Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive121

Odd block problem

Resolved

seems to be cleared. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please could someone help User:Nick mallory? He is having block problems based on the use of a web accelerator - which he has disabled, but he is still having problems. He is a good contributor, but is (I think understandably) getting rather upset by it. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan and to all those who helped out. Nick mallory (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Can someone please check this page?? There are pages going unprotected and it's taking up a lot of my time. Thanks. Somno (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

It's back under control now; recommend tagging it with {{adminbacklog}} in the future. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A question about bibliographical data

Resolved

I am sorry to disturb you with my question, but, after a mini edit-war, as a last solution I decided to ask your experienced opinion. In the New World Translation article it is stated:

Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.[ref]University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.[ref]

I repeatedly asked bibliographical data for this file, and I was answered that the reference itself (as you see it above) is adequate bibliographical data. Is it really? Can this reference stand alone as bibliographical data?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Best regards,

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did. Thank you.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

Resolved

How do I send this protected article to afd please? Grounds: nn, v, rs, blp. Also listed at Requests for arbitration - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the AfD template to David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). You can go ahead and complete the AfD nomination now as it's only the main article that's protected. For future reference, Wikipedia:Protected edit requests explains the normal process to use. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have I completed it correctly? CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

W00t

Resolved

I have previously made a request for administrator attention at ANI about this article, which is almost entirely original research and has failed an AfD in this form. I had originally placed a wiktionary redirect template per the results of that AfD, but those edits were reverted to the original article without explanation. I then tried to remove the original research from this article, but those edits were reverted for "near blanking" of the page. I would request that an administrator reinstate the wiktionary redirect and permenantly protect this page to prevent the reinsertion of this material. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected to the original location agreed at the AFD and recorded the fact that a redirect was agreed ar DRV. I have invited combatants who wish to restore the article to create a draft with sources in user space and submit this to DRV for approval. I also protected the redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I get you to restore it to the appropriate Wiktionary soft redirect instead? The redirect currently points to a Wiktionary soft redirect, and all the multitude of internet slang pages that were redirected to that list have since been converted to soft redirects. As it currently stands, it is effectively a double redirect. An example of the soft redirect page can be found at this edit from back in November of the same article. (I could do it myself, but don't want to step on your toes) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Resolved

There are requests to be added to the list of users that are more than 24 hours old on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, and the page stated that in these circumstances, a polite message here would be a good thing, resulting in a cheery admin's arrival to sort it all out. So, dear friends, here is such a message!  DDStretch  (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Page needs fixed

Resolved

 – Template moved. Acalamari 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Template-Publishing-Bios was moved and is in the mainspace. β^_command 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback on Protected Pages

Resolved

 – Potential problem tested and was found to not exist. Those devs are thorough --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 03:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sysop. I have been granted rollback. On protected pages, if I go into the history, the last edit has the rollback button next to it. I am not going to press it to find out what it does, however I see no reason to believe that it would not roll back the edit. As the page is fully protected, and I am not a sysop, that would be bad. If anyone wants to see for sure, I created a page User:CastAStone/rollbacktest that you could edit and then protect, I will attempt to roll it back. If it rolls back, we need to conteact the devs.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Try it now. I added an "edit" so you would have something to roll back. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Unauthorized:This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators." Perfect. Thanks! Wanna delete the page now?--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but do have rollback, and I get a "only admins can edit" message. We're safe on this one. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Deleted at CastAStone's request. (By the way, I think that's the first time in four years I've ever vandalized a page. LOL.) Antandrus (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I think that's the first time I've abused a function in three years ;). WP:IAR: For the greater good. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Kenny2k

Resolved

 – Kenny2k agreed to userpage's deletion - PeaceNT (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if this userpage here might be considered somewhat distracting to Wikipedia. Apparently, this user has made very little contribution and has focused his work on making a resource for information on the upcoming Super smash bros. brawl video game. I would like to bring this to your attention to see if it violates our policies on social networking. Thanks. Marlith ^T/C 05:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Definitely a person freeloading off of Myspace. Was the user warned? I'm nominating the page for deletion. —BoL 05:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, here it is. —BoL 05:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He was warned. But he ignored the warning. Marlith ^T/C 05:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he's not online right now. He may be online at midnight judging by his contribs. (0700 UTC) —BoL 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's his view on the page [1] --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 06:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to delete my user page. I apologize if I have caused any problems. It was originally created to stop certain debates about the Super Smash Bros. Brawl page, but it got a little carried away. Once again, I apologize.--Kenny2k (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's OK. You don't have to worry. There's a debate if you're interested. No worries. —BoL 06:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpage deleted per request. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollbackery

Hi. I woke up this morning to discover that I had somehow acquired a new user right overnight. Now I'm not complaining, but if this is to be of any use to me I'll need to integrate it with my existing RC patrol software. This would take several hours, and I'm quite busy at the moment. And apparently people are having a bit of drama because there was no consensus to implement the proposal.

Is anyone here confident that this feature will still be around in a few days' time, or is it more likely that I'll wake up some time next week and discover I've lost a user right overnight? I ask only because I don't want to waste time implementing something that will be of no use. Thanks – Gurch 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of furor, I would suggest waiting. Viridae^Talk 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of rollbackers already in existance, it will be hard to take it back from all of them. NoSeptember 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well not really; a single site configuration change to make the "rollbacker" group do nothing would accomplish it. I've had myself removed from this group since (a) whoever gave it me didn't go through the proper process and (b) it's of no use to me unless I integrate it with my software – Gurch 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I getting this right. Already improper granting of this right is happening? --Bduke (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Just like when Ryulong was made admin and blocked a Tor proxy and everyone was jumping at him for using his new abilities while "consensus was dubious", people will do the same here. I suggest waiting a bit, in a week or so, after a few people leaving and returning, everything will be back to normal. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "improper" is not valid here - there is no widely approved policy in existence that would govern this process, and against which you could measure appropriateness of granting. Миша13 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Just like the shortlived "Table" namespace, I suspect that the rollback user right could just as easily be 'globally' switched off. Possibly the senior developers are right now engaged in a bloodbath (cf. this rumoured bloodbath in the admins channel) over whether to throw that switch or not. Or possibly there is no such switch. I do recall some discussion somewhere about how it has recently been made much easier to change user rights - did this include adding and removing new classes of user rights? If so, then there probably is a switch that could kill this new user right. Now it's been implemented, I think it will be interesting to see what happens, but I would like to see a wider debate on the Wikipedia technocracy and how to improve communication between developers and the community. One problem is that the community has grown in size and a small group of (sometimes uncommunicative - usually due to pressures of time) developers may need help in communicating with such a large community that demands a lot of the developers (and unfortunately sometimes appears to get little in return - again, due to limited volunteer resources). Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All user rights are specified in the site configuration. Anything is possible; the developers could render the administrator group non-functional, or make everyone administrators, if they felt like it – Gurch 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to the technical issue, but the drama and upset removing this from so many will cause. Add that to the drama we already have over the consensus issue.... NoSeptember 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I sympathise with those who steered clear of scripts and whatnot, may soon get used to this tool, and may then have it ripped from them. But that is exactly why something like this should be discussed first. It took ages to get the Main Page redesigned. A few more drafts of this proposal until a clearer consensus emerged would not have hurt. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are reasons why devs are not supposed to act without a clear and settled consensus in the community. Because when they do, it is incredibly disruptive, and that is what is happening right now. This needs switched off now, before further damage is done. Then calmly and quietly we can pick our way through this issue and decide what to do. If that leads to a consensus to proceed - then at least we can do so whilst still remaining a community.--Doc^g 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe a general RfC or RfArb centred on developers might be useful. There was the shortlived Table namespace. There was the unlogged wiping of block logs. And now this stuff about rollback rights. Developers need to act transparently and communicate with and participate in the community, not act as gods sitting above it. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a very vocal minority that says there is not a consensus. I disagree that there is a lack of consensus. Considering both the numbers and the arguments made there is clear support for the implementation of this harmless tool that anyone can undo. I want to know where it is written that the default action for this proposal is to not let the community have this tool, and that to pass it needs 80%+ support, if it was two thirds opposed there sure wouldn't be anyone saying there was a lack of consensus against it. 1 != 2 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A few more drafts of this proposal until a clearer consensus emerged would not have hurt. Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shrugs - Those who can make a change, do. Those who oppose may be steamrolled by those who can quickly implement the change, regardless of "consensus". I watched several editors do a fait accompli with bots/tools awhile back to speedily mass-userfy userboxes, since there was no way to oppose the action once it was done. People complained, and were ignored or bitten. And now we're faced with something similar. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Disappointed? Yes, very much so, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I'll hope that this is undone so that discussion can continue, but neither will I be holding my breath. - jc37 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, anyone can go and propose this policy be changed. Though I would wait until experience gives us the knowledge we need to make wise rules. 1 != 2 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review as unnecessary at this stage. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I slowed down the approval time from 15 minutes to an hour (though I think a day is more suitable). It was just turning into an assembly line (and apperently, the 15 minutes was added when nominations where approved too fast). El_C 09:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• At the moment, my thoughts on rollback are this: leave it to admins only for now, but then give it out to users once people have tested it at the test Wikipedia, where this really should be tested first, not here. Also, as regards wiping of block logs, where's the discussion on that and when did that happen?? --Solumeiras ^talk 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I shouldn't have really mentioned the block log thing, as bringing that up might stir things up again. It seems to have been a one-off thing, but the principle is still there. Regardless of what happened and why, it seems sensible to have a record somewhere (private if need be) of such actions taken by developers. Then the community can be reassured that the records are being kept and can be consulted if need be. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Solumeiras, any user can have rollback on demand by adding a few lines to their monobook. All this does is make it slightly easier on the server and slightly faster for you when you rollback mass vandalism. What purpose would testing it out on the test wiki serve? --B (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bah, chaps, this fuss is silly. I'm fairly neutral on the whole idea but isn't the best thing that we've moved away from process? Fantastic! Ok, we have WP:ROLL but, for the first time, we're trusting people to do well without strict rules (see also AGF). Handing this tool randomly, without process, to people I trust really does feel rather liberating. In fact, I think we should apply this easy-give, easy-remove model of adminship (and put Special:Makesysop and Special:Desysop in the hands of admins, not crats or stewards. It would certainly finally take this stigma of overbearing importance away from adminship. But that's another debate - the key thing here is that process has been left behind. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall we do the same for blocking and unblocking, and protecting and unprotecting? Remove process and let people do what they like? (Not a serious question by the way, but just pointing out why some process is sometimes needed) Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Except there'd be no need to give out those rights piecemeal - as I say, the ability to give admin rights should be in the hands of admins, to be given out whenever they like. We would be able to leave RFA behind. This whole silly fuss we make over admin rights, which are essentially trivial, would be forgotten. Most of Wikipedia's problems arise from process, not from an absence of it. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I'd love to see RFA left behind (at least in its current form), with the trouble it's taken to have rollback implemented, and the fuss people are making over it, I cannot possibly see it happening at any time. Majorly (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification - Twinkle

Requesting community clarification on the following Twinkle issue:

1) Archived Twinkle discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive350#Twinkle

2) Twinkle talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaakobou#Detwinkled

Thank you in advance, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly admin shopping Jaakobou. But fair enough, I'd welcome a review from a neutral admin if you really want it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, please try WP:AGF - I'm not asking the question to embarrass you, Only asking it to avoid similar issues in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. summary: I've been de-twinkled on, "persistant misuse of the tool" (2), and i'd appreciate clarifications regarding the Twinkle policies. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Right on the top of WP:TW it says "Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle." It is generally accepted that if you misuse the tool (i.e. use it to revert edits while in a content dispute), that an administrator may remove it from your monobook.js file for a period of time. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Consensus was established in December on AN - here - that misuse of automated editing tools was grounds for having those tools taken away. Looking at the diffs Ryan provided on your talk page, you have been edit warring. We don't do that. And you have been edit warring with the aid of TWINKLE. Therefore, you get your TWINKLE taken away for a period so you can't edit war with it. As for this particular case, endorse Ryan's actions here. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 15:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive been following this. I support ryans actions here as well. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note: this was not opened due to ryan's actions at all. I've opened this only to recieve clarifications regarding the use of the tool.

I think there needs to be a clear clarification regarding "do not use while in content dispute" issue - since it is not clearly noted by "you take full responsibility" text given on the WP:TW page... It was my understanding that I should not 'abuse it for malicious' conduct and therefore I used it to 'speed up my editing', I did use it while in editorial conflicts (full edit summaries) because it was unclear that it is not allowed. The issue of 'edit warring' is unrelated but since you've brought it up... a little while ago I noted on this page (archive link) that User:CJCurrie has been using the admin rollback tool on me in clear content disputes and the issue was ignored... To be frank, I have since changed my editing style a little since it created a misunderstanding of policies. I'm not asking to shorten my Twinkle time-out - only to see that there is clear explanation on future use of twinkle (and admin tools) for everyone, me included. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The policies are not unclear, and you're missing the point of what's been said. There's no specific policies regarding certain actions that are or are not allowed with Twinkle and other wikitools. The requirement is that you take complete responsibility for whatever you do with them. It's not about the tools, it's about you. If you do something that's a violation of policy, such as edit warring, vandalism, etc., you can be punished. If you're doing the policy violations with automated tools, such as Twinkle, one of the punishments available is the loss of your ability to use those tools. It has nothing to do with the type of tools or specific actions taken. You just have to follow the wikipolicies, and if you don't, you can be punished in a variety of ways including losing the ability to use any wikitools you were using to speed up or assist in your improper editing.

Clear now? Gromlakh (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't went over all the twinkle edits, but i'm somewhat/fairly sure i've not used it for the purpouse of edit warring... i've been explained on a problematic revert on Operation Rainbow where a reversion of a misuse of the article page [2] partially included a content dispute and therefore I should not have used the tool.

I still believe that there should be some explanation on the WP:TW article, otherwise - the only implication is that of malicious use.

btw, what is the point of having the "good faith" [3] if the tool is only meant for vandalism?

p.s. do these rules apply also for the admin rollback?

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never understood the point of Twinkle's "revert good-faith edits" function. The edit summary it leaves sounds like saying "I'm slapping you in the face with a trout, but I'm being polite while doing so". --Carnildo (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, I love that comparison. I think it's kind of for user's who make test edits or something, but look like they tried to contribute positively, not knowing anything about Wikipedia... vandalism was done, but not trying to bite the newbies, so trying to be nice about their try? нмŵוτнτ 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the source of my confusion as there's no clear indication on the twinkle page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Girard, Kansas

I could use some more opinions on this page, which i came across during a recent changes patrol. The page has got some pretty massive copyright violations going on. The entire history section, which is huge, seems to have been copy and pasted, and not just from one source, going through and googleing random paragraphs came up with several exact matches to different places, i think much of the page is copied from [4] [5], [6], and[7] [8] to name a few. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, my first thought was to speedy tag it, but that didn't seem appropriate, then i considered blanking the sections, except there is such much copyvio, its difficult to tell which bits to removed. Any thoughts?--Jac16888 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor who added all this content was User:Smulthaup, who, at a glance, could do with some of his other edits reviewing too--Jac16888 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The first reference (1905 History of Crawford County Kansas) and the second reference (Cutler's History of the State of Kansas) were published in 1905 and 1883, respectively, so they're out of copyright. The others are presumably subject to copyright. From reading the article in general, though, the history section looks too large and overwhelming for a town of 2773 people. To address copyright concerns and to address the weightiness of the history section, I'd suggest working with the editor to summarize the content and to cite copyrighted (or non-copyrighted) sources. I don't think this is really an admin matter -- it's just a matter of good editing practices. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like Smulthaup (talk · contribs) hasn't been active since October, and he was already told about the need to cite sources. If you're looking for a new project, I have a suggestion for an article you could edit.  :-) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Boggle

See this [9]. Where's my money? Guy (Help!) 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a price list available? ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they need that numbered swiss bank account information... Dureo (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this lucrative? I'm not opposed to selling out... — Scientizzle 18:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User:John Reaves' comments on my talk page

I am growing really, really uncomfortable with John Reaves' comments on my talk page in regards to being granted non-admin rollback. It looks like he has a point to prove but I am really feeling very uncomfortable being used to make that point. I'd appreciate some help. Bstone (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, it really doesn't look like John Reaves is doing anything wrong here?? What specifically are you complaining about? Anyways, --Tom 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not I agree with his John Reaves's comments or not is irrelevant, but unless it is a process like WP:RFA, rollback is hardly something that gathers consensus from the community - there were concerns raised, but someone changed their mind and gave you rollback.

