Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Another user has taken over my Userspace Talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad.minster???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge that he select a new name which does not contain the text string "admin" with or without a period in the middle. Regardless of what was decided sometime in the past, the Wikipedia:Username policy says "Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", "developer" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts." Thus "Ad.min.check.user.sys.op.bot" would also be an inappropriate username. Edison (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He changed to Ad.minster as a result of the previous queries, I really do feel that admins and editors could surely find better ways of wasting their time than picking on people because their name might, to a semi-literate person, cause momentary confusion. DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Privacy problem: posting of IP address that were previously concealed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. Can I just have two points of clarification:

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

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

Now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-visiting an indefinite block - Betacommand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's also a surreal argument because it ignores the fact that these were not "edits that nobody seems to question". See among many others [8][9][10]. The fundamental misunderstanding here is that BC supporters look at the edits themselves and see no problem. For the admins constantly dealing with the shitstorm that comes when people question the edits and BC inevitably tells them to fuck off, the problem is not the edits: it's their timing, their labelling as vandalism reverts, the ensuing unresponsiveness and aggressiveness on the part of BC. There's something surreal about an editor that needs to be indef blocked before he acknowledges any kind of responsibility for his actions. BC did do a lot of good on the project but over the last months, his unwillingness to change how he does business has made him a liability. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Whereas Betacommand has handled this with calm and dignity? I'd love to hear some names from you. Ryan Postlethwaite, Jennavicia, CBM, LessHeard vanU, myself are the admins who were most involved in the last three months and I'm interested: who among these showed an inability to deal with the case in an adult manner? Or was that perhaps Sam Korn? Or maybe the ArbCom back in April? It's time for you to acknowledge that a lot of very reasonable people have worked hard to provide Betacommand with a way out of this mess and that your vague "quite a few editors" refers to editors whose calls for BC's head have had only slim impact. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the worm has turned. Betacommand supporters, the few that are left, have either forgotten or didn't know that it used to be the other way - that he had many supporters, and any attempt at blocking him was usually snuffed out, shortened, or whatever; but as each incident occurred, and his attitude asserted itself again and again, his many supporters gradually peeled off, and left the current situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-visiting your most recent block

Moved from User talk:Betacommand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LessHeard vanU, I made that statement already. [11] β^_command 15:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Betacommand - Arbitrary break one

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Betacommand has shown contrition. Yes, he did so after being blocked indefinitely. May I remind people that his initial reaction doesn't show much contrition. In response to an earlier request to stop automated runs of edits he responded with this. When I blocked him a few days prior to the last incident, contrition was not exactly evident either [12]. So AGF and all, it's kind of hard to take the apology seriously.
2. If these edits had been made by someone other than Betacommand, nobody would care. That's true of any editor who isn't under editing restrictions. Betacommand was under clear, unambiguous restrictions. And as I said in the debate a week ago, the mass edits were made in the middle of a contentious RfC and though they were indeed in line with policy, the timing was certain to generate useless drama. This is precisely the kind of shoot first ask questions later attitude that led to the editing restrictions.
3. Betacommand is being stalked by a lynch mob. I, for one, have never seen myself as a rabid extremist and generally support tight restrictions on free images. Ryan Postlethwaite is not a maniac just waiting for BC to slip up. Jennavecia and CBM who were involved in formulating the last restrictions are not out to get him. While there are indeed people who wish to see BC banned for eternity, the fact is that many people have tried to find reasonable ways to resolve the problems posed by BC. We've tried to engage him, tried to explain as clearly as possible the blocks we put in place, tried to warn him when he was stepping over the line. And we failed.
4. Betacommand is just enforcing NFCC. Yes he is. But you can enforce NFCC without resorting to hostility and bullying. And because NFCC is the source of so much bickering, enforcing it requires tact and patience. It also requires conflict resolution abilities which BC seems to lack. As such, his involvement in enforcing NFCC is a net negative for the project.
5. Betacommand is well intentioned. Yes he is. This is unfortunately irrelevant. You can be well intentioned and still hurt the project. When you're unable to tolerate dissent and criticism, your well-meaning edits will inevitably be dwarfed by the ensuing drama.

