Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Current issues

Unblock requests

I have declined three unblock requests - is it OK for a non-admin to decline them?? I wasn't sure if this was the right thing to do, so have come here for advice. If I've done wrong, let me know. Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 12:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Admins can neither block or unblock. How could you "deny" an unblock request if you don't have the authority to unblock? It seems pretty trivial to me. You should direct such users to the people who blocked them or other administrators.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Admins can neither delete or restore articles, how then can they close AFD debates as keep? Very easily. --pgk 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am aware of that. I was being careful about it. However, I was dealing with users that were either sockpuppets or had been confirmed as one by a Checkuser, and was directing them towards the relevant people, or the unblocken-l mailing list. --SunStar Net ^talk 12:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes much of a difference really. You should always make sure they're truly sockpuppets though before dismissing them. They might be good faith editors who might have been mistakenly banned, so denying their request when you have no ability to un-ban them is sort of misleading.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, Wikidudeman. My mistake. However, the talk page did say on one of them it had been confirmed by a checkuser, so I directed the blocked user to email the checkuser to discuss it with him. I'll avoid doing these unless I'm an admin. Sorry. --SunStar Net ^talk 12:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • One of your denials was just overturned and unblocked by an admin, so I suggest you avoid the unblock process again. Metros 12:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned non-admins in good standing can decline unblock requests all day long, if they like. I used to, pre-adminship, though usually only in obvious cases, such as checkuser-confirmed socks and/or Jacob Peters and/or obvious vandals. Moreschi ^Talk 12:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I've discussed it with him. As it is, I was trying to be bold, but this time I failed. Oh well, I've learnt something new on Wikipedia today - non-admins shouldn't try doing Category:Requests for unblock. But Moreschi's argument is equally good as well. As it was, I declined an unblock for a checkuser-confirmed sock anyway. But I'll refrain from this, as I was clearly wrong. --SunStar Net ^talk 12:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins should not be prohibited from having a go at unblock requests, though at first they should probably stick to obvious cases. One mistake does not equate to the end of the world. Moreschi ^Talk 13:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A non-admin should not purport to resolve an unblock request as granted/declined, but is free to add a relevant comment to the blocked user's talkpage for the information of the reviewing administrator. Newyorkbrad 13:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sun Star, this comes up periodically and people can never agree. Some people think it is fine for established non-admins to review and decline obvious unblock requests in the same way that they help with closing obvious keep AfDs, while others think only admins should handle the requests. I personally do not have a problem with established non-admins helping out, whether by commenting or even declining the very clear and obvious ones, but you should be aware that some people who have helped with processing requests have picked up criticism at their RfAs because of it. Anyway, if you're interested in that kind of work, you might consider joining the unblock list where trusted non-admins are most welcome to sign up and pitch in and help out. Cheers, Sarah 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• The best solution here is to make very sure that you are right when doing things like this. Nobody is going to say "Oh no, you're not allowed to make correct decisions because you're not an admin". -Amarkov moo! 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As Amarkov and Sarah have said, it's fine when it comes to unblock requests like "UNBLOCK ME NOW THIS IS TOTALLY UNFAIR", but if it's possible it could be controversial (and even checkuser blocks can end up being controversial, I got myself involved in one a few months ago) then it closing the case could very easily end up casting you in a bad light. If you don't want that, I'd stick to the simple cases. Make sure to review contribution history, block log, the admin's blocking log, etc. -- Renesis (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the declined unblocks might need to be looked at by an admin. The checkuser on User:Coldmachine was not definitive.--Dcooper 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sunshine Law/Policy

• I've seen a lot of: "IRC isn't wikipedia isn't IRC", and "we can't control what happens on IRC" comments. I submit that the former is patently false (based on what is really happening), and that the latter is indirectly false.

1. Since IRC is being used (by a group of admins) to discuss, and decide, what happens on-wikipedia, I submit that in a sense: "IRC is wikipedia is IRC".
2. It is true that we cannot control what happens on IRC (nor should we try). We can, however, adopt a policy of conduct for admins, which regulates the conduct of admins, and what they are permitted to do off-wiki. Many countries and states have adopted anti-collusion and open-information Sunshine Laws.

Based on David Gerard's recent edit summary, indicating that there is ownership, I'm not sure that any such policy would be permitted by the 'owners'. However, I've given it some thought, and I think that a Sunshine Policy just might be appropriate here.

If three or more admins are discussing (wikipedia) policy-change or actions-to-be-taken, in an off-wiki environment, which is not fully open (and disclosed) to all editors, then they forfeit their admin tools.

I've noticed that read-protected pages exist on-wiki. Sensitive topics, that need to be private, can be discussed on a read-protected wiki-page. IRC is not a mandatory medium, it is simply convenient. If we are all considered admins (based on something I read about all editors being admins, just some have more tools), we should all have the same access to the discussions. Specific exceptions for specifically confidential matters, again, could be made in read-protected space on-wiki.

As with any initial idea, tweaks and changes are needed, yet I think the idea is fairly sound and is already in practice all over the world.

If this post should be somewhere else, I'm open to suggestions. Lsi john 15:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, we do not have any read-protected pages on the English Wikipedia, and for good reason. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. There's no way in the MediaWiki software to read-protect a specific page (while still making it editable), unless Wikipedia is running a strange extention that I don't know about. Creating and redeleting is a workaround, if we really need one, but I don't think it's necessary. -Amarkov moo! 15:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the read-only page. The link I had was an undelete command which said no-permission. I hadn't looked closely enough. Even so, that doesn't change the idea of a Sunshine Policy, and if we dont have read-protection pages for a good reason, that only highlights the IRC problem even more. As those are read-protected conversations, by definition of exclusion. Lsi john 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So you suggest that WMF has made donations to Freenode for no good reason? God forbid. How do you dare to question the absolute necessity of IRC channels for the Wikimedia Foundation? Do you think you know better than the Big Guys who run the project? --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, why not make it an official guideline that any revision to Wikipedia policy being discussed by more than three editors on IRC may be be cut and pasted by any editor with access to IRC to the appropriate Wikipedia space, or to one created for the purpose? --Wetman 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of this proposal: how exactly would you prove that admins have been discussing policy in a private, off-wiki environment? Posting IRC logs would be a possibility, but they can easily be faked, and the kind of vicious arguments that would result from such accusations are reason enough to reject the idea IMO. Terraxos 02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm challenged by your question in a couple ways.