I can understand it if you feel uncomfortable but he is merely voicing his opinion. You are honoured to have rollback and John Reaves thinks it is not an honour, and I think we should leave it at that. (Non-admin) x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, after noting his (Reaves) comments, just archive or delete them as you see fit. Anyways, congrats on the roll back feature, I guess :) Cheers, --Tom 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much do not appreciate him trying to make a point and needing him to voice his opinion on my talk page. I am incredibly uncomfortable with his comments and it seems he wouldn't stop. Thus I reported it here in an effort to have him cease his comments and making me incredibly uncomfortable. Bstone (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted him to stop, you could have just said on his talk page that you didn't want him to reply. He's just discussing stuff with you, and there's nothing to be uncomfortable about here. JohnReaves — he doesn't want to be talked to about it this so let's just leave it at that. I'm marking this as resolved to avoid drama and stuff that threads with titles like this inevitably attract.--Phoenix-wiki 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Admins willing to grant rollback

To cope with the inevitable demand for this over the next days, admins may wish to consider adding themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests. Thanks.--Doc^g 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really necessary, as we have WP:RFR _→AzaToth 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Why do something simple when we can create a bunch of hoops to jump through and endless bureaucracy to maintain the hoops? Silly Doc. --Ali'i 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'll go and create Category:Wikipedia admins willing to block users, Category:Wikipedia admins willing to delete stuff, Category:Wikipedia admins willing to protect stuff and Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats willing to promote users. Majorly (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first one might be redundant to Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks, but maybe you should. The last one you note sounds like it might work just as well as requests for adminship. ;-) --Ali'i 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is such pages are unnecessary. We don't need a category for goodness sake. If admins want to grant rollback, they can. If they don't, they don't have to. Simple as that. Majorly (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh... yeah. Doc, you were the one who complained this process would result in endless bureaucracy, and so far it is you that has been responsible not only for this but for two other needless process pages which have both been deleted – Gurch 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Those pages were me making a point, and I am sorry for that. This is me trying to find constructive ways to minimise the bureaucracy which is already evolving on the RFR page. I was chased away for using the wrong ticks.--Doc^g 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Constructive ways, by complaining the whole thing is bureaucratic, and creating even more bureaucratic pages with a request for bureaucratic limits on who can have rollback? Majorly (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Majorly. And I just got rollback! Thanks wimt :-)--Phoenix-wiki 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! Doc said above "I opposed this on grounds of more process", and then adds more process. Is there a glimmer of chance that in granting use of rollback we might just exercise some judgement here?--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More process? Where? I just see a category for people who will respond to requests. I can't imagine much of a simpler thing than that. Friday (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And what, exactly, is wrong with a page that fulfils the same purpose? Majorly (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. I am not opposing that page. But I'm flagging up that admins can grant it besides the page too. I've granted a few requests already.--Doc^g 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, that. It's quite common with a new process that people may try a few different ways. Sometimes, over time, one way emerges as the most common. Sometimes, we retain multiple approaches for quite some time. Friday (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories scale far more efficiently than pages. They don't need to be archived, nor do they generate much discussion. A request page will eventually grow so as to require sub-pages, archives (bot-archived), and endless fighting over process. It's starting already. I don't see much need for a request page, unless we're going to turn it into a clone of RfA, which sounds evil and bad. Let's avoid the bureaucracy, just this once. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Too late :( --Doc^g 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFALITE. --Ali'i 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been terribly impressed with a lot of what's been going on lately, regarding WP:RFR, and, how the situation's been handled by some involved parties, but, I gotta say, I like the category idea. So much so, that I've added myself to it as well. As Mackensen said above, it scales a lot better, than a page, there's less process, and, less to do overall, to grant / etc. IMO, it somewhat encourages shopping for the right admin, but, it just might work. Great idea, Doc! :) SQL^{Query me!} 05:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• On the other hand, we supposedly trust our admins; if one admin is prepared to be bail for a non-admin with rollback, then that's good enough for me. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Artisol2345

Ok, I'm requesting this again, since the last time I requested this, I didn't not sufficiently explain the situation, which might've caused everyone to skip it.

This case caused this RFCU to take place, which turned up "likely" that Artisol has used the account AL2TB for abusive purposes. Both accounts may need to be blocked. --EoL talk 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked a related IP. If another administrator does not assist with this case, I will have to take this case. However, as this is really my first SSP case, I'll probably mess it up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD open 20 minutes, closed by nonadmin

Someone want to have a look at this? Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. People who have commented on debates should not close them. —Kurykh 01:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Whoo! This is clearly an experienced user with a grasp of policy, despite this account being less than 48 hours old. Question is whether it's a user who should be here or not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I don't care one way or the other on the AfD outcome but that raised red flags quickly. -- ALLSTARecho 01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeez! This was a good faith edit. Please review the discussion and decide yourselves whether it has a chance of being deleted. I was just trying to save some time by being bold in a very obvious situation, hardly a crime. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Did we call it a crime? --EoL talk 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no harm in keeping a discussion open for at least a few hours, preferably a day, and waiting for an uninvolved participant to close it. Even where the article really is a speedy keep, the drama caused by non-admins closing discussions isn't worth the fuss. If it really is such an obvious case the article is going to be kept either way. Patience, patience. Wikidemo (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this article AfD as an obvious keep, rather it's an obvious delete, IMO. There are serious notability issues with the sources provided, as I explained in the AfD. However, I totally agree that any AfD should not be closed by an involved editor, even if it is an obvious WP:SNOWBALL and/or WP:SPEEDY close. I do WP:AGF that the closing editor meant well, so, no, it's not a crime. Editors disagree all the time here, it's part of the process. Just don't take it personally. — Becksguy (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No I don't take it personally, but all of this "should this user be here or not" and "raising red flags" just didn't sound like AGF to me, when all I had done was close a discussion that could very easily be reverted. That's all. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Slander Question

Recently, I saw this message at my talk page, in reference to this AFC. Is it something that Wikipedia needs to be involved with (ie:ComCom)? I tend to stay away from Wiki legal issues, so excuse me for my unfamiliarity. Just thought it would be better to error on the safer side of asking for a second opinion. Thanks! Icestorm815, on a self-enforced wikibreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.49.202 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter for editors, but the Foundation's legal team, and I have advised user on his talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section in question. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war between several users and Rothchild

Last month, Rothchild (talk · contribs) added 9/11_Truth_Movement and Alex Jones (radio) to the "See also" section of Tin-foil hat. On January 9, after someone reverted this arguably humorous but nevertheless blatantly POV edit, Rothchild reverted it back and, for good measure, added "Tin-foil hat" under the "See also" section of the Alex Jones article. Then in the Talk page of the Tin-foil hat article, the user said, "I was about to add the Ron Paul campaign but I keep KISS in mind." Several reverts were made back and forth by myself and others. We explained to Rothchild that the edits were POV and inappropriate.

Today after I noticed Rothchild had reverted back again, I said in the Talk section, "I think Alex Jones is loony too, but Wikipedia articles are no place for my opinion," and then I deleted the whole "See also" section, as it was irrelevant. I also fixed the Alex Jones article. Rothchild quickly reverted both back and replied, "Just because Alex Jones seems to be your hero does not mean you have to keep reverting my edits."

Rothchild is showing clear troll behavior and is making repeated bad-faith, POV edits and reverts. The passage of several weeks time between Rothchild's initial edit and the revert did not deter the user, as he or she seems to be watching the articles closely so as to quickly revert any edit.

I don't know what do do at this point, so I'm turning here for help. --Skylights76 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rothchild deleted this section, but I reverted...I have not formed an opinion on the dispute as of yet. — Scientizzle 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his/her talk page--the edits are clearly disruptive. Additionally, edits like this & this are inappropriate. Further disruption may merit a block. — Scientizzle 07:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Skylights has been clearly wikistalking me. I am new to wikipedia and I don't feel welcome here.--Rothchild (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're new, and yet you know terms like wikistalking and sock puppet. If I had to guess, I'd say it's you who is a sock puppet, and it's you who was wikistalking me when you came here and deleted this section. You'd feel more welcome here if you made quality contributions instead of trolled.--Skylights76 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My brother has been trying to get me into Wikipedia and he edits here all the time. He told me that your what defines a Wikistalker. But seriously though. Just drop it. It was a simple link and you started to cry ZOMG VANDALISM!!!! You completely missed the theme and the tone of the article and my additions were a perfect fit. There's more important things in life then making a big deal over a link. I hope you feel so much better about your self for making Wikipedia such a safe place.--Rothchild (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm sorry if this isn't the appropriate forum for this dispute, but someone had removed all the explanatory info at the top of the page when I posted this section. Anyway, what do you advise regarding the edit war in question? I believe that he/she will just revert back.--Skylights76 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be sockpuppetry, but without further evidence we can't link this user to any blocked or banned user, so that may be a dead end. However edit warring over unrelated items in a section is trolling, I recomend that a block be issued if the situation persists. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rothchild blocked

Continued disruptive behavior, in my opinion. Blocked for 48hrs. I'm signing off, so any admin may overturn if he or she wishes... — Scientizzle 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins who helped in this situation.--Skylights76 (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of auto-generated deletion summaries

Recently, in the middle of the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js/Admin opinion (but not as a result of it), all auto-generated deletion summaries were removed. These are the pre-filled log summaries which say, "Content was ... and the only contributor was..." which admins can still change before deletion. A few admins have complained about the removal, including myself, though there hasn't been any overwhelming continued objection there seems to be only one person in favour of removal. I think few people are aware of what has happened. At first the summaries were replaced with "-", then they were replaced with "no reason for deletion was given", now the auto-generated summaries have been restored again, perhaps accidentally, by removal of content from MediaWiki:Excontent. It's all a bit disorganised at the moment. There is currently a bug report to get the auto-generated summaries put somewhere else on the deletion page instead of the log summary. I've raised it here so admins are aware of the change and any discussion about it, and to get more input. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of the auto-generated summary ("content was $1"). The argument against it seems to be that some sysops might include un-deletable libel in their deletion summaries, but I don't think that is a real issue (are there seriously still admins doing this? Why haven't they been desysopped already?) We should also delete MediaWiki:Excontentauthor to get the old behaviour back for pages with just one editor. Kusma (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentor needed for resocialising problem user

Can someone please head over to User talk:Burra and have a look if they could act as a kind of mentor for a somewhat problematic case? This is the former anon user "Dodona", lately known as serial sockpuppeter PIRRO BURRI (talk · contribs) (socks), trying to negotiate a comeback. The problem has been that over almost a year (or longer? I forget) he has been plaguing talk pages with rather confused, persistent rants, trying to push some weird ethnic fringe ideas about Albanians being descended from Pelasgians and therefore really Greeks, and actually better Greeks than the Greeks themselves, or something to that effect. He used to be unstoppable, and both his English and his grasp of scholarly literature is abominable. I'm a sceptical, but maybe I'm a bit too involved to make these decisions alone. Anybody willing to watch him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The board has commented. The community is aware. Nothing more needs to be said here. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce that rollback is now available to non-admins, and can be requested at the above page. I suggest admins watchlist it, and use Special:Userrights to give rollback. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not giving anyone rollback unless he or she has brought at least one article up to featured status. And I've got some other RfR criteria waiting in the wings... -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? There was consensus for this implementation of the policy? --Haemo (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't, but the developers seem to be taking policy making into their own hands. RxS (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there was a consensus against it either. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that policies need consensus for implementation. RxS (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

it all depends on what you call consensus 51% in favor could be considered consensus depending on how you look at it. Id say 2 to 1 is consensus. β^_command 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, since there is no policy, and we are making it up as we like. I will remove rollback from any use who has not created a Featured Article, or the request of any FA writer.--Doc^g 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There must be abuse from the account, i.e. it being used in edit wars. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback and featured articles are practically mutually exclusive. Bad idea. Wizardman 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see a connexion between contributing to a Featured Article, and the ability to sensibly use an editing tool. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

why do normal users need rollback? the page talks about other methods being less effective - but I don't under the gain I get from pressing a rollback button than using any number of scripts? (which is how I currently do it). --Fredrick day (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Scripts can be very daunting to those of us who see a computer as a black box. A lack of confidence in using scripts should not disable an editor from effective editing. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

that's why I got someone at the helpdesk to install mine! I just hit the buttons! :) --Fredrick day (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding or removing rollback in a disruptive manner will likely be cause for desysopping. The criteria is still evolving, but use your best judgment and lets avoid using the ability to grant/remove the status to make points. You wouldn't block someone for having failed to write an FA in your prefered time period, don't remove rollback from them either. This is an anti-vandalism tool - it should be given to users who will make good use of it. It is not a status symbol. WjBscribe 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any criteria given how fast the right is being granted after a request is made. Take a look for yourself...RxS (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We're giving it to people who we know we can trust. The people I've granted it to I know from previous interaction and with a quick check of their contribs, I grant it. This isn't RfA - we don't need days of !voting. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No one's asking for an RFA-like vote (of course), but it takes more than (in at least one case) 2 minutes to go through someones contribs. RxS (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this tool, or for any particular policy. It was imposed by someone's coup. I opposed this on grounds of more process and I will continue to ignore any rules or process concerning it, until there is demonstrated a consensus. No, I won't disrupt wikipedia, but the enabling of this without consensus and with no agreed policy for its use is horrendously disruptive.--Doc^g 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1) There was consensus (well in some peoples eyes). 2) Use common sense - you partly opposed it for bureaucratic reasons - don't start creating them now. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1) There was only consensus in the eyes of the supporters. 2) I opposed it because bureaucracy was inevitable - and it still is. Just wait until the first dispute as to granting it, and you will see.--Doc^g 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So all it takes for something to become policy is for there to appear to be consensus in some peoples eyes? RxS (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly question: what happens if an admin is added to the group? Nothing? (I'm guessing that's the right answer but I wanted to check.) --B (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing (we think!) - you shouldn't see a difference. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't make any difference to have both. The most it might mean is that admin's ability to use rollback is limited (because the new right is as I understand it capped at a certain number of rollbacks at a given time whereas admins can technically rollback as often as they want) if the software is confused by the same user having both rights. I would remove rollback at the same time as I added +sysop to a user who already had rollback after they had a successful RfA. WjBscribe 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This sets a substandard precedent, and completely undermines established practice. Consensus is not counting the votes, it is not 2-1, and it is not this. While we are at it lets put this into practice. Who cares that it could be abused, and that it might cause unforeseen problems, dammit it had 84% support. And how about this one, I'm sure in some editors eyes it has reached consensus. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and not only in terms of what consensus means but who determines whether consensus exists at all. Developers do not determine policy and they haven't been empowered to judge consensus. RxS (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by all of this as well. As I understand it, developers have discretion to add features, not add RIGHTS. Simply because adding this "right" required modification to the software, does not make it solely a developer issue. This is going to be a rather bitter mess and there's no reason for it. Justin ^chat 01:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand for the life of me what the angst is all about. Even without this, anyone can use scripts to get rollback. This is only being given to people who affirmatively request it. If can be taken away if abused. There's an upside of making reverting vandalism easier and a downside that is what - admins might disagree over it? That potential is already there for blocking and any other admin decision ... somehow, we get through it. --B (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While I did oppose the non-admin-rollback proposal, that is not the issue now. The issue is this mockery of what we as Wikipedians have for years considered "consensus". Consensus is not a word or concept we throw around lightly. For this to happen, in this way is outrageous. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't the tool. I would have easily supported this had it been non-bureaucratic. Consensus can change, sure, but now what constitutes a consensus can change? Per my post at WP:RFR: "The last time this policy was discussed the vote was 216/108 (66.66% approved) and failed. This one is 304/151 (66.81% approved) and passed." It's a disturbing standard that what constitutes a consensus can change, that a developer can simply implement a RIGHT, without explanation (or without even knowing WHAT developer did it) and there's currently zero processes available to review that developers decision. I couldn't care less about the rollback... I DO care about a Wikipedia technocracy. Justin ^chat 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia:Requests for rollback didn't excite you enough, we now have Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review where users can bitch and moan for 5 days after their request for rollback is declined. Yay! - auburnpilot talk 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't even a part of the original proposal. Perhaps we should throw on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review review as well? Out of process, who cares! Justin ^chat 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but consensus about consensus cannot change? Lawrence Cohen 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can... point me to the community discussion that implied consensus about consensus has changed. Justin ^chat 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• The consensus about the consensus would have to get consensus that consensus on the consensus has indeed changed. You can't just say *poof* this is consensus. The Wiki is not neverland you really can not fly, and Santa Claus is not real. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Not sure I can, I was just throwing that out as what appeared to have happened very quietly. This now made the how much wood can a woodchuck chuck limerick get stuck in my head, but replaced with "consensus". Lawrence Cohen 02:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to get a separate log of the rollback requests granted? We currently have User rights log, but the rollback stuff is mixed up with the sysop granting. I'd like to be able to extract a clear number each day of the number of people with rollback status. No, hang on, I'm in the wrong Special page. I want this. Bingo. For the record, we currently (as of 02:00 10/01/2008) have less than 100 rollbackers. Let's try and keep track of all this: (1) Total numbers; (2) Who grants the most requests; (3) Numbers having it removed; (4) Any problems with the system. If there is going to be a huge fuss about this, let's at least get some numbers on the record. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, there are enough logs as is, really. Voice-of-All 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... I had rollback before it was installed in the software when I was not an admin. How is this different from something a user installs in their Monobook.js?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I know... I don't understand what the big deal is. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The big deal (to whatever extent a big deal it is) is that there is no apparent consensus for this, who judged that consensus exists and how it was implemented. You are talking about the pros and cons of the policy proposal, which took place already. RxS (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, feel that it's totally ridiculous that the comments, opinions, and objections of a full third of the individuals who commented on this proposal have been totally ignored. The right was added, despite it being clear there was no consensus to add it — consensus is not a "simple majority", and the discussion indicates that there were many objections to this on a wide variety of grounds. Furthermore, the process through which the right was granted, and which a number of users (myself included) objected to, was also put into place immediately — even while there were on-going discussion over how to implement it! I don't really care that passionately about all this mumbo-jumbo, but I definitely don't feel like my views were valued or even listened to at all in how this was implemented. --Haemo (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently this is becoming a bloodbath, right now it's a bloodbath in the admins channel, while I rejected the proposal, I don't mind for now, the only expection is people are way too quick to give rollback away, as I could see now. Secret ^account 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried that it's going to be used exactly as I objected in the original proposal — as yet another social clique, wherein Wikipedia formalizes a class of "trusted users" who are granted superior rights to normal users. This is one of the main problems with adminship, and since admins are the ones doing the the granting here, I can only see it continuing this. The method in which it's being granted indicates to me that this is exactly what's happening — admins are granting tools either with minimal oversight, or to users whom they "trust" already without any community input. I trust a number of users, but I'm not sure the community would want me giving them tools without at least some kind of discussion. --Haemo (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am seeing people with one side of their mouth saying they know how consensus is judged and with the other side quoting percents of previous proposals vs this one. If you are just comparing vote ratios you will never understand how consensus is created. 1 != 2 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand consensus, and my argument was not based on vote-counting, or any such thing. I have a history of working with disputed articles where consensus is important, and I can tell you what has happened here is not how consensus is formed — not now, not ever. --Haemo (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Secret to the extent that admins are granting it without much thought, last I looked someone granted 9 requests in 10 minutes. That's not enough time to give much attention to the contribs of the requesting editor.

