a user actually pretends to be someone famous (and we are sure they really aren't that person) that could be a problem. But I'm not really sure why having the same username as someone famous is really a truly bad thing. I think a clarification of the policy, at the very least, is in order here. L'Aquatique[talk] 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Famousness isn't the issue, and I have just made an updated to the policy to reflect that. Impersonation and/or misrepresentation are the issue. It's just that famous people are more likely to be targeted. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring over the substance of policy and guidelines

This isn't a request for action over a specific incident; it's more of a general complaint that admins may have some suggestions for addressing.

Namely: people are edit-warring over the substance of policy and guidelines. This happens a lot; for example, it's happened today at two pages I happen to be watching (WP:MOS and WP:NOR). It shouldn't be happening - these pages need to be stable (in terms of substance, not necessarily of wording), since they may be referenced in ongoing disputes, and in any case these battles make it harder to determine what the "established" policy is in the event of no-consensus-to-change outcomes. And the belligerents are in many cases experienced users, admins even, who appear to genuinely (though incredibly obstinately, in some cases) believe that their version is either (a) the established version which there is no consensus to change, or (b) a version which has recently gained consensus.

OK, what can we do about this when we see it? We can report it to the admins; someone will probably come along and protect the page. They may (according to blocking policy) try to determine which is the established version and protect that version. But there's no guarantee of this - they may just protect the version on top, a move which may well reward the "aggressor" and damage the integrity of the page. So rather than cast the dice, people prefer to revert for themselves, thus continuing the war.

In my view, something needs to change. The easiest solution might be to require admins protecting policy pages to investigate and ensure that they protect what seems to be the most recent consensus version. But a protection-based solution is not ideal, since it ties up the whole page, not just the part that's in dispute. Some kind of warning to participants to refrain from changing policy without consensus (or refusing to recognize consensus to change it, as appropriate), coupled with a neutral user's (admin's?) reasoned assessment of what is current consensus, ought to do the trick in most cases. It's more process I know, but something needs to be done to stop this phenomenon, which generates much ill-will and wastes huge amounts of time that could be spent on something constructive. Thoughts please.

I will take the opportunity as always to mention the proposal WP:Policy/Procedure, which is connected with this to some extent.--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it really generate much ill will? I was the last person to revert and I certainly bear no ill will towards anyone else participating. I think the "other side" is wrong on the merits and wrong that there is a consensus for the change but I'm sure they're acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Also, while we certainly have a messy way of making sausages we do make some good sausages. Haukur (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I am no longer the last person who reverted :) Haukur (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ill-will can be found on the talk pages. Of course it would be there anyway, but I'm sure the existence of an ongoing edit war makes things far worse. (And on sausage quality - we make some good ones, we make some bad ones, I'd like the bad ones to be better.) Incidentally, it looks like WP:MOS does currently need protecting, in view of the curly-quotes nonsense currently going on there.--Kotniski (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Automatic correction of spelling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See WP:BOTREQ for bot requests, but it won't fly there, either. Nothing further to discuss here. Shereth 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry, I really don't know where to place this...

There needs to be a bot of some sort to fix uncommon spelling errors (uncommon in the sense that, unlike teh, they aren't known and have their own page, as some spellings might be intentional, but like maximise, which brings up 1120 hits when searched, and criterea, which I fixed about fifteen instances of). I don't know if anyone is working on this, but it would be nice at least. Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Maximise" is not a misspelling. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So true. — Satori Son 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

yes it is! It should be "Maximize" !!!

• Absolute total oppose. Anyone who's ever used the AWB typo fix feature will know that at least 10% of the hits it gets are false positives. If you're that concerned about a particular typo, then open up AWB and run a search-and-replace on it, but make sure you manually check every edit, unless you have a blinding urge to see your talkpage filled with abuse for your Reshad Feild→Reshad Field and Anguilla anguilla→Anguilla Anguilla "corrections". – iridescent 17:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, one of those is easily nullified with the creation of another redirect... Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as well. Automated tools are notoriously bad at picking up what is a typo and what isn't. Mix in the usage of three variants of English - British, Canadian and American - add in IPA text, foreign language translations, equasions, etc, and we're either going to spend more time fixing the "fixes" than we do fixing the mistakes, or the overhead involved in writing and running a script that can accomodate for all of this would not be worth it. Resolute 17:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot requests go to WP:BOTREQ. This is a perennial request; see also: Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots#Spell-checking bots. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of time when the misspelling is intentional ("teh", for example), that would be unable to be correctly interpreted by a bot. Corvus cornix_talk 18:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though there might be a few misspellings here and there on Wikipedia, the great thing about the human brain is that it can still read sentences when its wrttn pourly! Gary King (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Humans are even better than that. They can even complete a . JoshuaZ (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not a good idea, completely agree with the above. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Dear me, no. Stifle (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2008 (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.

Nielson DMCA Takedown

So I get a notification on my watchlist that Template:Miami TV and Template:WPB TV were removed by a bot: "Removing TV region templates per DMCA Takedown Notice from Nielsen Media Research, OTRS ticket #2008091610055854"

Now I may not be an expert an copyright, but my feeling is that this is completely ridiculous. If I remember correctly, all it was were a list of channels in the marketplace. This is common knowledge. Am I missing something here or has Nielsen become very desperate?--Jorfer (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

About to post about this myself. Is there anyway to see what OTRS ticket #2008091610055854 is? I am seriously confused on what the deletions are about and if there is some way around it (removing all Nielsen information, etc). - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is here either. The only thing I see is that the templates contained a link to the Nielsen site. All the information in the template is public knowledge. Did someone actually talk to Mike? KnightLago (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the takedown should be submitted to Chilling Effects. BJ^Talk 04:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to talk to Mike. I am just trying to find out the reasoning behind it. Because if it is removing market information and Nielsen linkage, we can do that. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The WMF Office was consulted on this matter and per an OTRS ticket indicating a DMCA takedown notice, the content was deleted. The entire categorization schema that was in place was copyrighted by Nielsen and could not be used under our GFDL license. SWATjester or Mike Godwin can probably clarify as they were the ones who handled the matter, but the material should NOT be restore by anyone prior to contacting them. By their nature OTRS tickets are private and cannot be released, but it has been confirmed by WMF staff that the ticket number in question is valid. MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If people are looking for guidance as to how to define TV station areas, Cary Bass from the WMF office produced a copy-vio free version of TV station data at List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market#United_States_of_America. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Request MBisanz, could you please look at User:Ckatz/US TV templates test and advise me as to if it should go? I had retrieved the contents of the deleted Seattle template before I found this thread; the one I linked to linked is a revised version minus any mention of Nielsen or their "proprietary" term for the Seattle area. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Before we go nuts and start "rebuilding" all these templates, we need to "rename" all 211 Nielsen Markets with the MSAs and go from there. Do a couple test templates, get Mike in here to "yea" or "nay" them and then go nuts. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As a complete aside, anyone else find it ridiculous that a template that is basically an alphabetical list of stations within a market could even be subject to a DCMA takedown notice? Statistics aren't copyrightable, and that is basically what a list of TV stations in a market defined by the people who measure such things is. Or, at least that would be the case in a sane world... Resolute 05:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I do. This is ridiculous. Nielson did not invent the areas that TV channels serve. This stuff existed before them and is common knowledge. It is not like the titles sport any creativity either. This feels like Amazon patenting "one-click" as if they created the idea of clicking on something once to get the desired product.--Jorfer (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

....and the certainly don't control the way we create templates on Wikipedia. They want their linkage off, fine...outside that, this is Wikipedia, not Nielsinpedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple lists of items (in this case, television stations) can not be copyrighted. In fact, you can go to places such as the FCC site and get lists of all stations in a given area (all Florida stations are listed here, and any other list of stations can be found for any state within the US. I'm sure other country governments have similar public lists). Nelson's claim that they own a copyright to the list of stations is absurd (since that's all the navbox template was). Additionally, the Excel file linked to in the template doesn't even have the information contained in the infobox (other than perhaps the market mentioned in the title of the box itself: "Broadcast television in the South Florida (Miami / Fort Lauderdale / Key West) market"). Since that's the only possible claim Nelson has here, I don't see a problem with the templates being recreated if we just don't reference the idiots at Nelson. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in this situation, Nielsen Media Research claims copyright over the concept of the marketplace designation. Sure, the content was a list of television stations, but it was a list of television stations based on a designation set forth by Nielsen. We could, in all theory, recreate similar templates that do not utilize Nielsen's categories and instead the FCC's. Or this could be the lava lamp fiasco all over again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I got nothing. This whole thing has confused me to no end. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As a note: I was not involved in the removal of the templates. My actions were with the removal of certain content on the List page, and were at Mike's direction. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just to reiterate what is said above, this was a DMCA takedown notice, and the action was requested by Mike Godwin, foundation legal counsel, so there's probably no mileage in challenging the basis for it, even if we don't like it we probably can't afford to fight it - and we, as a bunch of barrack-room lawyers should not in any case be second-guessing Mike, who is a pro. Last night there were some comments which violated Godwin's Law, which is kind of ironic, but I don't see any mileage in complaining about it, and Cary's idea of rebuilding on the basis of a source which is in the public domain is the best approach, I think. Assuming good faith here, as we should, it's reasonable to interpret this not as a chilling effect but as the routine protection of intellectual property by a company whose IP is its stock-in-trade. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not a lawyer, but I think the best analogy would be Dewey_Decimal_System#Ownership_and_administration, if the Dewey decimal system of organizing libraries can be copyrighted, I suspect it is very conceivable that the system for classifying TV stations can be and is. MBisanz ^talk 09:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I find it plausible based on numerous examples, but I freely acknowledge that I lack the expertise to judge, so I defer to Mike. It's noticeable that most of the work seems to have been done by one user, and there was some suggestion that this might have been a Primtime sock, I don't know if anything came of that. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• You'd be surprised what can and cannot be copyrighted. For example, if I run a website dedicated to my favourite English Premier League or Football League football team, I can't have a page listing their upcoming fixtures - or this happens. Black Kite 10:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  I recall hearing of similar takedown threats regarding Australian Rules Football match schedules as well. Perhaps the laws or caselaw are different in Britain and Australia than in the USA; the American precedent (such as the Feist decision regarding telephone directories) is very much in favor of the non-copyrightability of purely factual listings not involving editorial creativity. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  • • They've copyrighted the... upcoming game schedule. *facepalm* And we think the American system is overly litigious... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll attept to reconstruct what's going on here.

• One of the templates can, for now, be seen at [13]. Its format is:
  • (title) "Broadcast television in the South Florida (Miami / Fort Lauderdale / Key West) market (Nielsen DMA #16)" with links to the metropolitan areas and cities, and an external link to [14]
  • "local stations" sorted by channel number, for example "WPBT 2 (PBS)" with links to WPBT and PBS
  • "digital-only channels" in the same format
  • "local stations in Key West" with the note that "Most of these stations either serve Miami proper, or are repeaters of Miami stations." and the same format
  • "local cable channels" apparently sorted by name
  • links at the bottom to templates for other Florida markets, and to the Bahamas and Cuba
• Nielsen Media Research claims copyright over something here. I don't believe we (on WP:AN) hae been told exactly what they claim copyright over, but I would assume it's the lumping, for example, of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Key West into one market. Looking at the FCC list, I see that they do not combine them in this way. However, some of these places are close enough (I think) that there will be interference if, for instance, a Miami company and a Fort Lauderdale company use the same station. I assume this is simply done on a case-by-case basis.

Here's my question: how well-known are the markets? This actually provides a good test case: Nielsen combines Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Key West, but separates West Palm Beach. On the other hand, the Census Bureau puts Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach together, but separates Key West. Is it generally known to the TV-watching public that West Palm Beach is a separate market, or is this something that only statisticians care about? If the latter, then there's no reason to use the Nielsen markets.

But if the former, we need to determine exactly what's copyrighted. Presumably I can say what I said above about West Palm Beach being in a separate market. But can this be said on a template? Can we have a template for all three cities (ignoring Key West for now) and a note that Nielsen separates West Palm Beach? I definitely do not understand exactly what is copyrighted here, and I hope someone can explain that. --NE2 11:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed quite a bit of arbitrariness to the market divisions, when you get to the borderline. I'm a case in point myself... the condo complex in which I live is in Palm Beach County, but it is located right on the side of the canal that divides this county from Broward County; the houses on the other side of the canal are categorized as being in a separate Nielsen market from me. To some extent, there's some actual truth to this separation despite geographical proximity; people on the other side of the county line get a different set of cable channels from people on my side, and that can affect their perception of the world; when I watch the 11:00 news on TV, I see West Palm Beach channels that concentrate on events to the north of me, while people on the other side of the line see Fort Lauderdale channels that talk about events to the south, so there might be very different perceptions of what current events matter based on this arbitrary division. However, people socialize a lot with others who live across the county line; it's not a Berlin Wall. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Resolute and NH ... it's pretty well established in American law (and I'm assuming Canadian law as well) that you can't copyright facts. Seems to me based on what has been discussed, this should be the way to go:

• Cull a list of stations that serve a particular metro from the FCC list. We at WP:TVS know what stations are part of what market, so this shouldn't be too much of a hassle.
• Use them to make new, non-copyvio tables along the lines of the Canadian station lists. I'm assuming the Canadian lists are based off the CRTC database, and if they're public domain like U.S. government documents are public domain, there's no issue there.
• Bounce them off Mike to make sure there's there isn't something we don't know about, and we're in business.

It may take a few days, but if Nielsen went berserk over a mere link and the list of market designations, it should be relatively simple. Blueboy96 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this can be allowed. The FCC uses Nielsen rankings in some of its own rules. Would a court uphold the use of such restricted data in FCC rules? (See 47CFR73.622(f)(5)) TripEricson (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The FCC might well have specific permission from Neilsen to use those data in its own works. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But how can they enforce their rules? If I run a station and choose not to pay Nielsen (some stations do choose not to), how am I supposed to know what market I am in to abide by FCC decisions? TripEricson (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got a question that might help us gain perspective into this matter later on. Fellow obsessive editors and admins: Given your experiences of the collaborative process of Wikipedia, how likely is it that we would've removed the offending material if Nielsen had asked politely before resorting to legal threats?
I'm being overly cynical, but someone has to. --Kizor 06:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Has anyone read this? http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080821-fair-use-gets-a-fair-shake-youtube-tot-to-get-day-in-court.html WiZZLa (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to write a bot to undo that CydeBot damage and restore these articles, imo. Xizer (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/notes.html answers everyone's questions. Specifically Television Market Areas are based on material copyrighted by Arbitron, Areas of Dominant Influence (ADI), and Nielsen Media Research, Designated Market Areas (DMA). They are reevaluated every 3 years. By grouping the listing, even remotely, by DMA runs afoul of their copyrights. FCC rules do not specifically quote any ADI/DMI information, they simply refer to them. (which makes sense as they change far more often than the rules.) -- Ricky 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for explanation

Office actions are based on policy set by, or consultations with, Wikimedia's legal staff. We here are not qualified to overrule them. It would help if those responsible for the policies or decisions would come here and post an explanation so we don't have to waste our time building templates that get taken down. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded--and I'm speaking as both an admin and a WP:TVS member. If my hunch is right, the only plausible explanation for this is that Nielsen objected to the use of their market designations as the basis of the templates. It should be relatively simple to fix, but is there something at play here that we don't know about? We need some guidance here. Blueboy96 13:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I thought there was an explanation? Guy (Help!) 13:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, no explanation as of yet. All we know is that Nielsen Media Research requested copyright takedown via OTRS ticket #2008091610055854. We don't know why (although presumably copyright) and what was the problem with it I believe. D.M.N. (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • In particular, we need to know exactly what they have a problem with. How much can we refer to these designations? --NE2 13:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Er, right so the explanation that Nielsen issued a DMCA takedown notice, referenced in the OTRS ticket, is in some what not an explanation? Still not quite getting this one, mate. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • See Rootology's comment below, almost an hour before this non-answer. --NE2 14:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think everyone is looking for the specifics of what was asked to be taken down in the DMCA notice, which wouldn't be private, and without which there is no way to work around the problem so the replacement material doesn't just prompt another DMCA notice in a week. rootology (C)(T) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have OTRS access, to a fair number of queues. The ticket is said to be otrs:2008091610055854 so I figured I'd go read it and see if I could see what is being asked... either I'm not entering that right or I don't have permission to see it as I get a "No Permission!" warning. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  It got directed over to the legal queue. --CBD 18:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  It is in ::legal. The explanation of DMCA takedown and a ticket number is sufficient explanation. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  @NVS: I think you misunderstood why I was trying to read the ticket (and if it's in Legal now, I don't have access to that queue...) It's not because I have any issue with abiding with the notice, or because I'm questioning that it exists or anything like that... I just want to know what it says to tell what it is exactly that has to be removed. A large number of people are wondering the same thing. None of them are saying "who cares"... just "what is it we need to remove so we can do so"... ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  It is sufficient explanation for why this action was taken. It is NOT sufficient information to understand what to do going forward. For instance, are the 136 pages still using {{Nielsen}} ok? --CBD 18:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  (EC) It's not really a sufficient explanation, as I mentioned above. People need to know exactly what was infringing material so that the replacement edits don't just invoke a new DMCA next week or next month. It's "legal" isn't sufficient unless the OTRS legal admins want to recreate the new material to replace it themselves. rootology (C)(T) 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• The explanation is not sufficient because the content creators don't understand what they have done wrong. We need an explanation so that their time won't be wasted by further notices. It is not fair to ask people to throw darts in the dart until they hit the target. Tell us please, specifically, what was the copyright problem with the content, and how can we avoid that in the future. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  Does Mike work weekends (silly question, no lawyer works weekends)? Can someone email or call him and ask him to come over and explain this so we can know what the next step is? - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• From what I can gather across various discussions - the DMCA notice included at least the use of Nielsen's 'Designated Market Area' (DMA) classification system. As our Media market article says, Nielsen coined the term and holds a trademark on it. The takedown notice may have included more, but I think it is fairly clear that much at least was an issue. Hence the removal of the DMA classifiactions from List of television stations in North America by media market. --CBD 18:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So...could we say "Broadcast Television Stations in New York City" or "Digital Television Stations in Washington, DC" and then create the templates with the same general layout we had before (so they look the same) and just not use any Nielsen terminology? - NeutralHomer • Talk 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. For now I'd say remove anything which is clearly derived from (or directly using) Nielsen's DMAs. Other than that we'll need to wait for more guidance from Mike or someone else in the know. --CBD 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading up on Nielsen a bit. They spend alot of money doing research and then sell that data to advertisers and others looking for information on television viewership. Ergo, they'd undoubtedly be concerned if Wikipedia were to make the results of their research available to everyone for free. One aspect of that research is the classification of their DMAs... these are defined based on the amount of viewership various stations get by people in various US counties. I would therefor not be at all surprised if they consider the list of stations they classify as 'within a given DMA' proprietary information. Advertisers looking to get more customers from people in Dubuque are going to want to know which TV stations to buy advertising from. Right now they pay Nielsen to get a list of the top stations. If we copy Nielsen's list or recreate it based on their individual station viewership data and make it available for free they are out of money. If we were to use a different criteria, such as 'stations which can be viewed in a given area' (regardless of how many people actually do so) then I'd think we would be ok... but I am not a lawyer. --CBD 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The templates I am familiar with are not based on viewing patterns at all; they are based on channel availability. Recognizing that Miami and Broward County tend to get the same channels is common knowledge...not something that requires research.--Jorfer (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rebuild templates

I think we should start rebuilding the templates now. Here's what i think the Phoenix tv template should look like

when it is remade Powergate92 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think we should wait, in case there's something going on that we don't know about. Like I said, the only plausible objections I can think of on Nielsen's part are the use of their designations as the basis for the lists. Alternatively, is there any way to cite Nielsen in the templates? Blueboy96 20:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think we should start rebuilding the templates now. Has long as we don't include a DMA number or a Neilsen link. Powergate92 (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems a bad idea to me. Why not wait until it is clarified what is covered by the request? There is no rush ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we all want to get the templates (revised or completely changed) back on the pages as quickly as possible. - NeutralHomer • Talk 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that RingtailedFox has started rebuilding the templates. he has rebuilt the following.

Powergate92 (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, why? What is the rush. What bad thing will happen if these are not rebuilt before Monday? ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, copyright paranoia is no good reason to stop improving the encyclopedia today. We already have a working guideline in the Canadian templates. If there was a concern there, Mike would have had them deleted as well. Simply put, we can look in our TV guides to see what stations are available where. Nielsen can't copyright that, and can't legitimately seek to suppress such information. There is no harm in rebuilding the templates now. Resolute 05:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why 60 miles from Detroit or Toldeo? If your answer is: "That's the traditional size of metropolitan Detroit and suburbs", then good. If your answer is: "That's the sub-unit Nielsen has chosen to use", then you are still copying their organizational structure, which is probably not a good idea. Dragons flight (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The obvious reason why Mike did not delete the Canadian templates is that it falls under a different set of copyright laws (perhaps a more rational, more clear, and less prone to frivolous lawsuits system). We can't take this as acceptance of the Canadian templates. Also, I do not think that any of the templates are based on anything but common knowledge, and even if an editor did use Nielson, it would be nearly impossible to prove, which further demonstrates the general knowledge nature of the "media markets".--Jorfer (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for a select few of the very largest markets (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver), the Canadian templates are organized strictly by province. For provinces with a larger number of stations, the station breakdowns are by standard geographic regions, not by Nielsen markets, and they list only stations that originate in that region, not necessarily the entire range of television stations that broadcast there. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, "60 miles" is a benchmark that was chosen to look arbitrary, while still giving the template a wide enough geographic scope that it would essentially reconstruct the original Nielsen market template otherwise unchanged. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I rebuilt the Phoenix tv template here's what it look like.

