Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive237

The copyright problems "noticeboard" located at Wikipedia:Copyright problems had a header that had grown to the point of being a ridiculously long information source (see here -- this was just the header, transcluded onto the top of what is supposed to be a noticeboard). In a very bold move, and in accordance with several other such areas, I split the noticeboard itself to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Noticeboard, and moved the information from the transcluded header (Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header) directly onto the main page (Wikipedia:Copyright problems). I've updated the noticeboard nav box and copyright template in accordance, and notified the active clerks (there appear to be only two left -- the area seems to be somewhat neglected). I don't see this as being controversial per se, though it was a big change so I thought it best to announce it. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:37, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I have undone this for now, until we can be sure that the bots that work the area (not sure if we have one at the moment or two) are prepared for the change. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, I don't have any issues with the change itself, although I'm not entirely sure it's necessary. This isn't a noticeboard that attracts conversation. It's generally an either/or situation, fairly clearcut, and just a holding board until enough time has passed to permit rewriting or verification of permission. Heck, it can't even seem to attract administrators willing to work there. :P :P I just want the bot(s) onboard so everything functions correctly. (P.S. Did I mention that it needs more admins?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There was only one bot operating on that page, and all it did was add the next day's transclusion (all other bot stuff happened on the transcluded subpages, which wouldn't have broken), and that could've easily been handled manually. But I'm alright with delaying til we have the bot operator's attention. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:12, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Well, but there's no reason to have to do it manually when we have a bot that handles it and there's no urgent need to implement the change. :) Easy enough to make the change (which otherwise seems to be uncontroversial) once everything is prepared. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Florida East Coast Railway, in the Further reading section. I'm seeing a driver's license, or a video playing. I can't see any code that's generating it. I thought it might be a bug in the cite book template, but that doesn't seem to be it. Any help would be appreciated. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 19:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything there. Could you perhaps take a screenshot? Thanks! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Bug in your system? I don't see anything either. Taroaldo (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have gone away. Perhaps it was something on my end. Weird. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 16:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandboxies User:Richardbrason/sandbox and User:Stevepavlina79/sandbox are idetical and includes plenty of copyvios pictures--Musamies (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Images have been removed, SPI case opened. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone please unblock MahdiBot. I blocked it some time back (it was unapproved), but now the bot owner has requested at my talk that it be unblocked in order to go through a new BRFA. I can't do it myself right now, since I won't use my admin tools on public computers. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to post this notice here and several other places. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Delinking dates on delinking dates using an AWB bot. Input is always appreciated. Hmains (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If someone could look at this AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Cook (footballer born 1990), followed by this discussion on the closing admin's talkpage, and decide if any action is necessary? Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin but in my opinion the keep arguments were not very good and were essentially "me too", assertion and reference to WAX. The policy based arguments were the delete ones. I think this should have been closed as delete as an inadequately referenced BLP that doesn't pass the relevant SNG let alone GNG or N. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have suggested to the closing admin that re-listing may be preferable. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Relisting is probably a good idea. Discarding unsupported votes, it was 3 deletes to 2 keeps. At worst a 'no consensus', but it seems it really should attract more eyes in hopes of a more definitive result. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 05:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Kingdom of Sardinia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stepped in on a request at AN to intervene in a horrible long-term edit war on this article. I protected the page for a relatively long time, for me, but it has so far done no good as none of the revert-warriors who have gone back and forth on that article for many months have used the opportunity to talk. None of them. These are the contested versions: [1]; [2].

Clearly, some of these editors are exhausted. They've had several RFCs, but perhaps because of lack of clear closure do not seem to have reached any strong consensus. I can understand why they don't want to keep talking endlessly about it, but we can't have this. We need stability.

My plan at this point is to semi-protect the article when the full protection expires (because IPs have joined in liberally) and to start blocking editors who go back to the revert war without following dispute resolution.

I'm considering whether it would be useful for me - as an uninvolved admin - to attempt to launch another RFC, with an understanding that a second uninvolved admin (or two or three) will close it, forming a binding solution until and unless a contrary consensus is established. I would propose sanctions on the article, such that editors who have been involved in the edit war who try to revert or modify to break consensus would receive escalating blocks or be topic-banned from the article. Newcomers who try to revert or modify to break consensus would be reverted and cautioned as to the situation, instructed how to seek a new consensus.

If the idea seems like a good one, I propose to extend the protection on the article and notify all registered editors who have been involved with the revert war, as well as going through the usual channels to try to get participation in the RFC.

Do you guys think this is a good approach to this thorny, long-term problem? If so, any admins willing to sign on in advance to close this after 30 days or clear consensus? Even if you're not willing to sign on, your feedback on the approach would be much appreciated. :) My goal is to pull the article out of the unacceptable stalemate it seems to have entered, preferably without blocking anybody who is working in good faith. Alternative ideas for how to do that also welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You say that there were already a couple of RfC's on this subject - would a form of 1RR (if someone reverted an edit, no-one is allowed to re-revert that) combined with semi-protection (to take out the IPs and force them to create an established account - which can be blocked) be an option? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Aren't topic bans in order? Looking through the article history the edit warring is almost totally limited to User:Shardan, User:Jonny Bee Goo (although User:URBIS also contributes) with 2 sets of IP addresses, one in Rome and one in Milan taking up the edit warring when Shardan and Jonny Bee Goo drop out. Those two users also seem the least constructive on the article talk page. Looking at Shardan (who says he's from Rome) and Jonny Bee Goo's contribs they appear for some time to have been mainly edit warring this issue and not doing much else on WP. Johnny Bee Goo's (andd URBIS's) only contribs in the last 3 months have been solely to do that and Shardan's not much better. I'm wondering if there's a better chance of a consensus emerging if Shardan and Jonny Bee Goo (possibly with URBIS) were taken out of the equation. DeCausa (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the 3 users mentioned of this thread. DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Related to that, have SPI's been filed for this, and is it of use to rangeblock the IPs (or 'rangeblock' the IPs through an edit filter)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have created Special:AbuseFilter/476 - still testing a bit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've collected quite a handful of ranges there now - I guess one could consider to unprotect the article and let the filter do its job (please feel free to add ranges or users who feel the necessity to continue the warring and do not discuss). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Filter disabled for now, no use when page is still protected. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That sounds like a fabulous solution. I didn't honestly know it was even possible. :O Let's give it a go. :) I will turn it back on, remove the page protection and advise the involved registered accounts. If they join in constructive discussion on the talk page, the matter can easily be revisited. (Sorry I didn't give back with you yesterday. I had family events going on and, honestly, didn't expect so quick a solution! :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well, I guess I won't, since it seems like the options aren't available to me. :D When you turn it back on, I'll remove protection. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've turned the filter back on, and removed the protection per this discussion. Please note that I may have missed IP-ranges. Moonriddengirl, if you want to see and/or adapt the filter, you need to enable that in your user rights (one of the special pages). I hope this solves the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Have done. Thanks. :) I agree with you, fervently. I'll keep an eye out for socks. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure this is the best approach. Using an edit filter slows down every edit, which seems rather excessive considering that we have a rather localized problem. Moreover, that list of IP ranges will be pretty hard to maintain, and if we have to block that many ranges (I count 21 /16s), we should simply semiprotect the article. As to the three named users, this functions effectively as an unlogged page ban, which individual admins normally have no ability to impose, and the edit filter message will be quite confusing (MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed). I'd suggest simply warning the three that they'll be blocked if they revert again, and putting the article on semi. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, this constitutes a community discussion; it wouldn't be a ban by an individual admin. :) I'm fine with semi-protection (which was my original intent), but have no issues whatsoever with addressing the problem by temporarily banning the editors who have caused the most issues...whether that's technically imposed or simply agreed upon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have sometime rolled back because the voice was under a vandal attack! I collaborated to improve the Italian voice of Kingdom of Sardinia and there we had the same problem with the user Davidboz alias Jonny Bee Goo. He wants to demonstrate that Kingdom of Sardinia before 1720 was a flatus vocis, using a generalist voice coming from Britannica as a source, when - on the other side - specialist secondary sources demonstrate the opposite. I have already explained in the talk page what secondary specialist sources say about the Kingdom of Sardinia. I am ready to accept any other specialist secondary source about the history of the Kingdom and I have continuosly asked to Jonny Bee Goo to cite them, but in vain. For Wikipedia reliability, a generalist tertiary source should not have priority on a specialist secondary source. I’m sorry, my English is not so realy good, and I find difficulty to contribute to improve the voice, but I’m totally agreed with user Srnec contributions. I find this ban completely inappropriate because I have just rolled back an evident vandalism, a vandalism that should have been rolled back by an administrator, not by me. --Shardan (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you never "rolled back" because of a vandal attack. You rolled back repeatedly because you disagreed with what the other editor changed it to. It's different. That is edit-warring and is not allowed. It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong - you can't do it like that. WP is a collaborative project - you need to find a compromise. It is a waste of time just sending that article back and forth in two different directions. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked secondary specialist sources, and these sources never come. What I should do after Thousands of bytes of unconstructive talk page? We should leave vandalism going on, or better revert to the approved version filled with secondary specialist sources? --Shardan (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for joining the conversation. You say here and on the talk page of the article here that this should have been rolled back by an administrator - did you attempt to engage an administrator? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Shardan, I am sorry, but being a party in a long term edit war is not the way forward. You say "what I should do after Thousands of bytes of unconstructive talk page?" - well, you go to a next step in dispute resolution - even if that means that maybe for a couple of weeks the version of the document that is on display is, in your opinion, totally wrong, but you do not just edit war until the other party gives up. You could have brought this to the attention of uninvolved editors, gotten an RfC, it may even have escalated to ArbCom, and then one of the two versions (or some middle way) would have been 'right' (and that may very well have been yours, or close to yours) - or we would end up at a restricted situation as we have now.

All of you are still in time to go through next steps in dispute resolution, you have access to all venues (except for the article itself - it is obvious that a one day break is not going to solve the problem). If I see it correctly, if we would have chosen the option of semi-protection, that edit you attempted would have earned you a block (I personally might have considered to look at the length of the edit war that is going on, multiply that by 2 or 3 and round that up to a block length) - and to be honest, I think that other administrators, when they would have seen what was going on over there, might very well simply have blocked a handful of accounts without further discussion and left the page in whichever wrong version it was in.