• I don't mean to sound sour or cynical (but it may come across that way - for which I apologize), but I wonder if 1) some admins really have such a low opinion of both other admins' judgement in granting rollback and in the abilities and good-faith of those editors to whom it is being granted, and 2) some of the comments seem a bit like "No, we mussstn't let them have our precioussss.... ". oh, and 3) has there ever been a consensus as to what consensus is? In short - please admins, try to trust each others' judgement, and if you see the tool being misused - then remove it from the editor misusing it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm upset because my objection, which was shared by a large number of other people, doesn't fall into any of your characterizations of people opposed to this category, yet was totally ignored without even a word of compromise in the implementation. No discussion, nothing. --Haemo (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, this wasn't the implementation I wanted, for reasons similar to Haemo's - but let's give it a chance, see how it goes, trust admins to deal with abuses, and to talk to each other if they disagree on individual cases. DuncanHill (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And now bots have the rollback assigned to them. Utter bullshit, and a complete slap in the face to many users. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I supported granting bots, but I can appreciate that fact that many people had a strong opinion about this and that a discussion was needed. In fact, I was commented in one a little while ago — apparently, that doesn't matter anymore because this non-policy-policy brooks no discussion. --Haemo (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, giving bots rollback rights has overwhelming consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback#Anti-vandalism_bots.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelming votes in a low-profile discussion that's been running for only a couple of days. Not enough to address the concerns, or opinions of those objection, or even to ensure that everyone who wants a say gets one. --Haemo (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Right, there was a discussion on the VP about it, only a couple months ago if I'm not mistaken. It was rejected then, it's been rejected before that. What 2 days and there is consensus to give bots rollback? What fuck? Might as well make them sysops, wait those have a long history of rejection too. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While I am in support of this policy, I must oppose its implementation. The process of consensus was not given the opportunity to finish. Obviously, this was such a divisive proposal that it would be impossible to make everyone happy, but Ithink this decision makes even many of the supporters unhappy. Since wikipedia is not a democracy (see WP:NOT) the poll was never meant to create consensus. It is supposed to be a judge of consensus, to be followed by more discussion for the real consensus to be formed. <notserious> It seems that the Cabal is once again imposing policy against consensus</notserious>.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, ask DragonHawk where is the discussion he found to close the poll. I think the poll could have continued, even when the implementation was done. As I said, developers can implement it, but we decide whether to use it or not in this Wikipedia (like the flagged revisions). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

I'm drafting a request for an arbcom case right now, but not really sure who to add as a party. It's not really fair to make someone a party simply because they supported rollback, or opposed it. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct way would be to contact every participant through user talk page informing the situation and explaining why you think a request for arbitration is necessary, and where to join, instead of spending time in soap operas :-P (yeah, that is a joke to calm you down ;-)) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really uncalled-for. -- tariqabjotu 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He is free to try it out. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'm free to say it's really uncalled-for. -- tariqabjotu 03:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Find the name of the developer. Or at least leave a blank space. Ryan and 1!=2 seem to be the most visible supporters, and Doc Glasgow the most visible opponent. Add me as a party if you want - I'm prepared to say a lot about what has happened here and go on the record about it. It'll probably get rejected though. Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In lieu of a long list of parties, give notice and a link to the case on the talkpages of the relevant discussions, and provide those links in the request for arbitration so the arbitrators will know that you have done so. (Not commenting on the merits of any issue or case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom? Dear me, the world has gone mad. If you're hoping to impose sanctions on the developers, ArbCom is project-specific, the developers are not; the former cannot boss the latter around. If on the other hand you just want to get rid of the ability for administrators to grant and remove rollback, have you tried just asking them yourself? – Gurch 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And how are we supposed to really be involved in the implementation? None of us have any authority with respect to a developers, they make the decisions with respect to software changes - we can't wave our magic wands. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about on one side, John Doe developer(s), and on the other, concerned users, etc. In my eyes, it is the dev(s) who is ultimately responsible for this.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IIIIIIIIIInnnnnn the red cornah... Brion "I have a day named after me" VIBBER! Aaahhhn in the blue cornah... a horde of angry users! And your referee for tonight, yes, it's the nerdiest kids in town, give it up for the one, the only, Arbitration Committee! *grabs popcorn, sits back to watch* – Gurch 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(after I stopped laughing) - are you confirming it was Brion? Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's make this simple. Are developers part of the community or not? Do they work for the community, or is the community and the encyclopedia a plaything of the developers? What power does the foundation have over developers? Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They work for the Wikimedia Foundation. – Gurch 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And who does the Foundation work for? And you didn't answer the question about whether developers are part of the community or not. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization. It doesn't work for anyone – Gurch 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So how does it achieve its goals (like this free content encyclopedia)? It relies on volunteers, some of which write and upgrade software used by other volunteers to write the encyclopedia. Who tells developers what is needed? Developers, the communities or the Foundation? The answer is all three, but how do developers decide which requests from communities to work on? There are votes on Bugzilla, but it helps on both sides if at least some developers communicate with and participate in the communities that they are writing the software for. This avoids unworkable requests being made after much discussion, and avoids developers implementing changes while discussion is still ongoing. Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think arbcom would be a real wake-up call to all of those who feel slighted by the way this turned out. I think arbcom is for the community and I think the community wants rollback. 1 != 2 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't so much about the proposal of rollback, it's about the lack of the process of consensus in its implementation. Discussion was still going on, and then, smack in the middle of discussion, "oh hey lets go ahead and make this a feature anyways." Oh, and while I don't know which dev(s) turned it on, it would have to be a dev, since they are the only ones with that power (as far as I know). --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my own personal rationale for requesting an arbcom case:

I think, at the very least, it would be a good idea to ask arbcom on how we handle these situations in the future, and if the current rollback feature should be kept (or acted upon, in lieu of arbcom not being able to make rulings for developers). I can't place blame on any en.wiki user, and would not seek out any kind of punishment for anyone's actions here. Not even the developer that made the change.

I would prefer having a community discussion about this first, but we all know what will happen, people will jump in to close such discussions and say "omg, no dramaz, edit wiki plz" (for a lack of better words). This has pissed off a lot of users, and raises a lot of questions. Being able to discuss this in an arbcom case, and then asking the trusted arbitrators to evaluate the concerns presented, seems to be the only reasonable (and actionable) way to deal with this situation. -- Ned Scott 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Of course anyone who suggests that we should actually all just go and edit the wiki is a troll and should be ignored. This big pile of shit rapidly filling up the noticeboard is the perfect way to deal with things! :P – Gurch 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has no authority here... Wikimedia sysadmins > Wikipedia arbitration committee... — madman bum and angel 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia arbitration committee, at that. Dear me, committees and bureaucracy everywhere you look. Ever get the feeling people forgot this was a wiki? Why can't we just let this thing run and see for ourselves if there are problems, rather than removing it due to entirely hypothetical problems that show no sign yet of materializing? – Gurch 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; I meant to clarify. The developers and sysadmins by necessity when to change the settings of Wikimedia wikis, and they know what they're doing. The talk of a "coup" above is hyperbole of the greatest magnitude. Reference: [10]. — madman bum and angel 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up. It's true that devs are free to enable or disable whatever features they want, but that doesn't mean en.wiki approves a policy/process that uses those features. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Developers make policy. — madman bum and angel 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure they do. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, developers write features. Where is the developed feature that states that admins need to grant rollback based on lack of edit warring and have experience? Or was that decided by someone else and rejected by the community as part of a poll with no consensus? -Halo (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, I must note that developers have a prime role in the creation of policy. Please see Wikipedia:Policy, especially the part about "sources of policy". While there has been no declaration here and no real implicit approval of existing statements, their role in this is not out of line. — madman bum and angel 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does it state that admins need to grant rollback, because they don't. All administrators could decide not to grant rollback for any reason if they wished – Gurch 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You seemingly missed the point of my comment - replace "need" with "can". My point was the policy isn't being performed solely as developed in software, but as the policy that was rejected. -Halo (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To clear things up a bit: the one who enabled the feature was User:JeLuF, a root administrator (who has a couple dozen edits here since 2002, when he was a bit more active). He was acting on T14534, which was a request to enable this functionality on the English Wikipedia. If you object, you may want to file a new request or complain personally to JeLuF, Brion Vibber, or some other appropriate person. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While I personally welcome this new feature, I have reopened bug 12534 on behalf of those objecting here – Gurch 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Has anybody tried contacting a Developer? Maybe visit one of their pages on the Meta? Or in the meta IRC? Contact info is here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm a developer. I seem to be the only one who's bothering to comment. I think some of the others have seen it, but I doubt they care. Root admins do not revert-war, the only one who's going to be reversing it is either JeLuF or Brion, and neither one is on. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I've said this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here because it's important. Developers need to be active on large Wikimedia projects when large changes like this are being implemented, otherwise it is just (however unintentional) disruptive. It's like giving a room full of kids a new toy and watching them fight over it. There also need to be better channels of communication between developers and the community, so that developers are actively involved in wider discussions like this. The community could encourage the Foundation to encourage developers to use such channels, or a Foundation representative could ensure such communication took place, but at the end of the day the developers should take an active interest in the community for which they are developing the tools to build an encyclopedia. Too many developers become "old hands" and lose interest in the grass roots and get engrossed in development and lose touch with the communities (there are many of them) that are actually using their tools. Bugzilla is great for requesting changes and tweaks, but is not great for meta-discussion. There is a technical mailing list. What other venues are there for the community and developers to interact? Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  As I said on WT:Non-administrator rollback: you cannot feasibly ask that of the sysadmins. Realize that JeLuF is a volunteer, and has taken it upon himself to handle configuration requests. This is viewed, by the shell and root users, as tedious already, although it takes only a few minutes per request. There was in fact a period of months at one point when no sysadmin could be bothered to go to the effort of fulfilling any configuration requests at all, and so some requests just sat there for six months. JeLuF, admirably, has recently slogged through most (all?) of the backlog, so that communities that request changes can actually get them fulfilled promptly. If you're going to put even more hoops in the way of this kind of request, none will ever get done.

  Regardless, I very much doubt any shell requests from the English Wikipedia are going to get fulfilled very soon, after this whole drama (assuming it gets reversed, which seems probable). You don't have to worry about the sysadmins treading where they aren't wanted, if it's clear that in fact they aren't wanted. They're only there to help. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm aware that we are nearly all volunteers (including the developers), as I've said elsewhere (and following up on your edit summary, apologies if I'm switching back-and-forth between different threads too much). I hope you are not serious about developers ignoring requests from en-Wikipedia? That seems like the sort of thing that would end up being discussed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board, which ultimately is responsible for ensuring that software development for the projects progresses at a timely rate, and that volunteer efforts to do this are properly co-ordinated. But to get back to the issue at hand, all people are asking here, is for developers to look where they are treading. If, as you seem to say, this was granted as part of someone slogging through a backlog, might I politely suggest that this approach needs to be carried out with more care in future? There are numerous examples on many projects where people working their way through backlogs slip up on something due to the goal becoming to clear the backlog, rather than assess each case carefully. I'm not saying that is what happened here, just that clearing backlogs can be inherently dangerous if done too quickly. Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm very serious about sysadmins quite possibly being reluctant to implement any request from enwiki if it raises a firestorm from users who were indignant that they didn't hear about it/procedure wasn't followed (what procedure?)/etc. If I were a sysadmin, I wouldn't want to get involved in fights about enabling features or not.

  As for the board, I am not aware of a single time the Board has ever passed any resolution related to development or server administration except to give them more money and appoint people to various officerships. I very much doubt they'll get involved. They have bigger things to worry about than some tiny uproar in one of their projects.

  This was not done as part of clearing a backlog. This was a recent request; the backlog was already cleared, or nearly so. The problem lay in the fact that enwiki has extraordinarily high barriers to consensus. Anyone from outside (which JeLuF more or less is, if you look at his edits) would assume that in a poll with over 450 people commenting, something getting two-thirds approval is good enough to implement it. Two-thirds is typically considered overwhelming agreement in most contexts outside of Wikipedia. (I can't speak for JeLuF's reasons, mind you, I'm just surmising.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  No, this does make things clearer and is helpful. Moving forward, what would you suggest should be done to make sysadmins happier to implement requests from en-wiki? Better ways to communicate, perhaps, like going to the project and asking if they are ready for the tool yet? The large community on en-Wikipedia (and consequent difficulties with consensus and large votes) doesn't always seem to interact well with the smaller community of developers and sysadmins. What can be done to improve this? If the Foundation don't want to get involved, how else can things be improved so this sort of thing doesn't happen again? I suggest better use of discussion forums such as the technical mailing list. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I'm not saying that sysadmins will refuse to fulfill enwiki requests. If I were they I would be pretty cautious, after things like this, but I'm not a sysadmin and can't speak for them. Just in case you misunderstand, I'm talking about shell requests, i.e., configuration requests specific to enwiki, not new features generally. For new features generally, nobody cares what enwiki thinks ― the changes are made to the software defaults, which are used by all installations of MediaWiki, Wikimedia or otherwise, and enwiki is only a small percentage of that. I don't think I've ever seen a shell request from enwiki that actually got fulfilled and stayed fulfilled. They're not really necessary if you're happy with the customizations you can make in the MediaWiki: namespace. Mostly they're only used for setting up groups and permissions (e.g., one wiki asked that all sysops be given bureaucrat rights), enabling or disabling a couple of optional features (like patrolling), adjusting namespaces, and a few miscellaneous things like the prerequisites for autoconfirmed. If you're happy with all of those, there's no need for shell requests.

  For this not happening again, honestly, it's hardly a big incident. It will probably be reversed in a matter of hours. I don't think there's much point in expending energy on avoiding a repeat incident, which almost certainly will not happen in any case for months at the least. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have four words for you

Developers, developers, developers, developers – Gurch 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Community, community, community, community? (Ok, I haven't watched the video clip yet, so if this seems silly in light of that...) Carcharoth (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't recall Ballmer chanting that, but it's a fair point :) – Gurch 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And the video is very funny. Thanks for that. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More appropriate would be if the four words were "I... LOVE... THIS... COMMUNITY!!!!" -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that wouldn't be true. I hate this community's dysfunctional guts. Devs, though, now they're cool – Gurch 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rollback policy

The community is the maker of policy, not ArbCom. I propose we work out a consensus policy as a community on this issue. NoSeptember 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I suggest that the first thing we do is protect the page and stop implementing a feature that had a questionable "consensus to implement". I am COMPLETELY open to implementing this as a feature, and COMPLETELY opposed to doing so after it was implemented out of process. In the few hours this policy has been active, there have been several modifications on how admins will determine if a user should be allowed to have the tool. WT:RFR looks exactly how one would expect: like a policy was implemented without ANY discussion, and now that it is implemented, discussion by a relative small group of people is resulting in changes to the approval process, however minor. At first an admin could simply approve and archive, then it was 15 minutes, now it's an hour. Now it seems more than a single admin has to give approval to send it through (in some cases). NONE of this was discussed when this policy was proposed, and now it's being run by the seat of everyones pants. It's stunning just HOW poorly this was executed. Justin ^chat 09:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because there is no specific written rules does not mean it is going poorly. Believe it or not, people can get by without a bunch of rules. When patrolled edits for newpages was turned on, there was no pre-existing policy. Some guidelines were quickly drafted up, a calm discussion followed, and after some initial bumps, the system began to work well. There is still no "official policy" for it. Also, as policy is supposed to be descriptive of how things are done, not proscriptive, writing a full set of rules before we even begin to use the new system is very difficult. Mr.Z-man 09:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's still a question of whether or not there was consensus to IMPLEMENT it. And believe it or not, it makes considerably more sense to determine how something should be implemented before we hit the "on" button. Why have proposals if we can just "do stuff" without explanation as that's "proscriptive". Justin ^chat 09:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting fact

It's probably worth pointing out at this point that rate-limited rollback (a new feature) was originally set up in the software to be given to all users (or all autoconfirmed users, I can't remember which); that part of the software was disabled after complaints, pending onwiki discussion. The resistance to change shown here is interesting; if the change had been made originally, would the people currently complaining consider keeping the change if it only got 33% support in a vote? The whole '66% is not consensus' thing is ridiculous; vote count cannot be consensus by itself, but in the case of a new feature which couldn't previously be given it's hard to see what the default status should be. If Wikipedia had just now switched to the MediaWiki software from the previous software, rather than switching years ago, but for some reason the devs had been busy improving MediaWiki anyway all that time, the change would likely have already been in the software and a 33% vote to turn it off would have been unlikely to have been acted on. So, if there isn't consensus for a feature, and there isn't consensus against it, and the feature would have been turned on if not for objections... --ais523 08:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the FEATURE that's at issue here. And claiming that the lack of a consensus for a "feature" means to implement it is contrary to EVERY other process at Wikipedia. No consensus is status quo, plain and simple. That being said, I'm all for this feature for users, however, I'm completely against a process for admins "approving" it. IMHO, this should be given to all auto-confirmed users (at least). Instead we've invented more instruction creep. This isn't the delete button. Do admins really need to be determining who should and shouldn't get rollback? Nope. So why DO we have this "process" to implement a feature everyone should have? All this does is create yet ANOTHER schism between the admin and the editor. The difference is NOTHING more than access to additional tools, but now, admins are granting rights? Do we REALLY need to pat ourselves on the back for being important, or can we actually write an encyclopedia without social classes? I hope for the latter, but I am rapidly losing faith. Justin ^chat 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The feature was enabled by default in the software at one point: see rev:28193 if you don't believe me. However, that particular version of the software was never uploaded to Wikipedia; it was reverted at rev:28248, over 24 hours later, after this discussion. --ais523 13:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are probably people who were opposed to turning this on (at least not without further debate and fine-tuning), who would have opposed switching off an existing feature, so the two can't really be meaningfully compared. Bringing in a new feature is completely different to switching off a default feature. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Who should create the policy?