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

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

Beta was not a fan of this option last time it was suggested. [13] Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with you entirely on this, Pascal. The smart thing to do would be for this block to be left alone for a month or two, long time until tempers have cooled, then raise the question. Bringing this issue up every week or two only serves to make those opposed feel as if they're (okay, we are) being bullied into acquiescence -- & we will only dig our heels in even deepr. And if BC can't find something else to do until then with his time, then he has a more serious problem than his objectionable behavior. -- llywrch (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Betacommand - Arbitrary break two

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

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

Answer: I doubt he'll last that long unblocked. He's in denial of his problems, & has a dedicated team of enablers. The best contribution he can make to Wikipedia under current conditions is to find something else to do with his time. -- llywrch (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• And a dedicated team of attackers. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, at some point it should have struck you that you have a minority view with regards to Betacommand. Those who you consider "Betacommand's attackers" are a majority, and in fact aren't "attackers" at all, but merely disgruntled editors who are fed up with the drama and time wasting that Betacommand creates. Are you honestly saying that this whole situation has been created by just a handfull of attackers, and those who still posess rational thought have been unable to stop it? If that's your view, you may want to step back and look at the logic of it. To disagree with, nay, to strongly oppose the block is one thing. To call anyone who approves of it an attacker is, to be frank, a clear WP:NPA violation. _TalkIslander 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no interest in majorities or minorities, and I don't care if I'm the only person out here screaming in the wind. Betacommand was most recently blocked for doing something that was completely within policy. There's ZERO question of that. He was blocked, indefinitely. I conducted a similar series of edits, in an even tighter time frame, and no admin even warned me about my actions. Nothing. Not a peep. It's blatantly absurd that this discussion is even taking place. Betacommand's attackers are using an entirely within policy series of edits as a vehicle to shut him down, nothing more. Betacommand has been hounded to death over and over and over again. I'm surprised he's dealt with it with as much equanimity as he has. NOBODY should be surprised that he's become angry at times over it. Any reasonable person would. The treatment he has suffered under here is beyond the pale. Nobody deserves as much hatred as has been spewed at Betacommand, not even Willie. This was a bad block from the beginning. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• "I'm surprised he's dealt with it with as much equanimity as he has" - hehe, very funny. That aside, I assume you've heard of the expression "the straw that broke the camel's back"? Well, that's what this set of edits was. _TalkIslander 21:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Betacommand was most recently blocked for doing something that was completely within policy. There's ZERO question of that..." - in fact, that depends entirely on how you look at the situation. The community (including Betacommand) reached a consensus as to what editing restrictions Betacommand would have to operate under. That's exactly how a policy is formed over time. Thus is could easily be said that breaking those editing restrictions carries the same weight as breaking a plain policy. _TalkIslander 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but what do you honestly expect Hammersoft? There's clearly going to be a major backlash when someone starts branding people as "trolls" and "assholes" for diagreeing with him (that's the difference between him and you when making those edits, by the way), and for you to respond to genuine critcism of such volotile actions as "attacks" and calling them a "lynch mob" is just assuming bad faith and is indeed an attack in itself. He has a severe attitude problem, and he needs to sort it out. This constant case of immediately unblocking him and giving him the all clear is simply sending the wrong message, hence why we now face this situation. Flaming people only makes matters a whole worse. We really just want to help him to help himself, with the end result being postive for everyone, especially himself. --.:Alex:. 21:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft claims that Betacommand was blocked for doing something that was entirely in line with policy. Does he claim that disregarding editing restrictions is entirely in line with policy?