Powergate92 (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for expedited review and bot-rebuild

I know lawyers take weekends off, but first thing Monday, someone from Legal needs to look at this.

• Templates which contain no copyrightable elements other than trademarked names need to be identified and bulk-restored, stripped of their trademarked names and edit history, but with the previous editors credited for GFDL-compliance. Since the Nielson-defined market areas seem to be the issue, it should be easy enough to separate the list into 3 groups: Stand-alone cities where the Nielson market area obviously corresponds to the city or metropolitan area name, those whose Nielson-defined market area might be creative, and those whose Nielson-defined is known to be creative.
• Those in the first group can be bulk-restored by eliminating the phrase "Nielson DMA# and replacing "in the XYZ market" with "in the XYZ area".
• Those in the 3rd group should be identified so re-creation from scratch can begin as soon as possible, with explicit instructions to redraw the geographical boundaries. A "list of stations lost to DMCA action" should be maintained so the stations can be added as new templates are created or old ones are restored.
• Those in the 2nd group should be investigated and moved to group 1 or 3 as soon as possible.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I keep reading here that I don't work weekends, which is news to me, and that lawyers don't work weekends, which is also news. MikeGodwin (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if everything in Category:Nielsen market by state navbox templates was deleted. I have looked at the prior contents of several of those and saw many correspondences between the market areas defined by Nielsen and those on Wikipedia... which seems to have been rather the intent given the category name. While there is some logic to saying, 'Of course Dallas and Fort Worth would be considered one market area'... when we come up with the same 210 geographical groupings that Nielsen has, or nearly the same, it isn't just 'common sense'. If we did a separate TV template for each and every county in the US then that'd be a public source... but if we are going to group counties together to define markets we likely should not be using the markets Nielsen has defined. One template per state would result in some huge and convoluted templates. One per county would yield thousands of small templates. Something in between makes sense... maybe congressional districts? That'd be 435 'markets' instead of 210, but it certainly wouldn't be a proprietary classification. --CBD 11:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, counties would create excessive duplication, and state would be useless at differentiating local stations. The fact is that "media markets" is the simplest yet most detailed dichotomous scheme there is (thus the use of it). The South Florida markets can be broken down by your local news station. Miami-Dade and Broward get the same news, and West Palm Beach and Key West both have their separate stations. Copyright requires creativity (its purpose is to protect that), and this scheme demonstrates none. Darrell v. Joe Morris Music Co. (1940) and Arnstein v. Marks Music Corporation (1936) back up that the "media markets" I have seen are not copyrighted even though a more specific "media market" could be.--Jorfer (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Wikimedia Foundation has not received a DMCA takedown notice, but we typically act "conservatively" when confronted with claims of copyright violation because we're not a large enough organization (in terms of legal and financial resources) to hash out the nuances of every copyright claim. My own view is that the community should look at the information in question, try to make a guess as to what Nielsen thinks was wholesale copied from its content, and try to reproduce non-copyrighted information it can on restructured, retemplated pages. In general, lists of information that are not produced with any kind of creativity and judgment (e.g., an alphabetical list of American broadcasting stations by call letter) would not be copyrightable, per Feist v. Rural Telephone (1991). But a list that does entail creativity and/or judgment could well be considered copyrightable. Is Nielsen right to think its information is copyrightable? I can't say for certain how a court would answer that question. But the point of DMCA compliance is to prevent us from having to guess what a court would say -- we simply comply with a DMCA notice (or with a complaint that seems likely to give rise to a formal DMCA notice), and our statutory protections under the DMCA kick in. MikeGodwin (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the Mike we have heard of speaks. So if I have this straight, Nielson claims copyright infingement but hasn't given a DMCA takedown notice.--Jorfer (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

They divided the country into 211 regions based on commercial data. It's utterly unlike census zones, and it seems like there are lots of plausible ways they could have divided areas, which would have called for many discretionary decisions. Wouldn't these areas (and associated names and numbers) be copyrightable?

What, exactly, did they claim in their OTRS request? That would give us some clues. Cool Hand Luke 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As it is, the templates didn't seem to define the boundaries of each region (which would be proprietary), and without the numbers, they just represent stations that one could receive from some particular city. Wouldn't that be public domain? We could even improve things by adding templates for small intermediate cities that receive signals from more than one Nielson market. That would avoid conflation with their proprietary areas, while adding more information into Wikipedia based directly on PD fact. Cool Hand Luke 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That was my point. I agreed that a more specific area would be copyrightable, but vague ones like Miami-Dade and Broward are not. I like your general idea, however, to make the market's more specific in name (like naming the Miami-Dade and Broward one the Homestead/Miami/Hialeah/Ft. Lauderdale market area). It makes it clear that the templates are not based on Nielson but common knowledge.--Jorfer (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So let me ask this question again. If I created a Las Vegas broadcast TV template that only contained the signals I could receive from my antenna and did not mention any type of ranking organization, would that be OK? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be common knowledge which is not copyrightable as I have been arguing this entire time.--Jorfer (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So this one should be OK? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we actually see their notice. A notice shouldn't be copyright, and to the extent to which it's posted so that the creators of the allegedly infringing content can respond to it, it's obviously fair use. I can understand why they didn't issue a DMCA takedown because, to the extent to which they'r claiming trademark violations, they're not DMCA issues. On the other hand, there's a lot less need to be brutal in response to a trademark question (it does, though, still need to be responded to in a reasonable timeframe). Issuing a DMCA notice on stuff that's not copyrightable would also expose them to costs, etc.--User:darkonc (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen triggers AfDs?

Longstanding articles listing the affiliates for ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, The CW, The WB, and UPN have been batch nominated for deletion here. It appears as though the alleged "copyright violation" culprit is simply the "DMA" column in the tables on those articles. I believe simply removing that column on each of those articles should resolve the concerns, no?   user:j    (aka justen)   06:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to note that those articles were NOT, I repeat, NOT referenced anywhere in the ticket. If people want to delete them for various reasons, that's their business, but the ticket had nothing to do directly with those articles. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The AfD has been speedily closed as keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• List of ABC television affiliates (table) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of CW affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of CBS television affiliates (table) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Fox television affiliates (table) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of NBC television affiliates (table) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of UPN affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of WB affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The articles that were nominated for deletion do still contain tables with apparently "proprietary" Nielsen data (with DMA numbers, which I presume are assigned by Nielsen). Should we proactively remove that column and the phrase "DMA" from each of these articles, so as to prevent the problem (rather than wait for it to visit us with mass deletions next Friday)? I'm listing the articles here, for reference.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. We can always add it back later if it turns out there's no problem with it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(Removed stupid comment).--Jorfer (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, you're not WMF counsel.

At any rate, their argument would be that they made creative decisions in defining which cities should be in which market. They necessarily did. There's a lot of arbitrariness, as the discussion above about Florida shows. Whether we should remove this column (and indeed this ordering) depends on exactly what they're claiming. Cool Hand Luke 19:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake (I removed the above comment because I made it without looking at the articles)...the lists need to be based alphabetically as Nielson would have full rights to a number that is based on their "proprietary system" (just as ESPN has rights to the numbers generated from their NFL "power rankings").--Jorfer (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nielsenless affiliates table

I've begun updating the table in List of CW affiliates to be based on metropolitan statistical areas, rather than Nielsen Media Research designated market areas. For now, I'm listing the city in which the affiliate is primarily headquartered in. I still have a ways to go, filling in the metro area population ranking numbers, and eventually linking to the new media market articles as they are rebuilt. I've created a StarOffice spreadsheet, which has the basic wiki table markup; I'm working from that. When I want to try out the code, I just save as csv with the save filter set to no field and no text delimiter. Unless somebody else wants to beat me to it (please, I'm begging you), I'll finish with The CW and then go on to ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC...   user:j    (aka justen)   07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What else does this affect?

There may be similar cases of using copyrighted divisions, such as rail lines or even census divisions in countries that copyright their works. We need to find out exactly what Nielsen's beef is, and determine where the line is. It seems like referring to these divisions when talking about the authority that assigns them (as with rail lines, since the owning or operating company names them) should not be a problem, while, with Nielsen, we are talking about TV stations, not Nielsen. Can we please discuss this? --NE2 11:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about America, census divisions are NOT COPYRIGHTED. The census is done by the national government which essentially requires all its works be public domain (now there are exceptions like confidential documents but that is the gist). Rail line names cannot be copyrighted either in America. As I said above, trite objects (like names) are not copyrighted as held by Darrell v. Joe Morris Music Co. (1940) and Arnstein v. Marks Music Corporation (1936).--Jorfer (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I did say "in countries that copyright their works". And how is a rail line ineligible? The company that owns and operates the line chooses the division points along a longer line and names each segment. Sounds a lot like Nielsen choosing and naming markets. --NE2 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the legal question for a moment; A rail company may well have done research on commuter populations to determine where to place their stations... but they would derive no benefit in restricting access to that information. Once the stations are built the more people who know where they are located, the better it is for the rail company. The situation with Nielsen is completely different. Their research identified various geographic regions which were served in common by specific TV stations. That information is valuable to advertisers and thus they make money by selling it. The more of that information which is copied onto Wikipedia the less return Nielsen gets on their investment in the original research. So yes, a claim might be made that placement of rail lines, transit schedules, and the like are 'original creations' by rail companies... but they would have to be complete fools to seek to impede the spread of that information. If we want to get into, 'well but they theoretically COULD... and therefor we should not have such things', I don't think that holds up either. Back in the day one of the major 'hacking' cases fell apart largely because it turned out that the 'top secret AT&T documents worth millions of dollars' which had been 'hacked' were, in fact, available for public purchase for something like twenty dollars. The information did not have the value which was being claimed for it. Rail lines and schedules are given away... for free. Precisely because wide release of that information is beneficial to the rail companies. IANAL, but based on my understanding of past cases it would be impossible for someone to sue over 'copyright infringement' on information they themselves give away at no cost... even if doing so were not completely against their own interests. --CBD 19:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen does give away the DMA names at no cost: [15] --NE2 19:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not the naming of the market that Nielsen seems to be claiming as the Miami-Dade and Broward area for example is no doubt a common designation, it is the area of the market of itself and the name simply designates that. If they are drawing up boundaries like that of gerrymandering based on their research then they would have every right to copyright that area, but none of the templates I have seen do that; instead they refer to the general areas that receive certain channels. On the immediately above distribution comment, just because a company "gives away" something does not means they do not reserve intellectual property rights on it. Most Youtube videos are copyrighted even though they are being distributed "freely".--Jorfer (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The "immediately above comment" was in response to CBD; you should read what he said. --NE2 20:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Corrected it.--Jorfer (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Question for Swat or other legal OTRS

I asked Swat on his talk page who can tell us what was in the takedown. It's impossible, unfair, and quite dumb for us to do a single thing for this until the OTRS/office/whomever tells us what was in the take down, or tells us who to ask. DMCA takedowns, specific to the content of "what" was claimed, shouldn't and honestly can't be priviledged information, as trying to keep that quiet may offer no protection to the WMF itself, and makes it more likely that subsequent similar takedowns will just come through. I've worked with DMCA takedowns in the past in a professional capacity. Unless we know what was in there, we're just going to be back here again shortly. Can someone please tell us? rootology (C)(T) 17:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For privacy reasons we cannot. OTRS tickets are emails to the foundation, and for privacy reasons, we don't disclose the contents of emails people send to the foundation. I understand that makes things difficult, but tickets are meant to be private; legal tickets even more so. If someone from the foundation wants to agree to disclose the contents, that's one thing, but for a volunteer to do so is inappropriate.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand it's private, as does anyone else... I simply asked who we ask for the information. :) The OTRS people, Godwin? rootology (C)(T) 03:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I answered that in my last paragraph. It'd have to be someone from the foundation; as far as I'm aware no OTRS volunteers are authorized to disclose ticket information publicly. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A Simple Solution

If you believe Neilson's DMCA notice to be invalid, all you have to do is send a counter-notice to the Wikimedia Foundation. They are then required by law to restore the deleted content, just as they were required by law to remove it when they received the DMCA notice. Complaining about it here won't do you any good. I've done this myself regarding bogus DMCA notices sent to Wikipedia and it's worked quite well. The only catch is that by sending the counter-notice you are assuming liability for any actual copyright infringements that are restored. So basically, it means you have to put your money where your mouth is. Any takers? Kaldari (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that this goes against the entire premise of Wikipedia. No one user is or should be responsible for all the content on a page at any given time (unless he has created the entire page as it stand by himself). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act shows its age in its failure to address this (as far as I am aware). The Wikipedia Foundation is taken as representing the entire community and should (as well as is powerful enough) to act against the frivolous claims of other parties.--Jorfer (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest people just chill until the office opens on Monday. I'm completely unwilling to dedicate my day off on Sunday to straightening out this mess. There's so much incorrect information going on in this thread; the actions originating from the office were Dan's deletion and my restoration. I'm still trying to figure out who first said, "DMCA"; for that matter, any DMCA removal should be done by an office staff member or someone specifically directed by the office to do the removal.

The only thing removed under the auspices of OFFICE was a list of cities in a single article derived from an American corporation's copyrighted material (Neilsen). Anything else is from the community.

Also, if there's a lack of communication on my part about this, I will accept responsibility. I do reiterate that the only content to remain deleted under those auspices is the list of markets in the United States by Neilsen rank on the original article. If you've already replaced it with a non-Neilsen originated list, then that's certainly acceptable. Bastique ^demandez 20:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait...so the template deletions are a result of a possibly inappropriate use of speedy deletion by User:Cyde?--Jorfer (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

None of us know what was involved in the ticket, so Cyde and the other admins are bound to make some errors here and there. So cut him some slack, please. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Set your sights elsewhere. I made no decisions here; all I did was run the bot on the list of items I was told. --Cyde Weys 00:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Who told you, if I may ask? --Conti|✉ 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page. --Cyde Weys 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I may be dense, but I don't see anything other than you saying that Nielsen sent a DMCA takedown notice to OTRS. --NE2 06:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm going to have to refer you to Jredmond or MBisanz on this one." Cyde seems to claim he got it from staff which would contradict what Bastique said (...and the plot thickens).--Jorfer (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, it's up to the community to decide what to do with the templates, and we could just as well restore them? --Conti|✉ 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All this is is another reason why I believe these corporate overlords are controlling our lives. Capitalism has enabled corporations to get more rights than human beings - publicly available information should be able to be compiled without all this bullsh*t from corporations saying that we have no right to knowledge. Mnmazur (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would strongly suggest that any new templates created have *no* reference to Nielsen at all, and for that matter, remove Nielsen from the external links for any TV station or network listing. If they want to play hardball, cut them off at the knees. I seriously doubt that I am the only person who has clicked on the links to Nielsen that existed on the old templates, and if they want to claim the market names are theirs, fine. There's no reason at all to send traffic their way if they are going to use legal threats against WMF; we block users who do the same, and we should blacklist them. Horologium (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Revenge is in nobody's best interest. --NE2 06:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• • You are too difficult to talk/post to, see my post in [16] LaoziSailor 02:27, 23 September 2008 (GMT)
    • Just because something is freely available does not make it public domain. The first page of the excel document makes it clear that result of "their proprietary system" are copyrighted. Nielson has as much right to their data as Gallup does for Gallup Polls. If all the companies that have such data pursue this, this will be disastrous to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia will have to start having section be simply fair use fight in court in order to be a complete encyclopedia. I don't like it as much as you, but it is perfectly legal. What would not be illegal is the use of "Wikipedia market areas" that are based on common knowledge. It cannot use the ranking system of Nielson though.--Jorfer (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see how it would be any different from citing a book (page & paragraph) available in the public library, no copyright infringement, at least that was the way it was done when I went to school. BTW, at school we also did cover the Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 U.S.C. Also, FWIW the spreadsheet makes no reference to a "proprietary system", furthermore they should have updated the copyright to include 2008 instead of just stating "Copyright © 2007 The Nielsen Company".--LaoziSailor 03:18, 23 September 2008 (GMT)
      • Well, when you cite a book, most often you are just presenting facts, describing something trite, or copying public domain literature (Charles Dickens for example) which are not copyrightable, and some of the time you are using fair use (like if you used gallup poll information). However, Wikipedia utilizes GFDL unless fair use is absolutely necessary, since fair use presents risk of litigation when Wikipedia can avoid the issue all together. As you can see by Mike's comments above, the Wikipedia foundation is avoiding litigation if possible (as frivolous as it may be). You can be sued as a student for copyright infringement, especially if you quote large lines of text. Also, I realize that the system does not state anything about a proprietary system, but most things that have copyright symbols don't give explanations in the same location; I am sure that this is what they would argue in court to defend their copyright. Finally, if this document is from last year, we would expect the copyright to be 2007.--Jorfer (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I think, since really no one knows what is the in the OTRS ticket and what seems to be (not placing blame) a "jumping the gun" by Cyde and the speedy delete button, I think we should revert all changes (bring back all deleted templates) until a complete explanation of what is in the OTRS ticket is given. Cause right now, this is just silly and possibly in violation of WP:CRYSTAL (we ain't mind readers, ya know). - NeutralHomer • Talk 16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No. You're not going to get a complete explanation, as has been mentioned multiple times; OTRS tickets are private emails, and they're not going to be disclosed. Simply mass-reverting an action that a volunteer takes after discussion, in good faith, because of something that he is privy to and you are not, is as pure a violation of WP:POINT as I've ever seen. Take a presumption that the deletion was proper. If you bring it back, you're bringing back copyright-violations. That's obviously a no-no. Since you don't know whether the deletion is proper, and you don't know whether the content was a copy-vio, you should not be reverting it back in until it can be clearly determined that it is in fact not a copyright violation. Then, and ONLY then, should you be mass-reverting anything. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-starter for essentially why Swat said. However, if we are going to make a specific serious proposal could the OTRS people maybe talk to the Nielsen people who sent the OTRS comment and see if we can get permission from them to make part of the message public? That might help matters and I see little reason why they would object. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

@Swattie: You need to provide some guidance. "Look at what I deleted and puzzle it out from that", as you suggested to me, doesn't cut it, frankly. I asked you to share the contents of the ticket with me, promising it would go no further, and you refused. If I'm not trustworthy enough to see it, I'm really at a loss. If you won't give guidance, then you really can't complain if people are unsure of what exactly is at issue here. I don't think restoring everything is quite the WP:POINT violation you think it is, (although I nevertheless oppose that idea strongly) but I'd say this... are you absolutely certain you got everything that is covered, and nothing that isn't? Are you willing to commit to keep watch over these areas, whatever they are, in lieu of giving the guidance that has been asked for over and over? If not, I think maybe you should share this ticket with other trustworthy folk who are willing to do that. Or ... hope for the best, I guess. But stop hampering the community's efforts to deal with this. Provide guidance, or don't complain. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I explained to you why I was not willing to share the contents with you, at the present time, having reasons nothing at all to do with your trustworthiness, and everything to do with the circumstances surrounding this ticket. But yes. I am absolutely certain that I got everything that was covered within the ticket. It may be that there are other copyvios involving DMA stuff out there, but I got everything that had mentioned with the ticket. Anything else is the community's responsibility to deal with, or the the ticket author's responsibility to identify what it is that we're violating and notify us of it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's really hard to complain when there's no one taking responsibility for what happened. Cyde said he just did what he was told to, Bastique said that the deletions were not an OFFICE action.. So, who issued the deletion of the templates, if not the WMF office? Jredmond? MBisanz? Swatjester? Who can we complain to if we disagree with the deletions? --Conti|✉ 20:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked Cyde, and he clarified to my satisfaction. --NE2 20:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful indeed. --Conti|✉ 20:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen's major complaints were that the image File:TvDMAmap.gif and the regions and rankings on List of television stations in North America by media market both violated their copyrights. (They also objected to our use of the term "DMA" for Canadian markets, but that's a different matter.) Cary, MBisanz, and I felt it would be prudent to remove market information from other pages as well because Nielsen was so insistent about removing their data from the list article. Outside that list article, that information appeared most on the templates, so the templates had to go.

It's unfair to harass Cyde about the bot deletions — we asked him to help because his bot has done a lot of template-related work and because it doesn't leave a lot of loose ends. He was assuming good faith, as more Wikipedians should. Leave him and his bot alone, please.

In any case, because this all stems from a legal complaint, it would be foolish to mass-undelete those templates right now. Let's examine the potential copyvio status more closely first, and in the meantime let's work on improving encyclopedic content rather than enhancing the latest drama. - Jredmond (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So which of these, exactly, was the problem with the templates?