As it seems, the devs have implemented "on their own". They are employed by the WikiMedia Foundation. Therefore, I am now waiting for an official rollback policy to be formulated by WMF and announced by its representative. Миша13 12:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what it seems, Ryan Postlethwaite said the poll was closed at bugzilla:12534, that under his view there was consensus but asked the developer to check that out (even though the developer may not have known about that). I believe this may have been a series of unfortunate coincidences, DragonHawk closing the poll based on a discussion that I can't find, Ryan assuming consensus was reached, and the developer not being able to judge consensus (not that he had to, mind you). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is silly

If you are an admin and don't want the bureaucracy of granting rollback, don't - others will fill the need. If you are a non-admin and don't want rollback, don't ask for it. There is nothing whatsoever harmful about giving it to EVERY SINGLE PERSON who is not a blatant vandal. Even if someone is edit warring, so what? You can block them. This meltdown is insane. --B (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said! The people complaining about this seriously have nothing better to do than complain about this, and should go and write an aricle or something. It's really harmless, and complaining about it is unproductive and unhelpful. If you don't like the idea of it, don't look at the page. That's all I can say. Majorly (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's the misguided arguments that are silly. I've said from the very beginning the tool isn't the issue. The issue is a handful of admins taking it upon themselves to implement rollback with (at best) a controversial consensus. Talking about the tool at this point is simply misdirection. Setting the precedent of ignoring the consensus is my concern. Justin ^chat 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the 2/3 of Wikipedians that wanted it implemented? Besides, most of the objections were either based on misconceptions or were objections that would apply to the script-based rollback that already exists and thus were moot. I can fully understand (and really, agree with) the objections based on the process being a pointless bureaucracy, but it is what it is. I'm sorry, but I don't see how doing something that 2/3 of Wikipedians wanted is an abuse. --B (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm ONE of the people that want it implemented... for EVERYONE. None of this admin granting rights nonsense. Admins don't grant rights, 'crats do. And if 2/3 of Wikipedians want an editor granted admin tools, they don't get them. The purpose of a poll is to get an idea of where a consensus might stand, and rework a proposal to find a solid consensus. It is NOT designed to create consensus based on !voting. The way this was implemented was absurd. Justin ^chat 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What if we didn't call it a right and called it blocking them from using rollback vs unblocking them from using rollback? The distinction is arbitrary. Admins have the technical capability to grant or revoke the right to edit a page or the right to edit period. The fact that we call this a right but don't call the other things rights is a different in semantics. Really, letting admins grant or revoke this privilege is less harmful than letting admins block users. --B (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Now, here's why we should all stop clamouring about giving users rollback and get on with editing the damn encyclopedia:

1. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We do not need to issue ballot papers, have them notarized twice, signed in the presence of four witnesses, and then burn them and sit around until something called a "consensus" rises.
2. Consensus is about a broad agreement. It is not about:
   • Substituting "x% supermajority vote" for "consensus", where x% is slightly greater than the percentage that exists
   • Arguing that any attempt to vote is invalid, because Wikipedia doesn't vote (hint: it does)
   • Yelling at people that they're ignoring consensus until they give up, and the last man standing declaring that his opinion is the consensus
3. It's debatable whether or not adminship is a big deal, but rollback certainly isn't. Anyone can use undo which is just one more click than rollback.
4. If someone misuses rollback having been granted it, then we can block them, just as we already do to people who revert inappropriately the normal way, or we can remove rollback as easily as it is granted.
5. Does it really matter that someone implemented a new feature without dealing with the Vogon-like requirements of a minority?
6. If you don't like rollback, don't use it, and if you're an admin and don't like it, don't grant it.

Now, any chance we can do something other than trying to form a consensus on how to form a consensus on what a consensus is? Stifle (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On administrators

I understand the principle, but from observation, this is all very disruptive. WP:RFR seems simple enough, if you want it, go ask for it. If you don't want it anymore, go ask for that. No more policy is needed. Not everything has to have the step by step instruction set and criteria. Administrators go thru the gauntlet that is RFA, because their judgment is being scrutinized. Now let them use it. M-ercury at 13:57, January 10, 2008

Rollback policy doesn't need to be complex, but we don't want wheel wars to develop over whether a specific user should have rights. But we can keep it simple. I agree, we should trust the judgement of admins on this as we do with the other tools. NoSeptember 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The risk of a wheel war over a specific user is no worse than the risk of a wheel war over blocking or deleting. Really, it's a very low risk because at most it's a mild inconvenience and the user has a workaround available (use a script). Adminship is no big deal ® so what does that make rollback? Rollback is so non-destructive that there's no harm in exercising the meatball:PrincipleOfFirstTrust. --B (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And our policy should reflect those sentiments. This discussion is an example of things the policy should cover. NoSeptember 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If rollback is no big deal, why the need for a complex needless process? Why not give it everybody? -Halo (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should - as long as the person is obviously not a vandal, give it to them. If they edit war with it, it can be taken away or they can be blocked. --B (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, really, of all the "powers" that come with adminship, rollback is by far the most trivial. Creating a process for judging users worthy or unworthy of this particular minor "perk" is going to hurt more feelings than it's worth. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First, let's all continue as we have so far, in a spirit of calm goodwill and discussion. I recommend that people basically do nothing at all here, i.e. please don't go awarding this ability to lots of people in an effort to create "facts on the ground" about how it is used. :-) Now, speaking to the constitutional question of who gets to decide this sort of thing and how, in the old days it would be me, but as is well known I am interested in evolving community policy so that my traditional role becomes increasingly symbolic and institutionalized.

An example of how this was done once before: I asked that anon creation of new articles be disabled, a policy that is perhaps unfortunately still with us. And I don't like doing things by fiat like that anymore. We need a peaceful, organized, systematic way of doing this sort of thing. So, here is what we will do in this case, and I think this can be done pretty quickly.

A better example of how something became policy (though it had no software implications): in the case of 3RR, there was a community vote with overwhelming majority in favor of a 3 revert rule, and then I blessed it to make it formal policy.

1) There will be community poll/votes on whether to turn the feature on at all, and a general policy.

2) Following that, the ArbCom will discuss and vote on the result, and make a formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation about whether it should be turned on or not, and to establish the policy.

(I can not guarantee that the Foundation will agree, as I am only one of 7 board members, and not involved in management at all, but I consider it highly unlikely that they would disagree with a formal decision of the community.)

The ArbCom will of course most likely follow the vote of the community, but I will not require them to do so. They should serve as a "check and balance" in the event something strange happens here, or in case the discussion shows a way forward that the vote itself does not accurately represent.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So, is that the official word on how this situation is going to be handled? What happens in the interim? Do we stop granting it? Is it going to be disabled? --Haemo (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Jimbo, you're not helping. I was kind of with you right up until you said the word "ArbCom", at which point I slammed my head into the desk. Try to be useful if you're going to intervene :) – Gurch 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel like invoking this and ignoring anything either Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee says on the matter from now on? – Gurch 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins who do that tend to get desysopped. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if they all did it – Gurch 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except it's not ignoring any rule to ignore them on a matter not related to dispute resolution. –Pomte 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief, a 2/3 supermajority of the community wanted the thing turned on. Lots of people who opposed wanted it turned on but just didn't like the formalities of the process. Still more opposed for reasons that have nothing to do with rollback and that would also apply to twinkle, which is accessible to all users from the day they register an account. Based on the number of users who have requested it (around 250), that's pretty good evidence of community support. This meltdown is over the top. If someone can come up with a better implementation, by all means, suggest it, but getting Jimbo/the board/arbcom involved when there hasn't actually been a problem is just over the top. Blocking is far more problematic than rollback. We have several blocking issues brought to ANI every day but somehow we get through them and Wikipedia continues to exist. If a bad grant of rollback is made or if wheel warring occurs, we will manage somehow to get through it. --B (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee would be one thing, Jimbo, but the Wikimedia Foundation? Why is this something to make a "formal request" about, or something for the foundation to get involved in at all? Wikimedia hosts and supports Wikipedia and the other projects, traditionally it doesn't decide how to run them, and I'm concerned this would be a bad precedent. I'd much rather see this as an opportunity to recognize the traditional role that Brion and a few other developers (some of them Wikimedia employees, but that's purely incidental) have long played, as trusted and respected individuals, in making decisions of this type. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. This is not something to get the Foundation involved in at all. That is exactly the point of what I am doing here, actually. What I mean by a "formal request to the foundation" is that ultimately, Brion is an employee of the foundation and controls the software. If there are optional features of the software which can be turned on or off, then I do not think the foundation should be deciding those things, but rather the community should be deciding those things. However, the Foundation also not be in the position of trying to judge something as complex as whether or not there is consensus. I want that to be the community's job. Some people are saying there is consensus to turn this on. Others are saying not. I just want to make sure that the developers are given clear guidance from the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's partly the point, though. There was a communication breakdown somewhere along the line, as some people thought the process had failed to gain consensus (with inevitable comparisons to the last straw poll which had the same result), others thought it had been accepted, and most (I think) were getting ready to come up with a new proposal that would gain a clearer consensus. What happened was that the main communication channel seemed to have been the bugzilla report (see here) - the developer that implemented it seemed to have taken Ryan's comment (and maybe the straw poll) as a green light to go ahead, when a little bit more digging would have shown that it might have been better to wait a while. Developers are good at answering technical questions, but judging consensus on issues like this is not something that many (if any) developers have practice at. What is needed is a clearer way to communicate with developers, and making clearer who decides on-wiki in cases of consensus. For the Main Page redesign, I seem to remember a bureaucrat delivered a verdict there. A similar decision should have happened here - an uninvolved bureucrat should have been asked to say whether they judged there was consensus. I had a long debate with Simetrical about developers, the Foundation, and the Wikimedia communities, where I said developers need to be more involved with the communities, and Simetrical was saying that this doesn't work in practice (or something like that - I may be misrepresenting what was said). At the end of the day, communication was the key here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can say there was a communications problem, sure, my concern is that this doesn't seem like it's something appropriate for formal involvement by the Wikimedia Foundation. Most MediaWiki developers are not foundation employees, and I don't believe the person in this case is. --Michael Snow (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point here is well-taken, and as you see above, I agree with you completely. My proposal can be read as "formal request to the developers". But the ultimate point is that the developers, volunteer or otherwise, don't really have final authority over community decisions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

← What the hell does this mean... another vote? ArbCom will probably "follow the vote of the community"? Does that mean majority rules? How much majority should they require? What happened to consensus? Why is the foundation suddenly involved? None of this sounds like the Wikipedia I know. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:28, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

What it means is precisely that "majority rules" need not be the rule. The ArbCom will likely follow the vote of the community, if it is clear and persuasive, but if it is not, they might design a new poll, or ask the community to redraw the policy in a way that gets broad acceptance. The whole point of involving the ArbCom here is that we do not want any of the following:

1. The community votes and 50%+1 prevails (because this likely prevents the development of an alternative proposal with much higher support levels)
2. The developers have final authority over what features are turned on
3. Jimbo decides.
4. The ArbCom decides without regard for the wider community's positon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I actually disagree with it, but this whole argument has come about because people don't consider the 67% result of the previous poll to constitute consensus; if it really did end up as 51%:49% we would only be back where we started. Still better than ArbCom telling us what to do. And frankly, I'd rather the developers had final authority than ArbCom (still would prefer the community to have it, of course) – Gurch 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

← Again I'll say what happened to consensus? I could honestly understand it if there are so many people involved in this decision that we're abandoning consensus in favor of democracy, because consensus would be too difficult to judge on such a large scale. But that still was never explicitly stated, and it probably ought to be. And if that's not the case, then what praytell is going on here? Equazcion •✗/C • 11:45, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats should judge consensus

Why not just ask the en-wiki bureaucrats to have a bureaucrat chat and deliver a verdict on whether there was consensus? That way the ArbCom can concentrate on the cases they are dealing with, and the community can accept the verdict of the bureaucrats? Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks - bureaucrats determine consensus in RFAs and RFBs and nowhere else. Consensus for bureaucratship is 90%, adminship is 75% - logically the next step is 60% for rollback. Majorly (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying that the request for rollback process should have RfA-style debates with 60% as a guide to determine consensus? That process has nothing to do with the process of polling for policy changes. I think you will find that getting policy changes implemented requires widespread consensus (ie. normally higher than 60-70%), and often several drafts and rounds of negotiation to achieve that. The Main Page redesign went through 5 or 6 drafts, and the poll ran for over two weeks, and 687/213/43 (76%) was achieved. I'm still trying to track down the closing discussion there, but Raul I believe took part. There is precedent for bureaucrats being asked to judge consensus on issues - can anyone remember examples? Carcharoth (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't think of anything worse than RFA style requests. The thought makes me feel quite ill... anyhow, I don't think some of the bureaucrats know how to determine consensus, other than counting names.Majorly (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have formally requested arbitration on this matter at WP:RfArb--Doc^g 00:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No need; Jimbo already remanded it to them... — madman bum and angel 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If there is a poll already in existence, then they can discuss whether it meets the standards for sufficient consensus to turn the feature on. They might decide to ask for a broader poll, or a poll on a slightly different question, or, or, or... --Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

...or they might decide, as they are doing, that there's no reason they should be involved at all? – Gurch 10:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The poll in question is at Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any point to this at all? This is how it will play out. A) It goes to the ArbCom, who discuss it for a long time, then decide to either i) keep the new non-admin roll-back, causing all the editors that are for it, to be outraged, and carry on with these long discussions driving away countless good editors, or ii) get rid of the new non-admin roll-back, causing all the editors that are against it, to be outraged, and carry on with these long discussions driving away countless good editors. Alternatively, B) The ArbCom reject the case, long discussions will continue, and continue, for months, driving away countless good editors till Jimbo gets fed up, and puts his foot down either way. All this bureaucracy is killing wikipedia, no decisions ever get made properly--Jac16888 (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If this goes as long as most ArbCom cases, WT:RFR (where the signal to noise ratio is much better than here) will be able to reach a pretty stable process. Mr.Z-man 06:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Yes, we don't !vote, but if so many people are flipping out still over this, why not just do a straight, no commentary vote. Yes, a vote. Yay/nay. No "we don't vote" nonsense. If that's what it takes, do what it takes to end it. This month.

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote

Enough already, please post this to the watchlist. Lawrence Cohen 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As much i hate to say it, being quite fond of the whole Not a democracy idea, i have to agree, i think its the only way this is going to end, if it does. Although a vote propably wouldn't end it, as all th editors who didn't get their way would carry on arguing against the decision (quoting NOT#DEMOCRACY)--Jac16888 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do remember writing, when this was first brought up, that this was going to be a can of worms. I'm sorry to be proven right. Corvus cornix_talk 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Foundation, decision and tea cup

Hello,

Honest... I find that the whole story is really a storm in a tea-cup. Please try to take a step backward, and think about it again... what are we trying to accomplish... an encyclopedia, for everyone, complete, accurate, up to date, easy to read. This is a huge job, with plenty of troubles on the way already. How important is this rollback feature in the great scheme ???

Second, some people have complained that the developer would did the implementation did not respect the community. I find that most amazing. JeLuF has been a volunteer for several years and is an extremely important member of the tech team. He is not employed by the Foundation. For those who met him, he is also an absolutely adorable guy, gentle, honest, straigthforward, discreet, helpful and so on. As he told me "There was a bugzilla entry asking for the config change. There was a link to a voting, with 304 pro and 150 contra votes. This looked to me like a majority, and so I implemented it". I wish you would give him a thank you for the job he is doing on our servers and network. I wish you would be grateful to him to actually implement the changes proposed by the community. I am not convinced that he will be as responsive next time. He just wanted to help. I also think the ones who spoke bad would help the project in apologizing to him.

Third, it is absolutely excluded that I propose a resolution for the board to vote on such an issue. This is your business guys, not the business of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a community issue. I know it is hard to "be in charge", sometimes, I wish as well I could rely on someone to make a decision rather than enduring community votes or board votes. It can be so relaxing to let others make the painful decisions for us (and then have someone to scream upon). But, I think the spirit of the project is that the community runs the show. If you feel that it is too difficult to make decision with 600 voters, then switch to a Republic. Elect a group to make some decisions in the name of the community.
Or go on take decisions yourselves. Running the project is your job. Not the job of the arbcom, not the job of Jimbo, not the job of the developers, not the job of the board. Your job. This is what is scary, but exciting as well.