Some editors are under a restriction, which limits what they are permitted to do. Betacommand is one such editor.Mayalld (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yawn. Somebody needs to have ArbCom revisit this. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? The community is handling it quite successfully - even if it isn't going the way you want it to. Viridae^Talk 23:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Blocking someone for doing something perfectly in line with policy isn't handling something successfully. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • He was blocked for breaking restrictions he was placed under. That does not qualify as being "perfectly in line with policy". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
        • No, he was blocked because people jumped at an opportunity to ban him from the site when what he was doing is so routine even bots have done it. It was a convenient excuse to block him, and now effectively turning it into a ban from the site. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
          • He can fix the problem if he wants to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

restoration request

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes; articles deleted via WP:PROD are generally if not always restored if someone contests the deletion; it's treated the same as if they'd contested the PROD during the 5-day-period. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Possible spammer

User:Betty_Logan has inserted a paragraph including a link to an advertising-supported site on many of the beer articles with the subject "Dietary Information". She has broken WP:3RR here: [[14]] [[15]] [[16]]

I asked her to offer a reason, rather than just reverting, here: [[17]], but she just kept reverting. After reverting three times, she finally put an explanation on the talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, back to Betty's conduct: she has now reverted your (Ricky81682) edit [[18]], thought better of it, then deleted part of the article that was there originally [[19]]. Spammer or not, this is really unnecessary disruption. Mikebe (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The argument in a nutshell; Whether the use of non-free team logos on season, rivalry, and specific game articles in College football is acceptable under policy, guideline, mission and Foundation resolution. Example uses: [20][21][22]. Rationales for use are for identification, not for critical commentary on the logos.

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

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

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

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

We are at an impasse

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

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

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

I am sick and tired of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you are looking for the process outlined in closing_of_a_consensus_decision_making_procedure. I suspect the issue isn't as clear as "all or nothing", since it seems this is an interpretation of a policy; even Mike Godwin, the Foundation's lawyer, differs with various interpretations of image policy [23]; so there is quite a broad range of ground, akin to what is described in the_relationship_between_policy_and_consensus. Basically, it seems like you need to find an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion and decide how the community is interpreting whatever section of NFC is related to whatever content is under discussion at the RFC. Any uninvolved admins handy? MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This is worth noting: what Dragons flight is saying is that just the copyright notices for particular types of media were seen as sufficient rationale for many blanket categories of use by the people who wrote the Foundation resolution. People who claim that it is the Foundation that demands an individual explanation for each and every use simply don't know the history (or perhaps don't care to accurately represent it).

Still, at least we have templates like {{logo fur}} providing standard blanket community-approved quality-controlled rationale text for some blanket community-approved usages. Jheald (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• That template has been badly, badly abused all over the project. Characterizing it as a good thing is far from accurate. It was created at time when there was heavy pressure on fair use images to have rationales, and all it did was delay the inevitable because it made it far harder to identify what images are seriously lacking legitimate rationales. That template is a net detraction to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Requiring people to hand-write a fair-use rationale for each case doesn't do anything to improve rationales because only a small minority of contributors has the ability to write good rationales and those who can distinguish good ones from bad ones are too few and have too many other things to do to patrol them. In practice what we get is just a bunch of copy-pasted sentence fragments with no references to the individual case at hand. We'd have better rationales with generic templates. Of course, one of the main goals of the fair use policy is to make the use of fair-use images difficult and requiring the pretense of an individualized fair-use rationale is an extra hoop to jump through. So it's useful in that sense. Haukur (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Improper username

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

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

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

Need a second opinion on copyright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is SLOW

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

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

Portal:Food

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right decisions there. I didn't even notice that the portal got protected. The only ones that merit protection of any kind are the high-traffic ones (which have links directly from main page). Since Food is not there, no need to protect. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Block review invited

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unincorporated Arapahoe County, Colorado

The Centennial Airport

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

It is not located in:

Centennial (which borders the airport in places)

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

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

AIV problem

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Fritzpoll

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

Track transition curve PDF code drops

Please feel free to move this to a more appropriate place

Track transition curve (Euler curve) has gained a new editor who is doing their working in MS Word format, then providing "code drops" as PDF files and screenshots-of-PDF files. The first code drop[24] pasted eight page-sized JPEG screenshots into the article. Attempts have been made to persuade the editor to contribute in Wiki/TeX-format and to keep draft material in a subpage (User:Ling Kah Jai/Track transition curve) until it is of a suitable quality (and format) to consider for inclusion. The editor has been assisted with large amounts of TeX/Wikifying, some of which has been rendered superfluous by subsequent PDF-drops. The latest drop of File:Euler Spiral.pdf is five pages of mathematical working and was at the same time introduced on to the Main article in copy-and-paste text-only format[25].