The article is now unrestricted (even less restricted than semi-protection would have given) for the majority of the editors, lets see what those editors make of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, OK, I shouldn’t roll back for so long, it’s my fault and I’m sorry. The problem is another one: what happen when in few months I revert towards the right version? I’m sure that nobody can sustain the actual version, simply because currently sources are not appropriate and secondary specialist sources demonstrate that the State was just one! Imho I’d like to insert in the article the different point of views, but we are sure that Britannica really it affirms that in 1720 born a new state? Which historian specialist in that topic supports this thesis? If existing, we can cite him. We can write: ‘’for the historian Tizio, the Kingdom of Sardinia State was born on 1297, but following the historical researches of the historian Caio the Sardinian state was born on 1720‘’. But in these last four years nobody had insert specialist sources supporting this thesis, apart to cite a generalist Britannica.--Shardan (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

'the right version'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia policy, the right version of an article should be that one that shows reliable sources, possibly secondary sources. A wrong version should be that one which is not sourced at all, or sourced with anachronistic sources. These are the contested versions: [3]; [4].--Shardan (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

But, from what I've read from the talk page, the reliability of the sources isn't the true, or at least only, issue. The issue is about what should be the scope of a Wikipedia article called Kingdom of Sardinia. To determine that, it is not a question of "right" or "wrong", it is a question of applying Wikipedia policies - and you need to look carefully at them to find an answer. The policy that appears to be most relevant is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You need to think about that policy more and your view of academic accuracy less. "Primary topic" is subjective and uncertain and there is always going to be different ways of determining it. You have to accept that there is no right or wrong in this - there can never be because there will not be, as with most Wikipedia policies, a clear-cut answer. You have to compromise and do something which is not "perfect" in your view. That's how Wikipedia operates.DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive talking, De Causa: you have touched the point. Kingdom of Sardinia in our case, because of his long history, is a broad concept. For this reason the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, synthesising different periods of his life, and at that point dividing into subtopics, such as chronologically, without creating any disambiguation page. So Kingdom of Sardinia as a broad concept (1297-1861), Kingdom of Sardinia (1297-1700) where primary topic is the State under Aragon kings; Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–1720) where primary topic is the Sardinian state under Haugsburg sovereigns; Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861) where primary topic is the Sardinian State under the House of Savoy. For that reason we got problems with Jonny Bee Goo. For him, the primary topic of Kingdom of Sardinia should have been the last period of his life, I mean Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861, because for his point of view before 1720 kingdom of Sardinia was a flatus vocis, or a fake state, or worst a virreinato. And all that without produce reliable sources. In the talk page this one was my point of view.--Shardan (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a content discussion so I've posted a reply on the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, over the last couple of days I have seen three or four large changes (100,000 bytes +) noted in Recent Changes or in my Watchlist, but when I check the article history the size change does not match. One example:

• From Recent Changes:

(diff | hist) . . Big Show‎; 21:28 . . (+105,009)‎ . . ‎KiLLeR SiX (talk | contribs)‎ [rollback]

• From Big Show history:

(cur | prev) 21:28, 18 June 2012‎ KiLLeR SiX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (105,009 bytes) (0)‎ . . (rollback | undo)

(cur | prev) 21:28, 18 June 2012‎ KiLLeR SiX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (105,009 bytes) (0)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 21:27, 18 June 2012‎ KiLLeR SiX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (105,009 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (undo)

I'm sure there's a simple explanation for this, but I'm just not seeing it for some reason. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this too, and would like to know what's up with it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like T39225. Anomie⚔ 00:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I reading the info on 37225 correctly if I interpret the above example as:

• Recent Changes listing is "buggy"
• Article edit history (reasonably) correct

The concern being that many of these types of edits appear to be vandalism and we don't want to overlook vandalism because of a buggy edit history. Taroaldo (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The extra edits are just null edits. Graham87 01:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

71.183.182.11 (talk · contribs) has created a false "Stage Musical" section on the Dork Diaries article, complete with casting and musical numbers. There is no such musical, and several editors have tried to remove the information, but it is reposted within a few days. This information is never cited. Upon visiting the User Talk page, I discovered that this user has created other uncited and possibly false musicals on other pages.

Dork Diaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dork_Diaries

Thanks. HtownCat (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor is question has done the same thing -- invented entirely fictitious musicals or otherwise inserting fallacious information -- on other articles as well, including Megan Hilty, Betty Boop, Matilda the Musical, Nice Work If You Can Get It (musical), Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (musical), and others. Perhaps this editor needs a time out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Glass half full -- at least he/she shows some style! --Drmargi (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no style points on false content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, Please could someone assess the suggested amendments to the "Ahmadiyya" wikipedia page in the Topics section. Every amendment I have made has so far been reversed without any serious justification. The page has been blocked without any requirement. Apologies for failing to quote correctly etc... I'm a newb. (Steeringly (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

You are a newbie and I think you need some explanation of how things work here. Firstly, it's probably worth reading WP:EDITWAR, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, if you haven't done so before now. Secondly, you want to give maximum prominence to a point of view that's very hostile to the Ahmadiyya in the opening to the article. Don't you think that's a problem if the article is to appear neutral? Thirdly, you tried to make a change that was resisted. You're the one wanting to change the article so the onus is on you to then go to the talk page to get consensus support for your change. If you just keep on trying to put your change in (which is what you've done) that's edit-warring and you could end up blocked. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone posted an Ask Me Anything request for Wikipedia mods on Reddit. Might be an opportunity for outreach work for interested admininstrators, no? (Not sure if I'm up to it, as I'm not that up to speed on finer points of theory and praxis of Wikipedia policy and its enforcement. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted material and fair use, a 400-word direct quote from a 500-page book is considered infringement of the copyright law. I have two questions based on that:

1. What if the book we are quoting from has 250 pages. Does that mean, we are allowed only 200 words in the direct quote?

2. If we quote a book directly in a single article more than once, should we sum up all the quotes' word count to apply this rule or the rule is only talking about per-single-quote?

Thank You--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1.As that was a legal case, we can't make a comparable statement easily. But hopefully someone will be along to say more about this.

2.Over the article, and in fact possibly over all of Wikipedia. Again let's see what others say. I'm sure about over the article (or talk page or anywhere), and I've certainly seen it suggested over Wikipedia in the case of lyrics. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• • It's a hard call. Fair use depends on a four factors [5]. One factor is "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". On the whole, we try to stay very far from any line between fair use and infringement. But it also depends on part on those other points. If having it on Wikipedia would interfere with the ability of the copyright holder to make money ("The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work") then we need to be extremely careful. When quoting from (say) an academic book, it likely we are helping rather than harming sales so larger quotes (a hundred words or some such) might be appropriate. As far as your second question, it should be in total across Wikipedia. So basically the answer is "it depends" but pay attention to those four factors and stay well away from anything close to infringement. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Two key pieces on the 400 word case are the intent of use and the commercial harm. The text was published specifically to scoop a competitor, and Harper & Row lost a contract because of the actions of publishing those 400 words. If WP used the same 400 words, it is very doubtful that these will ever apply. We still need to be cognizant of how much we take and we dare not set any specific levels for feat of if we are wrong. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• In addition to the key point raised by Masem, assuming there was a ratio to determine acceptable copying, it would not scale linearly. Quoting 200 words from a 250 page work would be much less of a problem then the 400 from a 500 pager work. It is also valuable to discourage unnecessary quoting. If practical text on Wikipedia should always be original, only in circumstances where a quote is essential for understanding the material should a direct quote be used. Monty₈₄₅ 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no numeric rule about how much quoting does or does not constitute copyright infringement. Attempting to formulate one is a mistake, because it would have no basis in copyright law. --Carnildo (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

for lyrics, the nature of the work is important: for any poetry, copying the entire poem is usually regarded as not being fair use. It more usual to quote a stanza, or even just a fee lines. I would furthermore try to use the quote it as part of a sentence in context, not an isolated section. I tend to take a relatively expansive view of fair use, but this is one area where I am very cautious. Copyrights in popular music are enforced with particular vigilance. And in general, the acceptance of free content works such as Wikipedia requires scrupulous observance of other's copyright, & not trying to see how close we can come to a legal limit. That it's a fuzzy legal limit gives all the more reason for taking care. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I echo Dougweller and Carnildo: Don't try to infer some kind of mathematical formula. Copyright law contains no such formula.

  If you want a good guide to quoting, then I suggest this: Take quotations by good sources as your guides.. If you're writing based upon good, scholarly, sources such as history books, literary criticism books, and whatnot, then you can see what's excessive and what isn't in a quotation. You can look at how much is quoted by the sources that you're using, in their analyses of the subject at hand. You can also see whether to quote at all, in the first place.

  A case in point: The quotation from William George Walker that I added to Frederick William Sanderson is actually given, as a quote, in the source cited for that part of the article (James 2012).

  What you're doing at Táhirih is, in contrast, exactly how not to write a Wikipedia article. We don't construct articles by copying and pasting entire paragraphs of other people's writing on the subject. (That's, ironically, why I've been working on Frederick William Sanderson in the first place, why people are having to check every article that Thegn ever touched, and Thegn's editing privileges have been revoked.) Putting it in blockquote markup does not get around that. Blockquotes are not magic wands that free you from the necessity of conforming to the goals of Wikipedia: a free content encyclopaedia.

  Copying and pasting other people's writing wholesale is not writing. It's copying. Don't write articles by copying wholesale what Mangol Bayat said about the subject. Read Mangol Bayat, digest what xe has written, and write in your own words the knowledge imparted, citing Mangol Bayat as the supporting source. Better yet, read several sources on the subject, systematize and combine what knowledge they impart, write in your own words, and cite all of the sources. It took seconds for the original copy-and-paste "writer" of the prior article at Frederick William Sanderson to steal the words of Richard Dawkins and just copy and paste them into Wikipedia. Doing it properly, reading more than 50 books, articles, and WWW pages, and then presenting the knowledge that they impart in a systematic and encyclopaedic fashion with original prose, has taken me rather longer. But properly is how you must do it. The lazy route is the plagiarists' and copyright violators' route. Don't take it. The result is unacceptable for the project. Read; digest; and write in your own words. Or, more bluntly, as general advice: If you cannot write original free content prose, don't write at all. Don't misappropriate the non-free-content writing of other people as if it were a substitute.

  Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  • That sounds very nice and it is oh, so emphatic, but it is also factually wrong. Correctly using direct quotations of limited length, set out in block quotes, properly attributed is a form of fair use and is no more a violation of the sacred principles of the free as in love not free as in bird encyclopedia (or whatever the idiotic slogan is) than are the tens of thousands of fair use logos and graphics incorporated at WP. Of course this ethical and legal reality may seem an annoyance to certain classes of Wikipedians, say, just for example, operators of bots that attempt to identify "copyright violations" by matching blocks of text in WP pieces to blocks of text in other copyrighted sources. But it remains a fact, regardless of how much bold type one uses to argue otherwise... Carrite (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • No, Uncle G is 100% correct in what he says. There is difference between using a short, pertinent (both those words have meaning) quote and cribbing large blocks of text from another source and putting quote marks around it. If you cannot tell the difference, don't quote at all. Uncle G is completely correct. Using quotes correctly is allowed. Using the Wikipedia blockquote function as a lazy attempt to steal the work of others and not have to do research and write anything of substance is wrong. --Jayron32 02:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, Uncle G is spot on. Nick-D (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Indeed! -- Donald Albury 11:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes the quoting has to serve a purpose, not because the user didn't understand it enough to paraphrase it. You only quote things when the exact words used are important. The issue isn't copyright law as much as quality. Secretlondon (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Given the repetition of copying entire paragraphs written by someone else as a substitute for original writing across more than one article (see the diffs), I've issued a final warning to the editor who started this section, at User talk:Kazemita1#Plagiarism and copyright violation, to nip this behaviour in the bud, lest we get to have another contributor copyright investigation months or years from now where we have to go over every article where this person has copied entire paragraphs of non-free-content writing. Xe is in response asking to have the concept of writing in xyr own words explained to to xem, again. Others may care to try an explanation. I've simply pointed to this one. Uncle G (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sertnwoe5s is a brand new account used to create two pages today, Atheism and bestiality and Atheism and obesity. I've submitted both pages for speedy delete, as they are nothing more than attack pages against atheists. User is obviously a sock of someone else, but I think we should block him to at least place a minor road block in his trolling. JoelWhy? talk 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, you guys are too quick for me. His account has already been blocked. :) JoelWhy? talk 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This page is for attracting the attention of administrators to administrative affairs, but the issue you raise isn't that sort of thing — this belongs at a hockey-centered discussion page. I've accordingly removed your question to the "Hockey Best-on-best article and inclusion of the IHWC 2005 in Austria" section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey; please go there to respond to people's comments. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the original question was here. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc names Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sandbox as the sandbox for testing twinkle. This is useful; however, there is content history on the page. Everything before Alpha Quadrant cleared it was an AFC submission. I feel like the history should be split, so that someone's AFC submission is not being used as a Sandbox. I was also going to make a bot request so a bot would clear the sandbox out occasionally, but as long as it is being discussed here, can we User:lowercase sigmabot II to clear out that sandbox too? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to be patient with this user but he consistently makes anti-concensus edits and edit wars over them when the get reverted. He also socks and makes the same reverts using an IP. His talk page is flooded with warnings and block messages for disruptive, anti-consensus edits as well as edit warring. This in my opinion causes more disruption and more work than he is of help. Becuase I am very busy, I will provide diffs later but a check into his contributions page will reveal that a lot of his edits are reverted. At this point I have been rollbacking his edits without edit summaries because of the nature of his edits. I am starting to lose my patience with him and I believe other users may be as well. I request external input on how I should proceed and what actions should be taken against Lucasmoura (talk · contribs) as I believe I may be getting too involved.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 14:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Editor blocked for one month by JamesBWatson. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  It does appear that Lucasmoura does not quite understand how things are supposed to work on Wikipedia, and I cannot find any constructive edits from him. If he's got this bug up his butt over airdates now, I don't see how a month away is going to keep him from changing.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User: KATkanga has been posting quite a few new pages about a television show which all seem to end up on a CSD and becoming deleted. I have tried contacting this editor and rewriting some articles but I don't think I will be getting through. Should this user be warned about Wikipedia policies for page creation? Your answers would be helpful. Also, if you can help me and you feel that this entry is not necissary on this discusson board, please remove it and discuss with me on my talk page. Thanks!keystoneridin! (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC) :Why has there never been any notices on his Talk page about problems with his articles, nor is there a notice that you have started this discussion, as is required? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice that all of the pages mentioned on KATkanga's talk page are blue links. Since I'm temporarily not an admin, I can't look for deleted content, so I'd appreciate it if you would provide a link to even one page KATkanga has created that has been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• are you sure there is no notice on the user wall? Maybe you could check my revision history where it notes that I did follow policy. And I am just asking for ideas to help the user. That's allkeystoneridin! (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're quite correct, and I apologize. I'm having some problems with Wikipedia response time today and I started at the User page, clicked on the Talk page link but never got to the Talk page. Sorry. I have withdrawn my objections. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not a problem, I just want to figure out how to help this user so they can make all of their creations sound. It appears this user creates many pages, so I want to reach out and help them.keystoneridin! (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This user seems to be copying content directly from a fan wikia.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 6 July 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Followed a link here from Commons; looked to try and figure out something, since I used to edit with a user here ages ago, and must ask: How on earth did Arbcom grant themselves the right to turn a 1-year ban into an indefinite because the user appealed? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions#Ottava_Rima_banned. Particularly as, apparently, there was a lot of support for the unban. 86.180.110.228 (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Care to tell us what your old user name was, and why you're raising this? Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a question for ArbCom, you should go to User:Arbitration Committee and use the "E-mail this user function. This is not the right place to ask. (And, yes, what's your account name?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I was handling a CSD G6 request when I got a database error, and now I need someone to help me figure out what the heck happened here. The page in question is South Vietnam which got moved to Republic of Vietnam without any discussion. Now I am not sure what happened, but the error has the pages and talk pages messed up, and I am officially gun shy about dabbling in it what with the database error. Can someone take a look at this for me? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've put the talk page back alongside the article, and deleted the resulting redirect. Strangely, Republic of Vietnam has no history to show that there was ever anything there, even a deleted redirect from the page move back to the original title. That apart, all seems fine now. Bencherlite^Talk 09:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

<ec> Hi. I don't see anything to indicate that a Republic of Vietnam page was ever created. Taroaldo (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks immensely. I have no idea how that happened, as I do not think I have ever encountered a database error in something like this before. Glad to see this was a fixable error. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Starofnight2012 is a brand new account, and his few postings all involve the Illuminati. See here as an example. I don't think he's being purposefully disruptive, but he may need to be monitored. JoelWhy? talk 13:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I informed the user as is required. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to do that. As an update, this has progressed a bit, including personal insults against another editor here. I have a feeling this is going to go south pretty quickly... JoelWhy? talk 14:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. The editor seems to be obsessed with someone named "Anthony James", e.g. [7], [8]. S/he also created Anthony James Rumour, which was speedied. Not being an admin, I can't see the contents, but if the subject was a living person, Starofnight2012's future editing may prove very problematic. Voceditenore (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And now... Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony James R. - Voceditenore (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I submitted for speedy delete. Strange page about leader of the Illuminati or something. Little more than unintelligible ramblings, really. JoelWhy? talk 14:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have survived worse insults than the one linked above. New user has now been pointed to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP etc and his contributions are being watched - no admin action required, yet. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on a variety of postings such as [9], [10], [11], and especially [12] it appears as though there may be some kind of health difficulties IRL. A block might be in order for disruption, whether intentional or unintentional. Taroaldo (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a proposal for an improvement to the admin dashboard. See Template talk:Admin dashboard#Addition proposal. I could be bold, but I thought I'd leave a remark since many editors use it. Hopefully they can weigh in. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried to get some feedback about mass tagging from the tagging editor, but to no avail.

Main diff showing all tagged images. All were tagged using the summary rationale of "What studio?"

The editor claimed they got a go-ahead from another admin and thereby tagged 36 images. The other admin, noted in their discussion with the editor:

"We can't rely on third party claims those photos were issued by the studios without copyright notice - we need proof/confirmation. This requires an unaltered image from both front and back."

If the above statement is accepted, it creates a new, much higher, and essentially impossible standard for most older photos demanding "proof and confirmation." Impossible, because photos are a mass-produced item, and almost every claim is thereby a "third party," or claim of the photo's owner and/or seller. Review is requested as the topic creates a new Commons rule by one admin without reasonable concern for film still purposes and copyright law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but it's a matter for discussion on Commons, not here, as the images are on Commons and WP admins have no authority there. Bencherlite^Talk 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My error. I thought I was on the Commons page. Feel free to erase. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this could be a issue on en.wiki say for works tagged PD-USonly or the like, but we should defer to the conclusion reached at commons as well. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this necessarily needs to be the case. We need better sourcing than saying "ebay" or "studio". It gives us no idea who the copyright owner may be, even if it lacks copyright markings. To that we do expect the uploader to provide sufficient description of what they are saying they are uploading, but don't require visual proof of that (but if they want, they can). However, just stating "ebay" and "studio" is a very flimsy excuse and I would help that we would be able to get more information from that. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. However, as in images like this one or this one, I typically upload the full image front with any borders, and back if available (example), before any cropping or modification. The description is generally a summary, sometimes verbatim, from the seller. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on copyright or even our own image use policies (it simply isn't my area of expertise), but doesn't your example (File:Paul Henreid - Hedy Lamaar.JPG) have a copyright notice on the back? Meaning it would not be correctly tagged as being published "between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice"? --auburnpilot talk 18:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. This is nothing urgent, but I would like to ask for administrator attention on Talk:Donald Tsang for the closure of a Request for Comment which has been going on for a couple of months. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Closed. --regentspark (comment) 20:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If any administrators wield copyright knowledge and could help relieve the backlog at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files, your help would be greatly appreciated. — ξ^xplicit 22:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I created this article José Bencosme because we know in Italy as José Bencosme (how you can see here). I know that this is the full name José Bencosme De Leon ("De" capital also for IAAF, how you can see here) and I used the line "full name" of the infobox to remark this. But everybody know that the athlete simply known as José Bencosme (like "Massimiliano Biaggi" is simply Max Biaggi). But User:Enzino, don't respect my job and he moved first to José Reynaldo Bencosme de Leon and when I re-moved explain that I told you, he re-moved to José Reynaldo Bencos what?! I ask permission to fix it. --Kasper2006 (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I expect Enzino's second move was a mistake on his part; there's no reason at all to have the article at its current title. But since all references refer to him as José Reynaldo Bencosme de Leon (and with the exception of one photo they agree on this capitalization, too, see IAAF and FIDAL), that seems to be the appropriate title for the article. For comparison: There are multiple sources referring to Biaggi as "Max Biaggi". Due to the back-and-forth page moves, an admin will have to sort out the mess and move the article to itsw proper place. If you still believe that "José Bencosme" is the proper article name, please provide some reliable sources to that effect on the article or its talk page. Huon (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is that when journal articles (or internet articles), talks about him, call him simply "José Bencosme". If you want others reliable sources, I'm able to give you as you want: Bressanone, Bencosme è di bronzo or Josè Bencosme (50"55) or Josè Bencosme e Alessia Trost star alle Gymnasiadi di Doha. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have requested that José's article be moved back to its original place. Kaspar: remember that this is the English wikipedia and article titles are determined by the English language literature of the subject (which exclusively refers to him as Bencosme de Leon in international competition). SFB 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait a tic, why can't we just have it at the full title, and then redirect the shorter "José Bencosme" to that article? In this way we have one article and users can get to it (or link to it from other articles) using either title. Would that not solve the problem? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would. This is just a very drastic escalation of a minor issue. Sorry! SFB 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the full surname "Bencosme De Leon" , but pay attention to these two fact: 1) The second name "Reynaldo" is not necessary like Frederick in Carlton Lewis; 2) "De" is capital for FIDAL and IAAF Competitions. The correct may be José Bencosme De Leon. (Attention José not Josè). --Kasper2006 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

At 21:11 20 June 2012 admin Anthony Bradbury moved the wrong name José Reynaldo Bencos to "José Reynaldo Bencosme de Leon". That's right but without second name (never second name is used, not "Frederick" in Carl Lewis, not "Jefferson" in Bill Clinton), for this I cite two "official" sources: FIDAL and IAAF. For the same sources the "De" is capital (not "de" like all surnames in Italy). --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