1. The name of the market
2. The DMA number
3. A list of stations in the market

--NE2 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We were most concerned about the name and number of each DMA region, since that's what Nielsen specifically mentioned. They did not appear to be too concerned with the list of stations in each market, though it would be rather difficult to list stations without mentioning somehow where they are. - Jredmond (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so would it be fine to have the same templates but with, instead of "Broadcast television in the South Florida (Miami / Fort Lauderdale / Key West) market", something like "Broadcast television in South Florida" or "Broadcast television in the Miami area"? If so, could they be undeleted as long as someone is willing to quickly edit the titles? --NE2 21:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, yes. Bastique already re-created List of television stations in North America by media market to reflect Census Bureau MSAs, so "Broadcast television in South Florida" would probably work the best there. - Jredmond (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically for South Florida, though, I feel Homestead/Miami/Hialeah/Ft. Lauderdale is better (which I used in the changed Template:Miami TV) because the term South Florida includes West Palm Beach (which has different local news which is reflected in its different "market area").--Jorfer (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Jredmond, it is much appreciated. I just wish it would've come right after those templates were deleted, and not three days later. Anyhow, better late than never, I suppose. :) --Conti|✉ 21:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought a few others were doing an admirable job explaining things above. I hope this clears up any further (answerable) questions, though. - Jredmond (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The initial explanations were confusing because they apparently were about List of television stations in North America by media market, while people asked about the deleted templates instead. It took a while (at least it took me a while) to figure out that one was an office action and the other a community decision. --Conti|✉ 21:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest giving the office and the people who actually authorized the deletions one more day to explain. If they don't, given that the office has explicitly said these deletions are not WP:OFFICE actions, and given that the original claim of a DMCA request was not correct, it's reasonable enough to recreate the pages. There is a mechanism for OTRS requests to be resolved without explanation, community discussion, or consensus, and that is the WP:OFFICE procedure. OTRS actions apart from OFFICE actions require explanation and consensus, subject to the requirement that that private information may not be publicly disclosed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And before anyone goes all "ZOMG admin bot", I'd like to point out that no decisions were made by a computer. I ran category.py to generate the list of templates and categories to delete, which I verified personally, then used template.py to unlink all of the templates and delete.py to delete everything. So, yes, technically a program was executing the deletions, but it was doing so in an entirely human-assisted way — really just a mechanism of saving me the hassle of having to go through and delete the entire list manually. --Cyde Weys 21:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you carried out the deletions in a perfectly reasonable way, in response to a good-faith request. It's not unheard of for bot operators to assist OTRS with large tasks on request, and nobody can fault you for helping out. Moreover, if the templates are undeleted or recreated after discussion, that does not mean the deletions were inappropriate as a temporary measure pending discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; it would, however, have been nice if this were made clear from the beginning. --NE2 23:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the cache of one of the templates, I feel that the templates could be recreated if the bot removed the Nielson DMA # in the top right, the Nielson category on the bottom, and removed the name of the title so that editors would immediately have to change it to a name that is more specific than the one Nielson has (such as I have done with Template:Miami TV).--Jorfer (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) resignation from Arbitration Committee

See WP:RFAC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Relocated here --01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InkSplotch (talk • contribs)

CSD templates still fully-protected?

Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion I have broadened G8 and would like to begin work on updating templates. As the changes are really only an expansion, it is not vitally-important, though it should happen soon. Can they can be moved to semi-protection now? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, wouldn't it be easier to use {{editprotected}} or asking at WP:RFPP? Regards SoWhy 09:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this is confusing, the rest of this conversation had just gotten archived as I was commenting (literally it was an edit conflict) so I started a new section. I was unable to reply in 48hrs. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So this follows on from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#CSD Template Protections? EDVERS is repressed but remarkably dressed 09:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The last comment was that there was no consensus to protect, and it would be lowered to semi on all templates. I can wait until this is done, but anyone can update G8 and redirect R1 if they wish. At this point I am too tired to trust myself phrasing it tonight anyways. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You could raise this with User:Hersfold. He did the cascading protection on {{db-g8}} and he is the logical admin to undo it, if that's now the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will be working on this in just a moment. Thanks for the reminder. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Twinkle says it did the job right this time - all CSD templates and their associated redirects should now be semi-edit-protected and full-move-protected indefinitely. The only one I left alone was {{db-meta}} because it was locked up before I got to it and should be as the parent template for all the rest. If anyone notices that I (or Twinkle) has missed any others, please go ahead and fix them or give me a poke if you don't have the tools. By my count, there are 344 of these things, so it's very likely one of them got missed somewhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Would someone mind terribly moving the current {{db-g8}} to {{db-talk}} (as a special instance of G8), and then moving {{db-g8a}} to {{db-g8}}? I am asking here as the second move would need to made quickly to avoid possible problems or confusion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Bencherlite^Talk 06:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Very quick, thanks! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Elias and User:Electroboyinc‎

When I was doing my anti vandalism patrol yesterday I noticed this article and this particular user Electroboyinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), had been editing in ways that seemed to engaging in WP:COI editing so I reported him however I am beginning to think that admin action may be needed here? NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The latest edits are undone, and I left an additional talk message. Pretty obvious POV and COI, the record company should not be editing the article. Keegan^talk 05:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD templates still fully-protected?

Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion I have broadened G8 and would like to begin work on updating templates. As the changes are really only an expansion, it is not vitally-important, though it should happen soon. Can they can be moved to semi-protection now? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, wouldn't it be easier to use {{editprotected}} or asking at WP:RFPP? Regards SoWhy 09:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this is confusing, the rest of this conversation had just gotten archived as I was commenting (literally it was an edit conflict) so I started a new section. I was unable to reply in 48hrs. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So this follows on from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#CSD Template Protections? EDVERS is repressed but remarkably dressed 09:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The last comment was that there was no consensus to protect, and it would be lowered to semi on all templates. I can wait until this is done, but anyone can update G8 and redirect R1 if they wish. At this point I am too tired to trust myself phrasing it tonight anyways. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You could raise this with User:Hersfold. He did the cascading protection on {{db-g8}} and he is the logical admin to undo it, if that's now the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will be working on this in just a moment. Thanks for the reminder. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Twinkle says it did the job right this time - all CSD templates and their associated redirects should now be semi-edit-protected and full-move-protected indefinitely. The only one I left alone was {{db-meta}} because it was locked up before I got to it and should be as the parent template for all the rest. If anyone notices that I (or Twinkle) has missed any others, please go ahead and fix them or give me a poke if you don't have the tools. By my count, there are 344 of these things, so it's very likely one of them got missed somewhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Would someone mind terribly moving the current {{db-g8}} to {{db-talk}} (as a special instance of G8), and then moving {{db-g8a}} to {{db-g8}}? I am asking here as the second move would need to made quickly to avoid possible problems or confusion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Bencherlite^Talk 06:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Very quick, thanks! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Elias and User:Electroboyinc‎

When I was doing my anti vandalism patrol yesterday I noticed this article and this particular user Electroboyinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), had been editing in ways that seemed to engaging in WP:COI editing so I reported him however I am beginning to think that admin action may be needed here? NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The latest edits are undone, and I left an additional talk message. Pretty obvious POV and COI, the record company should not be editing the article. Keegan^talk 05:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Site ban of Karmaisking

The de facto "community ban" of Karmaisking (block log) seems uncontroverted, but I wanted to give notice that I have marked it as an official “site ban” both here and here.

For those of you unfamiliar, Karmaisking is an "Austrian school" POV-pusher who has now used 25+ sockpuppets to edit war on economics articles and harass other editors. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Karmaisking. Since this user is still very active in violation of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK, et al., consideration and confirmation of this site ban is requested. Thanks. — Satori Son 14:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the ban. There has been a long history of abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I also support. The history of abuse is ongoing and extensive. As User:Lagrandebanquesucre he went out of his way to deceive other editors, attacking Karmaisking while sockpuppeteering. On my talk page, I at one point suggested he make a formal request to be reinstated if he cannot stay away; his response was to attack another editor (who he has subsequently been harassing). In short, no redeeming features and a colossal waste of time for editors that would like to spend time editing, not dealing with checkusers for those who have openly admitted using multiple accounts/sockpuppets to avoid indefinite blocks. (Checkuser page and my talk page and archive have documented, open admissions of doing so, specifically outlining that this is his strategy).--Gregalton (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of IPs

I have blocked IP 90.196.195.161 and 212.49.225.226 for two week for persistent harassment of an individual and would welcome review (particularly due to the length of the block and to the fact that they are my first blocks!). An inactive editor Phoenix45000 has been subjected to a string of derogatory comments on his user page, particularly from the end of July 2008, by a number of IPs, possibly the same individual; see Phoenix45000's user page history[17].

I came across this when Phoenix45000 attempted to create an abuse report (I am not fully conversant with abuse reports so I do not know if he has done this correctly or if it has been acted upon). I semi-protected the user page for one month and removed the derogatory comments. The IP 90.196.195.161 then placed a derogatory comment on the user talk page, which was removed by another editor, and I semi-protected that for one month[18]. I left a warning not to harass users on the IPs talk page[19].

Today, derogatory comments clearly about the same individual were made on the abuse report page by IP 212.49.225.226[20] and IP 90.196.195.161[21] (these would appear to be a work IP and a personal IP). IP 212.49.225.226 has previously posted a derogatory comment to Phoenix45000's user page[22].

This kind of harassment of an individual is unacceptable in my view and I have thus blocked both IPs for two weeks without further warning. I intend to ask for posts where an individual has been named to be oversighted. I would be grateful for views on my actions and what further action(s) might be appropriate. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that in one case there has been no edits other than those which are remarked upon, and in the other one other edit of around a year ago, then there is unlikely to be any collateral damage contained by the length of block. Therefore I think the sanction is within the executing sysops remit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

< Edits naming an individual now oversighted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - looks good to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Paaulinho

I was blocked all be it only for an hour after two images that violated copyright, which i'm now taking this opportunity to sincerely apolagise and clarify that i won't upload anymore questionable images. I'm just thankful i'm not blocked but User:Paaulinho seems to have uploaded at least ten faulty images and made several dodgy contributes to wikipedia and hasn't even been warned. If i was blocked for two then letting User:Paaulinho off is ridiculous.I don't know how he hasn't been found out yet. Ogioh (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"User account "Paaulihno" is not registered." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Paaulinho -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry i made a mistake when writing this but FisherQueen corrected it just before me

It has been two days since the user has uploaded any images. I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BUTTHEYDIDITTOO,ANDTHEYWEREN'TBLOCKED-IT'SNOTFAIR? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't dont know what u mean by that LessHeard? Ogioh (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

He's referencing the various semi-sarcastic "shortcuts" that policy pages (especially Arguments to avoid) often are given. Bluntly put, the implication is that you're coming across as whiny. More cordially, we can only enforce the rules when we notice there's a problem, so if nobody's noticed Paaulinho upload bad images then of course he hasn't been blocked. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. --erachima talk 07:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard all i can say is... immature much?

i'm not saying it isn't fair i was blocked and he wasn't i'm saying its absolutely ridiculous and a little bit fishy that the admins editing his talk page did't notice or act upon the amount of violations on his talkpage. Ogioh (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I should say so; I've had decades of practice... LessHeard vanU (likely one of those same...) ((abusive admins!) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. FeloniousMonk may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in the decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described in the findings of fact, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct. The Committee provides a list of six behavioural issues (click to read) which the parties in the case are "specifically instructed" to ensure that their future editing complies with. The Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances.

The Committee also notes that editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles. Furthermore, the Committee acknowledges the extraordinary duration of this case. Whilst there have been reasons for this to arise, an overall apology is due, and given.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, one of the things FM is described as having done wrong in that case is protecting Phyllis Schlafly, but the logs (wrong link deleted, see below for correct one) of that page say it has never been protected. Not that I think that alone would change the outcome, but what gives? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Err. You sure about that diff?--Tznkai (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Here [23] are the logs for Phyllis Schlafy, and indeed, no instances of protection shewing. DuncanHill (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see FeloniousMonk's list of protects: [24] (this one I got right). Do search on the page for "Phyllis". It's not there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Monk blocked Schlafly (talk · contribs) [25] even though they had interacted in a number of talk page disputes, [26]. Thatcher 02:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. That's not what I'm asking. The arbcom findings say that Monk protected Phyllis Schlafly (an article, not a user). This seems to be incorrect. I'm asking for an explanation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That part of the finding can be eliminated by motion if its untrue. I'd bring it up on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV.--Tznkai (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should re-open the case from scratch. It would then finally be concluded at about the time human beings colonize Alpha Centauri. Let it die already. Kelly ^hi! 02:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not interested in re-opening the case, just curious about how it happened. I'm also quickly becoming sorry I asked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for the arbitrator who drafted this to comment here.--chaser - t 04:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just the messenger. Maybe it was meant to be Discovery Institute (which he protected here)? Daniel (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it was 'Felonious Monk was a horrifically bad admin and thank God he's finally been desysopped'. But I could be mistaken. Kelly ^hi! 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not tolerated. Nor is verbally kicking editors just because they're desysopped. Remove your comments.--Tznkai (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible that JzG has been subject to several RfCs which decry his behavior and abusive admin actions, formally admonished by ArbCom for a whole host is issues (including abuse admin actions) and WP:BITEing the newbies yet he is still an admin? Bstone (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good candidate question in the next ArbCom elections. I know I'll be asking it. Kelly ^hi! 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, please don't exaggerate things. JzG has been the subject of two RfC's, one of which was subsequently deleted at the request of its author. So, he has one RfC and one ArbCom decision. If he, or any other party in that ArbCom decision, including me, does something in the future that merits additional action, then take it to the ArbCom enforcement board. Otherwise, please leave him alone. Cla68 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Please leave him alone." As opposed to what I have been doing which is...leaving him alone. Certainly there is nothing wrong with talking about JzG's RfC and now ArbCom rulings which clearly demonstrate he is not suited to be an admin and is an extremely poor representative of the en.wp community. If I was going to his talk page and jabbing at him then I think your might have a point, but unless this is suddenly a taboo topic or I am being topic banned then I see absolutely nothing wrong in making the observation that by continuing to allow JzG to be an admin brings disgrace and discredit to the English Wikipedia. Bstone (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Cla68 (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(More). I didn't mean to snap at you. I guess I'm hoping that we can get along better now that the case is closed. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I invie Bstone to add his gripes to the Wikipedia:List of grudges against JzG - that should be a nice long list, and, Bstone, for completeness, don't forget to include the fact that your grudge stems from a dispute over the St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine article, as discussed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher; you might want to reference the number of times you've made complaints about my "abusive" actions on that article, every one of which has been dismissed at every venue where you have brought it up. Perfect? Hell no, and I'd never pretend it, but certainly not abusive, according to the judgment of - well, everyone else you've asked thus far. Interestingly, there does not seem to be any willingness from anybody to consider any kind of limit on the number of times a refuted allegation against an administrator can be brought up. Maybe that should form the basis of an ArbCom case. Lighten up, Bstone. Maybe take a wikibreak. It might result in "meaningful improvements" in your constant rehashing of this dispute. Cla68 is right: the intention of that ArbCom resolution is to draw a line under a series of incidents in which a significant number of long-standing Wikipedians acted in ways which more or less entirely failed to cover them with glory. Axes should be buried at this point, not ground. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, that didn't take long. JzG, I shall remind you that ArbCom has indicated your behavior has been unacceptable. Your above post is as well. I will not comment on it materially but suffice to say that your formal admonishment and warnings from ArbCom are still in place and you may want to count to ten before you click save. Bstone (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do point out where the ArbCom finding says I am not allowed to respond when people repeatedly bring up grudges. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, forget it. As I said before, this is supposed to be a time to draw a line under past events and move on, axes should be buried not ground. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We will fix the erroneous citation in one of the findings. As the scrivener of much (not all) of this decision, I apologize for the error. I am a little surprised that none of the dozens of people who commented on this case spotted the incorrect link before the case closed, but this is what happens when we rush cases through at breakneck speed as we did here, but please be assured that the correction does not affect the analysis or the results of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is truth in sarcasm more often than not, Brad. The sudden change of pace did catch everyone off-guard. Centered on the behavior of three named users, their friends, lovers, extended families, and pet poodles, from the beginning of time to date, this case will remain for years to come the pinnacle of excessively broad scope. I think I speak for everyone when I say I'm glad it's over and done with, though I doubt any sane person bothered to read over 9000 diffs of purported evidence (1248 numbered ones but who's counting). Carry on. — CharlotteWebb 15:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Following request

Hello. I made very unconfortable contributions to Wikipedia where I added my personal informations to several talk pages. Please don't think that I got blocked for vandalism. That's namely not the case. I have to contact an oversight for this. Please leave me a message on my talk page. It should be discussed privately on my talk page. Retrinko (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight requests are done via e-mail, which is about as private as it gets. :) See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for procedure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's very serious don't expect a quick response, I made a request September 12 and the edit is still there and no reply - so I'd hate for it to be something completely outing on a highly frequented page ... but I've found that it's better to let something blow over rather than to draw attention to it. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never had to wait more than a few hours, perhaps your request isn't actually worth being oversighted. John Reaves 16:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote another message on my talk page. I would let my contributions from my other user account blow but I added a message on a famous talk page where million of users can see it. Retrinko (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to e-mail me, I might be able to delete it. John Reaves 19:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A few problematic edits

Resolved

 – Indefblocked.

Hassanjbeil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello. Over the past few days there this user has made a few edits ([27], [28]) made to an article and to my personal talk page. The edits are offensive and I think should be looked at. Thank you. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 17:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User has no productive contributions and has been given a warning already before the latest edit. Indefblocked. And next time, please click "save page" only once. —kurykh 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Concerning the duplicate postings. For the past fifteen minutes I've encountered a "Wikipedia is experiencing technical difficulties" error message when trying to post the message. It was only after this period of time that I discovered the traffic was successfully being passed to Wikipedia. I have not encountered this before, but I do apologize. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 17:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you get the Wikipedia timeout screen when you are trying to save something, hit the 'Back' button and then 'Preview' before you hit 'Save page' again. That way if it's actually gone through successfully you won't do it twice. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oprah hoax - Block-on-sight policy

Not really. Take a look at n:Rumors of Oprah Winfrey's death a hoax and keep an eye out for edits like this one. Giggy (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Over 9,000 penises, and they're all raping children? My god. They must be stopped! Seriously, expect significant damage to Oprah related articles, revolving around typical /b/tardery.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"The rumors started after a statement Winfrey made on a recent show, defending a United States Senate bill against pedophiles and child rapists saying a pedophile group has "over 9,000 penises" harming children." Okay, I LOL'ed at that quote. Tis' a shame the vandalism didn't somehow incorporate the 9,000 penises bit, I'm disappointed. seicer | talk | contribs 13:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of a band name. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

When are we going to make "participating in a 4chan hoax" a block-on-sight event? After the Miley Cyrus debacle, we basically had a list of a dozen editors that are willing to vandalize on 4chan's request, and did nothing. There's another list now. Do we just let these people proceed as editors in good standing?Kww (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my intrusion, but Would it not be a sensible course of action to look at what those Cyrus accounts got up to after they were identified as willing to do the bidding of 4chan, and judge the decision to "do nothing" on the results of that action instead of supposition and rhetorical questions? the skomorokh 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. 4chan hoaxes are now rising to the level of pissing people off, it's not funny, it makes work for people who are not paid to do it, and vandalising WP:BLPs is absolutely unacceptable. So blocking these hoaxers is not especially controversial, it's just a question of how long. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I go for three months nowadays due to harassment of other users and the "Edit Vandalized Revision" forced memes. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be block on sight. Disruptive editing is a blockable offense. Immediate indef for those trolling, if I had my say. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

While mass participation in Wikiality is deplorable, I still wonder what happened to WP:BITE... VG ☎ 16:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone is coming to troll, they deserve to be bitten, immediately and hard. While not being harsh on legitimate newcomers is good, trolls and other disruptors can be shown the door without a welcome. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone comes here for the sole reason of creating a disruption, then we don't need to issue a warning. We block on sight. BITE? They are getting no-less then what they are already expecting to happen. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Block long-term or indef, but to reduce WP:BITE just a little bit, someone create a new template advising that they will get ONE chance at an unblock after say one week if they promise to edit properly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

{{blocked-spate}} (Template:Blocked-spate). Thoughts? ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 03:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the one-week thing being baked in. On the Cyrus event, we had what appeared to be a mix of people that were participating (about 90% of the problem) and those that were duped (about 10%). There's going to be some false blocking of the duped. It's inevitable, and I'm not sure that a one-week block for gullibility has a lot of consensus going for it (I think it's a great idea, personally, but I'm not known for suffering fools gladly). Why not let unblocking by request proceed as normal, with an agreement that the response for "I'm sorry for going along with the 4chan crew" is "wait a week", but a convincing "I heard the rumor, and I was just asking on the talk page if it was true" can be treated a bit more leniently.Kww (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I say, leave the template as it is, but administrators have the option of unblocking sooner if they feel there is a good reason. Leniency options that are undocumented may help prevent gaming. Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of these users who come over genuinely don't know what we're about, then actually learn and are sorry for their earlier actions. I've seen that before. Orderinchaos 07:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you realise just how disruptive they've become. Ottre 13:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This template must not be used. It violates about 6 policies. Firstly saying what WILL happen ignores the fact that admins have discretion. Secondly, some blankers may have good reasons and should not be lumped in and assumed bad faith. (See WP:DOLT) This is just more of the regular vandal paranoia, we get it every so often and the wiki doesn't blow up. If the vandals are getting to you, go write an article.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand what blanking has to do with participating in a 4chan hoax and claiming that a targeted celebrity is dead. Can you elucidate?Kww (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only accounts doing that should just be indefblocked. period. (They can create another account once the autoblocker trips off.) Unfortunately, if you allow a template liek that to exist, it will simply be used more generally. The template mentions things like blanking, so it will get used for that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We aren't talking only about vandalism only accounts. We are talking about accounts like Geoking66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been an established account for some time, who suddenly inserts a death hoax, edit wars to keep it in, and then says a dog ate his homework.Kww (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Then make a template that is far more specific. This one is not. And can you link me to the new "block on site" policy it refers to.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to see in place of The edits you have made are associated with common spates of attacks? As for making this a policy, we are in the midst of discussing it, right here.Kww (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. But blanking is a "common spate of attacks" - so it needs to be something a lot more specific. And the problem with creating a template like that, before there is an agreed policy is that people start using it - and it refers to an agreed policy. I also object to any template that says what WILL happen - the fact is that the next admin will use his/her judgement.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

On the one week bit, I tend to agree ... see my comments above. Would Your edits seem to be associated with an orchestrated attack on Wikipedia be better?Kww (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdenting. Based on Scott's and my concerns, I propose the following, which can be found at User:Kww/Template:Blocked-Orchestrated

Blocked
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. The edits you have made appear to be part of an orchestrated attack on Wikipedia. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page, replacing your reason here with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.