1. The argument that you can't 'always' prove it, does not mean you can 'never' prove it. We can't always prove socks accounts either, but we still have the rule and we check for socks. Sometimes we can prove socks and sometimes we can't. And, there are several ways to obtain and confirm accurate IRC logs.
2. Working out the details on how to prove a violation, is putting the cart before the horse, and sort of assumes bad-faith on the parties who use IRC. I'd like to think that if a policy was in place, that the admins would set a good example and follow it voluntarily. And, thus, having to prove a violation would be an exception, not the norm.

The important question is, does the silent majority care enough about the IRC problem to do address it? If not, then the details of how to enforce such a policy are moot. Lsi john 04:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To throw my two cents in, I don't care much what gets discussed about Wikipedia on IRC. What I care about is when folks on IRC convince themselves that something is a good idea, then drop it on Wikipedia -- without bothering to provide an explanation or a chance of the rest of us to provide input. It's been done at least once, & I never did get an explanation for the case I'm thinking about. IRC can be a valuable tool in fighting vandalism or spam when time is of the essence -- but in other cases, relying on IRC to create consensus simply excludes the rest of us who'd at least like to have a chance to follow the discussion. -- llywrch 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When can AfDs be closed against consensus?

Our deletion policy says that, without a "rough consensus for deletion", an article is kept by default. However, it also emphasizes that AfD is not a head count, and if all the keep votes are meatpuppets, or the bulk of the article is a copyright violation, for instance, the article can be deleted anyway. Under what other circumstances can the AfD legitimately be closed as delete, if a majority of competent contributors voted to keep? — Omegatron 19:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the guideline you are looking for is located at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. To quote "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus..."

• The closing administrator or editor must determine whether or not this is the case. Also of note, exceptions are mode if the subject article meets WP:CSD it may be deleted speedily even if listed at XFD for discussion, or so this has been the case historically. I hope this helps. regards, Navou 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations, for one. If the closing admin has a very compelling reason to close it against consensus, I would think that would fall under a legitimate use of WP:IAR. Will ^(talk) 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note that the "Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators" document is neither guideline nor policy, but is process, and not all statements on it are described in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Iamunknown 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well then the banner at the top of that page ought to be reworded to reflect just that. Navou 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm asking because of a case I am involved in. A majority of roughly 19 (including 7 admins) voted to keep vs 15 (including 4 admins) to delete, as I count them. Yet the article was deleted. Even if the numbers were reversed, that wouldn't be a rough consensus for deletion, so the article should be kept by default, as I see it.

Of course our three key policies override everything, but whether the article meets those policies is decided in the discussion itself, not by the closing admin. If the topic of reliable sources is brought up in the deletion discussion, and a majority of competent editors agree that the article has reliable sources, one admin's personal opinion to the contrary can't override that, can it?

How compelling of a reason do you need to close against consensus in a case like this? Closing as delete just because you personally agree with others who voted delete doesn't cut it. If that were the way things were run, the first admin to see an AfD would just ignore the discussion and close it according to their own personal viewpoint instead of voting. — Omegatron 21:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the situation. AfD is a discussion, not a vote. If arguments on one side are weak (for example, ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT) and many on the other are compelling and unanswered, the admin can and should choose to go with the strong, compelling, policy-based arguments in preference to head-counting. In other cases, the majority is indeed correct. Have you tried discussing the matter with the admin who closed the discussion? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The arguments would have to be pretty damn compelling to override seven other admins' opinions, don't you think?

Yes, I (and several others) contacted the closing admin, but he went on vacation a day later without responding. The article was then put up for DRV, closed without any discussion, re-opened, re-closed, and re-opened, and is now full of the exact same content-based arguments that were made in the AfD, instead of addressing the deletion process itself.

I'm not usually one to go around yelling about administrative abuse and saying that the deletion process is broken, but... it seems as if the deletion process is broken. — Omegatron 23:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on DRV, in any case, which is where you go to contest deletion decisions if talking it out with the deleting admin doesn't resolve the issue. I think a large part of the problem is that I consistently see you referring to "votes", "a majority voted to..." and such. While the misconception is common, AfD is not a vote. It was in fact moved to "Articles for deletion" from the old title, "Votes for deletion", to specifically emphasize this point. While the number of people who advocate a given position is one thing to consider, it is not the sole factor for consideration—else there wouldn't even be any need for people to justify their position at all, they could simply say "Keep" or "Delete". I don't have any opinion on the specific deletion here, but you'll want a better argument than "X ignored the vote count!". It also looks like multiple previous AfDs had decided not to have the article, and while such precedent isn't absolutely binding and unchangeable, the results of previous discussions are something a closing admin should be aware of and take into account. If you look at AfD as a majority vote, or even as a supermajority vote, it will indeed often appear broken to you, since it is neither. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins have no more franchise on deletion discussions than any other user. Whether 7 admins voted yea or nay is immaterial to the final outcome. Corvus cornix 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• This whole thread looks like forum-shopping, especially since Omeghatron (a significant contributoir to the article) undeleted it after it was deleted by AfD. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Change in Autoconfirmed level

Main page: Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal

After some talk at WT:PROTECT, we feel that it is time for the community to adopt a new definition of autoconfirmed. If anyone still remembers, there was a post on the en-wp list in January that we now have the ability to change the level to require a certain amount of edits before they can be autoconfirmed (edit semiprotected pages, move pages, ect). I've created a draft proposal on this, and it could probably need some work. What this would mean is that a vandal could no longer make sleeper accounts, wait 4 days, and then vandalize a page until on full protection can keep the page in a semi-good condition. He would need to wait 4 days, and make, lets say, 10 edits (and after 4 other vandal edits they'll be blocked anyways). This will annoy the crap out of vandals. So please come and support this idea (and we do need to decide how many edits would be necessary too). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Debate moved to the proposal's talk page. >Radiant< 13:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Recreate-deleted-warn

I have cross posted this from WP:VPT. I am attempting to open discussion at MediaWiki talk:Recreate-deleted-warn. Participants welcome there.