All the English language sources I have seen use the "Reynaldo" part. If you can find me a couple of English sources that don't use it then you can move it there. Otherwise, we aren't following the sources for our title. Also- I have seen mixed usage with and without Reynaldo in Italian sources too. In the case of the capital on "de/De", the IAAF contradicts itself on this. I'm not sure which is considered correct. SFB 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Granted, that's fine with me any way you want. José Bencosme De Leon (his sponsor page), José Bencosme De Leon (his facebook page), José Bencosme De Leon ((in English) official European Youth Olympic Festival Guide), José Bencosme De Leon ((in English) Athletics Ireland official site). All 4 sources, for the "De" and for the "not Reynaldo". --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The first two use a capital "D" and the latter two a lower-case "d", so it's still not clear. Either way, I'm rather tired of this discussion now. You can request whichever title you prefer at Wikipedia:Requested moves and use that page for future moves. Further discussion of this minor issue is not the most productive use of anyone's time. SFB 18:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was over? No. So why User:Enzino said: no more inventions and moved the page to José Reynaldo Bencosme de Leon without consensus. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

After considering the arguments put forth in each section, community consensus on this matter is determined to be that the community should dedicate itself to determining the implementation of Pending Changes that it wishes to be turned on. Many opinions have been presented in the various areas of this RfC as to what works and doesn’t work in Pending Changes as implemented/proposed; the community must now focus its energy on optimizing the implementation of Pending Changes that it wishes to see go live. Because the community must have time to discuss this, and in order to avoid the holiday season which would interfere in both devs’ and editors’ schedules, Pending Changes will become live on 1 December, 2012. To allow developers enough preparation time, we recommend that community discussion about changes to the draft Pending Changes policy be concluded no later than 1 November, 2012. If the community has not, at that time, reached a consensus about how to change the draft policy, Pending Changes will be implemented according to the terms of the Draft Policy until the community can find a consensus.

Thanks to everyone who participated, and thank you very much for your patience.

For the closing admins, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes thanks for all your efforts - Discussion of how to/where to switch on is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 - Youreallycan 14:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The decision gives us about a 4-month window to work out the details ... and it seems to be agreed that there's a lot to work on, and I believe the next rounds of mini-RFCs are going to be very demanding on the closers. I've thrown my hat in at WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012#The next closers; if anyone else is interested in getting involved, come one, come all, and we'll sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a major backlog at WP:RFPP, 32 open requests. Would nice if some admins could help there. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 10:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Got a handful -- who's up next? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow, that is worse than the other day. Is it fewer admins helping out, or are we just getting a lot more protection requests? On my first cup of joe, but on the way over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37 (talk)

New proposal for a user-right group to help with backlogs. Enjoy : ) - jc37 18:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#Reviewer

Also, per the above link, could use some help with taking what is relevant at Wikipedia:Reviewing/Historical and start Wikipedia:Reviewing. - jc37 19:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion to WP:AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to stick this and I'm just flagging this up. I've come across a lot of unblock appeals coming from people with Singaporean ISP Starhub as a internet provider - this is out of all proportion to eg the population of Singapore or number of subscribers. It appears that their IP addresses change very frequently which means that although they got a block message when they appeal it's not their current IP that is blocked. These all seem to be range blocks. For example 218.186.8.13 has sent in about being blocked when the block that is affecting them is 202.156.10.0/24. Does anyone know how Starhub's address allocation works?

I know people will respond with 'make an account' but there is something that is causing a lot of these cases. I've read that some services from this ISP have adverts injected by the ISP - could this be it? Have we accidentally ranged blocked most/all of their address range? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretlondon (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 June 2012‎ (UTC)

It's possible that they are reacting to the IPv4 exhaustion problem by using a widely distributed set of web proxies or Carrier Grade NAT with load balancing, in which case successive page loads by the same user could have different IP addresses. If so, this would effectively make their entire network an anonymizing proxy. Rpoers that ads may be being injected, suggest that web proxies are involved; if so the way that this has been solved in the past for web proxies is for the ISP's proxy to set the X-Forwarded-For header in requests. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project for more on this.

Carrier Grade NAT with a wide source IP address range is a much harder problem to crack, and really the only practical routes for addressing this are either forcing login via anonblocks (the current situation), the ISP segmenting their CGN setup into smaller GGN pools so that IP blocks affect only a subset of their users at a time, or the ISP beginning to offer IPv6 to their customers. -- The Anome (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

On review: a reverse DNS lookup for 218.186.8.13 gives the name 218.186.8.13.cache.maxonline.com.sg. Their ISP is using caching proxy servers, and they need to be pointed towards the XFF project as a potential solution. Of course, if they're not using globally unique addresses, this won't work. -- The Anome (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: Starhub/Maxonline are already on the http://www.wikimedia.org/trusted-xff.html list, so it looks like they already have XFF set up, but there's only one proxy listed there. User:218.186.8.13, and any others in the same position, need to ask their ISP to contact the WMF via official channels to get the list extended to cover all their proxies. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you which channel for technical requests? None of them look particularly suitable. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us Secretlondon (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

On the Wikimedia end, xff AT wikimedia DOT org are probably the right people to contact (source: meta:XFF project). Alternatively, you could direct them. or the Starhub customers, to Starhub's abuse department email contact at abuse AT starhub DOT com, and point them to this discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I've emailed them both myself highlighting this discussion (although I really need a Wikipedia email address..) Secretlondon (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Do the WikiProjects have some authority over the articles they claim to cover? My question is if I create a Wikiproject "Antarctica" which claims to cover all "Antarctica-related" articles, do I (and others in "WikiProject Antarctica") have the authority to arrive at some decision based on a discussion in our Project's talk page and alter all existing articles accordingly without a discussion in their corresponding talk pages? - InarZan Verifiable 10:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus needs to be established among the community - whether that be determined on an individual talk page, at the WikiProject's talk page, or a noticeboard such as this. GiantSnowman 11:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If consensus was reached among participants in the project it could be rolled out on articles within its scope, but very cautiously. If it's a trivial issues (for instance, a new infobox or the removal of one deemed not useful, changes to structures of categories or a coordinated effort to remove references to a clearly unreliable source) it's unlikely that there would be any problems. However, decisions made through discussions in limited forums such as individual Wikiprojects obviously can't override Wikipedia-wide policies or guidelines (though some policies and guidelines have arisen from discussions which began as part of a Wiki Project's activities). Why do you ask? Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects provide a coordinating function, not an ownership/power function (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BWilkins. Most articles can fall within more than one Wikiproject, for a start. At best they can make recommendations. As Nick-D says it might be possible to make modest changes, but not if they override our policies and general guidelines. Wikiprojects really have no authority, and if editors at a particular article disagreed and were arguing within our policies and guidelines even on trivial issues there might be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This almost certainly relates to the OP's unwillingness to accept the consensus in of this discussion at the India Project talkpage. That concerned photo montages of people in Indian caste/community/ethnic group articles, which cause all sorts of problems as highlighted in the discussion. It is a highly specific matter and common sense dictates that does not apply for those groups that, for example, exist in notable numbers in present-day Pakistan as well as in India.

I think it slightly disingenuous of the OP not to make this specific situation clear, nor to mention that when they refer to "article talk pages", they mean Talk:Saint Thomas Christians. Of course, I could be wrong about the intent, but any reasonable person with knowledge of the OP's recent behaviour and the WT:INB discussion would likely come to the same conclusion as I do. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Examples of the unwillingnes to accept are here, here and here. I could list a lot more - it has been going on for quite a while and these links are just for today. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) I'm not sure why this is being brought up here. In the discussion at WT:IN (here), there was little support for including collections of photographs of individual members of a community in the info box. A user has initiated an RfC for wider input (here) and we need but wait for that discussion to be completed. Seems like healthy procedure to me. --regentspark (comment) 15:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear RegentsPark, if you are saying that the discussion on this issue is ongoing, can you revert this edit as an admin? Will you justify an aggressive removal of concerned content while the discussion is still going on? - InarZan Verifiable 16:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

InarZan, the current local consensus is that there should be no collections of people images in these articles. Perhaps the wider consensus from the RfC will be different. If it is, then the collections can be added back but, in the meantime, we'll stick with local consensus. --regentspark (comment) 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Jumping back to what Nick-D said about the general issue (and without any intent to comment upon or imply anything about what's been said since Nick's comment), the policy controlling the relationship between projects and the larger community is set out in WP:CONLIMITED:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

While the "for instance" example is negative, the positive is also true: participants in a WikiProject cannot establish policies or guidelines for articles within its scope without following the proper procedures at WP:POLICY to notify and involve the entire community in the policymaking process. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is basically triggered by the extension of local consensus in WP:INB to all the articles related to ethnic groups in India (these articles are of course part of other projects too). Though, these consensuses are not intended to breach any wp policies, they seem to act as proxy-policies which may or may not be healthy for Wikipedia. Some editors suggest that these proxies are necessary to deal with the peculiar nature of Indian castes or ethnic groups. In my opinion, if a local-consensus is to be used as a proxy-policy, it should be comprehensive; wide participation should be ensured (threshold should be set), a poll process should be there and finally the discussion should be closed by an un-involved administrator, preferably an outsider to the project. -AshLey ^Msg 08:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is more information at the official guideline, WP:WikiProject Council/Guide, especially the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages section. But the summary is this: A WikiProject is (just) a group of editors who want to work together, and no little group of editors gets to boss around anyone else merely by virtue of calling themselves a "WikiProject". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Generalities that apply to most Wikiprojects are not very helpful when dealing with Indian caste-related articles, and to that extent, user:InarZan has been disingenuous in framing his RfC statement. His interest has nothing to do with Antarctica. Indian caste-related articles are notorious for rampant POV, for unimaginable puffery, and for unmitigated abuse of every Wikipedia guideline related to reliable sourcing. These articles (as far as I can tell) are the only ones that come with a "castewarning" template (that give attending admins some discretionary powers). See below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to just indefinitely ban InarZan2 from St. Thomas Christians... I'll sleep on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there has been some rope and one of the others referred to in that message has already suffered. Nonetheless, I have learned something from this thread. I accept but am disappointed that it seems to be the case that the lunatics can run the asylum, that a project cannot limit the consensus of the wider community when disruption etc is plain to see. Ye other specialist projects can somehow create accepted notability guidelines that extend the consensus, eg: the one that assumes notability of nonentity cricketers who are named in the team for a single first class match yonks ago, do not play and are never heard of again. Even some regulars at WP:CRIC have acknowledged that this seems weird but, of course, it is a nice quirk of the system if you are a cricket buff. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think lunatics are running the asylum is true. OP has carefully constructed a question in general terms and is getting very general answers. I doubt if anyone will answer no to a question of the sort "If montages are accepted in several other wikiprojects can WP:India craft an exception to their use?" The way the question is crafted is itself, in my opinion, disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, in particular to InarZan. My reference to lunatics running the asylum was not a reference to InarZan's query but rather to the notion that a highly specific constraint regarding an existing community consensus, determined by consensus of those involved with a specialist project, can somehow be disregarded by people who know absolutely sod all about the issue and have no experience of it. Yep, this is a challenge of sorts to the boundaries of consensus and I accept that I am out on a limb, but my critical point was that, for example, the Cricket project appear to have been able to usurp WP:GNG and the same applies with regard to the long-running saga of whether or not every school is notable ... yet the India Project gets a kind of hammering despite being one of those huge backwaters that 99.9 per cent of regular contributors really do not want to engage with. Again, I am phrasing this poorly but I am hoping that the gist will get across. It is not worth me spending hours and hours justifying my comments, so people can either take them or leave them.