--~~~~

Kww (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments

As announced last month, the Arbitration Committee is currently looking to appoint new CheckUsers. Applications have been received, and a shortlist has now been posted. There is now an opportunity for members of the community to provide comment to the Committee on the candidates. For the shortlist and information on the commenting process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--bainer (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WOO! About time! Tiptoety ^talk 23:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Breyer State University OTRS

Resolved

 – Question answered, additional tickets also linked on talk for other OTRS agents to see

What is the status of the OTRS regarding Breyer State University see [29] Can I delete the OTRS template on the talk page? (Note: I don't really understand what OTRS means.) Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For your benefit, WP:OTRS. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That template is just for reference I believe. No need to delete it. John Reaves 01:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The ticket is long since resolved. The OTRS template on the page is a historical record. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much, you guys are great!! TallMagic (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible image violation

Image:King Charles Spaniels on Great South Bay Long Island.jpg needs to be resized or removed ASAP. The image is in such a high resolution that the dogs' owner's telephone number is legible. Most of the number is legible on the left dog and what's not legible the left dog's tag is visible on the dog on the right.--Ted-m (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the image is at commons. There is no local copy. You would need to inform them or perhaps just tell David about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I upped a new version of the image and will look for a Commons admin to delete it. east718 // talk // email // 05:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Giggy (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Breyer State University OTRS

Resolved

 – Question answered, additional tickets also linked on talk for other OTRS agents to see

What is the status of the OTRS regarding Breyer State University see [30] Can I delete the OTRS template on the talk page? (Note: I don't really understand what OTRS means.) Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For your benefit, WP:OTRS. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That template is just for reference I believe. No need to delete it. John Reaves 01:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The ticket is long since resolved. The OTRS template on the page is a historical record. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much, you guys are great!! TallMagic (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible image violation

Image:King Charles Spaniels on Great South Bay Long Island.jpg needs to be resized or removed ASAP. The image is in such a high resolution that the dogs' owner's telephone number is legible. Most of the number is legible on the left dog and what's not legible the left dog's tag is visible on the dog on the right.--Ted-m (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the image is at commons. There is no local copy. You would need to inform them or perhaps just tell David about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I upped a new version of the image and will look for a Commons admin to delete it. east718 // talk // email // 05:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Giggy (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Bilodeauzx

I'm looking for someone to overview the recent actions of User:Bilodeauzx, and give me an outside opinion here on whether there's a problem, or it's just my own overactive imagination at work.

User:Bilodeauzx is a new user who registered on 21 September. In that time, he/she has:

• Created Mwynyw, an article whos truthfulness has been questioned, and seems to be on its way to deletion at AfD
• Created Mynyddawg Mwynfawr, another article that makes some dubious claims about this supposed medieval realm, including the delightful section "Mynyddawg Mwynfawr was very tolerant of it, and included rampant homosexuals in the ranks of his warriors. Aneirin told that the king was not himself above occaisonal indulgence in sodomy as well, perhaps due to his legendary libido." Sources are provided, but are not readily available to actually verify this rather far-fetched sounding story.
• Nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burragubba, with a rather bitey deletion rationale. The article was speedy kept.
• Created Template:Meth lab, which was nominated for deletion and then speedied. In response, the user simply recreated the deleted content in hardcode on his user page.
• With respect to the above template, also removed an earlier speedy tag from it with the edit summary "nope".
• Made some rather absurd arguments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Augustine.
• Added a veritable cavalcade of (often contradictory) tags to Danny Augustine, possibly in an attempt to disrupt the ongoing AfD discussion concerning that article.

None of this is completely over the line about what we consider acceptable behaviour, but it's skirting close enough often enough to be of concern. In addition, the user seems to have taken rather quickly to various procedures like AfD and the like, I'm not sure I was that good with templates and userboxes in my first fifty or so edits. Certainly not a hanging offense, but pretty suspicious I think.

It would be amiss of me not to point out that the user has also created some decent stub articles like West End Airport. However, I do consider it possible that those articles are just chaff to distract us from some subtle, yet unconstructive behaviour on this user's part. However, given that I have become rather involved in this user's behaviour, I thought it best to bring this here for uninvolved editors to take a look, before taking any action. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC).

Agreed (I've commented on several of these, having picked up his trail at The Danny Augustine AFD); "subtle, yet unconstructive behaviour" puts it well. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All the user's articles look like hoaxes to me and most of his contribs are pretty dodgy. Also, Enaidmawr suggests at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mwynyw that he's using sockpuppets. He reminds me of Andy Bjornovich, although this is probably pretty tenuous. I'd support a final warning or something; I doubt he is going to stay away from being disruptive. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We should compare contribs of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tom Sayle. — Satori Son 05:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And a lovely comment too. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Bilodeauzx (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone will probably want to check out this page Eight-ball_jacket created after this thread started. It is a little to late for me to pursue it right now. Also be aware of this situation at AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_page_rights. It looks like someone is having fun messing around. One day perhaps they will want to contribute to the project in a positive manner - but I fear it will not be this day. MarnetteD | Talk 05:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mynyddawg Mwynfawr has been prod'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 13:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod - whilst I fully share concerns about the original author (see above), as cleaned up by Enaidmawr, Angus McLellan etc the article is fine & notable, and should be moved to the more usual spelling of Mynyddog Mwynfawr, which is on a missing articles hotlist & has at least one incoming link. I've started a survey on this at the talk. I suspect the mispelling may have been deliberate, to avoid detection. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Images on Main Page

Resolved

I suppose I'm violating WP:Beans now, but most of the images on Main Page do not appear to be locally uploaded and are not protected on Commons. Or has something changed, and the images on the Main Page are now automagically protected? – Sadalmelik ☎ 07:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, the are cascade protected on Commons :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 07:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Thunderstruck45

This account was supposed to be blocked by the ruling at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Crashingthewaves but apparently the block has not happened. I put a note over at WP:sockpuppetry several weeks ago but nobody responded. The account is now up to no good again. Could somebody please fix this. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The user was blocked back in August, however blocks do not normally apply to user talk pages. Removing warnings and notices from user talk pages is frowned upon, but it is not forbidden. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Utc-100 sockpuppetry – blocked for one month

• Utc-100 (talk · contribs)
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Utc-100

I have come across a vast sockpuppet farm centred around Utc-100. There are quite literally dozens of socks, all showing similar characteristics (e.g. relationship to various Scandinavian countries, peculiar user-space sub-page setups) and a similar point-of-view and editing focus. There are also some copyright issues, though they generally seem to have been dealt with.

As there has been no small amount of good editing despite the huge amount of sockpuppeting, I have only blocked Utc-100 for a month. The socks are all blocked indefinitely.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange editing by IP account

I've encountered a user editing from an IP account (see Special:Contributions/82.109.91.181), and I'm having some trouble figuring out the account's edits. For example:

• inserting a reference to a "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [31]
• inserting a reference to a "John William Fearon" [32]
  • moments later changing it to "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [33]
• changing the name of a person from "Martin" to "Todd" [34]
  • changing it back a minute later [35]
• inserting a reference to a "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [36]
• inserting a reference to a "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [37]
• changing the date of birth to an incorrect year [38]
  • changing it back two minutes later, but with a loss of other information [39]
• inserting a reference to a "William F Fearon" [40]
  • changing it to "James D Fearon" a minute later [41]
• inserting a reference to a "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [42]
• removing a link from a disambiguation page [43]
• inserting a reference to a "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [44]

Despite the 'claims to fame' made in some of these diffs ([45][46]), there seems to be no online information at all about Guillermo Roy Fearon (see Google results). In addition, some of the edits (e.g. changing names/dates back and forth) can only be justified as testing, but this doesn't seem to be the case here.

I started a discussion with the user on just one of the issues (I noticed the other issues only later), but s/he seems to have stopped responding. My first instinct was to rollback all edits by the IP (all of the edits are essentially variations on the examples above), give a warning, and keep an eye on future editing by the account, but I would like a second opinion before I do that. In the event that these are legitimate contributions by a new user (perhaps writing about himself), I don't want to jump to the wrong conclusion and unnecessarily bite him/her. Thoughts? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This IP editor has already been blocked once for 24 hours, on 20 September, but here may still be hope of educating him about our policies. I notified him that he's being discussed here. From the Fearon DAB page, he removed a link to a real article about the criminal Brendon Fearon, and added an entry to the 'Fearon' song which has no article. Sounds like he's trying to burnish the reputation of the Fearons of the world. He seems to never add sources. If there is no appropriate reply from him, I'd agree with reverting all his edits. Some of them look quite strange. ('Martin' to 'Todd' where the article is clearly about Martin). EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a single mention in either JSTOR or LexisNexis of Guillermo Roy Fearon (I tried multiple search variations), so I'm fairly convinced that this is either exaggerated self-promotion ([47]) or a hoax. Someone who has supposedly had two islands ([48][49]) and a football stadium ([50]) named after him would surely be mentioned somewhere.

In light of WP:BURDEN, is it worth waiting for yet another response before reverting the edits? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's time to revert all the edits. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I posted an explanation/warning/invitation on his/her talk page. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The user continued making the same edits as before, with no effort to communicate with anyone, using another IP address. I have blocked 82.109.91.180‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 82.109.91.181‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two weeks. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(UK) Telegraph rips-off Wikipedia article, verbatim

I don't suppose there's anything that can be done about it, but this obituary for James Crumley, which appeared in the (UK) Telegraph, is almost entirely a verbatim rip-off of an earlier version of our article on Crumley. I recognize it because I've been working fairly extensively on the article since Crumley died, and had a hand in shaping it before that. With a little work, I could probably pin down the version used fairly well, from what was included and what wasn't.

Too bad some of our journalists are so adverse to doing their own work, and don't even have the decency to credit their sources! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 06:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, new journalistic lows. You should e-mail that journalist and demand compensation! L'Aquatique[talk] 06:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

*Mumble something about the sincerest form of flattery*. Protonk (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, though... even though it's not a copyright violation (at least I don't think it is, you might have to check the wording of the GFDL) that journalist's supervisors would probably be none too happy with this information... L'Aquatique[talk] 06:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and wrote an email to the Telegraph to point out the similarities. It's not good for a newspaper's reputation for them to be copying the structure of multiple paragraphs from Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Loosing reputation should not be much of a problem for the Telegraph, of course... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not the first time and it won't be the last. A more insipid example of this is Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 which was quoted verbatim by The Scotsman, then promptly "referenced" by the original Wiki author, who had created it here as COI OR. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Any chance that this was picked up elsewhere in the media? Would be nice to have a reliable secondary source for it, such that sticking it in the Torygraph article would be acceptable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You serious? How on earth is "British journo cribs article from Wikipedia" noteworthy? ;) --Bsnowball (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On my reading of Wikipedia:Copyright#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations, the Telegraph are required, amongst other things, to make the article GFDL. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All told, this tale sounds kinda cool to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Contact the newspaper. Any serious newspaper will take this kind of thing quite seriously. MastCell ^Talk 15:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

IANAL(Yet) but as I recall, GDFL requires all future material to be freely distributable as well, else copyright infringement. That would be a matter get OTRS and WMF involved I think. There is a second issue however, of plagiarism which is a big journalistic ethics no no.--Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for a fact, but I find it quite easy to believe that encyclopedia-makers, the writers, editors and publishers of print encyclopedias, have seen this many times down the years. I wonder how they handled it? Did they shrug it off, as one of the hazards of the business, or did they act to protect their intellectual property? I can see either course as defensible.

If there's a communication to the Telegraph, I would prefer that it came from the rank-and-file and not from the Foundation, but that's just me. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be interested in looking more into this for Wikinews. Can people email me any contacts/information they have on this? brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org. --Brian McNeil /^talk 08:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if people could help nail down the specific revision copied and provide more details on The Scotsman incident. --Brian McNeil /^talk 08:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You should also notify Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. This should be in our news. Kingturtle (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears the Telegraph has pulled their obituary (the link now hits some "File Not Found" page). However, I thus far haven't gotten any response to the email I sent pointing out the problem. Dragons flight (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I got a response. :D The obit has been pulled pending an investigation. --Brian McNeil /^talk 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I have a saved copy of the Telegraph obit text if anyone wants it. --Brian McNeil /^talk 18:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Party

It seems if on September 18 User:Duuude007 decided to rename a slew of political parties with the words "democrat" in their name them to read "democratic." I've moved the titles of a bunch of them back to where they are supposed to be, but now I see that he's also changed the text of the articles themselves. I just don't have the time to go back and correct this guy's mess. Maybe some of you do. --Visitweak (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a symptom of petty partisan bullshit going on elsewhere on the internet. Revert and block as neccesary and hopefully that will take care of it. Jtrainor (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of these are translations of foreign language names (so I've no idea if it's a noun or adjective in that context). However, at least New Zealand Democrat Party (1934) is called "Democrat Party" here. However, the google results for Christian Democrat Party of Canada, indicate Democratic is right. (This is all assuming that the organization's name for itself is the right name.) What's the grounds for this claim about partisanship, Jtrainor?--chaser - t 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lately there have been people getting pissy about the US's Democratic Party being referred to as the Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party. I don't really feel like going into detail as it's utterly retarded and banal. Jtrainor (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is petty and banal, but Republicans use "Democrat" instead of the party's preferred terminology, just to be petty and banal. Democratic is right, Democrat is wrong. Corvus cornix_talk 05:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be true for the United States Democratic Party, but it certainly doesn't apply to the vast majority of parties elsewhere moved by User:Duuude007. For example, the [[Democrat Party (Thailand)) really is "Democrat Party", and there are even references aplenty on the talk page to attest to this. Jpatokal (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I was responding to Lately there have been people getting pissy about the US's Democratic Party being referred to as the Democrat Party. It seems pretty clear that I was discussing a US context, especially since I was also discussing the "Republican Party" as well. Corvus cornix_talk 18:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was Social Democratic Party (UK) moved? That was the party's name (see the bibliography). This feels like two way pettiness on the whole "Democrat as adjective" issue. (And in the UK no-one ever gets worked up about it being used that way.) Timrollpickering (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The word Democrat can exist on its own, in the English language; When it is used as an adjective, it is grammatically meant to have an "ic" on the end. People have begun to drop the ic out of laziness, not out of grammar improvement. It is proper english, not partisanship. See Democrat Party (phrase). And by the way, the moment someone sent me a message asking me to stop making changes, I did stop, so I do not very much apprecciate the attacks. Duuude007 (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

However, some parties, such as the Democrat Party (Thailand), have "Democrat" as part of their name, not "Democratic". One shouldn't correct proper names for grammar. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not just "laziness" but a growing trend in linguistics to use the same word as both a proper noun and the derived adjective. Hence you get terms like "Iraq War", "Alaska Governor" (including on the position's website), "Ontario Liberal Party", "Liberal Democrat leader" and so forth. Even when it doesn't make a lot of sense it still happens - for instance the Australian Democrats' website appears to use "Democrats" as the adjective for the party itself. See also this piece on the trend: http://blogs.csmonitor.com/verbal_energy/2005/01/index.html#entry-3357788 Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, I think you are misinterpreting the word's noun-verb usage. The very examples you provided actually use the words democrat, democrats, and democratic in the proper syntax. There is nothing wrong with saying "Liberal Democrats" Party or "Australian Democrats" Party. They added the s, which makes the grammar acceptable. If you drop the s, the proper alternative is -ic, not leaving it as-is but again, I havent made any more changes... Duuude007 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No the British party are the "Liberal Democrats" (plural; and never "Liberal Democrats Party"), an individual member is a "Liberal Democrat" (singular) and the adjective used is "Liberal Democrat" not "Liberal Democratic". Similarly for a party normally called "the Democrats" the instinctive adjective is "Democrat". Timrollpickering (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is, the word "liberal" is the modifier (aka the adjective), and the word Democrat becomes the noun in the context they provided. It would be wrong in this context to add ic, (they aren't the Liberal Democratics). Hence they used the term correctly. On the other hand, when you speak of the term "Democrat" as a modifier instead of the noun, it needs -ic on the end. Just like we don't call the other party the "Repub Party" (I was tempted to use "Republic" as an example, but then realized it has an -ic in it too. That wouldn't pass in this new grammar you are suggesting). Duuude007 (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, this thread is soo off track. The proper conclusion is simple - we use 1) the name a group is most commonly known by in reliable sources and 2) their official name, each in the appropriate place. We don't care whether or not either of those names is grammatically correct. We no more grammatically correct something's official name than we would change a centuries old quote to make it conform to modern spelling and grammar. All the discussion about trying to be gramatically correct is irrelevant - we don't make such changes. GRBerry 19:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Echoing and spell checking GRberry's point. Seriously though folks, go find out what the reliable sources and the parties call themselves, and let that be your guide.--Tznkai (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD vs. PROD in a possible hoax

I nominated Aubrey giplin for CSD on the basis of db-bio, since it was completely unsupported and seemed to be completely fabricated (the author was similarly named). XSG came in behind me, and said it wasn't A7 and nominated it for PROD here [51]. After looking at the article and googling the subject, I'm almost certain it's a hoax, and probably just an attack page by a new user pretending to be the subject. However, I'm not sure of the next step I should take. If it stays up as a PROD, it could stay for days before being taken down, and if it's a hoax/attack, it should come down immediately as per WP:BLP. Should I just let it stay as a PROD, or remove the prod and tag it with a hoax/attack tag? I appreciate the advice. Dayewalker (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

if it's BLP and it's uniformly negative, Nuke it. SirFozzie (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

After reading it, I have deleted it under the clauses of BLP (Unsourced, negative information, no good version to revert back to). SirFozzie (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the naïve this may create an existential dilemma, as you cannot confirm that "BLP" applies until you know that it's not a hoax. This is one of the reasons I've always suggested that we pick one set of content standards and apply them everywhere. On a somewhat humorous tangent I recall one of my early experiences with deletion process, where I replaced a "prod" tag with a "speedy" tag. After an admin declined the speedy tag, I reverted back to the prod tag. But the admin said something to the effect of I couldn't do that because "you [Charlotte] contested the prod tag by removing it, so you must now open an AFD for it to be deleted". I wish I could say I was making this up, but I'm not. I'm not trying to complain about anyone in particular, in fact I can't even remember the admin's name, but from this lesson I learned early on to view highly structured processes cynically and with deep suspicion. Thank you, whoever you were. — CharlotteWebb 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. An unsourced biography article is either a BLP vio or a hoax. In deleting the article, SirFozzie either applied the do no harm principle, or improved the encyclopaedia by deleting unsourced nonsense. I defy anyone to say "you should not have deleted that article, it was a hoax!" SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You should not have deleted that article, it was a hoax!!!. I love to defy people. Great story btw, charlotte. It is so damn true its sickening. Keeper ǀ 76 18:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, luckily I'm not so coy about naming-and-shaming… – iridescent 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD was closed speedy delete (A7 according to log). 160.83.73.26 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is only "negative information", it can be deleted under G10 as an attack page, and a hoax G3 as vandalism. G10 does not require that the attacked be a real person. It could be Kermit the Frog. I thought common practice was to choose the correct CSD if the first one didn't fit?~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk: Olivia Bush

Another violater who has had about 10 images uploaded and deleted without any kind of warning, for editors who constantly violate like this, is more than a warning not needed? will someone please delete her latest upload Image:womanizersleeve.jpg Ogioh (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh the irony of you reporting someone for misusing fair use... Go to WP:PUI and follow the instructions at the top. This isn't the place to report this. – iridescent 20:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(adding) I've fixed the fair use rationale. This looks perfectly valid to me, she'd just misspelled the song title in the FUR. – iridescent 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't take well to insults this is the place evryone else goes to report copyright violaters. And please Irisdescent get over the britney image I uploaded two copyright violations is deifferent to 10 or more. Ogioh (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think saying "these type of people" is more of a personal attack than referring to someone's earlier contributions. It might be best to just let it go, eh? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed my comment so that it is maybe less offensive. I have let go of the past but evidently Irisdecent and a couple of others aren't willing to. Ogioh (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the above image is listed at Possibly unfree images. Shall we call this one resolved? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, this isn't actually the place to report copyvios. The header at the top seems to say the place to do that is WP:CP. So, please take these things there in the future. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, i only came here because it's where i was taken but now i know where to go. If the user gets a block warning i'd say we can call it resolved have you taken a look at their talkpage! Ogioh (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has had a block warning. Issue resolved. Ogioh (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A persistent user is creating new articles with material from existing articles.