My suggestion right now would be to say that the feature turned on by JeLuF is NOT critical. Give it a try. See if it is helpful, or to the contrary, bring in more troubles than it solves them. And revisit the issue in 3 months if necessary (yeah, vote again). Give it a try, and move on.

And wikilove, as always....

Anthere (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. We really have to sort this kind of things out on our own. Kusma (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thank you Anthere. Majorly (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent words, thank you from me as well, Anthere. Acalamari 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthere, can we have you as our GodKing instead of Jimbo? If you'd posted the above yesterday in place of his waffle about polls further up the page, none of this would ever have happened – Gurch 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Anthere

Unfortunately Anthere's "you guys govern yourself - the dev is a good guy" post totally misses the point.

If we are to govern ourselves, then we need to define what is and is not sufficient mandate for policy changes in our community. Most sane people on en.wp would agree that a 66% support rate on a dubious and confused eight day poll performed when half the community was on holiday is simply not our method of deciding stuff like this.

But the developer took it on himself to decide what was an was not consensus in our community - and accepted the advice of the rather determined promoter of the policy. It is not possible for this community to govern itself while outsiders make such decisions and yet all outside bodies refuse to hear any appeal against them.

Now, as I say, this fikning policy (admin right to grant) is now a done deal. But what we need now is to make sure this can never happen again. My response to Anthere's patronising call for us to stand on out own two feet, is: "yes please, now will you let us do that?" ---Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Give it up Doc. There's something rotten in the state of Denmark. Hiding T 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, I have given up, long ago. But that patronising crap needed answered.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC) - apologies to Anthere and anyone else - that description was uncalled for.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I agree. I just get the feeling this was a done deal before we even caught wind of it. Hiding T 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I get that same feeling. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:06, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure what planet everyone suddenly migrated to, but defending this as obeying the majority in a vote is simply ludicrous from a Wikipedia standpoint. What happened to not being a democracy? I am not and have never said anything bad about the developer who implemented this -- I just think he was mistaken. I'm also fine with giving this a tryout and I agree it wouldn't be a big deal to do so. Nevertheless these answers are just bewildering, including the ones from Jimbo, Anthere, the devs and many admins. I would've been fine with hearing "Mistakes may have been made but what's done is done, this isn't a big deal, let's just try it out and see what happens." But what we got seems to have completely abandoned what Wikipedia stands for, as far as back-end decisions go. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:34, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, you think Wikipedia "stands for" not being a democracy? Many Wikipedias would have accepted a 2/3rds vote as sufficient cause for action without question. For reasons I've never understood, EN is substantially more anti-democratic than most. Dragons flight (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as our decision-making process goes, yes, we stand for not being a democracy. I don't know or care how the EN Wikipedia compares to other languages, as it's irrelevant. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:00, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is very relevant if you are a dev (or for that matter a Board Member) who spends most of their time worrying about other projects. You can't expect them to have a detailed knowledge of the quirks of every project. If that poll should have failed, it was really the responsibility of people on EN to close it that way (something which people here don't really agree on), and if a mistake was made, it would be the responsiblity of people on EN to clearly explain that to the devs and demonstrate the broad agreement for reversing the action (which basically seems impossible at this point). A volunteer dev with several years experience treated the bug request as he would many others from other communities and got ridiculed for it. His actions are entirely understandable. The actions and expectations of the EN community on the other hand are pretty much nuts. Dragons flight (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

They're not nuts. They saw Wikipedia's processes being circumvented and became unsettled. I didn't criticize any devs and I agree his actions are understandable. I criticize only those who saw fit to bring the matter to Bugzilla to begin with, as well as those who have responded to try and explain what happened. No broad agreement needed to have been demonstrated in order to overturn the implementation -- all that was needed was direction to the vote and to WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. A lack of consensus is all that's required in order for something to not happen, at least on EN Wikipedia. A majority vote just doesn't do it. That's our policy. I'm sorry if you find fault with that, but I didn't write it so don't complain to me. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:41, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can sorta see the reasoning behind making a tool available while not really passing judgment on what is the best way to use it. I also assume there's some level of project management that goes on when it comes to the software, such that features that seem actually harmful don't get implemented. In my view, rollback is small potatoes. I don't see how it could do much harm. The ability is easily removed, if someone starts misusing it. Friday (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At the danger of reiterating what Anthere said, is this really worth screeds of topsy-turvy discussion that goes nowhere? Okay, so the process is up and running; best course of action? Leave it like that. It's even more work trying to discredit it and have it pulled down. I for one never even picked it up, but for the select few that did, drop it: it is not worth the drama. Anthøny 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dethzone

This person appears to be violating WP:USERPAGE. Again. Which is also primarily what his contributions consist of. Could this be looked into once more, please? Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And he's at it again... *sigh* -Ebyabe (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Vote

Can we please have some more sensible eyes? I've blanked+protected the main voting page due to edit-warring, but the talk page is descending into one massive flamewar, with arrant nonsense being frequently added - so please feel free to go for some aggressive refactoring. It all got so bad we're off to a draft poll. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am profoundly confused as to what happened to the votes. I just went to check to see the number of votes for each proposal and I see the page has full protection and a picture of a cat? This is descending into utter silliness. Bstone (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's utter madness, I can't understand why people is still arguing about it, it's not like it matters! I would suggest everyone just stop complaining about anything that has to do with rollback, and just let it be as it is now. If someone acquires rollback and is using it to do vandalism, then that person will be blocked, or if less severe, will loose the rollback bit. Also as a point is that I will in a near future change Twinkle to only use the built in rollback, so at that point, loosing rollback privilege will effectively disable twinkle rollback as well. _→AzaToth 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a really cool idea (with TW I mean} :b: Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredible that we now have a community consultation process to start a community consultation process to implement the results of a community consultation process. Rollback really shouldn't be this controversial. Hut 8.5 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest from 202.49.173.99

This IP address resolves to Canwest MediaWorks New Zealand which has actually been sold to another operator but one can only assume this IP points to this company still. Users of the IP are editing articles such as The Breeze (New Zealand) and More FM which are the names of the Radio Stations that are run by MediaWorks. Bhowden (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding RfR to watchlists

At the risk of crucification, I am advocating that; as we seem to be in at least some sort of a near agreement to try this out a while; we add WP:RfR back to watchlists. Requests have basically stalled since we took it down yesterday sometime, and implementing the course of action we're in the neighborhood of advocating involves notifying the community at large. Please don't kill me, --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 01:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure we need to advertise RfR anymore than we advertise RfA or RfB. It might've been good to let people know the discussion ended and they could now ask for it, but by now, everyone who was involved and wanted it, has it, and anyone who wan't involved, and wants to expand their vandal-reverting abilities, will find it on their own, IMHO. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

SSP Backlog

Hello. Dear Admins, WP:SSP has had a backlog for days now, and cases files in 2007 are still open. 34 open cases as of a moment ago. Perhaps some reviews can be done tonight? Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot out of control?

User:CBM has tagged literally 6000 new pages as patrolled in the 60 minutes. This can not possibly be. I see that he operates a bot, User:VeblenBot. Somethings wrong. I mentioned this to CBM but I'm 99% sure he's not online and New Page Patrol is not going to work well unless we get to the bottom of this.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 03:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CBM is doing something extremely useful for NPP. I should have waited for a few more minutes to let him respond before coming here. My apologies.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New CSD criterion

Debate for a new CSD criterion has been taking place on the CSD talk page. The criterion would be CSD#T3, which would allow orphaned and deprecated templates that are not part of series to be speedy deleted after seven days.

The debate has been listed on Template:RFCpolicy list for the past several days. It seems that they are not any strong objections to adding the new criterion, however, as CSD is official policy, some users thought it would be best to post on a pump or noticeboard to ensure that a healthy number of people were aware of the debate. If you have a comment or would care to join in the debate, please visit WT:CSD. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you know... that T:DYK is an hour late?

Yup, as usual, the update is late at T:DYK/N if an admin can take care of everything. I went and did all the hooks already; if I weren't logging off for the night I'd do the update myself. Wizardman 04:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's updated now. I wouldn't have noticed it because I was looking for the "DYK is late" box to turn red. It appears to turn bright yellow now, rather than a screaming red, so that threw me off. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to make uploads autoconfirmed

There is a proposal to make "upload" an autoconfirmed right rather than an automatic right, as default on all Wikimedia wikis except at the Commons. So after you sign up, you have to wait 4 days before you can upload. Individual projects could opt-out from this. See m:Metapub#Set upload to autoconfirmed Wikimedia-wide. Please comment over there. Lupo 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (Also posted at WP:VPP.)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html calling on supporters to edit pages on intelligent design, evolution, or creationism, and to organise mass attacks. A transcript of part of the broadcast has been posted at WT:ANI#Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed – meant to post it here but got mixed up. Feel free to move it here if that's better. ... dave souza, talk 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's move it to the parallel thread at WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD formatting

Resolved

Hi, could someone more experienced please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Fake DIY (3rd nomination)? Specifically there seems to be a recent 2nd AfD ending in no-consensus which may have been quite recent but when I click to find it it seems merged with the presently opened 3rd AfD. I didn't want to step in if I was missing something though. Benjiboi 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they all seem to be there.--Phoenix-wiki 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems fixed now, thanks! Benjiboi 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dethzone again

Resolved

 – Removed again, note left.

He's doing the userpage thing again. He undid the stuff that was removed, and only slightly renamed it. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Progressive Field

Resolved

 – Move with copy-paste. Gimmetrow 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit history for Progressive Field disappeared today and the article seems to be an older version than the one I was viewing and editing earlier today. If damage has been done, can it be reversed? Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the page was deleted as housekeeping to merge the history. It was deleted by User:Gimmetrow. Looks like it's still being worked on. Useight (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think. Gimmetrow 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, resolved. Robert K S (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Irresponsible and rash admin - immature? childish?

Resolved

 – That was easy. SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' talk page had a memorial to a murdered blogger. People were encouraged to sign a letter of support.

I supported it. I also made a note that Jimbo should not make the mistake and take sides and mistakenly recognize the People's Republic of China government as the Chinese government but should remain NPOV, as much of Wikipedia does regarding the China and Republic of China on Taiwan issue.

Jeske immediately reverted (censored) the entire comment and support of Jimbo. Ironically, Jeske supports freedom of speech yet censors a comment about pro-freedom of speech.

BoL then puts a vandalism warning on my talk page.

Both are examples of rash and irresonsible actions by admins.

Shouldn't they be counseled? Wikipeace2008 (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No. SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And the latter has been on his talk page. WE don't usually remove others comment, and I don't see anything particularly offensive about yours. I see you supporting, and also also see you protesting some of Jimbo's wording regarding the govt. Nothing big I think. M-ercury at 05:05, January 13, 2008

It wasn't that I had removed the comment to make a point: As I stated in the edit summary when I removed it, it was the fact that the inherent flaw Wikipeace saw in Jimbo's words reflects what the article linked to on his subpage calls the PRC government. I don't intend to edit-war over it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that in the future, you point that out on a users talk page, we don't remove folks comments for flaws. Regards, M-ercury at 05:12, January 13, 2008

You might even note that I reworded my comments to be more kind to Jimbo and you, Jeske. And nobody asked me to do it. Wikipeace2008 (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain your addendum here? I've certainly never heard of you before, so why would you mention me in such a way?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'd let it stay. Voice-of-All 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected

Resolved

 – Below. Spebi 09:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:ClaxsonKíng
• Please change the name of the sockpuppeteer to France a, as the two categories are being merged - same person operating, as confirmed by Checkuser.
• Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  I've moved the sock template on to his user page and redirected the talk page (page still protected), which I think by convention is where it is meant to be placed. Spebi 09:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Great; thanks.--09:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

Resolved

 – Moved to WT:CSD. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There will be a backlog on this page forever, probably. Proposing an idea: Since pages should remain in this category for 2 reasons (1: They are pages of users involved in sockpuppetry, and 2: They have been edited within the last month), why not add them to another category when they are ready for deletion? Something like Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages for deletion. That way, people who have a few minutes can go through a few, determine if they are ready to be deleted, and if so, add them to the new category. Then an admin wouldn't have to go through all of the ones that shouldn't be deleted, looking for the ones that should be. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, when a page is templated with notice of a block or ban that leads to page deletion, the template could put the pages into a dated category, perhaps even thrown forward in time? So someone slaps an indefblock template on the user page today and it pops up in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages for deletion on 2008-02-13 or the like?

Alternatively, those who religiously follow admins about slapping block notices on the user pages of obviously-blocked editors with few or no edits and no user or talk page in the first place (the User:I've_got_a_giant_penis, User:Redvers_is_queer, User:Redd_Anteater_hates_Jewish_people etc etc) might like to contribute to the fight by not bloody bothering in future. That would cut backlogs considerably. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, tell them not to do that then? - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Having categories like that (or something like Category:Temporary Wikipedia userpages MONTH) would be ideal. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought sockpuppets were not supposed to be tagged temporary, so that the record is kept? -- Avi (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

When adding a blocked indef tag, it automatically places the page in that category, which is why before deleting pages in that category, admins are supposed to make sure that there is no mention of sockpuppetterring. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Then the template needs to be changed to not do that any more. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. There needs to be a new template if anything. If the template is changed then it would not add any pages into that category, even though the majority of the pages do belong there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a tangential suggestion: don't populate that category in the first place. Not tagging username violators that don't edit at all is a good start. Миша13 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet ones are not supposed to be in there. I believe the sockpuppet related templates don't put users into that category and there is (was?) a bot that removed users that were also included in sockpuppet categories. So if you use {{sockpuppet}} and not {{indefblocked}}, they will not be in the category. Using a month based category system would be best, having users go through all the pages would just be a waste of time and using parser functions to change the category automatically may not work because of caching issues. Mr.Z-man 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What would be the best way to do this...add monthly categories (meaning how would we do this)? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal(s)

Here's my proposal:

1. Categorize said pages by day, like CSD image categories.
2. Create a CSD criterion (CSD U4?) for deleting such user pages (don't know if it will overlap with CSD G6 though)
3. Create an entry on CAT:CSD like the CSD image categories.

Feedback welcome. —Kurykh 00:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed #2 after some consideration. CSD G6 would cover it anyway. —Kurykh 00:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)This sounds good, I've always deleted them per G6, or not given a specific criterion, but given the sheer number, a new criterion does not seem all that unreasonable. We would also need to set a time limit for when they can be deleted, 30 days seems to be about the norm. So the criterion would be something like:

Userpages and user talk pages of indefinitely blocked users not required for sockpuppet tracking (other possibilities?) purposes can be deleted 30 days after the block notice is given.

This still leaves the question about what to do with the thousands currently in the main category. Perhaps a bot could check when the last edit was or when the block was given and recategorize by date. Mr.Z-man 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would leave them dormant for a month after implementing this proposal, then delete them all at once as they would have met the one-month "requirement." —Kurykh 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work on getting a proposal. I also think it would be best to create a new criteria for speedy deletion (to be titled "U4"). Also, change the wording to :

Userpages and user talk pages of indefinitely blocked users not required for sockpuppet tracking (other possibilities?) purposes can be deleted 30 days after the page was last edited.

The reason being that is how the category page currently explains what can be deleted. What now? I think it would be best to work on getting the U4 criteria first. Maybe open a thread at WT:CSD. The option for speedy deletion is needed even if we can't get the pages categorized by month. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The main point of this proposal is the splitting of the temp userpage category into days. Whether the new CSD criterion gets implemented can be decided another time, although implementation would make things easier. —Kurykh 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, see User:Rjd0060/temp 2. Feel free to make changes. Just a draft for future reference. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed CSD U4 criterion, how about this:

Any pages in the userspace of an indefinitely blocked user not required for sockpuppetry tracking (other possibilities?) purposes can be deleted 30 days after said pages have been edited.

I expanded it from just user pages and user talk pages to the account's entire userspace. —Kurykh 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. Should I open a thread at WT:CSD? - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. Although the need for the proposed CSD criterion is based on that we're going to split the temp userpage category up by days. —Kurykh 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#New criteria proposal. Feel free to comment there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

ΚέκρωΨ Need to be Banned!