There is (indeed was, when InarZan posed here) a RfC in progress and although I consider the question posed to be malformed, the outcome will surely suffice for those who quote the various policies etc regarding acceptance by the wider community. Too many contributors here are focussing on the theory and ignoring the blatant underhanded-ness that was implicit in InarZan's query. RegentsPark describes that query as "disruptive", I agree and it seems from current comments that some others do also. To be sure, some good has come of that - and I am grateful for the comments and the expansion of my policy knowledge etc - but even after the disingenuous-ness has been made clear, there appears to be a meta-discussion going on that, yes, is interesting but is not addressing the very real, very substantial problems that relate to the core issue: how do we cope with these India-related articles, and in particular given the WMF "push" there and the often horrendous policy abuses that appear to be burgeoning due to that. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not looking at whatever the India-issue is, WikiProjects have *no* authority (as others have said). It is a problem that many participants do feel that whatever WikiProject they are interested in has authority and attempt to assert it. Bzzt. In theory, WikiProjects serve a function, but this issue is major across The Project. It needs confronting on sight. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  "Not looking at whatever the India-issue is, ...?" Well, then what you've said is vacuous or trivial, because this RfC is all about the India issue, even if it disingenuously avoids mentioning it. It is posted by an SPA who has less than a hundred contributions, all to Indian castes. Do you expect people to drum up a consensus each time a mischief maker challenges the same issue, but on a new caste page? Given that there are tens of thousands of castes, will you coming to bat for Wikipedia's core values each time? What about the castewarning template I've posted above, shouldn't you be confronting it on sight? Talking in vacuous generalities is easy, like you've done, to boot with sophomoric edit summaries. Dealing with the problem is hard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  I was addressing the OP's question, as did others. That's a canard that's regularly trotted out and needs beating with a stick. I've no doubt there's a further issue re castes. Good luck with that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is true that a WikiProject, being inanimate, has no authority; in fact no will. However project members absolutely have authority which derives from the same policies which empower all editors; and no more. After that, specifics are necessary to further qualify. For example a community discussion conducts on a relevant talk page, which often my be the talk page of an associated WikiProject. If such an RfC closes with specific adopted criteria, project members are compelled by consensus to enact that criteria. And non-members are equally as expected to follow suit. This summarizes my understanding to this regard; which you may promptly disregard if you prefer. My76Strat (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Mebbe sometimes, but see WP:CONLIMITED and WP:CCC. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a real example I would like to see addressed: members of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers have created lead section recommendations in WP:ACTOR which in practice have superseded the lead recommendations in WP:LEAD. Originally, I think they were only intended to supplement WP:MOSINTRO, but in practice they conflict with WP:LEADSENTENCE and possibly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. Contrast this with the guidance provided byWikiProject Film in MOS:FILM, specifically WP:FILMLEAD, which appropriately supplements WP:LEAD rather than restricting (or rewriting it) like the Actors and Filmmakers project. I believe that WikiProject Film has gone about this the correct way, while WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has exceeded its remit. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A project can amplify and/or clarify existing policies, such as the WP:MOS. However, the principle of most-restrictive applies: a project cannot override existing policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

But this is not an instance of a policy overriding a policy, but of an informal WikiProject guideline (WP:ACTOR) overriding Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section in practice. In fact, the MOS:LEAD has been supplanted by WP:ACTOR in actors and filmmakers articles since around 2010, and one can actually demonstrate this with real examples. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Since when has Wikipedia's response to sockpuppeting been to post a page detailing the sockmaster's real name (which we know "because he accidentally used his own name to sign up for Gmail"), his employer's address and an exhortation to write to his employer? Normally on finding something like this I'd have G10'd it and indefblocked all those concerned, but given that (a) it's existed for six months without any apparent concern from anyone, (b) at least one of the names in the edit history is someone I generally consider sensible and not the type of person to join a vindictive harassment campaign against someone singled out as an Enemy Of The Wiki, and (c) it's currently linked from a high profile RFA (along with a description of the subject as "thieving, litigious, lying scum") without any of the 60+ participants there raising any objection, maybe there's something I'm missing. In the absence of something I'm missing, it certainly looks to me like in this case The Wikipedia Community™ has lost whatever tenuous claim to the moral high ground it still retained. – iridescent 15:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about the Gmail stuff but with one account, the person appears to have intentionally volunteered their identity on wikipedia, which generally means it isn't outing to mention it. Linking it to other accounts may or may not be okay, I don't know enough about the history to say. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's relevant information, and he revealed it himself; if he turns out not to like it that's just tough for him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

By the time a banned sockpuppeter has taken it to the point where a long-term abuse page on him becomes necessary, I don't see why they should be entitled to any expectation to continued protection under our normal privacy rules (provided they are an adult person and mentally sane). This person consciously chose to raise an all-out fight against this project, even trying to blackmail to community to let him back in with the threat of more socking. He also not only self-disclosed his identity, but deliberately used it in an attempt to influence editing here [13]. If the personal information bothers him, he knows what he has to do to be let back into anonymity here. Under these conditions I don't see any problem with that LTA page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

generic complaints about low moral standards, not directed at specific situation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does this community have a moral compass? I thought we were officially amoral. Kim has removed the outing data and the enticement to contact their employer. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC) If a popular singer has a urinary condition and urinates onstage, do we put that in their article just because we have the ability to do so and can find a RS on it or do we leave it out because of common decency? Yes wiki fans, this actually happened once here on wiki. This and the indcident immediately above tell us a lot about who we are as a community and about the individual users involved. PumpkinSky talk 17:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC) "The Community" lost its way a long time ago. That's what Jack's been saying for the last five years. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Sadly true.PumpkinSky talk 17:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you for this message. I'm sure saying how much everything sucks sure will magically solve all the problems that Wikipedia has. --Conti|✉ 17:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Believe me, I've solved a lot of problems around here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC) "Older people have a duty to fight to change things, as they have far less to lose than the youngsters, and often the time to do it." (Fatuorum, Malleus) Chedzilla (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC) This is one of one of the very few times when I've wanted to be an admin. This is a repulsive situation as well as being sad. Bringing attention to issues which harm the collaborative tone of a community is the first step in fixing it. If its not broken don't fix it, but if it is even in part we need to fix as soon as possible to grow. Growth comes out of mistake, so there's nothing wrong with pointing out possible mistakes as long as we are committed to changing when we need to.(olive (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)) Surely the differences between PumpkinSky's straw man and the actual situation here are obvious. I think Fut. Perf.'s comment above is spot on, and implore everyone to read it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia never had any "moral high ground" to begin with. We're a loose collection of individuals barely agreeing to a set of policies and guidelines. BLP is probably the closest the community has come to a moral stance, and that's still hotly debated. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Nothing applies to people admins dislike, actually. It's a myth that there is a Wikipedia community. There are multiple overlapping communities. Personally I just fill out the OTRS form when I see outing stuff and it gets fixed (N-1 times, actually.) In any event, there is definitely and obviously a WP caste system: IPs get treated like crap unless their edits are crystal clear clean (if not, they're socks of somebody a registered editor doesn't like.) Registered editors get treated okay if they can avoid drama. While there has been -- unfortunately decreasing 1,2 -- a core of admins who act maturely and put WP ahead of their egos, ANI is often a "protect admins from criticism" forum, and some of ArbCom's recent actions and inactions have been unfortunately amateur hour. If any of this is news to Iridescent they've been mostly inactive for too long. I don't suppose they have any suggestions as how to improve the situation? Nobody Ent 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting in late here, but I agree with Kim's removal of these details. Aside from the obvious 'outing' and harassment-type issues, we have no way of knowing whether this editor actually worked for that politician (I presume), and prominently linking the politician to this copyright violator was potentially defamatory. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't pretend to understand much of what's above here. There seem to be some very shrill and shorthand arguments, few of which make a full and coherent case that I can follow. However I don't myself see that this edit is necessarily what's claimed. It comes from an editor who asserts that he has a particular real-life identity but I see no reason to take this at face value. We don't allow subjects of BLP articles to complain about their own treatment without OTRS confirmation of their identity. It seems to me that we cannot be absolutely certain that this person is responsible for the edits. What if it's a political opponent trying to get them to look bad? Nyttend has reverted my removal of personal information but I don't think this discussion has run its course. Nyttend may be right in restoring the material but there would have been no harm in letting this discussion run to a consensus before doing so. I'll ask Nyttend to self-revert (I'm not going to edit war over this.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded it, leaving the info about the self-disclosed name and the matching earlier sock account in, but hedging it to make it clear we cannot vouch for the correctness of the self-identification. I have also removed the employer address. I see no ethical problem with actually doing what was suggested there and contacting that office, in this particular case – given the fact it's such a high-profile public institution, the abuser's edits are clearly directed at our coverage of that institution, and he has repeatedly claimed to be working on its behalf, this matter is different from simply "contacting somebody's employer" to get them in trouble. Have people actually done this and has there been any response from official Senate addresses? In any case, if somebody still wishes to do this, they know where to find the address. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should make clear we have no way of knowing if the disclosed information is accurate, the risk of an opponent or someone else falsely claiming to be a person is something (I think) I've noted before. So the rewording is ideal.

However I don't know if your claims of BLP are accurate. Unless things have massively changed since I became less active in the area and quick check of the noticeboard suggests they haven't, we normally just accepted self identification as the subject at face value unless it actually matters we are certain the person is who they say they are. A lot of the time it doesn't and shouldn't matter who is complaining, at most it may give people an added impetus to take things seriously and fix issues quickly so it isn't a big deal if we are incorrect. Sometimes it may be suggested the person go thru OTRS confirmation, but if they don't bother it doesn't mean we just ignore their complaint, we don't want to make things too hard for those with legitimate complaints. If there is a complaint about the accuracy of sourced information, for better or worse there's often little we can do without WP:RS even if the person's identity is confirmed (how to handle such cases is something we still IMO don't really have a good way to deal with), so the first request would often be for RS. (Times when we may require definite identification may be when a person of limited notability is asking for the removal of sourced information for privacy reasons or when the person uses a username which identifies them as a well known subject.) I would note even in times when perhaps we shouldn't accept the claims at face value, people often sort of do, e.g. people will say someone created an article on themselves rather then saying someone claiming to be the subject created an article on themselves. Or someone has been removing well sourced criticial information rather etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please hide this version? Contains a phonenumber. Evalowyn (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done and emailed it to oversight for them to further handle. In future please contact oversight directly instead of posting it on a board where hundreds more people will see it--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And now oversighted, though I can't stress enough how important it is not to post this stuff in public. Courcelles 19:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm currently mediating a MedCab case about the lede of Wikipedia:Verifiability, where we are in the process of drafting an RfC to submit for community comment. We are very nearly done, and we are making the last few finishing tweaks to the RfC page before it is ready to go up live. One of the things that the participants have been discussing is how it should be closed, and who should close it. There is a consensus in the mediation that the RfC should be closed by a panel of three uninvolved administrators, and there is also a rough consensus that we should name them before the RfC starts, to help avoid any drama when it is time to close it. Also, to make sure things remain impartial, we want to avoid choosing admins ourselves, hence this noticeboard post.