Fop revert war

Resolved

 – clear 3rr violation

I just blocked Petercrapsody69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours after he made 6 reverts in about 30 minutes to Fop. He want's to add a picture of himself and consensus is no. I probably should havn't been the one to block because although I didn't remove this particular image I have been against his vanity and I removed the original. Posting for a review. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an obvious 3RR violation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Could some take a look at this. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Some background is also useful here. It's a single purpose account to insert vanity. After another vanity addition to the article, I did some further investigation of this, and it seems to be a horrendous vanity campaign by one Alex Ghionis, who's MySpace can be seen here. He's also making vanity edits as an IP, such as this, these and these. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghionis & McKee is relevant as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have notified the real Alex Ghionis and brought your potentially libelous claims to his attention. What do you think you are doing? That is very much uncalled for, especially considering you're incorrect. Please keep our discourse civil, please. Petercrapsody69 07:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to point out that my account has begun work on building pages for the short stories of Anton Chekhov. I would appreicate it if you looked into the account history properly before you decide to label it as a "single-purpose" account. Your other piece of questionable research - that I am someone named "Alex Ghionis" from what appears to be Northern Ireland - raises another interesting point when your user page is considered. You clearly take a personal and political bias toward the issue of Northern Ireland. This raises the suspicion that your edits against me are political and biased in their nature. That is against the nature of Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know, and it leads me to argue that the "consensus" reached on the Fop issue is, at best, flawed. There were several posts that supported my edit, but those are overshadowed by several particularly active editors who were determined to have their voices heard. I also raised several relevant points regarding the issue that were NEVER addressed, by you or the other few particularly vocal editors who were determined to see the outcome they wanted. I was trying to discuss the issue civilly. I ask you to please stick to the points and issues at hand. By the way, I live in Hong Kong -- indeed, am typing to you now from Hong Kong -- and have never been to Northern Ireland.Petercrapsody69 07:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see no legal threats. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please no wikilawyering. Petercrapsody69 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please also see wikilawyering while you're at it. You've played the "political bias" card on every editor (including administrators) that has attempted to stop your campaign of vanity. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just pointed out your flawed "research" into my "personal life." Can you please address that, and prove that it was not biased? Petercrapsody69 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need. Take me out of the equation, and every other editor still says the photo doesn't go in, for reasons of vanity, spam, conflict of interest or biographies of living people. Please stop wasting community time and accept this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If I take you out of the equation, I am still left with repeatedly unaddressed and valid points that I have raised on the Talk:Fop page. If you would like to justify your editing decisions, I ask you to address the issues and not spoend your time wikilawyering by citing sometimes contradictory "policies."Petercrapsody69 07:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please address the issues? Petercrapsody69 08:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Which ones? Other pages are just as bad? --Haemo 08:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought wikilawyering was frowned upon.Petercrapsody69 08:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not lawyering; the whole point of the page is that it's invalid to protest a deletion, or removal, because you claim other articles suffer from the same problem. Lawyering is when you apply a narrow, or misplaced, interpretation of a guideline in a way which is not in the spirit of it. --Haemo 08:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, then can we open a new thread to discuss the actual issues and go through the arguments? I think there is a valid point here, and it's being lost under glib justifications citing various "policies." All I am asking for is a fair debate, please. Petercrapsody69 08:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on Talk:Fop and the contribs history, I see nothing wrong with the block or with the image removal by User:One Night In Hackney and User:CambridgeBayWeather. The only ambiguity is whether the image removal should be because of vanity, spam, or BLP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was hardly a "consensus" on the issue; just several particularly vocal editors. There were dissenting opinions -- valid ones -- that were never addressed. I have explained above why the editor, [User:One Night In Hackney]] was apparently biased in his decision-making. I ask you to please look at the relevant issues again. That's what Talk Pages are for. Petercrapsody69 07:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I again refer you to wikilawyering. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

May I please refer you to wikilawyering, which is what you have been doing with all of your "policy" citations, despite the fact that you appear to have a different agenda. Petercrapsody69 07:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, you're wrong here -- the overwhelming majority of your edits have been disruptive, and it is clearly against policy to insert an unsourced image of someone calling them a "fop". Your personal attacks against Hackney are not helping. --Haemo 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was my "personal life" researched and posted onto the pages of Wikipedia? It wasn't even mine. It was an innocent bystandard. I don't think that should be ignored. My arguments about Fop are clear and on the Talk:Fop page. I am just pointing out now that there was bias in the consensus.

Whether or not you are the person in question is immaterial -- you have still been disruptively editing, and the picture clearly violates guidelines. You can throw the rest away - the only "bias" here is towards enforcing guidelines. --Haemo 07:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Then may I please ask you, Haemo, to enforce these same guidelines on the pages for duck and soldier? Petercrapsody69 08:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) It's prima facie obvious in those cases, and if you click the images on those pages you'll see the say what the subject is by attribution. You really don't see a difference between labeling a picture of someone a "fop", and labelling a picture of a duck a duck? In any case, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Haemo 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that prima facie is law language (wikilawyering), it can be argued to be prima facie in this case as well. Have you seen the recent picture, which satisfies the definition of "fop"? Petercrapsody69 08:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"It can be argued" contradicts the definition of prima facie. That's the whole point you seem to be ignoring -- that, and the fact that the examples you gave both clearly show attribution on their image sources. Yours is a subjective call, without a reliable source, and is a derogatory term. It's like claiming you can identify a gay man from his picture. --Haemo 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevant admin-related BLP discussions