He is consistently poisioning Wikipedia with his racist and hatered and is not adhiring to NPOV. View his dialogue from the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_%28terminology%29

"In the interests of free speech, I reserve my right to "offend" anyone I see fit on talk pages, including Skopjans. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And Macedonians reserve the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to themselves. And everyone else reserves the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to Macedonians. BalkanFever 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC) And they already do, persistently and throughout Wikipedia. So what's your beef? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC) My point is we don't have to bring it up every time someone says Skopjan and FYROM are offensive, because they are two different forms of offense. One comes from being called something, one comes from hearing/reading something. BalkanFever 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Exactly; we don't have to bring it up every time. This whole thread started when a now banned Skopjan editor was "offended" by my use of that word. And then your newcomer пичка felt it had to proffer its "constructive" 2¢ as well. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) " For those of you who don't know "пичка" literally means "Pussy" but more directly is equilivant to the F-WORD!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.136.2 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, thanks for that. If you'd read the thread more thoroughly, you'd know I was directly quoting an earlier abusive post by another editor who'd used the Slavic word "пичка" as part of an anti-Greek slur. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful for anyone to use ethnically or racially offensive terms, particularly since it's a clear breach of Wikipedia:Civility. You don't enjoy unconstrained free speech on talk pages or elsewhere and you have no "right" to cause gratuitous offence. If I see people using terms such as "Skopjans" in future (that includes you, Kekrops) the comments will be removed and the offender will be blocked if he or she persists. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have explained countless times that it isn't used to cause gratuitous offence; it is simply a metonymic exonym. It also happens to be by far the most common term used by Greeks. The name Greeks itself is considered a derogatory exonym by many Greeks; does that mean it should be banned too? You can't censor an entire nation. Finally, who is going to reprimand you for calling Greeks a nation of "crackpots", a deliberately offensive slur, in reference to this very issue? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Americans probably didn't specifically intend to cause offence when "nigger" was the most common term used to refer to black people, but that doesn't make it any less offensive to the target of the term. Nor is this an issue of "censorship", because you don't enjoy unconstrained free speech on Wikipedia, period - you're subject to the conditions set out in Wikipedia:Civility. If you don't accept them you shouldn't be editing here. And finally, don't misquote me or raise red herrings. I've given you fair notice here and on your talk page, and I'm not prepared to debate the unambiguous requirements of Wikipedia:Civility. Other Greek editors seem to be able to manage not to use ethnically offensive terms, so I expect you to be able to do the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of misquoting you. Perhaps you should actually read the policy that you have invoked three times in the past few sentences. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The bit about "Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs" being a "serious example" of a breach of civility is clear enough, and you should also read WP:CIV#Why is incivility bad?. Really, though, I'm not prepared to discuss this further; you know what's expected of you and all other editors, so you should have no difficulty in following this very basic policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet the only one who has made an ethnic slur here is you. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I urge anyone unfamiliar with the issue to read the FA Macedonia_(terminology)#Names_in_the_languages_of_the_region. Greeks do not refer to inhabitants of fYRoM as Macedonians because they have their own Macedonians. So this is very much a political debate. It appears to me ChrisO is trying to force Kekrops to succumb to a specific POV. --   Avg    12:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The fact that the term is used in the context of a political dispute doesn't make it any more acceptable - just as the Serbian derogatory term for Albanians, "Shiptars", isn't any more acceptable because it's used in conection with the Kosovo dispute. It's not as if "Skopjans" is the only term that can be used; "citizens of FYROM" and "Macedonian Slavs" are viable and reasonably uncontentious alternative terms. It's clear that the term causes widespread offence to those to whom it refers, it causes unnecessary tension and aggravation (as this thread demonstrates) and there are viable alternative terms that you could just as easily use; in short, there's no reason to use it. And it's hard to avoid the conclusion that some editors are trying to make a disruptive point when they use the term even though they're fully aware of these factors. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. "FYROM" and "Macedonian Slavs" are equally "offensive" according to those to whom they refer. In fact, they reject anything other than "Macedonians", for obvious political reasons. And you're forgetting the crucial difference between this case and the other examples you cite: Serbs are not offended by the name Albanians, nor are whites offended by blacks, so the only reason they would use those slurs would be to cause offence. Greeks, on the other hand, only use Skopjans because the self-identifying term is offensive to them. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to expand this. The terms "Macedonia/n/s" are equally highly offensive to most Greeks when they are used in reference to the South Slavic ethnic group. Yet I don't see anyone complaining here about those other alternatives proposed by ChrisO above to be universally used across Wikipedia so as to maintain this civility level. All members of the ethnic group choose to tease Greeks (Macedonians or others), by adamantly calling themselves plain "Macedonians". "Macedonia/n/s", undisambiguated, to quote ChrisO, "causes unnecessary tension and aggravation (as this thread demonstrates) and there are viable alternative terms that you could just as easily use; in short, there's no reason to use it". NikoSilver 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But the on-WP consensus is clearly "Ethnic Macedonian" or, where dab. is unnecessary, "Macedonian." Rather than accept this, Kekrops persists in using a perjorative. He should have stopped long ago. He should stop. Jd2718 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP consensus is still heavily disputed, and the WP flimsy consensus regards articles, not talkpages. The alternative is pejorative to the other side, yet still I see no complaint for that. I repeat that the words "Macedonia/n/s" in reference to the south Slavic ethnic group and without disambiguation are highly offensive to Greek editors. I will support this, if it's done for both sides: I.e. if ethnic Macedonian editors are also forced to not offend the Greek editors in talkpages, by using whichever qualifier they choose. Simple. NikoSilver 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW if Kekrops is offended, he is not in any way entitled to offend. However, I see no intended offense by Kekrops. He is merely using the prevailing terminology in his country (just like the others are doing without him complaining). To give you a recent example of the vast usage of Skopje/an in Greece, see this latest article from the accredited Greek News site "SKAI News".[11] I can furnish thousands more, and I can quote hundreds of Greek officials as well. NikoSilver 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Take a peak in Greek governmental sites: [12] (helpful translation by Google). Are you accusing an entire nation of being blasphemous? NikoSilver 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All I see is an attempt by certain users with a certain frame of thought to label a widely used descriptor as "pejorative", by taking the bait of "hey, that offends me!" There is simply nothing that they will not label as "offensive", because the doctrine does not allow them to. NikoSilver 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of Sanctions

I invite any "non-warring" administrator to remind Kekrops of the discretionary sanctions available under the recent Macedonia ArbCom decision. The text reads

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

I think that a simple warning should be sufficient to stop this. Jd2718 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I invite any "non-warring" administrator to remind all ethnic Macedonian editors who identify as "Macedonians" in their userpages of the discretionary sanctions available under the recent Macedonia ArbCom decision. The text reads

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editors in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

I think that a simple warning should be sufficient to stop this. NikoSilver 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I find a most welcome solution that words deemed offensive are to be avoided, however this has to happen in both sides. All Greeks should be forced to stop using "Skopjans" if and only if all fYRoM editors are forced to stop using "Macedonians". They should both start using "viable alternative terms" as ChrisO describes it, such as "Macedonian Slavs". Anything else is a biased decision against one or the other side. --   Avg    21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting frivolous. There is very obviously a big difference between identifying yourself using a particular term, and identifying someone else using a term which they find offensive. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One can be interpreted as "name-calling", the other as "impersonation". They can both be considered "offensive". A country's capital is very often used as a descriptor in diplomacy, making the claim that it is offensive simply ridiculous. NikoSilver 23:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Letting the capital stand for the country (Moscow warns, Bonn Berlin declines, Washington objects) is common. Turning that into an adjective to stand for the people is not. In this case, it is offensive. Jd2718 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious that the user Kekrops is disrupting Wikipedia. He is constantly inserting derogatory terms and violates the policies of WP:MOSMAC. I find it very strange that user has not been blocked as he is breaking Wikipedia rules daily in many of his edits. JdeJ (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Any trademark experts?

An editor is expressing concerns at Template talk:TardisIndexFile that Image:TARDIS-trans.png is subject to trademark, and can therefor not be used freely, even though the image itself is licenced under CC-BY-SA. He keeps removing the image from the template. I have been trying to explain to him that trademark is not subject to WP:NFC policy, as trademark is not covered. I want some expert opinion on this issue... I am certain the concerns are misplaced, as I explained on the talkpage. — Edokter • Talk • 21:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There was an issue recently (I'll be damned if I can find it) about photographs of toys being copyvios. But, as a very general rule, 2d images of 3d things are not subject to our FU provisions. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ah ha! Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#Copyright problems with toy photos ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the toys were copyrighted, the police box is not. — Edokter • Talk • 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone owns it' it's probably the Metropolitan Police. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Quite famously, the copyright (or trademark, one or the other) on the police box design is held by the BBC. With a lovely (C) 1963 on merchandise, too. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's here.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)IANACL, but the {{logo fur}} template applies to trademarks equally as to logos. Just my 2c. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)FU provisions don't apply to the template namespace. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the matter, let me reitterate that this is not a copyright problem, but purely dealing with trademark... Something the editor that removed the image keeps forgetting. The trademark may be intelectual property of the BBC, but there can be no trademark infringement as Wikipedia does not run a business selling TARDIS/Doctor Who related products or services. The photograph is of a 3D object, the trademark however is only of the 2 dimensional representation of the TARDIS; see the trademark as registered by the BBC. — Edokter • Talk • 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The approach taken on Commons (and presumably here too) is that we are concerned with copyright not trademarks. Images that are free of copyright may be hosted and used provided that they are free of copyright even if they are a registered trademark - for example Commons includes the Coca-Cola logo. I'm not sure I agree with this, but it is the way such images have been handled to date. Trademarked images can be tagged with {{trademark}}. So if the image is free of copyright, it can be used - bear in mind that a photo of a subject otherwise free of copyright will itself attract copyright if a creative process was used in producing it by the photographer- e.g. lighting, angle etc. WjBscribe 01:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is a copyright issue with images of toys. I can't find it right now, but this was an issue with an image I uploaded a long time ago of an action figure; it had to be deleted from the Wikimedia Commons because although the image itself was appropriately licensed, the appearance of the toy was protected by US copyright law (under which Wikipedia operates). Technically it's counted as a three-dimensional "work of applied art", which the Copyright Act of 1976 defines as "two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, technical drawings, diagrams, and models." Toys were ruled to be copyrightable in this 1983 case. A photo of a copyrighted three-dimensional object is thus potentially a copyright violation, unless the object in question is incidental to the subject of the photo. Hence a photo of a child playing with a TARDIS would not be a copyright violation, as the child rather than the TARDIS is the subject of the photo; but a photo of a TARDIS on its own would have copyright problems. This article in the WIPO magazine explains the legal position (see in particular the "Incidental background" section). I'll wait and see what other people say, but as a Commons admin I'm inclined to delete this image as a probable copyvio. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably this particular image raises questions about whether the "police box" design is copyrightable. I have no knowledge of the particulars of this case mind you. A deletion discussion about the image might be the best way for everyone to air their concerns. WjBscribe 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The original design may or may not have been copyrighted (probably not, since I doubt anyone in the US was interested in marketing British police boxes!). However, I'd think the toy version would very likely be covered by the copyright law. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agian: The BBC does not hold copyright, only trademark. So why does everyone bring up copyright? The box cannot be copyrighted; it is not designed by the BBC. The prop is built by them, but it is an non-copyrightable (public) design. — Edokter • Talk • 12:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's another issue here, which is whether the specific police box in question here is copyrightable because it is a prop created for the television show. Even absent considerations of the overall design of the box, the trademark status, etc, that's a major issue. I replaced the image with a photograph of a police box on the street, which surely carries no copyright problems and is still a fine illustration. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is hidious! I still stand by my position that there is no copyright problem (it's a photo of a stage prop) and that trademark cannot be infringed. But we can speculate as long as we want... I'd rather have definitive answers. Is there anybody in the foundation that we can ask? — Edokter • Talk • 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

commons:Category:De Lorean DMC-12 in Back to the Future, commons:Category:Automobiles in fiction, commons:Category:Batmobile. I'm going to guess and say it's probably ok. At least, make sure people on commons know of the concern here, and let them sort it out, because it will effect a LOT more images than just this one. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• The DeLorean time machine and the Batmobile are ordinary cars with some extra gadgets and trim attached. I don't think that this qualifies them as works of art. Plenty of stock automobile designs required artistic talent to design, but that doesn't make photos of them automatically unfree. *** Crotalus *** 08:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• But a typical blue police box is a work of art? Even if someone specifically created the model, all they have done is create a model of a common object. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I started this mess, and I'm just going to drop it. It seems the picture is also being used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who as a logo, and the issue is unsure enough that I'll just let it lie for the moment. The picture should ideally be the logo for The Tardis Index File, but that's listed on the site as copyrighted and used under fair use [13]. --Phirazo 03:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the actual Doctor Who logo is used, yes, that is copyrighted. But the TARDIS is not copyrightable; it is a stage prop and a replica of a (once) public object. And while the trademark may be "intellectual property" of the BBC, it is not an issue, as that can only be infringed on when used for marketing goods and services similair to those marketed by the BBC under that trademark. While many/most corporate logos are also copyrighted, and thus fall under fair use, trademark alone permits all other uses outside marketing. As such it does not fall under WP:NFCC. I hope this clears it up; It took quite a bit of reading on my part. — Edokter • Talk • 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you posit that there is no copyright, it is not an issue because it is a common object. A more obscure trademark could perhaps be tarnished or diluted through inappropriate use, but not a police box.Wikidemo (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:NERIC-Security

The above account is a multiple-user account, used to keep tabs on vandalism from educational IP ranges.

Does this violate WP:SOCK under the role account clause? haz (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If they're using the account to edit, then multiple-user accounts would violate the GFDL requirement that an edit be attributable to a single person. Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they have edited, but there's a phone number on their userpage. Should someone call them? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about this account as well, and have seen it requesting blocks/unblocks of related IP addresses. Since these requests seem to be granted, some kind of confirmation of the account's ownership should probably be obtained. I wouldn't block the account, though, as their work is benefiting ours. Any IPs they are keeping track of are IPs we won't have to worry about. - auburnpilot talk 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm calling called. Nobody answered. - auburnpilot talk 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a reverse search on the number for the heck of it. I am not getting any results. I did get a false positive though. Rgoodermote  01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See here on the Neric.org site. It's definitely their number, and the answering machine says the same (although I didn't leave a message). - auburnpilot talk 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I did not trust the site, but a machine answered huh. If memory serves me, there is an account used by multiple users. It is owned by a shareholder or something like that. But it seems the account has a legit reason and as I have read not editing, the account is not a sock...maybe not the last of its kind. Rgoodermote  01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Business hours are over in the US, and will be for the next 60 hours. Try calling them then. east.718 at 01:53, January 12, 2008

Probably best to do that, by the way I am not doing it I have school in 60 hours. Rgoodermote  02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I set this account up as a "roll" account, to keep my personal edits (and POV) seperate from my responsibilities as an administrator for our regional educational network. I have two related goals; for my organization to insure that the districts that we serve become aware of the inappropriate edits, and I can say that based upon phone calls and e-mails received these past two weeks, they are waking up to this as an issue; by creating an account associated with this task, should I change jobs (no plans for that in the near future, but one never knows), that the work that I am doing in my roll as a network administrator would continue with my successor.

Our "normal" operating hours are M-F 8-4 (+5) which is why no one answered (I'm at home right now). Whatever the consensus is, I will be more than happy to follow. Let me know. --NERIC-Security (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding edits, the only edits that have been made with this account have been reverts to vandalism, and notices on the associated User_talk pages. --NERIC-Security (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not the edits we are concerned about. You identified yourself with a corporation/businesses which is a concern because we do not know how many people use the account or have access to it. The guideline here states that there must be only one person who uses to account as to make sure no one is improperly blamed. Rgoodermote  02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It is a multi-county educational agency, chartered by the NYS Ed Department. I am the only one who has access to the account. If it would eliminate any concern, I'll agree that should I leave NERIC, the account would go with me and not the position.

The only addresses that I will ask to have blocked, or unblocked, are associated with our class B address 163.153.0.0/16. This link to ARIN will show you the netblock information, and my business contact information (the e-mail listed is one that attracts spam and is not checked regularly, but if you want to use it to verify my info, let me know and I'd be happy to log into that server).

--NERIC-Security (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am stepping out of conversation as the matter seems to be settled, I have not verified information but I believe the user is telling the truth. Rgoodermote  02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So long as the account is not shared, I don't see any real issue with you continuing the work you've been doing so far. If you leave the position, rather than passing the account onto the next person, allow them to create their own account and note it on your user page. Your efforts are obviously beneficial to our project, as a great deal of IP vandalism is traced back to school addresses, so hopefully a few others will chime in. - auburnpilot talk 02:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the "occasional exception" in regards to a multi-user account. A SPA with fighting vandalism from a shared range? That sounds fantastic to me. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

mirror site with dyslexia?!

What gives - anyone seen this?