So, would any admins be willing to volunteer to close the upcoming verifiability RfC? Ideally, you should:

• Have no previous involvement in any of the debates over the lede of Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Be available around the last week of July, which is when the RfC will likely finish
• Be willing to take the time to sift through the hundreds of comments that we will likely get, and weigh the different arguments

If anyone fits this description and would like to take this on, just leave a message below.

Also, if anyone has any comments or questions about asking three uninvolved admins to close the RfC, or about naming them before the RfC starts, then the feedback would be very welcome. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unless there are objections, I'm available to help closing the RfC. I can't remember having expressed an opinion about the issue before.  Sandstein  17:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'll let the mediation participants know that you're willing to volunteer. So that just leaves two more admins to find. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

[My apologies to Mr. Stradivarius for my accidental rolling back of his last comment a while back - I think it must have been a watchlist mousing mishap.]--Melburnian (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I just assumed that was a mistake. I think we've all done a fat-fingered rollback or two in our wiki-careers. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like we are be all out of admins - though there must be a few out there that haven't expressed an opinion on the verifiability issue yet. I think I'll wait for another day or so, and then I might have to talk to the mediation participants about contingency plans. Again, if you're willing to take this on, just leave a message below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely comfortable with announcing the closing trio in advance of the RfC. I think you should allow admins to respond via email, make your selections but withhold any announcement until such time as the request is ready to close. IMO - My76Strat (talk)

I'm not entirely 100% certain I've never opined on the matter, but I certainly did not participate extensively in the discussion nor did I get into any sort of dispute over it. If you still need admins, wave at me. — Coren ^(talk) 23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to help. However, if you already have three, let them : ) - jc37 23:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you to Sandstein, Coren, and jc37, for indicating that you are willing to be one of the three closers. It looks like the mediation participants are happy to accept your kind offer, and so it seems that there are no objections on this side of things. I will keep you updated on the progress of the discussion, and of any other matters that may affect the closing of the RfC.

  To My76Strat - I'm a little bit unsure as to what you mean by "make your selections", but if you are talking about mediation participants choosing particular admins, then this was already rejected on the mediation talk page. The consensus was that we should only specify the admins in advance if those admins were self-selected. The argument goes that this way, the participants can avoid any allegations that they are selecting admins based on personal preference, while still getting the benefits that would come from choosing the closing admins in advance (i.e. minimizing the risk that a close might be disputed).

  I'm not saying that this is necessarily correct, just that it is the consensus that the mediation participants agreed on. If there is any objection to this, then I think probably the best place to discuss it would be the RfC talk page, after the RfC has been made live. We will have plenty of time to discuss it, after all. Or, if you meant something else with your comment and I've missed the point completely, please let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please provide me a copy (for example create it under my userpage) of Warpigs (band) which was deleted as non-notable. Apart from my disagreement (it's quite notable in Hungary, but that's not up to me to decide anymore) the author put definite amount of work in it and would like to post it somewhere else. Would be even better to undelete and move it under my userpage, so I'll have its history. Thanks in advance. --grin ✎ 08:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Normally one requests that at WP:REFUND. The question of course becomes "where else would you post it?" ... I don't think Wikipedia (or the contributors) have approved you taking it somewhere else (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be reusable under the same terms as any other material from Wikipedia?—Kww(talk) 11:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to get approval to post stuff from Wikipedia elsewhere. That's kind of the point. :) --Conti|✉ 11:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but if we provide a copy of the article to someone then we're also obliged to provide a list of the article's authors. That happens automatically if a page is undeleted and moved with its full history, but would be lost if an admin were to just copy and paste the text of the deleted article into an email. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done It's now here for now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

With four short months allotted before we have to close whatever community discussion happens, we can't afford a month to choose closers. So far, The Blade and I have stepped up. Beginning a week after the announcement here at WP:AN (so, 03:16 UTC June 30), if there are no objections here or on the linked page, I'm going to proceed with soliciting discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am attempting to create a page titled "Kent W. Colton" and have been advised that it is okay to create the page, however, it is on the local or global blacklist and has been restricted to administrators. Can an administrator create this page? I have the content formatted and ready to post if it necessary for me to send it to you for review.Dinman01 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done (Kent W. Colton). Remove the template I placed on the article when it has some content. Hut 8.5 15:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please delete FIFA 13 for move FIFA Soccer 13 to this name. Thanks-- Alireza ^Talk 16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please use WP:RM on the article talk page to establish community consensus on the correct name. GiantSnowman 16:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone uninvolved please make a nice easy close at Wikipedia:ANI#Proposed_restrictions_for_User:Crzyclarks, since consensus is clear (even the subject of the ban appears to accept it's appropriate) and the conversation is beginning to descend into bickering. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously - could someone sort this out? The editor is now being disruptive on the articles they're about to be banned from. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

FFS... I have indeffed him. To go from mere 1RR and a topic ban to indef. Utter and shameful cluelessless ✉→ BWilkins ←✎ 18:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but an uninvolved admin still needs to make a decision ASAP, just now with a wider/longer scope :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wandie benson (talk · contribs) has been creating promotional articles repeatedly with no references. There are several CSD warnings on his talk page. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that the user created numerous articles pertaining to the same or related topics (going so far as to reverse his first and last names in titling articles when his initial article was deleted), the account has been blocked for spamming. Michael (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi All,

Need help to create new page for "Santhakumar(Director".

He is Indian Film director and directed Tamil language movie Mouna Guru

Below are the few reference for "Santhakumar"

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXRb2VbUeHw
2. http://www.pixmonk.com/2011/12/25/silent-monk/
3. http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/nxg/article2735004.ece
4. http://www.moviecrow.com/movie/546/mounaguru-tamil-movie-review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvijilio (talk • contribs) 11:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please see articles for creation. Ensure that notability is met (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Upon attempting to create a talk page for the Kent W. Colton article, only administrators are able to do so. Since an article page has been created, a talk page also needs to be created that all users can access. Here's the link: Talk:Kent W. Colton. It appears that the following WikiProject template should be added to the page: {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}}. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A request has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

Should the proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to the unblocking policy. Penyulap ☏ 22:47, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin was under 1RR first to resolve a wheel war and then to resolve edit waring from March 27 to June 15. After it expired, there has been a moderate amount of edit warring, see [14]. I think reinstating 1RR might encourage greater discussion, but before reinstating it, I wanted to get consensus here. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe MBisanz is overstating any problems. Our general policy is 3RR and unless specific issues can be brought along with the request here (not vague generalizations), it seems reasonable that the 3RR policy, should be the standing policy on this article, like the rest of Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was suffering major problems not that long ago. I'd be willing to let it slip back to normal, unless/until the problems recur. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I need to notify any editors about my posting here, but a problem on the page IMO is that removing things that have been there awhile is in a way like reverting, and to take something out that's been in there awhile because it doesn't seem important is a very low bar versus the high bars to add something. It's also quite subjective when it's removing things that are properly sourced, relevant, etc. I really haven't seen any guidelines or rules about it, but removing things for the reason that they seem unimportant maybe should be subject to a rule like 1RR or 3RR, as if they are reverts, not just straightforward edits. Removing 5 things in a day really isn't the same thing as adding 5 things in a day even though both are edits. Removing things became an issue on this page after an editor who hadn't been working on it checked the length and said it was too long. That editor hasn't been back to the page, so isn't involved in this matter, but since then there's been a push to reduce things, but I've been suggesting discussing whether splitting it at least once or reducing it would be the better option. But taking things out that were acceptable can cause at least as many controversies as putting things in, especially when it isn't about relevance, sourcing, etc., but more like opinion about what seems important to different people. Psalm84 (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I also want to add that I did notify another editor, Minor, who has been involved in this matter. Psalm84 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• support reinstating 1RR if current editing behavior continues. There have been constant reverts since 1RR expired. There are a couple of editors who are extremely protective of the article. I'm ok with giving it a bit of time to see if things don't improve, but if it doesn't then I think 1RR should be reinstated. Minor4th 02:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think both Minor4th and Psalm84 have been very collegial and positive editors with regard to the article. I simply don't think special cases need to exist for articles unless a particular need has been clearly identified. People are not discouraged from making reverts, its simply a part of editing. The problem is only when they begin to 'edit war' and for Wikipedia's purposes, this is usually (but not always) defined as when it hits 3 reverts (could be fewer). But honest mistakes and honest improvements get reverted all the time, and I would say unless there are editors who are simply intransigent (those people can get a trout), then we're doing fine on that article. -- Avanu (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• 3RR is the general guideline and should be applied to this article as well. The example given above by MBisanz is just a small slice and not representative of the overall editing behavior of this article. The above example was resolved through discussion and we will continue to work towards improving this article through discussion and consensus.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• 3RR should be fine. Yes I've seen a few edit wars, but in the end it's been worked out. I belive the editors of this article can work together without administrator intervention. Richard-of-Earth (talk)
• 3RR - I think the training wheels can stay off. People are sorting things out reasonably well at the moment. If warring does heat up again, then reconsider 1RR. ArishiaNishi (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Just to be clear "no edit warring" is the rule, 3RR is just an outside metric of that rule. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to come here; I was an admin for so long (just resigned temporarily) that I don't remember where I used to go to ask for more specific help.