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

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

More specifically, that paste corresponds to[26] (the cut from the draft page), on which attempts had been made to assist with wikifying by myself and User:Michael Hardy—but which had/was/is/and has not been competed by LKJ. I, myself have hit WP:3RR for politely (after discussion) moving the unfinished material back to a drafting page[27][28][29][30] (each time along with suggestions and the provisions of further editing assistance), three of which have been immediately reverted by User:Ling Kah Jai without discussion or comment. I count this is the fourth time that substantially the same material has been pasted back into the article, with very little change/improvement by Ling Kah Jai, other than shortening. Compare [31] (treat as WP:BOLD+WP:BRD) [32] (straight undo 1)[33] (straight undo 2) [34] (copy-and-paste unformatted text from draft subpage over images) [35] (straight undo 3). Note first three have small diffcounts as they insert eight [[Image:]] sequences (the screenshots of PDF pages). —Sladen (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: CheckUser and Oversight appointments

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

Special:Contributions/213.198.225.221

Seems to be a pattern of anti-czech and generally unhelpful edits- probably worth keeping an eye on. Exxolon (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the user -- specifically for this gem. In the future, if you see objectionable conduct from a new/anon editor, be bold and take it upon yourself to warn the user. That's why we have these. Thanks, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against User:Domer48 for disruptive editing, etc.

Resolved

 – Already been to WP:AE, this is just forum shopping

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

---

I wish to make a complaint about User:Domer48 as a disruptive editor , based on varied evidence. Each piece of evidence in its own right may perhaps be within the letter of Wikipedia guidelines but – taken together – I believe they can be construed as a pattern of disruptive editing. The various elements include – edit-warring, breach of NPOV, tag-teaming, bullying.

I admit that I have personally been in edit wars and personal conflict with this editor on many occasions on many articles over many months, and have been sanctioned for this (as has Domer48, although he has removed the notices from his talk page). I have also been the subject of complaints by Domer48, who has also left messages on my talk page, e.g. here, here, here and here, which generally I choose to ignore. I consider these to be a form of harassment. I have not posted such "warnings" on his user page, despite having equally valid reasons so to do. On 24th December he followed me to various pages to make complaints about me here, here and here.

The cumulation of these edit-wars, personal conflict and reporting has, on some occasions, caused me great frustration and I have considered leaving Wikipedia as a result. Up until now, I have not had the patience to attempt to put together a case against this user, which is a dfficult task, given his adeptness at staying within (just about) the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.