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision#Summary deletion of BLPs and Wikipedia talk:BLP Admin#Possibly relevant arbitration case for a proposed arbitration case principle (which may not pass) and a discussion on the talk page of a rejected proposal that may now be more relevant, both of which admins should be aware of. Carcharoth 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, that will be a fairly significant change to BLP in practice if it is endorsed.--Isotope23 17:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't think ArbCom was supposed to be changing policies, just interpreting them. This would be a change in BLP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree. -- Renesis (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's got five support votes now, so I guess they may change policy anyway. Hmm. - KrakatoaKatie 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't this is a change to policy. There are two choices in the case of a severe, complete-article BLP violation--stubiify and delete. Which of those depends on the severity of the problem, and is ultimately at the discretion of an admin, to be reviewed afterward by the community. Chick Bowen 03:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It is a change to policy with respect to the way that speedy deletions are contested. Before, a contested speedy deletion would have been sent through AFD. The principle that contested speedy deletions should go through AFD is a long-standing one, and was the understanding upon which the whole speedy deletion system was originally founded, and which has been reinforced consistently since (such as with the introduction of criterion #A7). The arbitration committee is most definitely changing long-standing policy. With this revision to policy, contested deletions remain deleted, and there is no way for non-administrators to access the content and thus contribute to a discussion on whether the verifiability and neutrality policies were adhered to.

      This is a very bad decision by the arbitration committee, not least because the only-administrators-have-the-franchise system that it introduces is a recipe for more wheel-warring and divisiveness similar to what we have seen recently, not less. It's also an extra unnecessary hurdle. In order to dispute the speedy deletion of the article and have it sent through the normal deletion process, first one has to form a consensus (of editors most of whom won't even know what the article contained) to even obtain access to it at all.

      Ironically, a far better procedure (and one that seems to me to be blindingly obvious) for disputed speedy deletions that doesn't require this policy change and that doesn't introduce extra hurdles, was actually proposed on these noticeboards by one of the disputants in the arbitration case a while back: Blank the article (so that non-administrators can still access the edit history to see what is being discussed), protect it (to ensure that the discussion pages are used for the dispute), and send it through AFD in the normal way (noting in the nomination the reason for blanking and protection). Uncle G 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is related discussion on WT:CSD, specifically about speedily deleting BLP violations. >Radiant< 10:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion help requested

Resolved

 – All deleted and page removed. -- Renesis (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if any of you admins have some free time, there are a whole ton of images to delete at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 9/Old US map images. Even if you can stop by and do 10-20 images, that would help. None of these require discussion and all have been approved for deletion. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Am doing. Should be done shortly. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Oregon, RI, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wyoming and part of NC. That's enough for me :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done a few of the larger sections. --Deskana (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I took out Ohio and Virginia. Texas images all have talk pages - watch out. -- Merope 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I did New Mexico and Utah, but several of the Utah images have copies on Commons which still need to be deleted. -- Renesis (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I did the Dakotas, but I'm on dial-up today, so I won't be doing any more for now (takes forever). Firsfron of Ronchester 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You all rock! Thanks for helping out. howcheng {chat} 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat (talk · contribs) unblock request

I just noticed an unblock request at User talk:CyclePat. While I am inclined to given him a chance to edit the encyclopedia, I also get the distinct impression from his request that he is going to attempt to continue discussion of WP:AMA and try to resurrect the historical page. I suspect such efforts will be viewed as disruptive by at least some editors given the history surrounding AMA, so I'd like to get further input here, preferably from editors not involved in WP:AMA/WP:EA. Pat can be a good contributor, but I don't want to unblock him just to see him indef'd as soon as he starts a thread at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates. Thoughts?--Isotope23 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Still hasn't given up on AMA. I'm sorry to say, but I don't think he gets it yet. :( I wouldn't unblock yet. SirFozzie 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Only unblock on the understanding that they're not going to rehash AMA/EA again. Thanks/wangi 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can he assert he will leave the AMA/EA alone? Navou 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but will he? And even after he does, will he stick to his word?--MONGO 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If he doesn't, the great clunking banhammer will come crashing down again. We needn't worry about him breaking the agreement, provided he does actually agree. Moreschi ^Talk 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

With the assertion, I can agree with the unblock. This would be a net gain to the project assuming the contributions will build the article proper. If he goes against the assertion, reblocking can be accomplished very quickly. I don't have an issue with an unblock in this context. We should always be willing to let editors, especially those who have in the past made good contributions to the article proper a chance to learn from mistakes and contribute again. Thoughts? Navou 21:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that anyone considering overturning the indefinite block placed by JzG should consult with him first, or direct him to this section.--MONGO 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

JzG is aware and has made it clear to Pat SirFozzie 22:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, here's a link to the earlier discussion here on the same subject. —David Eppstein 21:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen an unblock request that packed in quite so much wikilawyering, but that I could stomach, just about, if he actually said he'd drop it. Drop the AMA lark, completely. Never mention it again. Stay away from all dispute resolution, if he can (he can't meddle with ASSIST, cuz he's banned from there). I'll unblock myself, but I have to have this guarantee of never even thinking about the AMA again. I'm all for clemency, but there are limits. Moreschi ^Talk 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that Moreschi neatly expresses my feelings on the matter as well. Pat has shown in the past that he is capable of contributing positively to Wikipedia. If he would like to do so again, he needs to (at a minimum) drop the WP:AMA stuff and stay well clear of WP:EA. I would expect that such a provision would be phrased in clear, inflexible terms, with the understanding that such restrictions would be interpreted very liberally and that he should always err very much on the side of caution. Frankly, he would be well-advised to stay away from any third-party participation in any dispute resolution process, as he has demonstrated exceptionally clearly in his recent edits that he just doesn't 'get it'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* It looks like Pat seems hell-bent on not understanding the problem: [1]. I give up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I'll let someone senior in "Time in grade", so to speak, explain it to him, but he's made it clear that if he's unblocked, he will continue to advocate for the AMA. SirFozzie 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Community ban on him discussing AMA proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I object to unblocking him. He has made it abundantly clear that he will continue crusading for the AMA. He needs to understand that such is not desirable. >Radiant< 10:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations by User:Bones999

I began looking into the contribution history of Bones999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after investigating a copyvio complaint recieved via OTRS (ticket, for those with access).