User:Slikkidrajs is creating articles with different variations of misspelling of the dinosaur Rajasaurus: Rajsaurus Narmadensis‎, S. Rajsaurus Narmadensis‎ and S.Rajasaurus Narmadensis‎ with basicly the same content as Rajasaurus. I have tried to communicate with him on his talk page but is met with silence. I have placed a template box at his Rajsaurus Narmadensis‎ article [52] which was deleted without an explanation.
After a warning on his talk page he has begun to replicate material in new dog articles Cane Corso versus CC.Italian Mastiff, Cane Corso versus IM .Corso (w. another image). I don't know if this is an advanced type of vandalism or what? Please help. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You can just redirect them to whatever they're a copy of, if it seems like a searchable term. Otherwise, they're not terribly useful, and should likely be deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of a whole army of administrators and users redirecting and deleting Slikkidrajs' unnecessary articles and keeping him under surveillance, it would be better to send him a signal. If he and his IP address are blocked he can still write on his talk page. Then he can explain his intentions and if it's a green user he can be unblocked. If it's some kind of bet regarding creating as many articles as possible - Wikipedia's resources could be better spend. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of harsh measures, you could see if the education efforts and redirects above have the desired effect. Maybe he just didn't know how to make redirects? You dn't appear to have told him how, either. I will leave a note for him. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Having had a look at the pre-redirect versions, I suspect that the spelling "Rajsaurus" is not necessarily an error. The only substantial change from the real Rajasaurus article is the substitution of "Raj et al. 2000" as the authors. Perhaps these are attempts at combination spoof/vanity articles by a person either named Raj ("slikkidrajs"=Slik Kid Raj S."?) or associated with someone named Raj? In any case, I would support deleting all of these redirects, particularly the redirects that start with "S.", which are extremely unlikely search terms as they have no obvious connection with Rajasaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point on those two, they've been nuked appropriately. I'm leaving the other, as I believe it's a typo people might actually make. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Womanizer (song) - Photo trouble

Hi traffic article, crazed Britney fans are uploading many many many fake single covers. Admin assistance needed to watchlist articles, remove unsourced material and delete fake images. — Realist² 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many pictures iv flagged in the past hour. It's ridiculous. I'm not sure of you time-zone but i can only stay up for another hour at max, i've school in the morning and need to get up at half 6 Ogioh (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure education is more important than Wikipedia. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes i know but i do take wikipedia seriously and i don't have a problem with being a ittle tired for school just once. Not to mention i'm an avid fan of britney Ogioh (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a look through now. I personally consider the uploading of (knowingly) fake album/single/DVD cover images to be vandalism of the most sneaky kind. It also happens far too often for me to believe that everyone who does it is doing so in honest good faith, after having seen the pic on a fansite or something. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody could have simplyfied it in finer words. Ogioh (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In relation to all this about half an hour ago i put a copyright vio notice on Image:Womanizer Cover.jpg and left a message on User: Superpop's page yet she removed this notice and put it on the page again. Will somebody please give her a block warning. Ogioh (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The image currently in the article (the purple, black and gold text-y one) - whichever version of it is there (heh) when you next check back is definitely real. See here for confirmation. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Superpop's upload looks fine to me now, considering that I have now established that this is actually the real cover... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

yes i removed the copyright tag and apolagised. According to the site there'll be a surprise in a couple of hours so expect an unprecedented amount of traffic. But, now i need sleep so you'll have to deal with it on your own maybe. Goodnight Ogioh (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Procedural question - admins recovering deleted article content...

Resolved

 – No harm, no foul--Tznkai (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

...if they are "involved"? What is the policy on this? This is specific to this question here. The Prem Rawat Foundation was deleted through AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Prem Rawat Foundation. I noticed Talk:Prem Rawat/TPRF had been created by User:Jossi, who !voted on the AFD, and is certainly "involved" on any Rawat articles. I moved it over to Jossi's userspace here, as I didn't think it should be over in article or article talk space without having gone through DRV... it was only literally deleted hours ago. It appears that Jossi recovered and re-posted the deleted materials himself outside of user space.

Is this OK? If it is, please just archive this section. I'm not sure what the policy is on using admin tools to recover validly deleted materials and repost them without DRV outside of user space when you're an involved editor as well. Thanks. I left Jossi that note, but I wanted outside eyes here and all that since he and I are arguably involved too deeply right now, with the pending Wheel War arbitration and the evidence I put in against him. I'd rather just leave this for all of you if theres anything or nothing to worry about. rootology (C)(T) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say who the admin is is irrelevant. Re-posting an article deleted at AFD in substantially the same form is not okay, involved admin or not. Userfying a deleted article that doesn't include copyvios, BLP issues, or other problematic content, is fine, involved admin or not (assuming it's not being userfied to just lurk there indefinitely, that is). I'm not sure what Jossi was trying to do in this case; probably best let him explain it. Kudos to you, though, for userfying and asking him rather than just tagging it as a G4, which probably would have been unhelpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume it was a mistake. going to echo the praise above about asking/userifying rather than nuking from orbit. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Good move too, since userspace can be used as a holding pen so with Jossi's track record I agf as well. Keegan^talk 07:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: to comply with Wikipedia's GFDL, the deleted article's history should be merged with Jossi's userfied version, so the contributors to it are properly credited if/when he moves it back to mainspace when he's finished working on it. Steve ^{T • C} 07:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. Having material that was deleted in a AfD to a sandbox in article talk page is entirely appropriate as editors may want to use some of the sources in the deleted article, and has nothing to do with DRV procedures. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted on the grounds of lack of notability, but the material and sources in the article could be useful to expand related articles. We have a dozen or more sandboxes under Talk:Prem Rawat as placeholders for such material, and there is nothing wrong in having that short article and its sources there for consultation by active editors there. Rootology as the nom of this AfD, should know better than raise hackles in this instance, and stop raiding my contrib list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please retract the allegation of stalking, as you might be seen to be harassing me in retaliation for posting evidence against you in RFAR about abuse of your admin tools. We've never, ever had any interatction before all of this. I nominated an article for deletion, which I am allowed to do, as it had virtually no sourcing, and there was--except for one person and a few SPA accounts, nearly unanimous consensus to delete it. I noticed it recreated in a portion of article space several hours later--I had clicked on your contributions after noticing the deletion to see if it had been perhaps DRV'd, which I am allowed to do. I noticed you had recreated it, and on top of that, using your own admin tools out of line as an involved editor, AND you may have violated copyright and GFDL attribution by falsely claiming sole authorship of the article. As a courtesy I moved it to your userspace--I could have G4'd it as someone said and validly had it blown immediately away as a speedy delete, but I didn't as a courtesy and because I'm not a dick. Once I realized this was a little over my head, I asked on AN. Everyone said, "No big, lets move on," until you come here with a false and malicious accusation of stalking. You are out of line, and this is a very sensitive area for me, having been falsely accused of this in the past. Jossi, stop harassing anyone who disagrees with you, and stop using your admin tools in any way in anything you have a COI in, such as being an admitted acolyte of Prem Rawat. rootology (C)(T) 15:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding the details of this incident to the current Palin ArbCom case and also to the Arb notification board as a possible violation of the Prem Rawat ArbCom case decision. Cla68 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather someone else do it. If I'm going to be hit with the usual charges he levels at others that disagree with him now of stalking and harassing him (which applies to most folks that disagree, it seems based on the recent evidence), I'm going in self-imposed hands off from him for a few months at the minimum. I don't need to be harassed, when I have articles to write. rootology (C)(T) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to board a plane for a 13-hour trip back to my country of residence. Could an uninvolved admin or editor please report this to the Arb enforcement board, including Jossi's personal attack on Rootology? Cla68 (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Jossi has a self-imposed restriction a bit IMHO. At the time, he vowed not to edit the articles - now he's going as far as re-creating a deleted version of one of them? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the copy of the article, and listed the sources used in that article in a related talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already reported it [53]. Cla68 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have compared the deleted article with what Jossi posted to "Talk:Prem Rawat/TPRF", now at "Special:Undelete/User:Jossi/TPRF", and it is an exact copy of the deleted article sans infobox, and including additional sources (presumably found during the Afd?); it is worth noting that the recreated copy includes changes made to the article made during the AfD. The typical practise at Afd is for people to opine that they would like the article to be moved to userspace if they intend to salvage/reuse it, or ask the deleting admin to do so if the Afd is closed as delete. Otherwise, it stays deleted. Whether or not Jossi obtained the text from his own disk or via Special:Undelete/The Prem Rawat Foundation, the recreation in article talk space is very unusual, and it is not surprising that rootology thought that it should be userfied. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional question, Jossi = Momento?

Jossi claimed that he was the original author of The Prem Rawat Foundation. How is that? Jossi, are you claiming YOU are the editor Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He is the original author, as I just noticed here. rootology (C)(T) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that enough evidence to support a checkuser request? Cla68 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding... By all means do a checkuser if that is what you want to do. LOL! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So were you the original author of The Prem Rawat Foundation as you claimed? That's all I'm asking. rootology (C)(T) 15:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I contributed a large amount of the content. If all you wanted was to ask, you could. Instead you make an allegation of Jossi = Momento. You have some chutzpah. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not chutzpah, that's asking why you claimed to be the author who was Momento and not you, broke GFDL and copyright by reposting it with no history using your admin tools if you're not Momento and that's not his original draft, and that's it. Again, I'm done with this, and leave it to others to sort out and post to the various RFARs if required. And please leave me alone and stop lobbing accusations of harassment at anyone who disagrees with you. It's a civility violation. rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 20 September 2008

If I feel harassed, I feel harassed. So please stop this silliness. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Another silly allegation: I do not need to use my "admin tools" to keep a copy of an article on my file system. See what I mean by feeling harassed by you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone needs to slow down here, take a deep breath. Its Saturday. According to the (admin only) [article history], Jossi was a major contributor to the article, (and moved it at one point from Prem Rewat Foundation to The Prem Rewat Foundation. I'd be very hard pressed to conclude that Jossi is under any reasonable suspicion of socking, merely a major contributor to the article. Nothing wrong with having a userfied copy to "prepare" for recreation/DRV. Rootology did the right thing moving it from Talk:Prem... to User:Jossi/Prem..., as is customary for userfied copies. Keeper ǀ 76 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)(UTC)

The article was deleted for failing notability. Jossi restored the material and sources to a sandbox in talk space. Steve's right about the history merge. That's pretty mundane stuff, doesn't violate Jossi's self-imposed restriction as far as I can see, and is something anyone would do on request for an established editor. Moving it to userspace was fine too, though if there's as much enmity as there seems to be it might have been better to ask someone else to do it. Trying to find any wrongdoing in this, let alone justification for a checkuser, seems like a stretch. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi says "I had a copy of the material on-disk, before the AfD (I was the author)." In that context it is a simple leap of reason to see he is explaining why he has it on disk - he had been involved in the authoring of the article. The article was created on January 14, 2006 by Momento, edited by Jossi on January 20 and February 7 in 2006, and January 9, February 1 and March 14 in 2007. It is a very strange point that Jossi is making, as his on-disk copy is irrelevant, and he wasnt neither the initial or a recent author; but, he is the primary author of the article The Prem Rawat Foundation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic

Ignoring the rambling discussion on individual editor's merits, behaviors, and so on, and back to the topic of is it OK to use admin tools to recover deleted content in that fashion:

In my opinion yes. There is no harm here, involved administrator or otherwise. Article deletion does not mean "wiped off the face of wikipedia." It means "This article doesn't need to be here" unless there is copyright violation incidents in which case its "this content cannot be here." In otherwords, its just an article talk page he moved it to. No big deal. Its substantially the same thing as watching an article about to be deleted, copying and pasting the content onto an article talk page in preparation for merging the content.--Tznkai (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As an admin, users have asked me for copies of pages that have been deleted, either for private circulation or in their userspace. So long as there is no BLP, threats or other major problem with the content, I have always done so. If they attempt to move this into mainspace and dodge the AfD by stealth, any admin (including the one who restored it) can use the "already deleted" speedy criterion to blat it. As I see it, if it can potentially improve the encyclopaedia or is at worst harmless, then there is no risk to the project. Orderinchaos 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no big deal, perfectly normal practice to give out deleted content in response to good-faith requests, and no need for any silly bureaucratic restriction stopping admins from doing it for themselves. If it's not ready for primetime in a month or so I am sure Jossi will quietly nuke it. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WTH?

Resolved

 – wrong place, no vio--Tznkai (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know who Andrei Volkonsky is? This is a non-notable person. I asked some user who he was and he gave me a message in Russian. I don't understand Russian. I think this article should be deleted. Fclass (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fclass, AN is not the place to suggest an article for AfD. Moreover, the bibliography at Andrei Volkonsky clearly shows he has been covered by reliable, independent sources and that he scored a number of Sov era films. You might think about spending less time trying to get articles and images deleted by posting here and on talk pages (rather than on the fitting XfD project pages) and more time learning about Wikipedia policies whilst adding sourced content the the encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm being deliberately obtuse or anything, but he "was a Russian composer of classical music, conductor and harpsichordist" and "is the key figure in Early Music Revival in Russia." Looks fine to me. If you would like to have an article discussed for deletion, try using the steps outlined at WP:AFD instead of bringing it here, but please be sure that deletion is the only option first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not the easiest subject to verify in English, but not the hardest either. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

.бг unauthorised

Resolved

 – Page created--Tznkai (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was looking to create .бг, given the Bulgarian government has specifically announced its intention to register this internationalised country-code top-level domain (see [54] and [55]), but the article is unauthorised. Any chance it could be excused from the blacklist? — OwenBlacker 22:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Worked fine for me, try this link if you want to create it. I didn't think admins could overide the black list, but I could be wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think admins can override the title blacklist. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, admins can override most (if not all) local blacklists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Try it now, hopefully it should work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I signed in as my alternate account and created the page, so it is working fine. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks, guys; I'll go do some work on that article over the next few days then! :o) — OwenBlacker 07:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad in Hinduism again (again)

Resolved

 – Nobody has edited Muhammad since 24 September. Various socks have been blocked; there are no other issues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am reposting this from the Incidents archive since, as predicted, the problem has simply reemerged again as new sockpuppets have been created: user:CMJTHY, [56] and doubtless others. I don't know whether there is any technical meams to deal with this, but I think that page protection will only be temporary, since there is no possibility of meaningful discussion with this guy and that the particular edit (the specific claim he makes repeatedly) should simply be eliminated on sigh and repeatedly reverted as vandalism. Paul B (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We have had a repeated problem on numerous articles with a virulent sockpuppeteer who is continuing to get way with misrepresentation of facts and is now acting almost entirely openly as an edit warrior repeatedly reinserting the same content - which has been repeatedly rejected - in articles. He is continuing to get away with it because of his unrelenting sockpuppetry and persistence. I am sick of reverting and sick of raising the same issue over and over and over. Essentially this editor wishes to assert that Muhammad was "predicted" in the Hindu scriptures and has assembled a text which superficially looks to be well cited, but is in fact a compendium of ultra-fringe sources which completely ignore mainsteream scholarship. See See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RajivLal (2nd).

This editor, now under the names of User:.alchin007 and User:RedMonkey39 is no longer even bothering to conceal his sockpuppetry, as his edits summary clearly indicates. Making Sockpuppet and checkuser requests is time consuming and pointlerss when this indivisdual can apparently recreate himself so persistently. I think that this particular edit (he makes the same assertions over and over) should be recognised and treated as vandalism. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:.alchin007 and User:RedMonkey39 indefblocked. Perhaps you might have a case for requesting full page-protection (see WP:RFPP)? EyeSerene^talk 14:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a case of Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) POV-pushing. I'd suggest letting Dbachmann (talk · contribs) know; he's had a fair amount of experience with such issues and I'm sure he'd be able to advise. Notifying the fringe theories noticeboard could also be useful. I think there may have been a previous arbitration case about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Alchin was adding to Buddha that Buddha translated to Awakened one in Arabic, in addition to Pali or Sanskrit. Generally unwilling to engage, but didn't seem particularly troublesome, just stubborn.--Tznkai (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite its vague title, this AN item is about edits to the Muhammad page. There are no new edits on that page since 24 September, so I'm taking the liberty of marking this Resolved. User:CMJTHY, mentioned above as a possible culprit, has never edited Muhammad at all. The various warriors mentioned above, like .alchin007 have been blocked. The blocking of these editors seems to take away any reason to give full protection to Muhammad. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:The Virginian

I would to file a complaint about a user named The Virginian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he continually derides others for there edits, rejects any assistance other editors try to give to him in proper wiki ediquett by deriding new users for simple edit mistakes even though he himself is not exactly an expert in editing himself, and currently to prevent from being warned by others locked his talk page and prevents access to it by setting it to redirect to another page when others try to access it and leave him a message, I wish to remain anonymouse but I believe his antics have gone on for too long and feel you should look into his actions and dicipline him for his antics.- Deus257 (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... this, this, this edit war (which I apparently stopped, wasn't aware I was involved until I started checking his contribs), and his habit of redirecting his user talk page to Code Geass all look rather unacceptable, but it's not all recent behaviour. An admin should probably talk to him. --erachima talk 07:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped him a line. If you continue to have problems, see WP:DR. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

He's since been blocked by Xenocidic for redirecting his talk page to some random article. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked him for 3 hours for repeatedly ignoring the requests not to redirect his talk page and noted that further redirection will result in blocks of progressively increasing length. –xeno (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please help-Complaint

Resolved

 – OP was sock of banned user. Blocked by Thatcher. Nothing more to see here.

Hi

I am having a problem with a wikipedia administrator whom is stalking me all over the net. How and where can I can forward a complaint with logs.

Thank you. --Otsira (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence of anyone stalking you, or even communicating with you, on your account, which was created only a few days ago. What other Wikipedia usernames are you using, and can you provide links that would show this stalking? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User On.Elpeleg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive169#On.Elpeleg.27s_indefinite_block_--_review_requested. Thatcher 14:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, gosh, that doesn't look like an administrator stalking a useful editor at all. How strange that this user misunderstood the rules and the consequences of breaking them so profoundly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, is Otsira = On.Elpeleg??? If so, why is Otsira not blocked? If On.Elpeleg wants an unblock, why not go through the normal channels and request one? Or am I confused by this situation? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, [57]. Thatcher got it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Osmond Kendall to be deleted

Resolved

 – Moved to userspace. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Osmond Kendall is to be deleted. attention i have re eddited this post and now it holds no copyright issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty stardust (talk • contribs)

You removed the CSD template, but didn't provide the requested sources or assertion of notability (yes, he's an inventor of something, but the something isn't described very well). I'll move the article to your userspace to give you time to work on it: User:Dusty stardust/Osmond Kendall. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 19:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In Search Of...

Resolved

I am trying to make a page for the CD In Search Of... by Ten Ton Chicken. It turns out there is a cd by NERD with the exact same name. I tried making In Search Of... (album2) and it was blacklisted. Soo.. what would I do to make a page like that.Plastichandle (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Create it in your userspace - User:Plastichandle/Album article - and then drop me a line here and I'll move it to In Search Of... (Ten Ton Chicken album) for you. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 08:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Drug rehabilitation

not being accepted. ciataions are appropriate.I am trying to rewrite and update a psries of paragraphs in "drug rehabilitation. conyent is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.199.141 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry. Could you take a deep breath and explain this again for us? We're eager to help once we can guage the problem! Thanks. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Error message

Resolved

 – went stale MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We have constant issues with workstation using IE6 on W2K. The following error message is displayed :An Active X Control on this page is not safe. Your current security settings prohibit running unsafe controls on this page. As a result this page may not display as intended. Can you please get back to me about the exact security settings required to access http://en.wikipedia.org. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.1.6 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 August 2008

Please can you post details of this (browser, OS, which page you're trying to access) to the bottom of this page and our code experts will try to help you out. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 08:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning message

Resolved

I received this message in mistake. I never edited "Espeon."