The earliest edit to MathematicsAndStatistics (one of WP's first pages) had the text "see Mathematics and Statistics". However, that page's history begins in 2011, while nost: has a revision (nost:Mathematics and Statistics) from 2001. Could someone please import it and do the necessary bits required for a histmerge? Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I should have  Done it. Hope I didn't break anything... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The original history was permanently deleted in June 2002 per the Old deletion log. The deletion discussion is buried in this diff]. Graham87 06:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the correct page for requests like this is Wikipedia:Requests for page importation. Graham87 06:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the link! I'm confident that I've never noticed that page before. Checking WhatLinksHere pointed me to User:Emijrp/FirstPages, which led me to create a pile of import requests at the requests page. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question asked and answered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a couple of recent discussions at AN/I, I made the comment that I felt that SarekOfVulcan is not a great administrator on some issues. Specifically, my complaints revolve mostly around the WP:Civility pillar. His response was that I should pursue a recall of his adminship or keep my complaints off Wikipedia. While I feel that administrators as a matter of public good should be willing to accept critical commentary, I recognize the reasoning for his statement. However, in the vein of responding to his request, I would like to ask for a temporary ban for Sarek on using tools for any purpose whatsoever, to essentially live the life of the common man for a consensus-directed length of time. After doing some checking, I don't see an obvious route or process for this sort of thing, so I'm here asking how it would be formally requested and done in a manner consistent with community consensus and fairness. My basis for this request simply goes back to the civility pillar, and the admonishment on the WP:Admin page that administrators "are never required to use their tools and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved". In essence, to reinforce civility, I would like Sarek to live by the restrictions of a normal user for a time, so that he can gain the perspective that I feel he has lost. Your thoughtful assistance in directing me through the next step to make this request is appreciated. -- Avanu (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I don't know anything about your concerns - though I've seen the name (Star trek reference, so the name at least is memorable), but I don't recall ever actually interacting with SoV. Anyway, with the disclaimer out of the way. I'll say that I think I remember more than once that the community has, through discussion, approved desysop in the long past. though in the cases i can think of, it was "approved" by Jimbo Wales (back then he was a bit more "hands on", and so did the de-sysopping himslf following the community discussion. So I dunno. Arbcom, definitely. AN/I discussion, "maybe". but I think that it's been a long enough time, you'd probably need to run an RfC on it first, unless IAR applies somehow. And if this is going to be a "reverse rfA" (a call of no trust), then a bureaucrat would probably need to "close" the discussion as well. - jc37 04:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC) After I had some time to consider what Sarek had said and time to re-think my statements, I wouldn't be asking for a 'de-sysop' really. Just a 'ban' in the manner of a typical WP:BAN, except that the ban would apply to the use of tools. In other words, he would still fully have the rights and opportunity to use his additional powers, but would have to refrain from the use of them for the specified length of time. More the idea of a 'sanction' than an all-out destructo implosion thing. My goal is not to 'make Sarek pay', but to encourage him to see the side of things that so-called normal editors see, for a while, in order to gain insight and improve as a part of the community. -- Avanu (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I'll have my own disclaimer: this is a process comment only, and not a recommendation on what you should do. Administrators have historically only been desysopped by Jimbo or at the direction of ArbCom. All deviations from this were emergencies related to compromised accounts and a couple of special cases where editors were granted the bit for technical reasons. However, administrators can be blocked or banned as much as anyone else can, so that route is certain possible through ANI. As for actual recommendations: if you think there are serious, actionable behavioral issues, then file an RfC. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC) From what I understand, Avanu, you don't want to de-sysop Sarek, but you do wish to seek lesser sanctions against him for a time. I would recommend either pursuing an RFC/U or a notice at AN/I, carefully constructed to present evidence of incivility clearly and concisely. In either case, you should explicitly state that you do not seek to recall Sarek, you want them to stay an admin in the long run, and you are just seeking a short-term sanction. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Um, no. My response was that Avanu shouldn't call for my desysop if he wasn't willing to actually put in the work to demonstrate that I deserved it, and that he shouldn't say it was shitty to block someone to enforce a BLPBAN. I explicitly said on his talkpage that I had no problem with actual criticism, as opposed to personal attacks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC) As a TPS'er of SoV's talkpage, and having viewed Avanu's interactions and commentary about SoV across many platforms, I have to say that the tone and nature of Avanu's interactions are hounding bordering heavily on dickish. He's needlessly provocative. SoV has kept their cool. Avanu has found zero instances where SoV has actually broken any policy, and done nothing but WP:ABF on anything SoV does. My suggestion would be a one-way interaction ban on Avanu, that does not permit them to discuss, or comment on, or interact in any way regarding SoV. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC) *snort* Nice edit summary there, BWilkins. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC) heh, I knew you'd appreciate the sarcasm LOL (I was going to say "SoV is provocativelessly needy") (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I have to respectfully disagree with BWilkins on this. Particularly "Avanu has found zero instances where SoV has actually broken any policy and done nothing but WP:ABF on anything SoV does.". This is a request for process, not a platform for reviewing Sarek's actions. In addition, the AN/I determined several months ago that keeping a log of admin's bad deeds on Wikipedia was a violation of policy, not sure if you recall that debate, but an editor was keeping a list on their Talkpage of bad deeds (in their opinion) that certain admins had taken. I have compiled no such list on Sarek either on Wikipedia or elsewhere, I simply don't care to do that or have the time for it generally. However, back to facts, over a long period of time, extending beyond SoV's talkpage, I have observed SoV's behavior and I take issue with some of the particulars. The idea that I am hounding another editor when I have next to no interaction with him normally is absurd, and the only reason I recently did was because he closed/resolved a AN/I debate I had participated in. He banned the person, and then proceeded to block the guy; the community consensus found this block to be overly harsh and overturned it. I have a particular disdain of power being used in a pushy way for its own sake. I did allow my indignation to get the best of me in that recent debate because I see it as the latest incarnation in a continuing episode of the same. BWilkins might find it humorous to have a legitimate complaint about an admin, and humorous to want to proceed in a professional way with such a complaint. When an editor has a complaint, this kind of ABF only serves to make things more contentious. Additionally, the assertion by BWilkins that I do nothing but assume bad faith on SoV's action is absurd as well. Even in the latest debate, I called on other editors to defer to Sarek's determination of a ban and get his clarification for how it was to be implemented. In other words, I respect his right to act in an administrative capacity, and respect his decisions when they are made impartially and fairly, but I take issue with his actions if they serve to amplify contention or are outright uncivil. I appreciate the assistance from others on how to proceed, sarcasm isn't as helpful though. -- Avanu (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Given the tone of Avanu's comments in the WP:AN#Block review: Sceptre and AndyTheGrump thread not far above this one (eg [15]), it's rather hard to take this report seriously. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC) There are two options in this case. You could file a WP:RFC/U to try to influence Sarek and have him voluntarily agree to stop using admin tools for a while. You could also file an arbitration request with the intention of having ArbCom temporarily desysop Sarek (it's unlikely that they would enjoin him from using the tools without desysopping him). Neither option seems likely to happen, but they are your only two options. NW (Talk) 12:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Nah, the 3rd option is that we implement the WP:IB I suggested quite seriously above :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I think Sarek's point in telling you to put up or shut up, so to speak, is that the way you've been going about things cannot fix anything, it can only increase the ambient "grar" level surrounding you guys, which is exactly what it's been doing. If you believe a user has a history of disruptive behavior or misuse of tools, the way to deal with that is to lay out the case in an RfC/U, showing the evidence you believe proves it, and let the community discuss and reach consensus on what should be done about it. The way not to do it is to drop small comments in unrelated threads about how the person in question is a problem, until they're forced to tell you to either do something about it or drop it. Avanu, if you really feel that Sarek's behavior is so problematic that something needs to happen, then you either need to start an RfC/U about him (which cannot desysop him, but can reach a consensus that he should be desysopped, or that he should stop using X tool, or that he should stop doing Y thing, etc), initiate his recall procedure (whatever that entails - I haven't looked at his in particular), or start an arbcom case (which is likely to be rejected unless you can show some really egregious behavior that could not be resolved through normal dispute resolution). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC) And I tend to agree with you on what you just said. If I do take some action, I want it to be done with a clear head and reasonable rationale. Generally, I just leave him to his own side of the Wiki and move on. I think the commmunity input here has been helpful in allowing me to know the options and focus my thoughts on this, and I think it is reasonable to allow some time to pass before taking action to make sure it simply isn't emotionally-driven. I want a positive outcome ultimately. Thanks for the comments. -- Avanu (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nelson M. Cooke - A month ago, the following was posted: 01:44, 31 May 2012‎ Ktr101 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (13,122 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Ktr101 moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nelson M. Cooke to Nelson M. Cooke: Created via Articles for Creation The article still cannot be accessed. Can someone help or tell me what to do? Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't you see it right here? Nelson_M._Cooke?--v/r - TP 17:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If by "still cannot be accessed" you mean "doesn't appear in Google's listings", that's beyond Wikipedia's control. You also asked this at the help desk - please ask in only one location. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I just came across this user while Huggling, seeing them edit war with other editors. After asking Freshacconci, he pointed me to the LTA page for the user, and I saw that s/he was never formally banned (correct me if I'm wrong). I think that enough is enough, it's been six years with probably close to 50 different accounts/IPs being used. I'd like to propose that we formally ban the user from the English Wikipedia. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 20:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen a single instance where she wasn't treated as banned anyways, truthfully, but if you want to formalize it go ahead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really necessary though. "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." - WP:BAN. There was some resistance here last time a formal ban discussion was raised for a long-indeffed user with a lot of people (myself included) opposing to it as unnecessary red tape. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Null this user is de facto banned - there's no need to be bureaucratic about bans or to give this type of user any further recognition--Cailil ^talk 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This picture has been deleted from commons before because there are no information about pictures that are collected. My propose are that this can also delete as copyvio.--Musamies (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been deleted from Commons, because the uploader claims to have been the source of the images by posting a template that says "I, the copyright holder of this work". Unless, of course, you have another source for one or more images showing that the claim is a lie? Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the components is found here [16], another here (number 7 in the image slideshow). Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I've now deleted. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A request for comment has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