After determining that the text in question had existed on the other site prior to existing here and did include a copyright notice, I began looking at some of the user's other contributions and uncovered further copying from the other site. I warned the user about copyright violations, and I'm in the process of cleaning up what I can find - however this is text added to existing articles as early as March 2007, and this user has over 1000 contributions so the process is slow.

Here are some diffs of his additions on articles that have been cleaned already (all YYYY_European_Cup_Final):

• [2] copy of [3]
• [4] copy of [5]
• [6] copy of [7]
• [8] copy of [9]
• [10] copy of [11]
• [12] copy of [13]
• [14] copy of [15]
• [16] copy of [17]

In most cases, he only took a few paragraphs from a larger page, but they were pasted verbatim into the Wikipedia articles.

Any chance this user could be encouraged is the kindest possible way, to clean up his own mess? --Versageek 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk to him, direct him to the relevant WP: pages. Other than that, copyright vios (besides deleting blatant speedied ones) is something I haven't had much experience with... is that a blockable ground? David Fuchs 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. --Iamunknown 05:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• I should elaborate. Yes editors are blocked for copyright violations, but not often indefinite blocks. For one example see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive82#Plagiarism and copyright infringement denied and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive84#Blocked apologetic user seems to be forgotten about by admins, where a user was indef blocked while cleanup took place at User:Gmaxwell/orbicle and then later unblocked. On other occasions, I have encountered editors who were blocked for a shorter period of time. It depends, but it is blockable issue. --Iamunknown 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few more, I think these are the last of the football/soccer ones. [18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27], These last two were added within the past week, so it's not just something he did when he was new: [28],[29]. All of these have been cleaned. I haven't checked any of his non football/soccer contributions, someone probably should. --Versageek 01:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Admin abuse of tools to erase edit history without Oversight Privileges

I'd like to request a review of what I believe to be is a loophole in oversighting of edits (removal of evidence of edits from editing history is how i'm using the term oversighting here). I believe based on the below that some admins are using the ability to delete and restore userpages, with the restoration leaving out edits made by themselves that could be considered unbecoming of an admin if brought up later.

I was accused in an edit summary on 5/27/07 [30] of being a sockpuppet (originally that edit by User:SlimVirgin had an edit summary of "rv sockpuppet"), and posted this complaint about it [31], which was also noticed by another user to corroborate the accusation was indeed made [32].

On June 11, I happened to notice that the original sockpuppet accusation edit from gone from User:SlimVirgin's talkpage edit history [33], so I clicked on the link given to show the deletion logs for that page [34] showed that another user, User:Crum375, had deleted/restored the entire user page of this user. I had previously checked that sock puppet accusation diff, and it was there only a few days before that 6/10 deletion/restoration. A query on Crum375's talk page indicated that he/she was removing vandalism from SV's page, which sounds reasonable. Why that would require a deletion/restoration of the entire page, including a 5/27/07 edit by SV on her own talk page, was not explained. My query about that unusual deletion/restoration of someone else's talk page, was met wonder about why I would care that SV's edit calling me a sockpuppet being gone would concern me, and then questioned with implications that I must be be 6/10/07 vandal that Crum375 said was the reason his/her actions were done that day.[35]

It appears that admins are using their own admin tools to delete their own user pages, then restoring them without embarassing edits, in order to circumvent what would normally required Oversight privilieges. In this case, another editor with an editing history that is consistently co-resident with the owner of the talk page, did the same immediate restore after deletion fast one. Checking the deletion policy [36] I don't see where the policy allows the deletion of an edit history from a user page by circumventing a regular admin loophole to oversight edits is alllowed. Covering up your own mistakes as an admin to prevent scrutiny by making further mistakes in abusing loopholes in wikipedia admin tools should not be tolerated. We are all accountable for our actions on wikipedia, or should be. I'd like the delete/restore habits on userpages by those 2 admins looked into. Piperdown 01:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One way to remove personal info from a page is for an admin to delete said page then recreate it without certain parts of that page's history. This can be done without oversight, is permitted, and this is what happened here b/c when I accessed the deleted history I saw someone had posted personal info on SlimVirgin. That said, the admin who deleted then recreated the page histories did not recreate any page history after June 7, 2007, meaning there are 8699 deleted edits to SlimVirgin's talk page histories. I would suggest that in this case, oversight would have been the better route to use b/c it wouldn't have left so much of the history deleted. So despite Piperdown's accusations, the specific page history Piperdown refers to was deleted along with 8698 other page histories. This is merely a case of sloppy removal of personal info, not a conspiracy against Piperdown. Still, someone with oversight should clean this up. --Alabamaboy 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy, just to explain, Crum375 removed an edit that tried to out me (as I understand it; I've not looked at it yet), and then wasn't sure which edits to restore. Similar edits had been deleted in the past, and he was worried about inadvertently undeleting them, so he only undeleted some recent ones. At some point, I aim to go through them and check for the edits that need to stay deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming a "conspiracy". I'm claiming an embarassing edit was removed under disingenuous pretenses. If vandalism was removed, that's fine, good for Crum375. But can you explain why SV's post from 5/27 (who's contents is corroborated by another uninvolved user per my link above) was convenuently deleted in the process? Thanks for looking in the matter. I consider sockpuppet accussations used to discredit other editors without proof, especially by admins and never apologized for, to be a serious breach of adminship Piperdown 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, every single page prior to June 7, 2007, was deleted from SlimVirgin's talk page. The specific 5/27 edit you refer to was merely caught up with 8000 other deleted pages. That makes this a case of sloppy deleting and recreation of the page history. Nothing more. As for the sock puppet accusations, you will need to address that with SlimVirgin.--Alabamaboy 02:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