Your recent edit to Espeon (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 05:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.128.103 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2008

It is very possible that another user had your IP address at another time, performed those actions referenced, and was warned, and you received that warning when the IP address was reallocated. MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll for "view-deleted activation" now open

In June 2008 the Arbitration Committee announced a request that the English Wikipedia consider allowing some non-administrators the ability to view deleted material. The summary of the announcement was

The activation of the passive "can view deleted" right, and a policy allowing its grant for good cause, would allow non-administrator users to gain wider participation in the English Wikipedia community. For details and discussion, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Activation of view-deleted-pages

Note that this is a request that the idea be considered, nothing stronger. The announcement led to this proposal. As this conversation has gone on for several months, the proposal has shifted around quite a bit. This makes it very unclear where editors are currently giving their support or opposition. For the sake of clarity, I am attempting to pick out the main proposals, and create a straw poll around them. Please share your opinion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea, it would help non-admin participants at DRV for example. Many heated debates are caused by a confusion with what people believe an article might have said, and what it actually said. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  Anything which can get me agreeing wholeheartedly with Guy has got to be a good thing :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Unless I can mark certain deletions as "BLP", "copyright violations" or "sensitive material", which are not viewable by people with this userright, this will be an absolute disaster. Daniel (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • I disagree. What makes admins anymore special than normal users in that they can be trusted with deleted content? If it's really bad it should be oversighted. -- how do you turn this on 13:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Because it has been established that they have community trust. Oversight is harder to do, there are less oversighers than are able to do the work. ffm 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

RFA is not a brilliant way of determining community trust. -- how do you turn this on 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a user flag, so DRV particpants would be able to see all deleted material, not just the articles in question at DRV. As a non-admin, I would find this useful in researching page recreations, or looking at deleted contribs of suspected sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; It's a good way of determining if the community trusts someone, but the community isn't always the best judge of character. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with Daniel - and also up the ante by noting that all previous deleted content would have to be flagged by default since only net-new deletions could receive the flag. –xeno (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not (and there may be a very good reason) approach it from the other direction. Rather than having a user-level flag, why not have an article-level flag which can be set by an administrator in the same way that, say, protection is. If an article comes up at DRV, someone sets the flag - all users can then see the deleted revisions of that article, but cannot see the deleted revisions of all articles...deletion review closes, flag gets unset. I don't think allowing everyone to see all deleted revisions is really a way forward, and about the only valid argument that people are putting forward is "it would be helpful in DRV". _Gb^T/c 16:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. If nothing else, it would stop the constant flood of [[WP:CSD#G4|]] tagging of articles which happen to have the same name as a deleted article. – iridescent 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment can people stop supporting or opposing here, and go to the straw poll instead? Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Adminship is no big deal. Thus it's no big deal for trusted users who have been editing the wiki for years (3+ in my case) to see a few deleted revisions. If it's really bad then ask for oversight. It's really not that big of a deal. Bstone (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll closure

Resolved

 – Closed by User:EdJohnston. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Could an administrator close out the straw poll at WT:NYSR? They don't need to execute the results; they can just put the closure templates on. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:House1090 followed request for time off, asking for unblock

Resolved

 – editor unblocked. Good luck and welcome back :) - Alison ^❤ 11:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

See:[58]. He seems to be genuinely asking for a second chance. The consensus at the prior discussion at AN: [59] was that he was not far enough removed from his most recent bad actions to consider an unblock at that time. Given that its been seven weeks, and I have not seen any evidence of sockpuppetry or other problems in all that time, perhaps its time to reconsider an unblock. What does everyone else think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For more background, see:

• House1090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked since November 2007)
• House10902 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked since December 2007)
• Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/House1090 (filed November 2007)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive159#User:House1090 (unblock requested, and declined, in August 2008)
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of House1090
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive119#Silly people (January 2008)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001 (December 2007)
• Wikipedia:List of banned users#House1090

Those who argued against lifting the block in the last WP:AN discussion (Archive159) had some powerful arguments. If some of those editors familiar with the case, such as User:Amerique and User:Alanraywiki, were to change their view then I'd consider supporting an unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Provided Alanray is ok with it, i would be ok. i don't have a lot of time for editing WP these days, but i still check my watchlist daily so if/when he messes up in So. Cal. mainspace areas again i'll be aware of it. I appreciate him asking through an old account instead of starting up a new round of socks. Amerique^dialectics 17:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to give House a second chance. However, he should probably be required to stay away from articles involving the Inland Empire and related articles, like San Bernardino, California, Riverside, California, and other cities in that area. Almost all of his edits in those areas were disruptive. Those are my thoughts. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As checkuser, I was involved in a number of his sock cases already. I've been asked to comment here by an involved party. Per Alanraywiki, I've no problems with a conditional unblock, as he's kept his promise of late and seems genuine in his wishes to return 'properly'. However, I'd recommend that he be adopted/mentored by an experienced editor for a period of time, if that's at all possible - Alison ^❤ 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried informally mentoring one of his accounts before that "Redspork" incident, but that clearly didn't work. He seems to have shown some maturity since then in his work through "Nelity," [60]. He hadn't apparently broken any rules through that account before it was blocked per AN consensus. I don't have time to mentor this guy, but if i see him messing up again I'll be sure to let him know about it. As far as I can tell he hasn't been using multiple socks to game 3rr or create a false impression of consensus on articles, so i would think ordinary alertness on the pages he edits would be enough for a normal consensus to counter any outrageous incidents of POV, bad formatting or grammatical errors on his part. So, if we are to let him back, I think it would be better to let him without restriction so he can prove that he is capable of working within consensus on all articles, rather than make some articles more tempting for him to edit via socks. Amerique^dialectics 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on these recommendations, I am prepared to unblock his account. I will let him know that he is on a short leash, and that if he returns to any more of the problematic editing and/or sockpuppetry that led to the prior block, he will see it return post-haste and that it will be less likely for anyone to unblock him again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Help Needed about certain user

Resolved

 – The last two warnings (which had nothing to do with Realist2) were a mistake and have been removed. No need for administrative intervention. Not the place for discussion on the reliability of sources. Cenarium ^Talk 14:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have recieved block warnings for this edit to User talk:Realist2. and this edit to Talk:Womanizer (song). This isn't vandalism User:Realist2 was disregarding information from an official website that had its credibility clarified the night before. This past week or so Realist2 has practically been wikistalking me reverting a lot of my edits and succeeded ni getting me blocked. I have tried to make ammends as you can see on his talkpage but he continues to be difficult and awkward for no real reason. I am at loss here as to what to do. This is my last resort before i get blocked for no reason. HELP NEEDED! Ogioh (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, if you call watchlisting the article wikistalking you need to calm down. Also I only handed you one notice today I believe. — Realist² 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also if Ogioh was blocked it was because he deserved it eg. clear copyright violations. Speak with User:Iridescent about that if needs be. — Realist² 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe wikistalking isn't the right word exactly but you know you have been intentionally awkward. I've been made to feel very nervous and uncomfortable when editing wikipedia. Ogioh (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist's only edit to your talk page recently was this warning about your edit to Womanizer (song). The warning regarding Realist's talk page was actually issued by RyanLupin here. Useight (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that you feel uncomfortable editing wikipedia. I handed you one warning today for adding poorly sourced info to an article. The other warnings have NOTHING to do with me. — Realist² 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

He also reverted my edits on womanizer (song) User talk:Realist2 and Talk:Womanizer (song) and declard them as vandalism. Anyone who looks at these edits will recognise straight away they aren't. Most of this is going on OFF my talkpage. Ogioh (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This hardly involves me at all. Please strike comments against me, they are false allegations. — Realist² 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The admins can say the allegations are false when they go through the edits of mine you've reverted and check why two very recent edits were declared vandalism. Ogioh (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never called your edits vandalism, just material added by a poor source. — Realist² 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

First off you know the site's her official site. You didn't bother to check the source you claimed it was fro popjustice. Besides your not the person i need to be having this discussion with. I tried to make amends on your page but you carried on as usual the next day. Thats why i'm here you don't ant to co-operate. Ogioh (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No Ogioh, neither Popjustice or the fan blog section of Britneys "official" site are considered reliable. Particularly when Billboard with come around in a few and release a piece. This is a content dispute that can be resolved quite peacefully anyway, no place for AN. — Realist² 00:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am asking for admin assistance here!? Its this type of ignorance that i'm talking about because YOU against the vast majority say its unreliable YOUR right. Your talkpage clearly shows other examples of this. Ogioh (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sock puppets and trolls have accused me of a lot this week, thankfully I got them all blocked. I haven't gone completely insane to the degree that I can't differentiate reliable sources for GA or FA criteria. — Realist² 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am neither sock puppet nor troll. Please admins help!? Ogioh (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of being one either. — Realist² 00:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you went as far as you could before it came obvious that it was a blatant insult. This thread needs admin help thats why its here. Whenever an admin steps in please feel free to resume your comments.Ogioh (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I was telling you that you should listen to half the crap on my talk page because it's from blocked sock's and trolls. Stop accusing me of stupid things like stalking, personal attack, making you feel uncomfortable. Hell, I wanted to watch this Presidential debate in peace. Obviously won't be happening tonight. — Realist² 00:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, enough is enough. This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Realist, as I've already told you, stop reverting Ogioh unless you see a truly blatant problem - it's not like Britney Spears is exactly an unwatched article; Ogioh, stop uploading copyvios and read WP:RS before you add information sourced from blogs. OK? – iridescent 00:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The copyright vios have stopped and its her official site. User:Gwen Gale has already said so on the womanizer talkpage and i don't know much about her other than that she is a respected admin. He's no excuse to be reverting my edits maybe did a week or a week and a half ago but not this past few days as he has been doing.Ogioh (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(To Irid) Fine, I was only trying to make something of the Womanizer (song) article. I'll just go back to my Michael Jackson collection then. — Realist² 00:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• On the two warnings addressed by RyanLuppin, I don't view them as justified. I don't think an administrator would block you for that. When editing, keep in mind our policy on verifiability and reliable sources and it should be fine. Blogs should generally not be used as a source, discuss the reliability of a source on the talk page if in doubt (we also have WP:RSN). Cenarium ^Talk 01:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ogioh (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Can this be closed as resolved? Hardly any of this has anything to do with me, I no longer want to edit that article anyway, Ogioh quickly reinserted the blog (oh well), nothing should happen to RyanLupin, and let's just leave that article to disintegrate. Case closed. — Realist² 03:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I marked this resolved. Cenarium ^Talk 14:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

I appreciate it's against the Spirit Of Open Editing, but I've put a 12 hour semi-protect on Ted Kennedy. His "death" has been added six times in the last 10 minutes, despite not being announced (or even intimated) on any reputable source. As many eyes as possible would be useful, especially if the semi's lifted. – iridescent 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the article to the #wikipedia-en-blpwatch IRC feed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat?

[61] "look wikipedia your starting to be a pain in my but stop or i will sue you"

I can't seem to figure out what his problem is though and the IP only has those two recent edits and another one in May 2007? sicaruma | contribs 04:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a potential BLP issue to me. The IP is obviously unexperienced with Wikipedia, and tried to add "age 67" to the biography of someone we are saying was born in October 1943 (so he should be age 64). This couldhe be the subject himself, trying to correct a widespread wrong date of birth. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but I doubt if an English actor would use the phrase "pain in the butt" (and then spell it wrongly as well). Also, the IP resolves to the USA. Black Kite 08:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, John Nettles is stated to have been born in 1943 on imdb [62] and being 64 in a Telegraph article from this year [63] which makes me doubt that it's him. sicaruma | contribs 08:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of people called Nettles in Dallas. Anyway, it seems best to ignore the IP. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What Black Kite said. Language is not compatible with this individual, who is well-educated and eloquent, and speaks British English at that. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Archived at request of Steve Crossin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Many of you know the history here, so I don't think I need to go into that much detail but stick to facts as best as I can. This is more like a review, as requested on his talk page.

PeterSymonds: a password was given to Steve to use this admin account, and a large number of actions were taken. As far as I can tell, (and no one has said otherwise; the community or arb com) all were proper actions save for the fact that they were not performed by an admin, but by steve.

ChetBLong: Steve requested Chet's password, and Chet gave it to him after they had a discussion because he trusted Steve; a few days later Steve protected an article with Chet's admin account. In the end it was a non controversial edit (two: placing a protect template up, and protecting a page), which did no harm (not to excuse them)

Steve has been on wikibreak enforcer for a little over a month now. ArbCom did not specify the length for his break, but this was more like a general agreement between ArbCom, and Steve. He was the one who requested the length of one year be applied to his monobook.js in good faith and ArbCom noted that the community may be asked regarding when he may resume editing on Wikipedia. From what I can see, there is no block or ban placed on Steve. Given the nature of the situation, I would like to propose that Steve be given another chance to redeem himself to the community. The idea of a mentor comes to mind, but I don't think one is needed (they are usually for new editors, and Steve is not a new editor). I'm sure there might be someone (an admin) who would be willing to watch him closely if that is in fact needed, though Steve would prefer it. Of course, most importantly, Steve has promised to use only one account with no shared accounts, and agrees to any restrictions the community decides. I think time served will best describe this proposal. Synergy 10:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it is quite clearcut that steve wont do this again, nor would any admin I support this proposal without mentoring. I feel that present situation of a enforced "wiki break" is punitive and not in the interest of the wikipedia community or its goals. My justification of my support is In such situations one must put aside personal feelings and think what is best for the prject, it is clear that steve is a very dedicated contributor and chances of him making a taboo like he did, again are extremly low. One must also take into account is good behavior, morals and standards (up untill the discovery of the incident that lead to his premature fall), they were of an above satisfactory standard.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Henrik has already cleared the monobook.js and the account is not blocked. No further action necessary, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He's a valuable editor and I support his request to return —— RyanLupin • (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he's learnt his lesson. No doubt he won't be silly enough to do something like this again. And if he did, the consequences would likely be more severe. -- how do you turn this on 12:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment:As Steve Crossin knows, the Committee gave him a 6 month ban, but we did it in a friendly manner by not blocking his account. This was well understood and agreed to by Steve. I'm afraid that he can not start editing by simpling having his wikibreak enforcer removed. If he wants his ban appealed then he needs to talk to the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And if the community agree to unbanning, what happens? ArbCom aren't above the community. -- how do you turn this on 12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed you blocked him. Why was that? Isn't that violating the part of the block policy which states blocks should not be punitive? -- how do you turn this on 12:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is the modern world we live in. Where the people we elect see fit to override those who voted for them some what of a paradox and Ammusing to say the least. The block is a farce and is punitive. This is how we thank one of our better editors and more importantly, how Arbcom choose to behave. An interesting thought, who asked to commitie to interfere here with steve's restrictions? I thought that should have been left to the community after all. More conrcerning is the notion that Arbcom had ignored emails from steve, to my knowlege the community DID NOT elect arbitrators so they could ignore emails about thier enforcements.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there was not really enough discussion to merit a lift of the ban. If he was banned, a thread here with 3 supports cannot lift it, even if ArbCom is not above all the world. There has been a great deal of discussion which lead to the ban if I recall correctly and I'd say it needs some larger discussion to reverse that ruling. Personally I think he should have appealed to the ArbCom first but even if we decide to discuss the matter here, we should discuss it in length, not just removing the wikibreak enforcer. I do not think that creating a conspiracy theory on the ArbCom's actions is really helpful and if they made mistakes (like if they really ignored mails from Steve), we can discuss this too in the correct places. SoWhy 13:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Question to the arbitrators: Why did you ignore steve's email? Probable Answer: All good things to those who wait.. Well lets see, I first of all would like to see the arbitration request that had steves name on it as im sure the ANI thread att said no further action should be taken, the was the consensus.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Promethean, the ordinary course of such matters is that a request is received, that receipt is acknowledged (as happened here, Steve was informed that the Committee would consider the matter), the Committee discusses the matter, seeking further dialogue where appropriate, and a decision will be made one way or the other. We are still at the third stage here. That has already lasted a week, but it is an unfortunate fact that the Committee has many priorities, and this is but one of them. --bainer (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1)ArbCom rulings are not optional. 2)When we give them in the friendliest manner possible, by not blocking the account, we do it because we trust the editor to follow the ruling. 3)It is my judgment that Steve Crossin is not following the letter and the spirit of the ruling which was for him to take a long break from Wikipedia for the benefit of Steve and the Community so I blocked his account. (We discussed and agreed that 6 months was a good length of time for his break/ban.) 4) The Committee deals with many issues on a daily basis. We prioritize them based on what is best for the Community. Steve Crossin's email was answered but not given top priority because getting him a mentor was not seen as a pressing issue.

I have other Committee work to do now so I might not reply here to further comments in a prompt manner. That does not mean that I don't care about Steve or the Community's views. It means that other issues are more pressing at the moment. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a very unfortunate attitude. What if the community no longer thinks they're better off with him banned? I'll repeat what I said above: arbcom is not above the community. We only look to arbcom when we can't decide. ArbCom should not be taking things into their own hands. -- how do you turn this on 13:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Steve has always been a great editor and should be allowed back. He didn't do anything harmful to warrant such a lengthy block - 1 month has been plenty long for him to learn from his mistakes and I'm confident he won't do it again. SeanMooney (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - he made one mistake. If ArbCom aren't interested in letting him appeal, the community can instead. ArbCom do not exist to tell the community what to do. They are not above us. -- how do you turn this on 13:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  See m:Foundation Issues - Point 5 - "The Arbitration Committees of those projects which have one can also make binding, final decisions such as banning an editor.". So yes the committee are empowered with decision making over the community. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Six month ban is not very long for suborning an admin and it does rather look as if Steve has abused the good faith of others in this matter, since it sounds very much as if he was told that a lengthy break was needed, not a couple of weeks. I have no problem with this. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• A great editor maybe, but the actions of Steve for this 6 months ban were not insignificant (not exactly "one mistake"). There's no reason the arbcom ruling should not unfold as expected. I'm not against considering a review or an appeal, but I'll certainly not support an unblock or unban in the present situation. It's not the way to proceed anyway. Cenarium ^Talk 14:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone was to "not edit" for 6 months, but chose to go on voluntary WikiBreak, rather than being blocked, but then they return before the end of that 6 months, they indeed should be blocked. Just because the arbitration committee was being considerate in how the "no editing" time period was applied, doesn't mean that the 6 month "no editing" restriction was lifted.

And honestly, do you really want to set the precedent that any time the arbitrators are considerate, others may undo their actions? That's about a fast way as possible to end such consideration. - jc37 14:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: Arbcom should have Never impossed that ban so steve is not evading a ban at all really. Arbcom were out of line, the community consensus at the time said no further action was required but instead they decided to basically blackmail (go on a long break or have a block) steve into a ban knowing that steve would not want a block and that the community would not support one. and now they pipe up and cry foul becuase steve wants it reviewed.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom did impose the ban, if you don't like it then appeal it, you don't get to decide who is banned and who isn't based on who you like or what you think of the outcome, if we do not respect ArbCom bans then we have absolutely no workable means of controlling abuse of the project, and any admin who unblocks an ArbCom banned user in defiance of the ban will be lucky not to be banned in turn. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy is quite correct. Furthermore, this user has breached trust and was lucky not to be banned for life. That he is agitating for a return so soon, and is trying to play emotional blackmail by talking of how he didn't sleep for 40 hours and nearly broke his nose (see his talk page!), suggests this place is not for him George The Dragon (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve did appeal it, but got ignored. -- how do you turn this on 14:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong on two counts. First, he did not get ignored, the response just took longer than he wanted (dock the ArbCom an hour's pay, whatever). Second, it's not up to you to handle the appeal and unilaterally decide that it is granted. No response means no change in this case, not acceptance of the appeal. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to Promethean above on this point. --bainer (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Break

In this, can you find any consensus to ban steve for any period of time? if not (cause there isnt) why did arbcom still act?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hate to break this to you, IRC fanboy brigade, but YOU ARE ALL PEONS. If the ArbCom decide they want Steve banned for six months, that's just how it goes, and you can merrily piss into the wind for all it matters. You elected these guys your overlords, your godkings. If you didn't realise this at the time - well, you should just have paid a bit more attention when voting. And you get the chance to remedy the mistake, if that's how you view it, in another couple of months at the next round of elections. Frankly, messing around with admin buttons when the community has not entrusted you with them should really get you permabanned, so Steve can count himself very lucky with six months.

BTW, it is worth noting while in theory arbcom authority is set in stone, but if the community of admins collectively decided not to enforce an arbcom ruling - or to act contrary to it - arbcom probably would be forced to change their minds, as the alternative is Jimbo desysopping a couple hundred of his regulars, which would lead to chaos. But in this case, I doubt that's going to happen. So, if you disagree with an arbcom decision, and they won't change their minds, and the admin community collectively agrees with the arbcom - or even is undecided about the matter - there ain't squat you can do. Tough. Moreschi (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Harsh but fair. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful, Moreschi. Let's try to have some reasoned dialogue. I don't really expect that from Promethean, but this kind of rhetoric does not aid the discussion. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As Synergy noted, Steve made an agreement with ArbCom and imposed a one year ban on himself. So to say "From what I can see, there is no block or ban placed on Steve," doesn't make sense. The fact that he cut this deal is what prevented discussion by the community for a duration. There was no one, that I recall, stating that a year was not long enough. To blindly remove the enforcer from his monobook without community discussion or approval from ArbCom does not make sense to me. It's been a month. And he made more than one mistake. He not only made hundreds of administrative edits without community approval or knowledge, but he also spread my daughter's name around like lotto numbers. It's not a punitive block. It's a block to give him a chance to reflect and mature. This request was ill-conceived and contradictory to itself. And those supporting give the terrible and unfortunate impression that they are ignorant of the details of this ban. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the user's wikibreak enforcer based on his request; and had no reason not to, as it is generally a voluntary measure. If he by requesting that knowingly violated a private arbcom agreement, that's his responsibility. I'd like to note that a standard block to enforce the ban would have been more clear. henrik•talk 15:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it, did you? It seems quite clear "Accordingly Steve has agreed to a formal long-term break, with strict conditions, following which at his request the Committee will consider whether he might resume editing." so a "formal long-term break" which stops only when arbcom permits - now what does that sound like? And from all parties involved such permission to restart editing wasn't granted by arbcom. "He is aware that any breach of the agreed conditions will result in enforcement by blocking." - ermm didn't that just happen here, isn't this exactly what was agreed to? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am confused by some supporters of a lift of the ban here. There's absolutely no consensus to lift the ban in this thread, or that the block was punitive as has been announced. This is a violation of an agreement with the committee. Period, Cenarium ^Talk 15:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I won't revert this archiving, but I think someone uninvolved should decide it the thread should be archived, this is a public noticeboard, not Steve's talk page. Cenarium ^Talk 15:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Steve has withdrawn his request, arbcom have reset the ban what more is thier to discuss? the topic is WP:STICK. Archiving avoids WP:DRAMA   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I made this comment before the archiving occured but i will place what i wanted to say, as i feel it sums it up.