• I don’t have the time to provide evidence of all the edit wars which Domer48 has been involved in, but rather I will draw attention to one particular article – Sinn Féin – in respect of which I was banned for edit-warring, yet Domer48 was not. This article is a good example, as I think it encapsulates many of the disruptive characteristics of this editor:
  • POV – as you will see from this editor’s user page and political slogan on his talk page, he has strong political views in support of Irish republicanism. You can see from his edit history that much of his time is spent editing articles which are relevant to Irish republicanism. One of these articles is Sinn Féin, in which his behaviour indicates that he feels he has ownership of the article.
  • A content dispute arose in this article – before my involvement, and including several editors – in which many editors believed that the content of the article was skewed towards a “Provisional” SF (i.e. that part of SF which split in 1970 and which is now known simply as “Sinn Féin”) POV, by including pre-1970 history of SF, thus giving the impression that the current SF party was the sole legitimate inheritor of the pre-1970 history of the party: something which is disputed and which most of the editors believed should be rectified by removing the pre-1970 material to History of Sinn Fein.
  • Domer48 was opposed to the proposed changes.
  • Thus far, there has been failure to make any changes due to the persistent opposition of Domer48. Most other editors have given up attempting to change it, presumably through frustration or boredom.
  • This wider dispute also included a dispute about the actual term “Provisional”, which Domer48 resisted being included in the article. You can see the discussion about this particular dispute, which began on 29 September 2008 – here, and you will note that – true to the spirit of Wikipedia – consensus was achieved on 7 October 2008.
  • However, at 21:21 on 7 December, User:Gailimh reverted the consensus text, which was then restored at 21:32 by User:Valenciano.
  • At 21:47 on the same day, Domer48 – having previously agreed to the consensus text – now reverted it. This appears to demonstrate that Domer48’s commitment to consensus was merely expedient, and that once he detected an allied editor, he preferred instead to edit-war in order to restore the previously-disputed text.
  • There followed an edit-war, including myself, User:Gailimh and User:Big Dunc (a regular ally of Domer48) on 8 and 9 December, when each of my two attempts to restore the consensus text were reverted.
  • At 20:06 on 11 December, I restored the consensus text again, and a one-on-one edit-war resulted with Domer48, who “won” the war after three reverts at 10:37 on 16 December, after which I gave up.
  • During this time – Domer48 refused to engage properly in discussion – he simply accepted and then defended the Gailimh without acknowledging that the previous text was the result of consensus-building – see here.
  • This appears to me to be a case of edit-warring in order to impose a particular POV on the article. I was punished for my part in the edit-war, but Domer48 was not.
  • You will note that Domer48 has most recently been involved in an edit war in relation to the translation of Sinn Féin.

• I see from here that “disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia” – I also think Domer48’s behaviour on Sinn Féin is caught by this definition.

• Other articles/tag-teaming/other editors/bullying
• I have come across Domer48’s edit wars on other articles, but, not being able to muster the patience, have not become involved in particularly nasty ones at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment – note that these are articles relevant to the POV noted on his user page, and have also involved User:BigDunc. He engaged – along with erstwhile ally User:BigDunc in a long series of edit wars with User:The Thunderer, which frustrated the latter user so much that he was eventually driven off Wikipedia – see here. The Thunderer had put in a lot of work and made significant contributions to these articles – and is a major loss. You will see from the edit histories that, having driven the Thunderer away, Domer48 has proceeded to set about editing the article freely, with no other editors having the patience to intervene. A mediation case was also closed when the Thunderer left. I don’t have the time to go into the actual content disputes on these article, but you can see from the edit history that, now that the Thunderer has left, Domer48 has been free to edit the article as he pleases, with no opposition from other editors. Personally, I lack the patience even to get involved in either of those articles.
• Behaviour with Big Dunc on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Olympic_Council_of_Ireland#RfC:_Olympic_Council_of_Ireland looks a bit like tag-teaming. Also here.

• User:The Thunderer felt that he was the subject of bullying on these articles.

Some of this editor's behaviour appears to fit in with the descriptions on the Wikipedia guidelines about disruptive editing:

• tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Does not engage in consensus building (As can be seen from Sinn Féin, once an allied editor appears on the scene, he is quick to ditch previous consensus
• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Signs that may point to tag-teaming include:

• Working together to circumvent the three revert rule
• Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article.

Mooretwin (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Given that these articles fall under the Troubles ArbCom ruling, this complaint should really be at Arbitration Enforcement. Black Kite 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This was already brought up at AE, and decided it had no substance. ENOUGH, Mooretwin. SirFozzie (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'd missed that. Yes, in that case, stop forum shopping please. I've struck my comment and will archive this. Black Kite 00:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Larry C. Johnson

There's a user editing the article purporting to be the subject of the article. Just a heads up. Lcjohnson (talk · contribs · email) is the user in question. Enigma^msg 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Crapyourpants

Resolved

 – information was deleted; user blocked Enigma^msg 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This idiot tried to out an admin with personal info. Needs speedy deletion ASAP and I've tagged it as such. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This idiot? JPG-GR (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He's undoubtedly referring to the citizens in The Wizard of Id. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Page FAIL.