re:"a case of sloppy deleting and recreation". Conveniently sloppy. I did address this already with SV and was met with no response blanking.I'm not connected, not an admin, and not beyond accountability, so I'll defer to your amazingly assuredness that Crum375 is sloppy. I beg to differ based on the editing histories of both.Piperdown 02:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think yours was targeted specifically, two weeks after the fact, out of 8699 other edits, then I am not sure how you can say you aren't calling this a "conspiracy"... The way it works is that you can only delete all edits. Then you have to select which edits to restore. Crum375 simply chose to only restore 16 of over 8700 edits. -- Renesis (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent]
I'm not claiming a conspiracy, and I can't see how you can claim I am and then educate me on how deleting/restoring is done. Do you think I should have known that already, so must be claiming a conspiracy, then feel the need to inform me about the process anyway? And why is another admin performing an Oversight action by sledgehammer instead of by scalpel? Do you not see the loophole in that? No wonder so many folks are so hot and bothered to become admins - it can be used to your advantage in content disputes and to cover your own tracks. I'm sure some vandalism is bad and should be nuked right away, but unlike admins, BLP subjects don't get the same emergency treatment on extremely offensive edits. Every time I stand up for myself on this site I get accused of sockpuppetry, conspiracy mongering, being smarter than I should be, etc. Thanks for the help regardless of the accusation. I'm getting used to it here. Piperdown 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for what seemed like bashing you while educating you... I thought we had already explained how deletion had happened, I was merely restating it. You'll notice that I said if you think yours was targeted specifically out of 8699 edits, dozens of which had piled up since the edit in question, then I don't know how you can deny the suggestion of a conspiracy. And I do agree, your username is ironic :) -- Renesis (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Alabamaboy said, SV's edit from 5/27 was removed along with 8699 other edits on 6/11. The deletion also occurred more than two weeks after your edit, and obviously had nothing to do with that particular edit. If you want it restored, it can certainly be done, but I don't have the time to check 8698 undelete checkboxes :) -- Renesis (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone with oversight will have to handle this baby. Checking that many undeletes is a sure way to get carpal tunnel.--Alabamaboy 02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to; just shift-select them. Or if you want to restore every deleted edit, just click restore with no boxes selected. Is there anything that should stay deleted before I restore it all? Prodego ^talk 02:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are two or three recent edits with personal info. Don't recreate those.--Alabamaboy 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably more then that, but there is no way I am looking at all 8000 of those. The page was actually so huge shift-selecting didn't work, and I had to use some javascript I have in my monobook to "invert" checkbox selections. Restored. Prodego ^talk 02:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's back. Thanks for the very quick response. For some reason I seem to be taking pride in my pseudonym's reputation and this matters more than I care to admit. You folks are good, I hope your skills are at some point used to earn yourselves a living on top of this volunteer stuff. Piperdown 02:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean exactly, and is there an apology to Slimvirgin in there somewhere for the wacky accusation? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh that is ironic. Piperdown 02:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a question. You made an accusation, assumed abuse, and have used this discussion to repeatedly attempt to suggest that Slimvirgin and folks were "up to no good". WP:AGF is the applicable guideline here that you've disregarded, and common decency suggests an apology is in order. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic because I lost AGF after your hero lost theirs and called me a sockpuppet and didn't apologize for it. Now I'm supposed to apologize for the blanking of those queries and the removal of them from the record.Instead they blanked 2 polite user page posts about it. I didn't even bother to query user:MONGO about his sneak RFCU using the patented "wordbomb" accusation technique, which my accusers have an editing history of using regardless of who they actually bludgeon with it. Piperdown 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really like SlimVirgin and I regularly disagree with her, but this is a basic civility issue and I'd hope you'd do the adult thing. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. :-( SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And the edit history for the 5/27 post in question is gone again. Interesting edit history on that tonight. As the admins who helped out tonight saw, that edit was not something that qualifies for oversighting and if an attempt is made to frame me for something else just for raising this complaint, I'll take this to Jimbo. Piperdown 04:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is troubling in so many ways. I don't understand why Crum375, SlimVirgin and Jayjg are always at the center of this nonsense or who is really in the wrong. I honestly have no idea what it is, but all the intrigue that centers around those three is really detracting from the project. As far as "outing", how does that justify blanking the whole page? This deleting of edits from the history should be reserved for only the specific violations and used as little as possible. It's very, very troublesome to think that edits can just disappear at the whim of certain bureaucrats - shouldn't the history indicate at least that there was Some edit at the time, even if it's been deleted. I don't agree with the anonymity of administrators either, we should know the names of anyone with that much power over the flow of information. Why wait to take it to Jimbo? I'm not sure what response you expect though, I don't think any of this would be news to him. Fourdee 04:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been explained above, but let me try again. Admins can not selectively delete revisions. The delete function deletes all of a page's history, every single edit, with no option to do otherwise. When an admin restores a deleted page, he or she is presented with a list of all the edits to that page. The admin may check "restore all" or may click individual edits to restore them. To delete one edit that revealed personal information, Crum could easily delete the whole page, but then would have to manually click the checkboxes on over 8000 non-harmful edits. Some admins use javascript to make this process faster and easier but this is not mandatory. On the other hand, Oversight can selectively remove a single edit, but only about 15 editors have oversight privilege. There was nothing dastardly or underhanded about Crum's deletion, it was just a clumsy way of doing things. Thatcher131 13:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You are however forgetting that I restored all those edits, and then they were redeleted. Prodego ^talk 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So basically, with a combination of javascript and deleting the article then restoring edits, any admin has the oversight privilege? Sounds even worse. You're right, that is clumsy - and seems to try to avoid the fact that the power to delete an edit is resricted to a few people and certain circumstances. *shrug* Just wondering why these same names are alwasy coming up in disputes. Fourdee 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, deleted edits may be viewed by any other admin. Edits removed by oversight are hidden from everyone (except the developers). Thatcher131 13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How did I get into this? And if you admittedly don't know what is going on, then you shouldn't be pointing fingers and making accusations. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what accusation I made. Fourdee 12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You said I don't understand why Crum375, SlimVirgin and Jayjg are always at the center of this nonsense and all the intrigue that centers around those three is really detracting from the project. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Any admin can see deleted edits, so the ability to delete revisions is a far cry from oversight. If anything nefarious had gone on it would have been founds, but it seems all was in good faith here. ^(H) 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone, admins or "regular" editors, who desire "outing" or personal attack edits removed from a page in the project ask an oversighter to do it instead of an admin clumsily using the page deletion function. The page deletion function obviously doesn't work well for surgically removing offending edits and it appears that this is what the oversight function was created for. CLA 16:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There are alot less people with oversight than with admin. If something needs to be gone NOW, admin delete is probably a good way to go. Then, request oversight on top of that. It depends though on the level of information posted. I think admin delete of innapropriate revisions is a fairly common activity, I know that i have done it several times then usually request oversight over the admin deleted revision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It works fine if done properly, however in this case it was not. Prodego ^talk 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot. Let's get the 8,000,000 non-offending edits restored, leave the ones claiming to reveal personal details deleted (and ideally oversighted), and move on. Fourdee, please stop shopping for forums in which to attack SlimVirgin, Jayjg, etc. I'm not clear why User:Crum375 re-deleted all of the edits, though. There's no problem with deleting edits that claim to reveal personal information, but collateral damage of 8,000+ good-faith edits and page history isn't acceptable. I'm assuming it's just a technical issue with finding the right diffs to delete. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt, et. al. and WP:COIN