Comment I would like to give my two pennies in this and to just sift through some of the comments made. Firstly regarding ARBCOM's remit. Arbcom is not just there to make a decision for the community when it cannot come to an agreement on something. It is also there to protect the community. If arbcom feels that something the community may agree on but could be harmful to the community, they are able to overule the community. Moreschi is right that arbcom enforcements can be circumvented if the admin community agrees as a whole simply because unless everyadmin is going to be desysopped there is no way that they can be overturned. However the day that the whole admin community agrees on something so controversial will most likely coincide with hell freezing over, so it is futile even thinking about it.

Let me now turn back to the discussion regarding steve. He did agree to a formal wiki break, something that was self invoked but with restrictions on a return to editting imposed by arbcom and agreed to by steve. Whether or not the community decided that this was the right action to take, it was a move made by steve himself. The main issues that there were following the use of admin accounts, were maturity and trust. The aim of any sanctions imposed on steve would be to regain/show both of those characteristics. I think it is agreed apon that this still needs to be achieved before steve can return to editting with no restrictions. I do not believe that mentoring is the best option for this, given we all know that steve can edit perfectly well. The showing of trust is something steve has to do himself. Requesting the removal of the wiki break enforcer was bad judgement on part of steve and with regards to the purpose of the block, even as a friend of steve I believe that it is not punitive, and that there are trust issues with the community. What I would like to suggest is the reset of the 6 month ban be kept, but to hold a community review with regards to the ban in 3 months time. I think that we should not be banhammer happy with steve but we should be mindful that the community need to be happy that steve will not make such a severe misjudgement again. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 16:03, 27 September 2008 (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.

Out Attempt

User Longchenpa attempted to out user zulupapa5 on talk longchenpa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.75.123 (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User Longchenpa attempted to out user Gyrovague108 on talk jetsunma_ahkon_lhamo. 72.66.75.123 (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs so we can see what you're talking about. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed what I think is an attempt to out, or at the very least, bait a user. Comment on content, not the contributor. I believe there are three diffs that are problematic: [64], [65] and [66]. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Diffs [67] [68] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.250.60 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pete" is not identifying information.

As for Gyrovague, he makes it clear here that he is not hiding his identity, which he isn't. Longchenpa (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: I've asked this elsewhere, but I'll ask here, too. ZuluPapa attempted an outing of me a few months back: ZuluPapa's attempt at outing. It didn't bother me much because it's not me. But should I have reported it? Longchenpa (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

While he/she says it will not be hard to find his/her identity, it does not mean you go round trying to dig it up. ZuluPapa appears to be uncomfortable with this despite the statement, for good reason. I believe ZuluPapa disclosed his/her COI there anyway - is there any need to find out any more information? x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ZuluPapa and Gyrovague are two entirely different people.

Gyrovague has stated clearly that he has no interest in hiding his identity. He makes it clear on his User Page: "I have been a Buddhist practitioner in the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and a member of the Kunzang Palyul Choling[69] temple in Poolesville, MD, since 1990. I received novice ordination as a Buddhist monk in 1993, and full ordination in 1995. Since early 2005, my home base has been Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, where I serve as Director of KPC's Mongolian Buddhism Revival Project[70]." That link from him goes directly to his name.

ZuluPapa is the one who's voiced concerns (207.188.250.60 is ZuluPapa), yet has made an attempt to out me in the past, and has a consistent history of wikilawyering on the Talk page and using policy to attempt to bludgeon other editors.

Bottom line: ZuluPapa doesn't like my editing the Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo page at all. There's a biography by Random House about JAL that I've used that ZuluPapa didn't want in the article because it has some pretty negative information. The biography has a blurb from Bob Woodward. JAL is a Buddhist Lama who was arrested 1996 for beating a monk and nun, has a swimming pool, three houses, and a salary of $100k a year.

Last December, ZuluPapa started with a veiled threat: "I haven't investigated, however there are wiki procedure to exclude folks from contributing to articles".

ZuluPapa followed it up with an RfC insisting that JAL is not a public figure, and thus this biography should not be included. Eventually Mike Godwin weighed in on the subject: The book is in.

ZuluPapa went to the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons page to work to get this book removed there, as well as to the Biographies Noticeboard, pressing a for policy changes that could get this information removed. ZuluPapa asked Protonk to weigh in. Protonk did, and also found that JAL was a public figure.

Then ZuluPapa did sweeping edits on the article, removing anything negative that was from that book -- but kept everything that was positive from it. Then, ZuluPapa preemptively cited me for a 3RR before I'd made a single change. My changes were normal edits. ZuluPapa was informed by Blanchardb that "None of these edits can be even remotely regarded as reverts."

But ZuluPapa accused me elsewhere of multiple reverts, even though this was not true.

More recently, ZuluPapa accused me on the Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo Talk page of being a biased editor that only edited JAL's page. When I provided proof that was quite untrue (I can be accurately described as a pro-Tibet editor), ZuluPapa accused me of "boasting."

ZuluPapa's own edit history is a combination of writing the Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo page, and minor edits to link to JAL. There are a few edits to prostate pages that began after ZuluPapa first threatened to try have me removed from editing the article.

1) ZuluPapa should not attempt to out me if he finds it so disturbing, 2) a first name is not identifying information, 3) ZuluPapa should stop using policy to bludgeon the other editors, should stop baiting and flinging accusations at me on the [Talk Page] (I count an average of two per comment) and instead focus on writing the article. It's been an interesting tour of every avenue of complaint, but when it comes down to brass tacks, that book is solid. And whether ZuluPapa likes it or not, I'm not going anywhere. Longchenpa (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that no one here has been outed. ZuluPapa's attempt to out me was way off. ZuluPapa has not been outed (unless a first name is a problem, which I'll be happy to remove from our conversation on my Talk page if so). And Gyrovague has not only not complained, he linked to his own name. Longchenpa (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My view: He was wrong to attempt to out you or something and a first name is identifying information as it is still personal information. I have no opinion on the article except that there could be a need for some more eyes. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be happy to remove the instance on my Talk page with his first name. If Gyrovague changes his position about being open with his identity, I'll handle that then. Toodles. Longchenpa (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification to this discussion x42bn6. I am concerned about Longchenpa's outing (this user has demonstrated little regard for privacy and human rights in a living person biography [71]) and I view this outing as a provocative effort aimed at me after I gave warning about Gyrovague108 [72]. Now the presumed provocateur rant cries foul to this ANI and has yet to correct themselves, even defiantly stating "no one here has been outed" shows further contempt for WP:OUTING as if to fish for validation. Regarding my accused outing attempt, I'll say I was interested in the POV, there was not a real request for personal information and I apologize if it was interpreted as such. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa's other Outing Attempts to invade privacy. [73] [74] [75] [76] These and more, demonstrate a pervasive history, with warning, that now must be corrected: Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't be ridiculous. These people are all quoted and named in The Buddha From Brooklyn, Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo's biography, published by Random House. Longchenpa (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, I take these attempts seriously because, I've read The Buddha From Brooklyn and see that personal info are in these posts that effectively invade these people's privacy. They are most certainly not public figures. I assume this is for your POV pushing purposes. It upsets me that after I've gave warning about these several times, I am provoked with an out attempt and your dismissals continue on the privacy issue, while you repeat the attempt again in this article. It seems you are seeking assurances that you outed me correctly, which is further outing. LET IT GO. This seems uncivil, troublesome and selfish with little regard for folks and wiki privacy standards. Wikipedia:Respect privacy. I must let this go now too. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've not yet made up my mind about this, but want to give you full credit, ZuluPapa, for a great belly laugh in asserting that Mike Godwin might somehow have a COI in giving an opinion when he was asked for one! That is his job, you know. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, it might be best to ask Mike what his job is, to represent Wiki or to represent users or BLP article subjects? An analogy might be, would a management attorney represent labor? He's the one most able to declare a COI, not me. COI's should be disclosed. I don't believe it's beyond Mike's duty to bring law on a user on behalf of wiki. Does this bias his editorial input, well that's a bigger question. Honestly, I was dismayed by the weasel works in his response. This issue might be better discussed elsewhere than this out attempt article. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mike's job is foundation legal counsel, i.e. providing legal counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation. Because Mike is a nice guy, and wise i the ways of the law, he is also very helpful in answering questions about how content hosted on Wikimedia Foundation servers might affect the liability of the users of those servers. I think you are tying yourself in unnecessary mental knots about something which has vastly less significance than you seem to think. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Could be knots? It's not worth it here. see: [77] After Longchenpa has repeated the first name out attempt on this article and on their talk page, in spit of warning and policy notification ... Right now I am losing faith in Wiki to protect personal info and privacy no mater Mike's job. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Diffs? I see a redaction of a name by him, and that's all. That said, for both of you, see tu quoque - two wrongs do not make a right. The easiest solution here is to stop using real names as clearly someone's uncomfortable. The content dispute should be kept to the talk page of the article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there an admin monitoring talk:Kosovo

There are edit requests on this fully protected article here and here, yet the last edit to the mainspace was made on September 17. If no one is going to actively monitor this for updates, maybe pull protection is too much.--«JavierMC»|Talk 21:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just make use of the {{editprotected}} template, to draw attention to the sections in need. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks, done.--«JavierMC»|Talk 21:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cave Canem Workshop

Resolved

I have stubified this article after realising that the original version was a copyright violation of [78] and most of the subsequent the subsequent versions were derivitive works which I unwittingly created. The article is currently undergoing an AFD discussion so keeping the current sourced one line version which is not a derivitive of the copyrighed piece might be preferable. Would it be possible for someone to delete all previous versions of the article preceding this one? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 10:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Guest9999 (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the Arbitration Policy

Cross-post from WP:VPP for more eyes -- responses there please.

---

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes

The recent RFC on the Arbitration Committee ended with various proposals for changes to the Arbitration Committee's form and practice. It is now proposed that the upcoming elections for the Committee be expanded to encompass a vote to ratify/choose these changes.

There is currently a certain amount of disagreement on the talk page about the exact form that these proposals should take. It would be useful to have more eyes to consider, firstly, whether a ratification should take place and, secondly, exactly how these proposed changes should be phrased and presented.

Some more eyes would be greatly appreciated.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There are already people voting at that page now, so are we to wait until the arbcom elections to vote on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes - or start now? Cirt (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A note has been added saying not to vote, voting has not started. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks, that was confusing for a moment. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for any confusion that Sam Korn might have caused by this post. No, voting is not open yet. This is also not a call to start editing the proposals already up, since the ones up there right now are the ones that had significant consensus support on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee, if you can find or generate similar consensus support for adding alternative proposals please do so, but do not edit or remove existing proposals without overwhelming consensus to override that generated in the RfC.

It's probably not the time for advocacy or nitpicking over why you disagree or agree with one proposal over another, there will be plenty of time for that during the nomination process of the main election. Sam shot the gun a little early in announcing this, and the discussion pages and information pages are not there yet. --Barberio (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

James settelmyer

Resolved

 – Done

Does anybody have a problem moving James settelmyer to a capitalized version? I clicked on "Move" three times, and nothing happened. Corvus cornix_talk 06:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

worked for me --Versageek 06:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I kept clicking over and over again, and it would not work. Corvus cornix_talk 06:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I had no problem moving Matt lee. Corvus cornix_talk 07:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The correct spelling of this person's name is actually Settelmeyer. Accordingly I proceeded to move the page but the Move page said "Error: could not submit form" and it would not let me move the page no matter what. Is this the same problem? ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 13:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I created James Settelmeyer with no problems, and with a redirect to the current page so that moving would still work. Except, it still doesn't. ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 13:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed so it's the right way around (ie. the article is at the proper spelling) and updated the other redirects to avoid doubles. _Gb^T/c 13:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Should the problem be looked into though? ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 14:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

From preliminary investigation it seems that only administrators are/were capable of performing the move. Is there some sort of subtle move-protection mechanism like MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that could have spilled over the brim, or something similar? ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lee (guitarist)

(I'll start a section for this, it needs attention.) Matt Lee is back? Oh, ffs. It currently exists at that title and Matt Lee (guitarist); it's been deleted about a billion times, including by AFD, it's quite blatantly a herd of socks who are pushing to have this done, and every single version of the article recently has been virtually the same and has the same problems: lacking in actual sources. I'm going to bed, but it'd be really nice if we could get some more eyes looking at this whole situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Someone doesn't get it. Tiptoety blocked the sockfarm, I nuked one article, someone else nuked the other copy. Looks like a number of us are seeing this the same as you are. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they should be SALTed if they are recreated this often? SoWhy 12:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's up for DRV if anyone's interested. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lee was protected with create=sysop[79], but apparently non-admins can move an existing article to the salted title[80]. – Sadalmelik ☎ 18:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Broken template used extensively

I have reverted Template:sup to a previous version because it is broken (apparently since April). This template is used all over the wiki in physics and chemistry expressions and really ought to be protected. There is also a problem with the related templates template:su (also not protected) and template:val. The last one is protected, but I don't want to mess with it anyway because I am not sure of all the implications. Someone really ought to look at this as a matter of urgency. There is also template:sub which likewise should be protected. SpinningSpark 08:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it might not have been broken that long, it could be a more recent change to template:su which broke it. SpinningSpark 08:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a change in august ment to fix a problem in Firefox, broke it for IE. I changed {{sup}} and {{sub}} to not use {{su}} for the time being. — Edokter • Talk • 13:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Palin related potential BLP vio

Resolved

 – Deleted by Horologium and salted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was looking through today's article for deletion listing, one of the articles I have commented on is Palinism which relates to Sarah Palin. Could someone take a look to see if it should be speedily deleted rather than going through the full process. NullofWest (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

LHvU beat me here. A thoroughly unsourced attack page, created by a first-time editor whose only other edit was to link to it from another article, doesn't belong here. Horologium (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Г-ђа, Гђа, and Гђа.

I am attempting to create redirects to Mrs. in the following namespaces: Г-ђа, Гђа, and Гђа. Unfortunately, these namespaces are blacklisted, so I submitted a request on the "requests for unprotection" page. CIreland responded to say that these namespaces are not blocked, and that I should submit my request here. Is there a difference bewteen being blocked and being blacklisted? These are Serbian feminine honorifics, therefore redirecting them to Mrs. would seem logical. Neelix (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean titles, not namespaces? Considering this is the English language Wikipedia, I wonder if it really does seem logical. They are not likely search terms. — Edokter • Talk • 13:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the use and nature of honorifics in different languages and cultures seems to be to be an interesting and encyclopaedic topic, regardless of the current paucity of our coverage. Besides, these are only redirects so I've gone ahead and created them. In response to Neelix' question: "Protection" affects only specific titles whereas the blacklist affects titles that match certain patterns. CIreland (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit-wars detection made easy

Wikichecker - the Editwar Scanner. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 13:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. Found, and blocked, a ban-evading sockpuppet already. Recommended. --Rodhullandemu 13:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite nice. Got a sock and a massive edit war. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible reverse compatibility issue with old blocks

The new blocking option this morning (check to allow blocker user or IP to edit their own talk page) may have a bad compatibility problem with blocks made before (apparently older blocks default to the box not being checked). This seems to mean that blocked users and ips will not be able to add the {unblock} template, which is even worse for ips that have account creation blocked (since they can't send email either). Just something to keep an eye on, I'm not sure if there's a bugzilla request in yet. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfair restriction on improving an article

I have recently tried to improve the article White people by adding 2 example photos in 2 relevent sections on the article. These edits were reverted firstly without reason and then under the excuse they were not needed and consensus should be gained. Consensus cannot be gained as those stating I should gain consensus refuse to use the talk page and simply prefer to revert instead of discussing. Also the idea that an article shouldn't have any photos in it other than a gallery at the end is a ridiculous one as almost every article has photos in relevent sections, from such likes as the France article to the Black people article. I feel that such staunch opposition to merely adding 2 example photos to 2 relevent sections of an article which doesn't have any such photos already, only a gallery at the end of the article, may be racially motivated judging by the editors' contributions histories. Anyway I have brought the subject here and it may seem over the top but I doubt any progress would ever have been made otherwise. Usergreatpower (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a content dispute. Please try discussing it with the users. If that doesn't work, dispute resolution outlines the next steps. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations

I'm not sure where to report a persistent copyright violator (neither WP:AIV nor WP:COPY seem like the right place), so I'll start here. Feel free to redirect me if I am in error.

User:Willemraymann has created and recreated the Sirocolor page with text from the company's homepage. After the first several times, I warned the user about his behavior. He responded by replacing his talkpage text with the article text (removing all previous warnings and notices) and recreating the article once more. Other than deleting the current incarnation of Sirocolor, what is the next step in dealing with this user? gnfnrf (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of template warnings that the User is violating copyright, but nobody has actually issued him any warnings about being blocked if he continues. Corvus cornix_talk 19:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have been warned of that on the 24th, here. Given the name similarity, he may actually be connected to the site. I will drop him a personal note explaining again, warning that he will be blocked if he again posts the material without satisfying the verification requirements. (I'll probably also mention COI.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that, it was buried in amongst all of the other templates.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 19:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I know the feeling. :) Anyway, I've left him a note, and I'm watching the article space and his talkpage in case he returns to that scene or has questions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for being a little rougish, but I went ahead and salted it, as it's been created four times in the last week. And looking at his contribs, these are his ONLY edits to the encyclopedia. Is a warning really enough for this guy? Blueboy96 19:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that salting it might make it a bit harder to discover if he does it again, as in my experience truly tendentious editors tend to simply create their articles at variant titles we aren't watching. I hadn't planned to check his contrib history, but was trusting the page itself to tell me if he returned. I think the real problem here is unlikely to be copyright. The user is logged in as Willem Raymann, and the company is called Design Raymann. Of course, we need verification of permission, because anybody can log in under any name (as I explained at his userpage), but with a simple note at the website, the material can be cleared for use on Wikipedia and he is no longer in violation of our copyright policies. To me, the underlying issue here is promotion. Prior to my note, he had yet to be warned about COI editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming a User

Resolved

I am trying to place a Welcome message to User:????? ??? on his talk page. Even though I am not an admin, this welcoming is based on one I recieved. Can I therefore hand the user the gift and have the blocked removed? Contact me on my talkpage. Thankyou.--Archeopteryx (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That account was blocked as a violation of the username policy back in November 2006 - welcoming may be a little late and inappropriate...! ;-) _Gb^T/c 18:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And the user hasn't edited since November 2004. Metros (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Archeopteryx seems to have been welcoming a number of long-inactive users recently. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, but it's kinda weird. Chick Bowen 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very good of him to make the effort but does he realise they are not active ... ? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a friendly note. Chick Bowen 19:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

IP of indef blocked sock puppet needs blocking

Resolved

One of User:Jamalar's Ip's is running lose over at 4 in the Morning. The IP, needs blocking. The full list of Jamalar's IP's/accounts can be found here. — Realist² 19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked already. Feel free to remove this post if you want to save space. — Realist² 19:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

removing posts from an RfA

Resolved

 – Situation not needing administrator intervention. Inappropriate comment removed. Caulde 15:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