Here is a weird mirror

of my userpage. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange, my eyes didn't even see the problem until I read it twice. My eyes are warped now. Checking my version my userpage says "I am a rokllabcer." Quite a funny read in the mode, but is it worth the mention on WP:AN? Maybe someplace else would be more appropriate. — Save_Us † 11:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is actually kind of funny, guess its the result of a bug when translating the material, I do have to wonder if they have a "arsimintdator's" noticeboards :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I know...just begs the question why...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but its certainly not reading the detailed template that I use on my user page, [14] so it seems that is the more plausible explanation, as to why, the world may never know... but maybe somebody can contact the webmaster about it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps its an experiment with keeping the first and last letters in place but jumbling the middle of the word (people can still read it). Why they would upload userpages I don't know although perhaps they just got a bot to do it? James086^{Talk | Email} 11:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the links stay on his site and are current but others will send you back here. Click on the please leave a new message bar. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's being instantly updated, which probably means that it fetches the current version from Wikipedia and then jumbles the letters. User:Dorftrottel 18:12, January 12, 2008

It is related to this I believe, an Edinburgh study(although most of them mention it as a Cambridge study, I believe the Edinburgh study was the genesis.) Languagehat has some info on it, as well as the Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at Cambridge University. Dureo (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recombinant text

I feel this requires admin attention. The article Recombinant text has been nominated for deletion today, following what in my opinion is a canvassing spree[15]. I would like to know whether this is indeed canvassing and how this could or should affect the AfD, if at all. User:Dorftrottel 14:48, January 12, 2008

It doesn't seem to be target toward gaining a particular outcome...--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. User:Dorftrottel 18:06, January 12, 2008

Disputed the balance in articles Albania , Greece ,Epirus ,Pelasgians, Illyrinas,Macedonians

Could you please, I very much call your attention because all related articles concerning Albania, Greece ,Pelasgians ,Illyrians, Epirus have their balance very much disputed by a group of editors, understandably from where, that mistreat every Albanian editor and express only their view of interest. I would like to ensure you that I am not the only one described with such terms as “weird “ , “confused” “fringe ideas””abominable” while you also tangentially want to influence other administrators by expressing his view for “ skeptical future “ and extensively ban them and their computer including main communication phone service as AlbteleCOM ,so no anyone from Albania itself phone network can not contribute in Albanian related pages. For so long period I am testimonial of Albanian user and Albania offended by some of members of this group and they have become really paranoid with me deleting and my apologias . They communicate with each other and coordinate their movements, of course they are smart and academic persons but they change or modulate facts, post new maps ,delete section and even talk pages. They deleted the section Albanians as Pelasgians although enormous secondary sources and references that mention the argument. I agree to be in control as any other editors but this situation got to change, I am sure that my work will go ashtray you will delete any post of mine. I expressed my apologies to them, on my part, to show good will and to collaborate but no one of them cared to apologias back and trust me they are not angels here, they express a strong bias, old mentality and extreme and unreasonable nationalistic ideas, they all know Arvanitika a form of Albanian and are all ethnically let us say Greek-Albanians. I would propose that the mention articles to be watched by equilibrate independent administrators and the balanced to be strongly guarded.Dodona--Burra (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: this is about the case mentioned in this posting above. I'd be extremely glad if some other admin could look into this and give some advice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If the above post is exemplary of that user's encyclopedic contributions, then they need to "go ashtray" indeed. Why should he not just be indefinitely blocked as an admitted sock of banned user "Dodona", lately editing as PIRRO BURRI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If the user wishes to appeal the ban, he should do it from his original account. Sandstein (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, this is the appealing of his ban. And he can't do it from his original account because he never had one before he was banned. (Used to edit from IPs only.) Please let's hear it here, or on his current talk page; it doesn't matter which account he's using. But the point about the quality of the contributions is valid of course. I was just glad he was showing some willingness to at least try and come to a constructive arrangement. So, I'd like to give him a second chance in recognition of that, although I'm skeptical myself. But either way, I don't want to be the one to decide this, because if I tell him he can't edit, he'll just accuse me of being part of the Greek cabal again, and resume his daily sockpuppet show (which was a nuisance.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, German guys thanks for being so reasonable and also so judging, of course I was not born in UK and I have not experience editing in encyclopedia and more I am not a historian but I have the willing to contribute .Why you do not go ashtray yourself if you do not see the meaning and the essence of my post. Anyway if you decide to ban me go head I do not care but I will not stay and watch when the history of my country and my people is maltreated. The best Albanologs were German but probably you are not the same generation. But in case that you want s.th constructive I have chosen already my Mentor and it is Greek, an honest one, can i ask you again to watch the balance in Albanian related articles. Dodona --Burra (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I have multiple issues that I need dealt with, so this may be a complex admin.

• Issue 1.
  

On the 3rd of January I requested from the Military History Project coordinator (reposted to the article discussion page by Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)) that the article named Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive either be renamed (previously requested by - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)), or moved to the existing English titled article from which it was redirected, Iassy-Kishinev Offensive. The name this event is known by in the works of David Glantz is Yassy-Kishinev, so that was also suggested.

When the discussion went on into a polemic and Google hits counting, I consulted the Wikipedia standard for Cyrillic transliteration, and based on the ISO 9 standard moved the article to the Yassy'-Kishinev Offensive since this confirmed to both Wikipedia Style Guide, closely confirmed to most widely used source (David Glantz), and above all was a productive move towards continuing work on the article without continuing polemic which has continued due to a bias POV based on, I think, national feelings of Rumanian editors for over six months. It was my reasoning that editors who were intransigent on the issue of the article name for six months were unlikely to be productive on the content of the article either.

Unable to shift the decision-making process one way or another, I then created a new article called Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation, and tagged the Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive for deletion. In part this is due to the one sided content of the article, and the very much incomplete description of the historical event, and persistent POV, or lack of NPOV in the editorialship. The newly created Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation article was immediately tagged for speedy deletion as a forked article, where as in fact it is not a forked article, but merely one with an English name that conforms to both the best known source and to accepted Wikipedia ISO 9 standard, and above all seeks to actually productively complete the article.

Reguest for Issue 1.
I request that the original Rumanian-titled article Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive be speedily deleted along with the redirect from the Iassy-Kishinev Operation since it does not conform to Wikipedia standards, and actually prevents active completion of the article. I also request that the new article Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation be protected from malicious editorialship that seeks to impose a POV of a particular national perspective without appropriate references. I also note that the contemporary name for Romania for the purpose of the Second World War history appears to be Rumania as used by the US Army War College by its former educator, and the most prominent source on the operation, the above mentioned David Glantz. I can not very well change the source quotes I intend to insert into the article because they do not conform with the current official Romanian spelling!

Issue 2.
In attempting to understand the rationale for renaming the article above into Rumanian, I visited the Romania article. What I found there was that inconvenient truths about the origin of the name Rumania (as I see them within the time period of the above article), were removed from the Etymology section, and shunted off into a separate, equally fact-bereft article that uses predominantly Rumanian or Italian (sympathetic POV) references that have not been translated into English, or in some cases even dated. The primary source for assertions are from a source unknown in English and originates from Rumanian sources. When I tried to point this out in the Romanian discussion, and then to offer suggestions, discuss and show sources, I was abused, rediculed, and my comments were interspersed with nonsense comments by another registered user Nergaal. I was further issued a warning by a suspected sock puppet:

"To user mrg3105mrg3105: your interventions are but semieducated spinning. It is of no interest, if you are doing so out of ignorance or you are deliberately trolling. Your behaviour is disruptive. If you continue, you'll be blocked.--84.153.17.16 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)"

I note that not one of my statemes has been repudiated or alternatives offered in the discussion page.

Reguest for Issue 2.
I would also request that this be taken as unwarranted abuse from the user, and the user be advised to desist from spamming my contributions and my user page with comments that include "hey commie, you should stop using the archaic term rumunian (i.e. that term was in use in soviet russia/ussr) and use the one that is currently in official use (i.e. Romanian). Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)" since I am free to use the name for Rumania outside to the published articles, and where the use is a direct quote from a source, since the term was a historical term used during the period under discussion (source provided in the discussion page).--mrg3105mrg3105 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin response, re. content forking and enforced deletions: no way. If you can't get consensus for a move, the article will stay where it is, and forks mustn't be done. Sorry, that's just how we do things here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the POV fork Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation to the original article Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive. If you try to undo that redirection I'll protect it. This is for as long as there is no consensus to move the Iaşi- article somewhere else; no prejudice from my side, I don't care either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not forking. The issue is that the editors of Iaşi- article refuse to comply with the need to have English titled articles. Did you read the above? Is this Rumanian Wiki or an English one?--mrg3105mrg3105 22:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't care which which title would be better. The only point here is that the article history must be kept together in one place. If you want it moved, the only way to do so is to achieve consensus and then move it, not fork it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is not possible due to lack of NPOV, so what are you going to do about that?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request from Jimbo to monitor page from User_talk:Jimbo Wales

Jimbo has blanked his user and talk pages and replaced them with a message that he would like protected from vandalism. Both pages are protected, but the talk page links to a third page for statements from editors in support of his talk page message. Since it is by nature unprotected, his talk page asks that admins monitor it for vandalism and semi-protect or protect it as needed. Just FYI. ^Avruchtalk 03:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jew york

I've just blanked this redirect to New York. Please delete and salt. Other gems from the editor who created this include Hey! Unprotect this page so I can redirect it to obesity. --Chinese3126 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC) at Talk:Fat ass[16] and Talk:Fatass.[17] Please address the behavior problem appropriately. Durova^Charge! 04:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of the page above, let me go hunting down the rest of his.. contributions. SirFozzie (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to believe this is Liist (talk · contribs)

Old warning.

- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him 24 hours, I've come across at least one article I think is hoaxy, and lots of unlikely New York redirects. If someone wants to make it indef, go ahead. SirFozzie (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph

Zeraeph, who exercised her right to vanish when the arbcom against her was not going so well, is nw disrupting the proceedings by postingz attacks against one editor as an anon Ip, though she is signing it as Zeraeph. One page of the arbcom has been protected, could somebody please semi-protect the rest as well as blocking the IPs she is using? Thanks. And I won't say I told you so. Jeffpw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No more fires, please; I think ArbCom members are probably working on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandy's right, as Fred Bauder is involved he's in a position to resolve this better than administrators will. east.718 at 20:04, January 13, 2008

Image on Adolf Eichmann

In the past couple of days three different images have appeared on the entry for Adolf Eichmann. I'm simply not well versed enough on the fair use rules to tell which, if any, of the three should actually be used. One has a fair use tag on it, another is a scan of a book cover, and the third is a free image but of inferior quality. Can an admin with some knowledge of how fair use should be applied here help sort this out? AniMate 08:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

yes,can an admin see which one of these is best qualified to exist on wikipedia??thanks Grandia01 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The third image, Image:Eichmann.jpg, is probably best, for two reasons. First, it's a free image, released into the public domain as a document of the US Federal Government. Second, it shows the subject in his military uniform, which is related to almost everything in the article (given that the subject appears to be a Nazi war criminal of some note). Free images are almost always preferred over similar fair use images, and the book cover refers to a work that is mentioned only briefly in the article. The casual image is a better resolution - but, again, the free image should be preferred in most cases. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the second image, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images #8. We can't use copyrighted book covers for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the cover. We can only use book covers to illustrate the book cover in the context of critical commentary about the item.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it has to be three - three is currently used in the article and the other two are deletion nom'd as unused fair use images. Situation seems to be resolved for the moment. WilyD 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - number three it is! :-) delldot talk 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

One user is continually re-inserting the unfree image - given the circumstances, it'd probably be best if someone else could take him aside and explain how things work. WilyD 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Some admin intervention is definitely needed. Wily and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) have both violated 3rr over the image, and I am still unsure the image that has been reinserted is valid under fair use. AniMate 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm dealing with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Bunch of CSDs needing more experienced admin

Could an admin with more experience than I look at CAT:CSD, specifically the numerous articles up for speedy regarding motorcycle races? They all seem like legitimate redirects, and I can't for the life of me figger out what is going on there, or what should be done? Perhaps there are pages that need moving back? I am inclined to deny them all, as they are all valid redirects, and there is no need to delete, but maybe the motorbike racing wikiproject is doing some general cleanup and needs some help? It would be cool if someone else could check this out... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the history of one, they have fixed the capitalization from "Round" to "round". However, there is no need for deleting, you can categorize the redirects with {{R from other capitalisation}}. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted a second opinion. I will go that route...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Independent admin please Image:1982-sapporo-turbo.jpg & Image:1976_Sapporo_2000_GSR.jpg

I'm asking for an non-involved admin to look at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 December 17 regarding these two images. There has been more than adequate time for the uploader to request the OTRS for this, which clearly hasn't been done as of yet. As there's no proof of the OTRS, I'm going to ask for their deletion. However, for transparency and not to appear vindictive (I have deleted prior versions of these), I'm asking for a non-involved opinion on these. SkierRMH (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this is an unfortunate case. The uploader clearly does not understand copyright (believing that, since the images don't say clearly "(C) Colt" on them, they're not copyright) and clearly has had some form of communication with the copyright holder, who (AGF that it's a cut-and-paste of a real email) is happy for them to be used non-commercially, but less sure about the other uses they can be put to. The uploader might actually have a very good FU case for these images. But, no, as it stands, these images are copyrightable and are copyrighted, permission has not been received to Wikipedia standards, and what permission is asserted is for non-commercial use which is incompatible with the GFDL and the licence declared for the images themselves. So deleted away. No evidence of vindictiveness (in fact, quite the reverse) from having previously deleted similar/the same images. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to call up or email the press officer whose details are found on the image page. Has anyone tried that? - hahnchen 23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cculber007

Grrr. Okay. Above user made a personal attack against User:Tenebrae.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tenebrae&diff=prev&oldid=183499998 User:Tenebrae posted about this comment a couple of places which led to a couple of us chasing after this one. See WP:ANI#Long-term WP:AGF and WP:NPA abuse. Now I've got a message from User:Cculber007 on my talk page telling, me I'm not allowed to post to his talk page and calling me unwise and accusing me of making threats. I really want to block this user now, but obviously I can't. Someone else please look into this user and sort out something. I'm going back to putting my head in the sand. Or to start that discussion about deprecating WP:CIV and WP:AGF I keep threatening. Hiding T 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A small backlog at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion

There's a few discussions need closing out at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, but most of the admins regular to the page have been involved in the discussion, and the regular closer is on wiki break. If a few admins not involved in the debates feel like closing them, it would be appreciated. Guidance on closing is offered at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User. Ta. Hiding T 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet IP

Coming from here, those IPs maybe related, or the editor may have access to each. Check history of the page in question, vandalism is immediately after another. Remember, I'm coming here on a recommendation from RPP. Thank you for your time, Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I more or less referred the user to AN or ANI. The userpage User:WesleyDodds is currently under attack. Two IPs have been blocked for vandalising the userpage, one for 24 hours and one for 31 hours. They may come back to Wesley's userpage when the block expires, or the vandal(s) may return from another IP address. Semi-protection was requested for the userpage, but since this involves probably one vandal, admin action against the vandalising IP addresses might me more appropriate. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible edit war/content dispute over Panimalar Engineering College

I came across this at the help desk. Rather than simply say "you don't 'own' the page", I took a look at the article's edit history. It looks like a little edit war is going on between User:Shatheeshl and User:Naren87 with a few IPs getting in on the action. For both editors, their major/only contributions have been to the Panimalar Engineering College article. Shatheeshl prefers that the article contained the college's "vision statement", fawning biographies of leading staff members and a list glowing achievements. On the other hand, Naren87 prefers that the article contained a POV demolition piece detailing how the college allegedly breaches Indian law, defrauds the students, and so on. Neither editor cites any references to support their version.

In my opinion, although the college itself may be notable, neither version of the article is suitable for Wikipedia. Could someone take a look and decide if one or both editors should be warned/blocked, and if the article should be protected, reverted to a much earlier version or just deleted. Astronaut (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is one huge NPOV-violating, unsourced beast. I might suggest undoing the whole thing, making it a stub and having a new article be developed. Bstone (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've stubbed it to a neutral version, but won't mind if it gets deleted. As I'm a bit involved in the content now I would be grateful if other admins could watchlist it to hand out the blocks. There are editors on that article who have a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User requests second block review

See User talk:Shojaijekhi. It was his third block, and this time it was indefinite. I denied his request for an unblock, and he asked that it be re-reviewed, and asked for a shorter term block. Could someone check it over and respond to his request. Since I made my decision, I feel like it would be inappropriate for me to do this again... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep him blocked, and forever block any obvious re-creations. I would never support an indefinite block for the third occasion of breaking the 3RR rule, say, but for the sake of the project we must not tolerate the harassment of users like this. Cool Hand Luke 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Joeydq

Resolved

 – appropriate action has been taken

I have emailed this user because he is a minor and has put personal information on his user page. I leave it to someone more experienced to decide whether this needs immediate attention. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

the info has been removed, and the user asked if he wants the page deleted entirely. DGG (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of Jehochman by Archtransit

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

Resolved

 – Lessons learned by all. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that Jehochman has chosen not to bring this to WP:AN or AN/I himself, but I think this situation could benefit from significantly wider review. In my opinion, this is the type of admin action we should absolutely be trying to avoid. While dispute resolution is apparently not in the offing over this situation, it certainly could have resulted. Since Archtransit has not acknowledged the controversial and irresponsible nature of his block, I would ask that this action receive a greater degree of attention. If other admins agree with the opinions expressed on Archtransit's talkpage, it should be reinforced to him with great clarity that future actions of this type are inappropriate (particularly for someone with a 4 day old admin bit).

Relevant links:

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avruch (talk • contribs) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

^Avruchtalk 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He actually has acknowledged things. This is a new admin, 4 days with the tools, who got a little over exuberant. For the sake of peace, I recommend swiftly archiving or deleting this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of what he has written in response, he has not acknowledged a mistake nor said anything that would lead me to believe he would not take such an action again based on the same reasoning. Therefore, I'd like to see some additional outside opinion on this issue. ^Avruchtalk 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A number of adminsitrators are giving Archtransit advice on where he erred in making this block. I don't think there is a need for a noticeboard discussion of the matter at this stage. WjBscribe 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets not turn this into more than it is. Mistakes were made, and should be learned from. Only if they are made again by the same people then we could have a problem. Rockpocket 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to learn from a mistake, one must acknowledge that a mistake has been made. Has that happened here? If so, I won't object to closing the thread. ^Avruchtalk 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

ArchTransit is a new admin; barely 4 days in all. We should cut him/her a lot of slack here. The same admin left decidedly bad-faith, patronizing comments on my talk page this morning, as it happens but I didn't take it personally. They've obviously plenty to learn & should be given the room here - Alison ^❤ 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Failure of adminstrators to follow policy is not to be encouraged. This is my view and it has not changed. Allegations of a cabal by editors when they point out inconsistent treatment of policy violations by editors versus administrators is something that I never want to be accused of. This is my view and it has not changed. Discussing matters is my view and that has not changed. Having more discussion rather than discussing it at 17:14 and blocking at 18:06 is the lesson learned. I am prone to too much discussion than not enough, but have to be aware that I shouldn't try to overcompensate and make discussion too short. It's a balance. Archtransit (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not make me feel any better about your block of Jehochman. I, for one, would like a straight answer: Do you feel your block was appropriate or not? — Satori Son 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Grossly poor block by Archtransit, but I hope he takes the lesson here and realizes that blocks, especially of longtime editors in good standing, should not be used lightly. I am a bit concerned by his unapologetic attitude above - many times, when experienced admins chooses to apply a bit of IAR, they are doing so for a very good reason, which may not be apparent unless you ask the other fellow about it. henrik•talk 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say Archtransit's statement was unapologetic as much as it was entirely incoherent. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me wipe the beer foam from my mouth first...