A number of editors have cited WP:COI in their reasoning at the deletion/DRV discussions for Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and Angela Beesley. So here's a challenge: if you've posted that those articles ought to be kept because it's a conflict of interest for these people to want their biographies off our site, then please follow through by helping the backlogged conflict of interest noticeboard. There's more corporate spam, vanity, and pov-pushing over there than the board's core of loyal volunteers can keep up with. We need your help! Durova^Charge! 01:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll resist the temptation to suggest that Durova may have a conflict of interest in distracting people away from the Daniel Brandt DRV (JUST KIDDING!). :) But I totally agree - there's a lot of real COI junk, so we don't need to worry as much about the "avoid self-reference" stuff that passes for COI in the eyes of the beholder. YechielMan 03:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That DRV closed before I posted. And seriously, I'd love it if even ten percent of the people who participated there chipped in at WP:COIN. Durova^Charge! 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:ArmedBlowfish

Resolved

 – Armedblowfish is not banned from Wikipedia

Some of you may recall that ArmedBlowfish is effectively "banned" by our software because he runs a Tor exit node. He's unwilling to give up running the node, but he feels that he has suggestions for policy changes that may be of use. He wants to post, on his own talk page, an essay about how to resolve a problem.

He feels banned. I'm pretty sure that he isn't banned, in the sense of Wikipedia:Banning policy. He just happens to be running routing software that is blocked from performing edits on Wikipedia. He accepts this and is reconciled to it.

So this might sound weird, but I'd like to get consensus that it's okay for ArmedBlowfish to post his policy suggestions on his talk page, the only page he is able to edit while the proxy is blocked.

Just that he doesn't feel that it would be right to participate in wikipolitics without consensus.

I'm asking here because obviously if he isn't allowed to do this, and he tries, you chaps are the ones likely to protect his talk page.

So comments please. Is this okay? --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the Tor blocking policy is crap and all need to be made into softblocks, as they effectively keep out highly valued contributors such as this. Let him post it I say. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish is not banned, he may post if he wants and others help him. And Tor blocks must not be turned into softblocks. Kusma (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

^demon, softblocks mean that vandals can use Tor and avoid autoblocks; pick the next account in their bag and carry straight on. Applies to all open proxies. As Jimbo said, there are uses for proxies to provide privacy, editing Wikipedia is not one of them. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so block the individual users. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Like we do with JB196, you mean? Guy (Help!) 20:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but meanwhile is it okay for ArmedBlowfish to post an essay on a policy proposal to his own talk page? He really is watching and waiting for an okay before he will do it. --Tony Sidaway 10:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont see anything wrong with it. Users who are banned are allowed to discuss on their talk pages! After all what ArmedBlowfish is doing is starting a discussion. --soum ^talk 11:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see a problem with putting forward ideas for discussion. Tyrenius 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I: don't see an issue. It's on his talk page, and we'd allow any user to make an unblock request on his own talk page... which this seems to qualify as. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you might want to see Jimbo's most recent statement on Tor proxies at Wikipedia_talk:No_open_proxies#A_general_statement. - hahnchen 17:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• He is a good faith user, so it is most definitely acceptable for him to post suggestions on whatever he likes. >Radiant< 11:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact of the current discussion in the community regarding Tor, I think ABF's contribution to the discussion would be helpful and enlightening. He puts a real face on the controversy. JodyB _talk 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No issue. ABF is not banned, software does not make that call. Others can help him too. Side note, and if he likes, if HTTP exit is precluded by the tor software, then there should be no issue with the unblock of the IP he edits on, however, this may be between him and a checkuser, unless he chooses to publically disclose the IP for http exit denial confirmation. Navou 12:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, he should be allowed to post it on his talkpage; he isn't banned. I'd be interested to see it because I can't for the life of me think of any acceptable policy change that would allow him to edit while running a TOR exit node. It would require a software change for him to be allowed to edit.--Isotope23 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• I support ABF, I even voted support in his RfA, but we all make choices. He knows his ip is banned from Wikipedia because he chooses to run a TOR node on it in violation of policy. It's his choice that the computer he runs from his banned. He could always petition to get the IP unbanned or even just use a different computer. If I switched from my home internet to my cellular modem I could change my ip in seconds. Futhermore he could maintain multiple IPs for a nominal cost, one of which he could leave off TOR. This is his choice that he's banned. -N 15:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And the result of all that is here: his essay. --Tony Sidaway 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Review of my deletion

Resolved

Could I have some reviews on my deletion of User:ALM scientist/Muhammad face Pictures? This was nominated for MfD (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ALM scientist/Muhammad face Pictures) 5 days ago. Consensus points to delete right now. Before the MfD concluded, ALM scientist blanked the page which was perceived as a desire for a self-delete and deleted by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). After he deleted it and closed the MfD, ALM scientist recreated the page with the edit summary "recreated. No need to delete it after I blanked myself." with the content "." Thoughts? His creation of the page seems to be a protest against the MfD discussion and is basically just to spite people. Metros 14:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Will ^(talk) 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And it's disruption to make a point. Will ^(talk) 14:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your deletion. Blanking != deletion, and the consensus at the MfD was pretty clear.--Isotope23 14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Indecent images