Hi. Sorry about my impatience, but ITN should have been updated two days ago and it hasn't been. The template is red now. Please also see Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping. It's not a big deal, and stories are slow at present. --Stephen 08:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

Resolved

 – Moved to AN/I. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

this user is being VERY rude, impatient, and is snapping towards me, and causing edit conflicts constantly on articles attempting to get worked on. example of him being rude: "No. You're not improving these pages. They are actually worse than the old versions. Stop using time as an excuse. You're not going to add anything worthwhile or you would have already"

please do something, this guy clearly needs to chill out Jeremie Belpois (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are having an on-going issue, you might want to take it to WP:ANI, more eyeballs and that is where most of the incidents go. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 9, 2009 @ 02:21

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

Advice on a user who doesn't follow Wikipedia policies

I've been having some long-standing problems with User:EuroHistoryTeacher relating to WP:V, WP:OR and generally what might be described as his attitude here. The problem is that he edits low traffic articles so there is not enough of a community to keep him in check. His modus operandi seems to be editing articles related to Spanish colonial history, and primarily making maps of the Spanish Empire. As the areas shaded as Spanish end up being on the generous side, I ask him for sources to show it is not original research. However, he feels he is above providing references when I challenge material because he has studied this at university.

He clearly displayed his attitude towards Wikipedia here:

• [36] "h c'mon ! stop the bs, nobody cares about these "Imperial" articles except us history lovers, the rest of the pop. dont ever read this"
• [37] "ok lol pero hay alguien (y tu sabes quien es) que es un "jihadista" en wikipedia lol" (referring to me, using Spanish but not realising that I speak a little; translation: "OK LOL but there is someone (you know who) who is a jihadist in Wikipedia LOL)"

Three examples of unwillingness to follow WP:V:

• [38] "he is always asking me (WHY ME everytime?!) to give him sources as if he wants to make my experience here in wikipedia miserable"
• [39] "i suggest you go to an institution and study Spanish history and politics before trying to shoot other people). Im not going to look a source for you, i already know it, but im sure somebody else can around here, i just dont have the time to satisfy your every doubts"
• [40] An edit today to British Empire, which got FA status a couple of weeks ago: he takes a section from another article and simply pastes it in there, no references, no nothing, even though I have already asked him to provide references using the British Empire article as a properly referenced example [41].

I can provide many more examples, including other users' comments in a Wikiquette alert that I filed [42]. Countless times I have asked him to learn how to provide inline references, and in three months of editing, not once has he done so.

As someone who invests a lot of time and effort in trying to improve Wikipedia (not to mention money, given all the books I have purchased to help with editing articles in the colonial history space), I am seriously at the end of my tether here.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Would this require administrator intervention, except for maybe topic blocks/temporary blocks? Request for Comment/Editor Assistance would be better for this as it is a content dispute more or less with ignoring policies attached, on the other hand, you have every right to remove material not sourced, and he/she might violate 3RR. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:EuroHistoryTeacher seems to be POV pushing in questioning that an article on the German Army in World War II, with the Holocaust and all that, should mention any war crimes [43] and shows bad behavior or vandalism in posting a spurious "New message" notice [44]. He/she might become a useful contributor if the bad behavior were held in check, because he/she seems intelligent and articulate. This also holds the potential for considerable mischief. It is up to the user.My advice is to caution the user then to apply progressive discipline per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to avoid the damage to Wikipedia which can result from unchecked POV pushing and vandalism/mischief. Edison (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Have we seen this before? Protonk (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  Have you seen similar edits in the past? Edison (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  Don't be cute. Has a report similar to this been raised at AN or AN/I in the past? Protonk (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a report about his general behaviour that was raised by myself which can be seen on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive179#EuroHistoryTeacher, though the responses were a bit disappointing as they concentrated on the perceived problem of me issuing him with a strong template as an established user, rather than his behaviour, which, having read through his talk page archives, seemed to be a constant problem that others had experienced. His subsequent responses on his talk page to me, which I think could be described as perhaps "gloating" and being unduly combative (see User talk:EuroHistoryTeacher#December 2008) merely strengthened my sense that a strong warning (such as the one I issued) was justified, and that he would continue his troublesome behaviour rather than cool down, as was advised. I see this report as merely confirming this.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(I didn't realise that others are having an issue. I really do think that the only thing which will get him to change his behaviour is a temporary block. It has honestly been non-stop with him since he joined the project in October or November, and it shows no sign of letting up. (reply to Noian: The content issue is one aspect of the matter, but how can you solve content disputes when the other side is completely unwilling to follow policies?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher had a false banner at the top of his page which duplicated the Wikipedia "New message" notice. I removed it, and he replaced in on the page [45] telling me to "go away." It seems like vandalism. Is a new removal followed by a block warning appropriate, or does an editor have a right to place on his own user page or talk page a false notice that the viewer has new messages? Edison (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a thread about this roughly a year ago, and ISTR the consensus was that UI spoofing is unhelpful and may become disruptive editing and blockable. link. --Rodhullandemu 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is now deprecated per this guideline --Rodhullandemu 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Does "is now deprecated" mean it is allowed on one's talk page, or that it is considered disruptive, and refusal to remove it is ultimately blockable?? Is it in the category of "frowned upon but permissable?" Edison (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for review and unblock of User:67.159.50.130