During what I consider a small and unrelated banter with Promethean (talk · contribs), I stumbled upon his removal of a thread from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Editorofthewiki. In the edit summary, he implies that he had "permission" to remove those posts. Since I couldn't find where he obtained that permission, and usual practice is to move overlong or otherwise disruptive threads from RfAs to their respective talk pages, and not to remove them wholesale, I asked Promethean about it, to which he responded by removing my posting as "trolling". I assume he did this in the wake of our exchange on my talk page, but the post removal issue is a completely different thing and my inquiry at his talk page was thoroughly good-faithed. I'd appreciate it if someone else could ask him about that permission, and if necessary, let him know that usual practice is not to remove threads entirely but to move them to the RfA talk page with a link from the main RfA page. Or am I completely mistaken here and it was entirely ok to remove those postings? Everyme 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He asked on the RfA and I said OK to my comments being removed. He didn't get a response from How do you turn this on (talk · contribs) for his comments to be removed, although I can't see him disagreeing with the outcome; the trolling has been removed and we can move on. I'm not so sure we displays of trolling displayed for future viewing. Perhaps a [disruptive thread removed, viewable in page history ~~~~] could be added under Iridescent's oppose. EJF (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked HDYTTO to comment here. EJF (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. Also, I think it constitutes at least a remarkable departure from usual practice to remove non-vandalism postings from an RfA without moving them to the talk page. Everyme 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't agree to the removal of the posts, just that he stopped posting irrelevant comments to the request, as he was getting over the top and starting to offend and irritate. They should be moved to the talk page. -- how do you turn this on 15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for consuming my time Everyme, as pointed out I had permission from 1/2 editors, presumably the other would have wanted the same. By principal anyone can remove anything they write, however it is common courtesy to ask anyone who has replied to it so that you dont change the context of thier posts. The Edit in question was mild humour which two editors on the RFA indicated could be precived as an attack.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this thread does not need admin intervention, and should be thus closed as soon as possible. -- how do you turn this on 15:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I think this is just drama mongering.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks against me. Also, you should have immediately moved those comments to the RfA talk page, as is custom. I only posted here because you left me no other choice. Be more careful in the future, thank you so much. Everyme 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying this thread is drama mongering is not a personal attack, your views are misguided to say the least.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, both of you stop. The comment has been removed. Caulde 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Prom, it's comments like that that cause people to not take you seriously. Please desist assuming you know people's motives. -- how do you turn this on 15:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You said it youself, why bring it here if it does not need admin intervention, an editor with "2 years experience and 12k+ edits" should know this and most likly brought it here because i undid his edits as trolling (because they were) and he knew it would just make drama. Im sorry but i wont play footsies and i will call a spade a spade. Can someone archive this thanks :)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop the assumption of bad faith and the personal attacks. And please make an effort to get the point: I posted here (i) because your action was unacceptable, and only because (ii) you forced me to. Everyme 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, it was wrong to bring it here. It was also wrong to say doing so was drama mongering. Labeling his edits as trolling isn't exactly going to help the situation any better is it? While the situation doesn't need direct admin intervention, experienced users who watch this page could always help with advice. This will get archived like any other thread here. -- how do you turn this on 15:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's times where 'keeping stump' is the best method of approach. This was an inappropriate and unacceptable comment on an RfA (which although self-removed) does not condone the reaction you shared here. Although there have been no objections for the removal (it should have been moved) with those directly involved in that discussions, alleging that this is drama-mongering is not the way to resolve this. Promethean, you were discussed only the other week on this noticeboard, note that and make sure you remove yourself from situations akin to this in the future; if you don't you may be facing blocks for disruption. Caulde 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I objected to the removal. It should be moved, not removed, on to the talk page. -- how do you turn this on 15:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Amended. Caulde 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The fact remains that Promethean violated policy by unilaterally removing non-vandalism posts. He should be decidely warned against that kind of behaviour and advised to exercise greater caution and, most importantly, to move arguably disruptive threads to the talk page of the RfA, and not to remove them wholesale on a hunch. We can't have reckless removal of postings just because someone doesn't like them. At least he should correct his error and move those posts to the talk page of the RfA now. Everyme 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What policy did i violate? Not that it matters this thread has been marked as resolved. Happy Editing   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom, how about add the moved threads to the talk page, and stop arguing here? -- how do you turn this on 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it on the talk page   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Promethean's behaviour

Promethean not only shows no insight into the unacceptability of his own behaviour, he also responds with massive assumption of bad faith, incivility (where ironically he likes to lecture people about civility) and personal attacks. I ask that he cease all of that immediately and stop things like e.g. claiming that my good-faithed notification of this thread constitutes an "Abuse of edit summeries" when I just didn't see the use of giving him another full posting to remove as "trolling". Everyme 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC) The worst aspect imho is that with this removal, Promethean was trying to hide comments he himself made that he probably recognised as placing him in a bad light. EJF's and How do you turn this on's where not problematic at all and thus I can only assume intentional obscuring as his reason for removing the thread and his continued refusal to approropriately restore those comments to the RfA talk page (where it could be argued they shouldn't have been removed from the main RfA page in the first place, and certainly not by Promethean himself, and most definitely not without the permission of all involved editors). Everyme 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Promethean needs to consider whether his comments add heat or light to discussions in the future. His conduct is often far below the standards accepted by most people; contributions to the Steve Crossin ban discussions as one example. A refocusing on the mainspace is clearly needed; of his last 1000 edits, only 18 have been to the article space. There was no consensus to ban him when it was proposed recently, but patience will soon run out. Has mentorship been proposed? The guidance of a good editor may help get him back on track. EJF (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect the sole basis of this thread has been resolved and im yet to see anything that overly concerns me, i dont think we need another topical discussion.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

What you think is not especially relevant at this point. I support the idea of mentorship and possibly a temporary ban from project space, other than reporting unambiguous vandalism. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would personally agree to that it for some reason there was justification for it, with the exclusion of WP:ABUSE and WP:AIV   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You would agree to the outlined conditions Guy sets out above? Caulde 16:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

With the exclusion of AIV and ABUSE yes.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Might want to try being less contentious and having less of a chip on your shoulder, and less dictating of terms in situations where you're in the wrong. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, but let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here. Seems like Promethean is offering to honour a topic ban from project space, and consider mentorship. That sounds like progress. I don't know who would mentor Promethean, but I would suggest that if a one month topic ban from project space is honoured then it might represent genuine progress in the "biting the lip and walking away" department. Should we not give it a try? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He says he will be co-operative, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. I'll be happy to keep an eye on him. -- how do you turn this on 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of Swatjesters remark, It seems that my willingness to stay away from the project space has lead to automatic self incrimination. Because of this I have reconsidered my self acceptance of the restriction.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. The likely alternative is rather more likely to impact on your editing outside of project space. A lot of people find your "help" profoundly unhelpful in project space. Do you actually want to be kicked from the project? I'd say not, and I don't really want to kick you, but some do, and the voluntary restriction was a good way of defusing that. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine,   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) occupies himself by window shopping for a mentor..  «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete list of candidates for speedy deletion

Is there a reason why most of the candidates are no longer displayed on the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion page? Right now, it shows 23 of the 370 total pages. I can see some, but not all of the missing ones on Cyde's list. This is contributing to a huge backlog, since apparently admins aren't seeing the missing ones either. Or am I missing something? 75.17.12.71 (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of them are images, which show up as links on Cyde's list, but show up as thumbnails right below the links on CAT:CSD. I think they're all there; I can certainly see them. --barneca (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm still missing something. It lists pages separate from media. It currently shows 26 pages out of 380 total, and 174 media files out of 250 total. Here's one example of a page I found on Cyde's list which is not on the CAT:CSD list: The redneck gourmet restaurant. 75.17.12.71 (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Above the heading Pages in category "Candidates for speedy deletion" you need to click on "next 200". 220.253.179.185 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't pay close enough attention to 75.17's first post. It seems he's right; even accounting for the second page 220.253 mentions, there's still quite a few missing. This seems to imply that when server demand is high, putting pages in categories thru templates is a lower-priority task and is delayed. Maybe someone else knows better. --barneca (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins should use a Watchlist. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, thanks for the link which explains what's going on. (As for the second page, it never even occurred to me to check, since the first page displayed significantly fewer than 200 entries.) Sorry for the bother. 75.17.12.71 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Zomg Backlog

Along those lines... has anyone noticed the massive uber-backlog at CSD? The current number of Candidates for Speedy Deletion is 19, which is pretty high. Just thought I'd mention it. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is probably because I added Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to {{NowCommons}}. For quite a while, this template didn't feed in CAT:CSD because the deletion was delayed by 7 days (dated categories were used). Now CSD I8 warrants immediate deletion, and dated categories were abandoned, leading to buildup of the backlog in CAT:NC and especially CAT:NCT. Now there hopefully will be more hands to clean it up. Conscious (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. You might warn us about that in the future. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a big problem with this actually. There are images in CSD which have been uploaded to Commons under a different name and are still linked or included here under the old name. If they just get blindly deleted there will be redlinked images in articles. (And don't tell me admins are supposed to check before deleting; I know we are, but some of us don't.) Stifle (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, potentially massive problem. I've taken the category out of the template so more thought can be put into its inclusion. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 10:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hooray, have a barnstar for clearing the deletion backlog :D Stifle (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that it actually worked or anything... Can you see where the addition to the category is on {{NowCommons}}? I've obviously not actually nuked it :o( ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's working fine, just takes five or ten minutes for the category to be flushed out. See for example Image:Jim bailey entertainer and barbra streisand.jpg which was in C:SD a few minutes ago. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, the image is still on the list at C:SD but the category doesn't appear on the page. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Help:Category#Adding_a_category_by_using_a_template. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put a warning on the page that admins see when deleting an image, as a second safety measure while we wait for the category to flush. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But Redvers has a point. Let's get rid of I8. It doesn't help this project one bit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the suggestion to include CAT:CSD in {{NowCommons}} has been cross-posted at WT:CSD, CAT:NC, CAT:NCT, and CAT:CSD on 23 September. With no objections, I implemented it 4 days later. I think by reverting you're just hiding your hand in the sand - the backlog of 1000 files is still there. As things stand now, only a few admins specifically interested in I8 will try to clean it, and there are not enough hands, as the backlog keeps growing. Including I8 images in CAT:CSD will allow keeping CAT:NCT under control. Conscious (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't CAT:NC previously on the list of categories to clear out on the CAT:CSD page? Stifle (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was removed from there by Conscious (talk · contribs). Ever feel like you've been volunteered for a job? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 18:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cydebot 4

This adminbot has been running, uncontroversially, on Cyde's account for about two years now, assisting with the CfD process. Most of the edits are done by the Cydebot account, and the bot switches to Cyde's admin account whenever it needs that access. This is a request for more input if necessary; if there are no outstanding concerns, I intend to approve this bot within the next 24 hours. Maxim_(talk) 01:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Backlog of CSD I9 or incorrect/mistake with template

Hi folks. I'm not entirely sure if there's a backlog of copyrighted image CSD's, or if I've made a mistake with the template on the image Image:WhySoSerious1.jpg. It's clearly a blatant copyvio of a Batman (or some such) promo poster and has no purpose for being on Wikipedia. I'm suspecting I've made a mistake somewhere along the line because I can't find the image in the CSD categories (though I'm not even sure I'm looking in the right place). If someone could please take a look at the template I've used it would be appreciated; if it's okay and it's just a backlog then it can wait until then (I'm *not* posting here simply to have it "fasttracked", I'm worried I've made a genuine mistake). Cheers. SMC (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed above to link to the image (you can do this using [[:LINK]] instead of [[LINK]], and it also works for categories) and deleted the image as an obvious copyvio, missing licensing information, etc. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. SMC (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ability to block users from specific pages/namespaces likely coming

Brion reverted it (in an incomplete way at that looking at the revision where he did it). FunPika 10:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Per r41352, administrators should be able to block users from editing specific articles/namespaces the next time we are synced with SVN (unless Brion or some other dev decides to disable it on WMF projects/here specifically or revert it entirely before then, but ATM it is in SVN and enabled in the defaultsettings). FunPika 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lordy. Here's hoping that these blocks don't become No Big Deal(tm). HiDrNick! 00:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda' interesting. I imagine we'll find uses for them. I'm curious why this was created, though. Anyone know? lifebaka++ 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been hoping for this ability for a long time, and I've lobbied for it at WP:VPT and voted for it at Bugzilla. The most obvious use I see (and I really hope this particular method is able to be implemented) is range blocking a particular IP range from a particular article, so if there's a POV pusher or vandal focused on one article on a dynamic IP, we can range block instead of semiprotect. Everyone sharing his range isn't blocked (except for the one article), and other IP's and new accounts aren't prevented from editing the article.

Being able to block one troublemaking account from one article isn't a bad thing; it's essentially a way of enforcing a topic ban. But it isn't my expected use of the ability. --barneca (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I tested the tool on a wiki that is synced with a recent revision, and I could not use it on a range. FunPika 01:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bugzilla link, or details on meta/mw wiki? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

@Funpika: well, crap. --barneca (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

@FT2: Bugzilla link: [81]. I started a thread about this on either WP:VPT or WP:VPP a long time ago, and someone else replied that they had already started a similar thread months before mine, but I can't find either one now, and can't remember who had the idea first. --barneca (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you open up a bugzilla request to make it possible to block ranges with this new tool (I have to goto bed NOW, so I can't). FunPika 01:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If no one else has done so, I'll attempt to file a Bugzilla request tomorrow sometime, or possibly later; I might wait to see if this is actually implemented on en.wiki first. --barneca (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• So if someone breaks 3RR at one page but is contributing well elsewhere, that person could be blocked from that particular page while remaining free to do useful stuff? In principle I like it: a less intrusive solution is better than a full block from editing as long as the problem gets solved. What the community needs to do is work out standards in advance for when and how to apply this new tool appropriately. If we anticipate the scenarios where this would be appropriate v. not appropriate then this could roll out smoothly. Durova^Charge! 01:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  And we should be able to block some people from project space temporarily, if they are vexatious litigants or whatever. This won't be useful very often, though. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  See also WP:Per-article blocking. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  I would like to point out that your link shows a consensus that was established 3 years ago. There may well be a shift in consensus now (who knows? ...) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• One interesting question here is: when these new type blocks can be issued by a single admin, and when there should be community discussion on AN or ANI. I think the namespace bans should only follow after a wider input, as the need to use such drastic measures is potentially quite contentious (ZOMG! DRAMA!) and certainly a sign of problematic editing. – Sadalmelik ☎ 10:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• bugzilla:15763 filed to allow placing restrictions on IP ranges. FunPika 10:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be a very useful tool, and better enable blocks to be escalated. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So this will work how? We can block IPs unilaterally from places they don't belong like RFA and RFAR? rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Namespace bans should be prohibited to be issued WITHOUT consent of the community ahead of time. Per article bans should be treated like any other ban--must be justified, and the admin as with a regular ban has to be accountable for the stakes involved. Other than that, this is a good idea and overdue. This is a decent idea overall to simply and forcefully keep an otherwise fine editor out of hot soup on the topic areas that would otherwise drive him off. Some people can create works of art, but if they get into one little area of the city, they turn into raving crackheads that beat up prostitutes--keep them in the concert hall they're known for, however, and they're Chopin or Mozart. As long as any misuse of this is as critical as general bad blocks, I don't see a problem with it. However, I think any Namespace wide blocks without pre-consensus and justification should be out of line. rootology (C)(T) 13:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Considering that admins can block an editor site-wide without asking permission first at AN or ANI, why would I need to get permission first before blocking someone from a particular namespace only? This is less of a big deal than a site-wide block. Per-article and per-namespace blocks should be treated like a normal block; if I can justify it, I should just do it. If it's likely to cause drama, better to get a reality check first. The problem has actually been that admins sometimes don't get a reality check first before making a controversial site-wide block, but that's a different issue, and is not a reason to require coming here before making a non-controversial namespace block. --barneca (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Barnaca here. Rootology, what you are saying is practically the same as saying that the police should be allowed to straitjacket and shackle a criminal without asking permission, and yet they must get approval before handcuffing them. Do you really think that any admin will be able to get away with blocking someone from an article or namespace illegitimately easier than they are able to get away with an inappropriate block now? I mean, if an admin blocks someone now, all the blocked person can do is rant away on their talk page. If a block was not site-wide, the blocked person could raise hell from one end of Wikipedia to the other until his inappropriate block was lifted. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent, this is going to make blocking much less punitive. 3RR blocks can now be 3RR article blocks and so on - it makes much more sense than blocking somone from the project completely. We've also had issues with people in a particular namespace (such a Wikipedia) and an enforced timeout from certain areas will no doubt stop the need for a full project ban. Good work whoevers been involved in this. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• This sounds very helpful, for shared IPs along with everything else. I take it I can't see this yet in the block dialog? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Administrators' noticeboard is not a crystal ball. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you lost me here. --barneca (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • He means he thinks I should have waited until we sync with SVN, because of the stated possibility of a dev/sysadmin deciding not to enable it on WMF/enwiki or revert the feature entirely (effectively meaning there is a slight possibility of the feature never seeing the light of day here). FunPika 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• At first I liked the idea. But then I was reminded of less-lethal weapons and what the police use them for in practice. Will we soon be discussing whether admin X had the right to block editor Y from X's talk page? Are block logs going to explode now? These things can only be prevented by a very clear consensus that a selective block is a big deal – as much so as any other block. Another issue is that discussions are going to be a lot more complex in future if they are no longer just about whether/how long to block, but also about where to block. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's taser? Any block should indeed still be a big deal, the threshold shouldn't be lower. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Block logs won't explode, restrictions have their own log I think. FunPika 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I see this as being very useful in sockpuppet cases. Any sockpuppeters I deal with have a narrow fixation. Soccermeko, for example, targets Nicole Wray and Kiki Shearer articles, and got so persistent that we have had to block a large range of IPs from editing Wikipedia at all. Now, we can let that block go, and block that range from editing only 5 articles. Brianyau323 is much the same: a good size chunk of Hong Kong would need to be blocked to stop him, but he only edits articles about the Cheetah Girls. One question for people that play with it: if you block an IP range, does it block registered editors using that range from editing the articles? If it doesn't, it won't help much with socks. If it does, it will be extremely effective.Kww (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • See FunPika's comments above; it appears like it will require further changes before this will work with range blocks. However, I now remember that the person who's name I couldn't remember above, who thought of this a long time ago, was you. --barneca (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Very insightful. Should take the sting out of a lot of rangeblocks. This could become and effective response to IP-hopping vandals minus the old downside of blocking whole towns (and sometimes countries). Durova^Charge! 22:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Idea - this would work better if it were also possible to see which users (if any) had been banned from the article/project page/etc at which you're looking. Perhaps an additional tab at the top of the page listing those currently prevented from editing the page, that only appears if there is someone prevented from doing so, or something in the page log. fish&karate 15:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • More likely a filter in the block log? --barneca (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Special:ListUserRestrictions will handle that. JavaScript would be a good idea if you want an article tab for it though. FunPika 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Although my anticipated use of this is evidently not going to operational, I'm really warming up to the idea of this being the default option for 3RR violations. They can't disrupt the article anymore, but they can edit the talk page. Only if they move on to disrupt other articles do they get a site-wide block. Prevention rather than punishment. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think User:Barneca has really nailed this one the head with the comment above this one. This is very much in keeping with the ideals of our blocking policy. It can protect areas of conflict whilst allowing users to be contructive elsewhere if that appears to be the case. If it becomes evident a user 3RR's elsewhere then a site blcok could be then considered, if it is apprent page and namespace blocks do not work. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I also Agree in principle, but note that some edit warriors will simply start edit-warring on other articles. "I can't revert this jackass on Article X, so I'll follow him to Article Y" and so forth. I think we should be open to the idea that 3RR can still result in a full block, if violations are particularly extensive or egregious. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• If that's the case, don't waste any more time, just indef them. If they do something like that, its obvious that they're being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive. Mr.Z-man 20:31, 29 September 2008 (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.

P.Wizard

Resolved

thanks Guest9999 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This article was speedy deleted as a G3 candidate. There are several of what appear to be related articles, all unreferenced, all about unreleased singles/albums which can be found using Template:P.Wizard. Could someone take a look, see if any admin action is required? Guest9999 (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was deleted under A7. Right now those articles have to be listed at AFD or tagged {{subst:prod}}. There is no speedy deletion criterion for that. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What on earth, Stifle? Apply common sense, please. Each of these "album" "articles" gives a track listing, and says "The album was never released, as he never recorded his songs"(!) All deleted as nonsense hoaxery, as is the template. fish&karate 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Be nice, please :) I've had such speedies overturned at DRV in the page. Although they weren't as hoaxish... Stifle (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, it's Monday morning - sorry! I've never seen the point in putting the albums / singles through the full deletion process. If the artist is not notable, it is impossible for their albums or singles to be notable (as if the artist does have a notable album or single, the artist becomes notable by definition). They can all, always, be safely speedied, and if anyone says otherwise, they are a lackadaisical blatherskite. fish&karate 11:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Did someone give you an "Obscure Word of the Day" calendar, Neil? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Doing my bit to enhance everyone's vocabulary :) There's no shorter way to say "careless and thoughtless purveyor of nonsense". Now cease your inaniloquent destication! fish&karate 12:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD is nonsensical. A7 specifically says, A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Corvus cornix_talk 18:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Slightly confused here. Is there a point to the above comment, or am I just missing it? Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That the CSD criterion in question needs to be changed to say ...not articles on books, albums, software and so on by notable people or organisations. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 18:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bring it up at WT:CSD. It makes its way there a lot, probably averaging at least one a month, and none of those have made it in yet, but feel free to try. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles were unsourced and were complete garbage. We allow admins to use their discretion exactly for cases like this. Mr.Z-man 22:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If they are 'blatant and obvious misinformation' then they may be speedy deleted under CSD G3: Vandalism. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if they weren't blatant and obvious misinformation - if the artist were deleted, I'd delete them anyway (as would most admins). It is impossible under current notability guidelines for the artist's work to be notable yet the artist not. Deleting the books/albums/singles/films/whatever of deleted A7 bios is common practice. Yeah, CSD probably needs to be remedied to reflect this, in which case as Lifebaka says, WT:CSD is the place to be. fish&karate 07:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

...and One Classical

Resolved

Hey the talk page for ...and One Classical was black listed for some reason, I need it so I can contest a proposal for deletion, please respond soon--Ouk (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Ouk

There's an AfD debate here where you should be able to edit. If not, drop me a line here and I'll copy what you have to say to the correct place. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 08:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)