Resolved

 – This seems to have been a simple misunderstanding ^(H) 15:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been patrolling for vandalism recently and decided to check the new images, there are multiple images being uploaded by User:H2g2bob that constitue pornographic images, although some have a slight educational application, most of these images appear to be uploading for no other reason than to put pornographic images onto wikipedia. Although I have marked some of the worst for speedy deletion I believe further input is required to check the validity of these images MarkBolton 15:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any indecent images here. Already deleted, are they? --soum ^talk 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images would still appear in his upload log, afaik. Seems to me a frivilous report. -N 15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but this user appears to be tagging images ON COMMONS for speedy deletion. I think a warning is in order. -N 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

MarkBolton is referring to images like Image:Cunnilingus 2.JPG and Image:UC-smile.jpg which H2g2bob tagged as {{badimage}}s. They do appear to be on commons and uploaded by other people there, but since the only action in the edit history here is the tagging by H2g2bob, it's easy to see why MarkBolton just assumed that they were uploaded by H2g2bob. Metros 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going to point the same thing but you beat me to that. --soum ^talk 15:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input people I think there should be some guidence on the images pointing to a wikipolicy regarding images or content such as this as there is already the {{badimage}}s, having looked around i could find none, and since they appeared on the new images pages i assumed that they were wikipedia images, then thought to ask the question here, I think the warning was a bit quick since i only requested deletion for a couple and then asked the question here MarkBolton 15:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now, no pages on the English Wikipedia link to Image:UC-smile.jpg. Image:UC-smile.jpg does seem like a good, raw image of Unassisted childbirth but it also seems unsettling. I posted a note at Unassisted childbirth talk page to give them a change to use the image if they want. Also note that the person in the image seems to be the one granting the license on the image page, but it usually is the person pushing the camera button that is the copyright holder of this kind of work. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a lovely picture. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree slightly with your assessment of the copyright situation. If it's my camera and I ask you to take a picture of me, it should be considered a work-for-hire and the copyright still belongs to me, even though you actually composed the shot and pushed the button. howcheng {chat} 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Change to CSD I7

After seeing Connie Talbot (Britain's Got Talent final).jpg uploaded, I noticed that no image criteria for speedy deletion covers fair use images uploaded under a free-content tag (though G12 may cover it), so, to cover such uploads, I've slightly changed the wording from:

Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag.

to:

Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid licensing tag.

I know there should be discussions and all that, but this is really a no-brainer. Will ^(talk) 16:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those "existing practice" things; fairuse images uploaded as PD or GFDL-self or whatnot are technically copyvios and Subject To Ardourous, Painful and Futile Deletion Process Unless License Is (Eventually?) Changed By The Uploader at best. From a purely practical point of view, this really should be a CSD criterion, with some reluctance; people sometimes can't bother with even thinking of the licensing and stick a PD or GFDL-self license on stuff they found on random websites or on screenshots they made. *sigh* License stuff is so very complicated! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I support deleting obvious copyright violations on sight, and anything that can be done to fix that (like tweaking the CSD wording) is welcome in my eyes. -N 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Special:Upload already says we do this, and block the uploaders besides. —Cryptic 19:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

um no really bad idea. If you can show it is non free it is covered by g12. In future disscuss on CSD talk first.Geni 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it's such a bad idea. An album cover with {{logo}} is still bad. So is an album cover with {{pd}}. They're both copyvios. Will ^(talk) 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I agree with this change completely. Policy is descriptive. --Deskana (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you just try to argue that it is imposible for there to be such a thing as a PD album cover?Geni 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I said tagging an image with an incorrect license is bad, whether it's a free license or a non-free license. Will ^(talk) 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can show it to be incorrect it is covered by G12. Otherwise it is rather hard to be certian.Geni 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I3: Improper license. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording of I3 seems to only include permission-given licenses, not any incorrect license. So tagging something that is fair use as PD, for example, wouldn't be covered under I3, according to its description. --Deskana (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

True, though I consider Fair Use images tagged with Free Use tags to meet the spirit of the criterion. Vague? You bet. But it allows me to clear out obvious problems without worrying about not having a 100%-specific CSD reason. (I try to fix it before I just delete it, but sometimes deletion is the best path) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. I delete blatant incorrectly tagged images on sight, too. Perhaps it should be reworded if it's vague?

Isn't this discussion better suited for Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? howcheng {chat} 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Block this proxy

Resolved

Blocked.

Can someone block User:69.64.84.92 as a proxy? ([37]) --ST47Talk 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion and redirect request

Action requested: That Haruyoshi Hyakutate be deleted and redirected, along with a redirect for Seikichi Hyakutake, to the Harukichi Hyakutake article.

Background: The kanji for Hyakutake's given name can be read as Haruyoshi, Seikichi, or Harukichi. No documentation apparently exists that documents which reading Hyakutake preferred, but Harukichi appears to be the most common in availble sources (see list of references for Guadalcanal campaign). I've already merged the information from the Haruyoshi article into the Harukichi article. The merge tags have been on both pages since January 2007 and no one else has commented on the proposal. Therefore, appears to be non-controversial and uncontested. CLA 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks fine, but can you not just replace the page with a redir, rather than deleting? It's important to preserve the article's edit history, least of all to show at a later date as to how the merge went and what happened. - Alison ☺ 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've taken the liberty of redirecting both the Haruyoshi and Seikichi pages to Harukichi Hyakutake. -- Jonel | Speak 02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the quick response. CLA 02:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixing link to archived discussion on protected talk page

In order to allow admins (and other users) to follow the full discussion at User_talk:RJII#Blocked, can someone please fix the link which currently points to this page, so that it points to the following place?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive47#User:RJII

Od Mishehu 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

MPFAP - the return of an old chestnut

I have suggested a change to MPFAP here which removes the "disputed guideline" tags and is just a page telling people that MPFA isn't generally protected, except when under extreme vandal pressure. I'd appreciate comments here. The rewrite doesn't solve the larger issue of whether the current practice should change, it's just a way of removing the disputed tags by replacing "should be" with "is" (you can't dispute something that is, because it either is or it isn't!). DrKiernan 07:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)