The IP User:67.159.50.130 has been blocked for 5 years as an open proxy.[46] It was used only once in April of last year. I have email permission from Tomascastelazo, a talented Wikimedia Commons photographer, to disclose that it is his underlying IP address. He already has one FP on this site and several on the sister site, and I have been trying to set up a featured picture nomination here for him (English is not his native language). IPs can change and we rarely block any for such a long time. Please review. Durova^Charge! 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we can change the settings to a softblock. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I told User:Spellcast since it was his block so he can review. If something has changed, he would know if others may be blocked for similar reasons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) Durova^Charge! 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is no longer an open proxy, there's no need to keep it blocked at all :) (I can't nmap from here) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's still open, but I'm no expert with nmap, so I'll leave that decision to someone else. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Yorkshirian

Not sure where to raise this case to get the best out of it, but here goes:

User:Yorkshirian, a banned user (possibly double-banned by suspicion of being User:Daddy Kindsoul), has requested to be unbanned and unblocked on his user page. I understand that only the Arbitration dept. can make such a call, but I think more input is needed on the talk page eitherway. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Manhattan_Samurai

Resolved

 – This user is already being discussed at ANI. No need to be covering this here.

//roux   16:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello: I have been threatened on my talk page by an administrator who is threatening to indefinitely block my account. Can someone unrelated to this matter address this? I would like to stay out of it. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the thread at WP:ANI, and understand this user has a long history of trolling and disruptive behavior hidden by a series of moved and deleted talk page coontributions. I am not set on blocking him but need some answers. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move help

Resolved

Hi, could someone please move English LGBT slang back to LGBT slang. I attempt to but was unable. -- Banjeboi 17:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! -- Banjeboi 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Monosodium glutamate, Chinese restaurant syndrome

We need some wider input and help on monosodium glutamate about this dispute: Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Migraine_Headaches. A group of single purpose accounts (probably sockpuppets of the same user) are continuously re-adding that monosodium glutamate is a migraine trigger when in fact all recent scientific review articles come to the conclusion that it is not. The user is very prolific on the talk page but does not address the raised concerns, reinsert his content without discussion and edit summaries as repeatedly requested, and starts to extend this behaviour to related articles [47]. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for a Content Committee?

Well, happy new year y'all, and since I'm here anyway, allow me to bounce an idea off a few heads.

The Ireland ArbCom case recently came to my attention. This strikes me as a dispute that is extremely important to 1% of our userbase, who are more-or-less evenly divided between the two sides, and mostly irrelevant to the remaining 99%. It also strikes me that we have a whole gallery of this kind of disputes, and that they tend to rage on for months and cause serious burnout in involved people.

We need a way for resolving these issues. I believe that an option may be to create a Content Committee, and have suggested as such on the Village Pump. Just notifying the people here to get more attention over there (so kindly respond on the VP rather than here, thank you very much). >Radiant< 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)