In retrospect, I should have allowed for more discussion which could have very well changed the situation and not resulted in a block. Further speculation isn't productive (would Jehochman have stonewalled? Given an explanation? Insisted that he doesn't have to follow policy? Other possibilities?) Archtransit (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Where is my Sysop Issue skin thinning/protective cloak? Jeepers, folks, we block and sanction other contributors all the time and once in a while we make a mistake; and it should be no different if the dropped brick hits an admin rather than just another editor. We learn (and not all learning is instant!), and we try to remember to try not to make the same mistake again. Let's move on, please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say why others may be unhappy with this block, but please let me assure you that, for me, it has nothing to do with Jehochman being an administrator.

As far as moving on, I would feel much more comfortable doing so if Archtransit admitted the block was not necessary and states clearly that they are not likely to do the same thing in the future. Such a request on my part is not unreasonable, do you think? — Satori Son 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess the above is as good as we're going to get. I'm satisfied for now. — Satori Son 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind being hit on the head with a brick once in a while. I've dropped a few myself, so fair is fair. Now, let's drop the stick and back away from the horse. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Archived - ^Avruchtalk 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that people are unhappy. I will try to make people happier in the future. This block obviously doesn't make some people happy. It was originally done in good faith to try to observe official Wikipedia policy. Although I see no violation of policy by me, I do see that people are unhappy, which makes me unhappy. Archtransit (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, which is why this is added after the closing) Archtransit (talk) 21:18, 14 January 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.

norco

I made Norco_(medication) today hoping to have it linked from Norco, but I think I broke it. Sorry. I've given up. Bstone (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Daniel's comments about me

Resolved

User:Daniel has been hurting my feelings by calling my comments ridiculous [24] and saying that I have a 'torrid' history of ridiculous comments, and I don't like it one bit. And I also remember last December when he boldfaced the word "warning" [25] during a discussion at WT:RFA which pressed buttons on me. Do you have any advice? NHRHS2010 talk 01:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/NHRHS2010/Questions for the candidate#Questions from Daniel shows a pattern of this user being "hurt" frequently because I call a spade a spade. This discussion is frivolous and pointless, except for maybe consensus telling NHRHS2010 to grow a thicker skin when making argumentative comments. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the full scope of this, the bolded warning in the comment at WT:RFA seems pretty tame to me. He just seems to be emphasizing his point which someone appear to miss. I don't know how you find any "pressing of buttons" through that. Metros (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over your (NHRHS2010) interactions with Daniel, and think you should grow thicker skin and stop taking things too personally. This particular user (Daniel) has been more than fair with you, and "hurt feelings" is too subjective an accusation, IMO. Do you have any other specific diffs that show that Daniel has been abnormally abusive towards you (or any other user for that matter)? I can't find any but if you have any diffs I'd look at them. You've been a good all around contributor since March of 2007, and personally, I'm glad you're here. I recommend you continue to add good information to articles that interest you and drop the "Daniel" stuff. Surely you've seen worse comments than those directed at you by Daniel? Surely you can contribute peacefully to Wikipedia and make a better encyclopedia? Just one man's opinion. Cheers, Keeper | 76 01:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to be civil and kind. You attract more bees with honey. Bstone (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is unneeded to be mollycoddling. —Kurykh 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally find that the bolding was used appropriately in the situation that it was used in, however, I don't find that some of your other comments, NHRHS, have used boldface appropriately either. Take a look at your replies to some comments at your "Questions for the candidate" page at the recent ArbCom elections, for example: "No, but the YouTube video of me reading my userpage history of vandalism was meant to be dedicated to User:Wimt for being very kind to revert vandalism on my userpage", and "I know that. I was talking about assigning checkuser and oversight access to certain users." (emphasis not mine, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/NHRHS2010/Questions for the candidate for context). If you are going to make argumentative comments of any kind, you have to know that someone may disagree and criticise for it, and that it may not always be in such a way that will not "hurt your feelings". If you're not ready to deal with criticism or such scrutiny, well, then I'm afraid you will find it hard to comment on many things here. Spebi 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Keeper76. I know that Daniel is not trying to harm me but he have left comments that have hurt my feelings. Also, take a look at my My 3rd RfA. NHRHS2010 talk 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, NHRHS2010, I've seen your RfA (s) and I know that you want to be a good Wikipedian. What I'm saying to you is you need to get thicker skin. Don't be so senstive! Wikipedia has literally thousands of editors. Over a thousand administrators. Surely some of them will disagree with you? Why isn't that OK? You are dredging up issues that are drawing attention to yourself. I'm saying get thicker skin. That means that you should not take things so personally. You should help build an encyclopedia that is the best in the world. If you find yourself getting caught up in the underbelly of this place, please - take it in stride. You are a good contributor to the mainspace. Don't have hurt feelings over this, or anything else, just keep adding what you know to what you know. Goopd luck to you, whatever happens, and as always, happy editing. Keeper | 76 02:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By putting yourself up at RfA you are asking for people to make a judgement of you. If you can't handle negative judgements, then don't put yourself up at RfA for a fourth time. Daniel (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't have time for an RfA anyways; I am now all over the place (YouTube, Wikimedia Commons, etc.), not just Wikipedia. NHRHS2010 talk 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think time should be your main concern when it comes to RfA - there's another large reason. Daniel (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the proper and improper use of bolding on AN? Really? ^Avruchtalk 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we were talking about when User:Daniel boldfaced the word 'warning' during a discussion at WT:RfA. See above comments. NHRHS2010 talk 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What you're doing right now is drawing a bunch of attention to yourself. People are again making a certain judgement of you. And whether Daniel boldfaced this or italicized that, or even underlined the moon, it doesn't matter much. Well, at least it's supposed to be no big deal. You're working up a storm in a teacup, I'm afraid. Maxim_(talk) 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I must profess my love of bolded italicised underlined blinking text (oldid). Daniel (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection to the way Daniel used bold in that comment on WT:RFA? Metros (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to close this {{resolved|1=Trolling, move along...}} ~~~~. Mønobi 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Trolling is a little harsh...--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider this trolling. NHRHS2010 is clearly upset - that you disagree or think that he should not be upset/have a thicker skin does not make his comments here "trolling". --Iamunknown 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What about {{resolved|1=Whining, move along...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what an utterly unhelpful comment to make - seriously? ~ Riana ⁂ 03:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not speak to Daniel directly instead of getting everyone in an upheaval about a few comments? If he can't resolve it by speaking to Daniel directly, then I see a reason for posting something here. Mønobi 04:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I would prefer that many discussions on these noticeboard's stay in the user talk or other talk namespaces. Labeling NHRHS2010's comments as "trolling" or "whining", however, is a separate issue; if one looks into NHRHS2010's history, one will see that he does occasionally become frustrated and make daft (yet genuine) comments. It is unhelpful and inaccurate to dismiss his comments as "trolling", for he is not deliberately or intentionally attempting to disrupt Wikipedia; it is unhelpful, though not necessarily inaccurate, to dismiss them as "whining", for doing so most probably alienates and further frustrates, exacerbating the problem. At any rate, I agree that this thread should be considered "closed", but we as a community could have handled it in a much more dignified manner, sparing NHRHS2010 some grief for posting what he probably considered to be legitimate concerns. And I think it is to our shame that we did not. --Iamunknown 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said and could not have been said better. It is a shame that people's concerns are responded with in an almost bullyish manner. I am shamed by it. Bstone (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for my comments above. They were inexcusable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this rather upsetting if I'm being honest. I've spoken to Daniel about this privately, he knows my thoughts about the overall situation so there's no need to bring them up here, but dismissing NHRHS2010's concern as trolling is really out of order. He came here with a legitimate concern, he felt upset, and do people really believe that the best way to treat an editor that comes here in good faith because they are unhappy is to show them even more hostility? This is how we lose contributors, and it's not a good thing. I actually see no constructive advice here, "grow a thick skin" isn't really sound advice - some people just naturally have a lower tolerance level, and in this case, there was some comments which IMHO were far from required. He made a joke, he wasn't attacking anyone, but as I see far too often here at the minute, people turn that around and make it as though he's going out to attack people. Yeah, we're here to write a serious encyclopedia, but it's also supposed to be fun. There's times we can have a laugh, and people shouldn't turn the first sign of someone making a sarcastic comment into a personal attack. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've unarchived this because I feel it is prudent to respond.

• "there was some comments which IMHO were far from required" — I seriously hope that was directed at the people calling his comments "trolling", because consensus is pretty clear that my comments weren't "far from required" and I see nothing truly objectionable in my comments (although I do take on board your suggestion to be less incisive when dealing with young and possible immature editors like this). If you have serious concerns with any of my comments (if you do, that is), please link to them specifically and discuss with me exactly what was wrong in that particular comment. I feel I deserve that courtesy, at least. Of course, as I said at the start, I hope this is just a misunderstanding of your general pronouns.
• "There's times we can have a laugh, and people shouldn't turn the first sign of someone making a sarcastic comment into a personal attack" — which sarcastic comment? If you're talking about the one in the RfA, I'm 99% sure it wasn't sarcastic, and if required can produce a dossier full of diff links showing that, in context, it definitely wasn't a joke or sarcastic. I'd prefer not to, of course :)
• "I've spoken to Daniel about this privately, he knows my thoughts about the overall situation so there's no need to bring them up here" — well, if either of the above refers to my comments or the RfA comment respectively, the last part of that is a little misleading. If not, another misunderstanding.

I eagerly await your response, because I don't want to see a petty attempt at lynching by NHRHS2010 get some traction either due to unresponded accusations or misunderstandings. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you really do want me to say it here rather than in private.... I wasn't specifically refering to your comments - as I said, I discussed them with you in private and hoped it could stay that way. Of course NHRHS2010 was being sarcastic, do you honestly think "if anyone opposes I will get mad" is a serious comment made by him? He was joking, messing around - simple as that, people need to lighten up a bit. He's not the sort of person to go around attacking people, and this was nothing more than a silly joke, I'm surprised people even reacted to it. I believe your comments on the RfA were far from required, and unfortunately, I believe this is part of you holding a grudge against him. You went to town on his RfA - people can read the comments themselves - they weren't the most constructive way of putting your point across and at times you were quite nasty to him. Also, a week later he put himself up for ArbCom, and yet again, you went to town with that and in my opinion you were incivil there as well - I can assure you he was extremely upset by some of the comments there - you need to remember that we are all volunteers here, and no-one has to put up with crap off anyone, but why should people have to receive it for no reason apart from maybe not knowing policy as well as others? Now, we're here again, and you've once again flipped for no real reason, in an attempt to undermind NHRHS2010, get one up on him - I just don't think that's fair Daniel and I personally would have expected a little more. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclovin (talk • contribs)

If someone offers them up for a position of trust, they can have no complaints when they are shot down due to being unsuitable. I made an effort to ensure that my questions on his ArbCom candidacy were as professionally-worded as possible, which was difficult to do after he decided it'd be cool to "get his friends to attempt to attack my opposein his RfA" in a video on YouTube, which showed signs of malicious intent regardless of how much it succeeded. "I can assure you he was extremely upset by some of the comments there" — thank goodness there's a consensus here that he needs to grow a thicker skin. He couldn't even be bothered replying to my questions, so he really shouldn't be upset by something he doesn't have to confront head-on. "You need to remember that we are all volunteers here, and no-one has to put up with crap off anyone, but why should people have to receive it for no reason apart from maybe not knowing policy as well as others" — I appreciate that people don't know policy and good standards as well as others, however what I can't appreciate is people who don't know this deliberately putting themselves into situations where they ask for people to judge them (ie. RfA and ArbCom elections). If I'm going to be censored in my attempts to ensure that the right outcome occurs by presenting my argument, backed up by evidence, then all these processes are broken terribly. I have done very little to undermine NHRHS2010 in this discussion, contrary to what you say, as it's the other dozen editors who have commented in my support without any form of solicitation.

Conclusion: if you don't want your edits to be analysed and judgement passed on you as a person and a Wikipedian, don't nominate yourself for any positions of trust. Simple. Daniel (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem here is that you wouldn't have done it to anyone else, but for some reasons you've taken this user to the cleaners, in his RfA and in the ArbCom elections. I've said it previously, we shouldn't need to grow a thicker skin, when someone is acting in good faith like NHR.... there shouldn't be any attempts to belittle him, and this is unfortunately what I belive has happened in this case. I suggest that you keep away from him and let him get on with his own thing, if there's problems with conduct, there's plenty of others here to deal with that, I just don't believe you are now in a position to judge his conduct in a neutral manner and I question (in this one particular instance) your ability to act in a civil and propotionate manner when in discussion with NHRHS2010. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclovin (talk • contribs)

I certainly won't go out of my way, but he can expect another detailed "hurtful" comment if/when he puts himself up for a position of trust, or decides to try and undermine me by starting a noticeboard discussion. Daniel (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunuate you feel the need to hold grudges here. I'm not sure why someone would want to go out of their way to upset another person, which seems to be the case here if NHR is to put himself up fro another position of trust. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's fuelled by a "grudge" or a desire to protect Wikipedia from what I feel would be a "net negative decision", I don't know. Probably a combination, because he certainly hasn't won over my friendship with this kind of act. As I say, if he doesn't want to be "upset", which appears to happen very easily whenever someone disagrees with him[26][27] or speaks negatively of him[28][29], then he shouldn't put himself in situations where such will happen. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Brine shrimp(

Resolved

Could somebody fix this, what I will assume, is a good faith move? Corvus cornix_talk 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed page location, deleted resulting redirects. Jerrymai1995 (talk · contribs) has made some odd edits, in the past, and may be worth keeping a loose eye on. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Luna. Corvus cornix_talk 04:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Plantgrowreap

Resolved

Requesting another admin to take a look at this comment, due to the fact I am blinded with rage at being told to 'be a good boy'. I really do not appreciate that. Made by Plantgrowreap on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umayakkal Nachiyar- diff. He or she has been making similar comments directed at the Wikipedia community in general, but this one was directed specifically at me. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I should just walk away. This is very mild, compared to some AfD bunfights I've seen/been on the end of, and perhaps not a surprise from someone facing their (frankly very strange) article being deleted, given that there appears to be a language barrier. Have a cup of tea, remain/regain calm and then do something else. I'd imagine this article will be deleted in the end anyway. I'll consider refactoring the AfD for readability when Plantgrowreap has calmed down themselves. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And there we go. G1, A1 and A7 speedy, AfD closed. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realise it was mild, just (s)he managed to hit a nerve there. Calmed down now, but I was on the verge of doing something silly. J Milburn (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I left the editor a warning. If it happens again, let me know. Thanks for keeping your cool. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Jenochman, Redvers and DrKiernan for their rapid reactions and advice. J Milburn (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone watching Category:Requests_to_undelete_images?

Is any administrator watching Category:Requests_to_undelete_images? There are only three images there now, but I might be adding more soon if I start working more with fair use images. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to undelete the two images you requested (Image:USB Icon.svg and Image:Firewire Icon.svg) because, as SVG images, I believe they fail WP:FUC #3(b). If you have a low resolution raster image (jpg/png) with a proper fair use rationale, I would not be opposed if you re-uploaded the icons.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is my first time noticing request to undelete images. What exactly is the process for admins? I can understand if the request is granted, it's just as easy as undeleted the image and reverting to the previous version. But what would I do if I wanted to deny a request? Re-delete the image page and contact the user who requested? or should I respond on the image page? or something else?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Being an SVG file does not disqualify an image from being claimed as fair use. It simply must be uploaded at a lower detail than the original, and meet all other fair use requirements. There's a template out there somewhere that SVG files can be tagged with; it explains the restrictions on their use (I can't remember its name). I didn't know about Category:Requests to undelete images, but there's no real process as far as I can tell. If somebody wants an image restored so that they can update its information to comply with policy, simply restore the image. If they don't make it comply with policy, delete it. If you want to deny the request (maybe the image doesn't meet fair use criteria [i.e. an image of a living person]), simply explain on the user's talk page and leave the image deleted. - auburnpilot talk 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For such simple logos, I think SVG:s would be fine. I could try to hunt down the same file again and upload with the same same, but this would save some work. For images from the big mass that were speedily deleted for missing fair use rationale, I think they can be restored without much process. The fair use rationale will be reviewed later anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do these logos even meet the threshold of originality for copyright? I know they are trademarked, but that's a different thing. *** Crotalus *** 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have undeleted firewire and USB, I think a deletion discussion should at least take place, for the fair use rationale makes sense. I don't think SVGs violate fair use for such simple logos, as long as we use them at low resolutions. (An alternative would be to force the resolution in the svg file directly). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at IfD. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)