Should the proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to the unblocking policy. Penyulap ☏ 22:52, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

as it is not related to any editor, I figure I can ask the question, should block review requests be combined, or considered separately Penyulap ☏ 12:58, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

which means the question doesn't belong here, except where it relates to these two editors, oops ! Penyulap ☏ 13:00, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'll have no part or opinion on either matter as I am involved clearly on one side, also, as a disclaimer, I edited (created) the policy section that has been linked to. I simply wish for everyone else to have their say here with as little confusion as possible, so I have separated the issues. all of which can sill be discussed, but with more clarity. Penyulap ☏ 12:49, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, anyone is free to revert if they feel up to the challenge of tallying both sides, counting single 'oppose' or 'support' with 'both' !votes and so on, good luck guys and girls ! Penyulap ☏ 12:54, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no offense, but I've collapsed them again. I find it far more confusing to have a new section started in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Also, the part about AndyTheGrump was obviously a non-starter anyway, given his own statement, so I believe it will neither make for much confusion in the original format, nor would an extra section about him be useful at this stage. I'm also not fond of having the sections subdivided into "support" and "oppose" vote sections. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No offence taken, I'll just suggest that combining an unblock request for the two editors will be every bit as satisfying to the community, and editors involved, as the combined discussion of their original block. Penyulap ☏ 14:44, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Combining a unblock request for two editors blocked several days apart for different reasons doesn't strike me as terribly satisfying... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Confused the hell out of me. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked Sceptre as there seems to be a consensus that Sarek overstepped and Sceptre should be unblocked. I don't see much discussion related to Andy's block, so I've left that in place for the time being. I hope this helps to resolve things, but if it doesn't, another admin can of course revert me. I'm not perfect. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the review! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably be best to unblock Andy as well now. I think everyone is clear where they stand. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, don't unblock Andy. Andy has requested that he not be unblocked until he serves his term. The double unblock was proposed out of a misguided sense of fairness, believing that the blocks were for the same thing. They weren't. Sceptre's topic ban and Andy's block were for the same issue, but Sceptre's block was for a mistaken understanding of the scope of the topic ban. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Jorgath, it seemed like Andy was just blocked for fairness purposes so I've unblocked for the same. I've left messages for both. Again, if there's a clear consensus to re-block, then I will self-revert or another admin is welcome to revert. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fairness? Looks to me from the diffs above like it was persistent incivility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The timeline was as follows: Sceptre reported Andy for persistent incivility. Andy was found to have been persistently uncivil, and was blocked. A boomerang then hit Sceptre with a topic ban from an area in which they have a bad history, for provoking Andy. The block being reviewed was SarekOfVulcan's block of Sceptre for violating that topic ban in a way that Sceptre was unaware was a violation. The initial proposal suggested unblocking Andy too, out of fairness. Andy responded on his talk page with a request that was copied here, saying that he did not wish to be unblocked, mostly because he felt that he deserved it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I misread that portion of the situation. I'll restore Andy's block but I will leave my unblock of Sceptre; I think it should stand. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it should as well. The "fairness" equivalent of Andy's block is Sceptre's topic ban, which still stands, although it needs clarifying. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• - Three posts to Andy's block log for no effect - well done Keliana - in future take your time and stand by your decisions a bit more - I support Andy's unblock as you made it - both users unblocked - to unblock one is unfair - what Andy actually said in relation to this was, "Oppose, this attempt to involuntarily 'request an unblock on my behalf'. I have not requested an unblock, have accepted that my behaviour merited a block, and intended to accept the block without appeal. To use an involuntary unblock as 'fairness' to justify unblocking someone else seems to me to be highly questionable - and more so when the block has little time left to run, and this is supposed to 'balance' an unblock for a continuing refusal on Sceptre's part to conform to WP:BLP policy, and to cease using Wikipedia as a platform for a campaign to 'regender' Bradley Manning against Manning's own express wishes. Sceptre's continuing IDHT behaviour should be looked at on its own merits." - User:Sceptre is the primary problem here and he is unblocked. - Youreallycan 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I find that a highly disingenuous interpretation of the situation, Youreallycan. Andy was blocked for persistent incivility to Sceptre. Sceptre was topic-banned for various reasons, including the one that provoked Andy's incivility to Sceptre. Sceptre was then blocked for violating that ban in a way that they didn't realize was a violation: a highly civil conversation on Sceptre's own talk page in which Sceptre was showing signs of overcoming their previous IDHT problems. That topic ban still stands, even though Sceptre is unblocked. If Andy requests an unblock on his talk page, I have no problem with that, but he shouldn't have been unblocked based on this discussion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'd like, for specificity, to request that the topic ban be limited to "edits to articles and talk pages relating to Bradley Manning's gender identity"; there's a whole bunch of questions here where the topic ban is vague:

• Would I get blocked for editing Wikileaks or Julian Assange?
• Would I get blocked again for replying to Arcadanum on my talk page?
• Would I get blocked for referring to the content dispute? There are genuine issues with editor culture completely separate from the issue of Manning's gender identity, but which came up in the content dispute.

I would also ask kindly that an eye be kept on AndyTheGrump; obviously good faith BLP protection warrants a little leeway, but I am concerned that he's unable to contribute without living up to his username, which isn't conducive to improvement of the encyclopedia at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your topic ban specificity question, no, I wouldn't support that. In answer to the three specific examples: 1) Yes. 2) The proper response is "I can't talk about that, I'm topic-banned." 3) Broadly construed, yes; if you want to talk about GID and LGBT in a way that in no way references Manning...maybe. In answer to the AndyTheGrump thing, he's serving out his block with dignity and class. If he says he can be civil from here on, we WP:AGF that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really? How is this difficult to grasp? Avoid discussing the content dispute, as that's inherently tied to Manning. And I'd suggest avoiding Wikileaks and Julian Assange to prevent any appearance of impropriety. Tread lightly if you want to continue editing LGBT & GID issues, as those are subjects you appear to have strong feelings about. Essentially, don't go near this subject at all, and you won't risk anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Yeah, this. I'd advise that you go be a good editor in some completely unrelated area for a while (I mean like a year, not a week), and show that you can work well, on a regular basis, with people who disagree with you. Then maybe you might be able to request the topic ban be lifted. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Re #3 -- if the part of "editor culture" you're referring to is "only editors who know transgendered people should be editing in this area", then the answer is "Yes". Otherwise, Jorgath's "maybe" holds.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not "editors who know transgender people", it's "editors who are aware of how transgender issues should be handled". Would you want a young earth creationist making edits to Evolution? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre, I strongly reccommend that you not pursue that question, or you will be repeating previously sanctioned behavior. Just - if it's in question at all whether it's under your ban, assume it is. Okay? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So long as that YEC adheres to our policies on verifiability and NPOV, without constantly trying to push a YEC opinion on various talk pages, sure. Further, it's highly presumptuous of you to assume your criteria of "how transgender issues should be handled" is the correct one. That is the source of this whole fracas. I'd suggest now is the time to drop the stick.— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd still think it'd be unwise for YECs to edit that page, because without an understanding of the topic, you can't really contribute to a topic. This applies everywhere, really. I think it's a no-brainer that, for such a sensitive topic as LGBT issues, you do need a quick 101: MOS:IDENTITY favouring a person's self-identity to others' perceptions of the identity is no accident, it reflects medical, academic, and journalistic manuals of style (even if journalists don't follow it that much). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And this is the core of the problem: you arrogantly assumethe YEC has no knowledge of the subject. And I agree, following a person's self identity is important. And Manning has made no public statements on this matter. All we have are leaked private documents. That is not a source that allows us to unilaterally declare Manning has GID / is transgender. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose loosening topic ban at this point, given that Spectre's agreement to the topic ban promptly violated it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

When? -- Avanu (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Here. we're disregarding the sources by pretending that Manning never had issues with their gender identity.... specifically the quote "We do know [...] Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun". It's not the same as "We do know [...] Manning had asked people not to refer to him with a female pronoun".... the discussion should be "Manning identified as female before being arrested, how should we treat that?" instead of "Does Manning identify as male or female?". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yea - User:Sceptre - you are banned from anything related on any article and any talkpage related to Manning - if you discus the subject anywhere on wiki you will be blocked immediately - is that clear enough for you ? - I Support - topic banning you from any WP:BLP transgender edit/comment/discussion - as per you edit history /off wiki activism COI - Youreallycan 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• We don't issue superinjunctions around here; people are always allowed to say something like Jorgath's suggestion, "I can't talk about that, I'm topic-banned." when someone asks them about banned topics, and we permit people to come to noticeboards and ask for their bans to be loosened or removed. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes indeed - User:Sceptre should email the banning admin or the highest committee if he has any questions regarding his topic ban - Youreallycan 20:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: Actually I think at least ArbCom has issued at least one superinjunction, on User:PCPP. I'm not saying sure that regular admins should do the same, however. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - since SarekOfVulcan implemented the ban on Sceptre, he needs to be the one (and only one) making the clear statement of the scope and duration of the ban, as well as instructions or a link on appealing it at some future date if desired without violating the ban. I suggest that the specifics be posted here, on Sceptre's Talk page, and on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log page so that all editors are 100% clear on the scope and duration of the ban. -- Avanu (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Its indefinite- a lifetime ban - appeal only to the highest committee - Youreallycan 19:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a matter for Sarek, not for anyone else, since he implemented it. The Ban was implemented as an exercise of Sarek's power as an Admin, and the particulars of it are governed by his will and interpretation of the consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, any time you'd like to read up on policy and figure out how things actually work around here, feel free. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"figure out how things actually work around here"... isn't it clear? I mean its obvious, right? Nothing left to discuss, we just go on and on because things are so clear. :) OK, I get the joke......... -- Avanu (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question is this request to find which articles and subjects are ok to edit, like flower arrangement is ok, but Mardi gras is a worry, or is it a specific attempt to ask how to WP:GAME the community by asking the rules ? Penyulap ☏ 20:20, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  The former. The problem with "broadly construed" is that, someone may see the article List of transgender people as under the ban even if I'm not even thinking of anything related to Manning. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  I'd not consider that a violation, personally. And it would be harsh for an admin to block you for it. However; given that the problem at hand was specifically Manning, but generally topics of gender, you would probably be well advised to avoid that topic area. You committed some gross BLP violations in this case, for which we have had to limit you, and I still see a risk of you trying it again on another poor individual. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The gag order should be loosened. It's excessively officious and punitive. A user engaging in discussion on their own talk page, for example, about topics on which they're clearly well-informed, is hardly harmful to Wikipedia. Writegeist (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• What benefit is there to article content to allow a policy violating topic banned user to continue to freely discuss the issue on his talkpage? Youreallycan 20:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Youreallycan on this point. Users easily could turn their own talk page into a form of "hate blog" about things they don't like, and it would be possible to misrepresent that page as a "wikipedia page" so that some less-than-well informed persons might think that it actually is the equivalent of an article. Me, for instance. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• I see it like an escape valve. People who are emotionally invested in an issue, want to discuss that issue. A broad topic ban invites chipping at the edges, and wikilawyering on article pages. Better to make the ban broad wrt article and article talk, while allowing some discussion in an area that will only be seen by those looking for it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose loosening of ban at this time, based on the comments of others of similar views above, particularly taking into account the speed with which the ban was apparently violated. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The topic ban is not overly restrictive. Also throwing in a dig at another editor from the request is in bad taste. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The restriction was clear. Wikilawyering it is bull. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Partial Support I support allowing discussion on user talk page. If that becomes a "hate blog" that permission can be revisited, but I think user should have broad leeway on the talk pages associated with their user name. However, I still support the "broadly construed" aspects of the topic ban in article and article talk pages.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• I oppose a weakening of the restriction (i.e. I don't see a reason for relaxing it on non-article pages), but I don't think there's a reason for interpreting it as covering topics such as "Wikileaks or Julian Assange" too. The problems that occurred were rather narrowly restricted to a biographical detail regarding the personality of B. M., and as such were quite unrelated to the political affair in which that person happened to be involved. Under this perspective, I don't see any problems with Sceptre editing Wikileaks or related stuff, and I don't believe the current wording of the restriction covers that. On the other hand, I would caution against turning to anything that might be seen as agenda editing on other transgender-related pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  I would like to know what "agenda editing on transgender-related pages" would be, as it has come up several times. Whereas the matter of Manning is something that can be debated, both from a source analysis perspective and an ethical perspective, for most trans BLPs it's clear cut: refer to them by their preferred gender and pronouns, treat them as human, et cetera, because it's unethical to act otherwise (and manuals of style for RSes agree on that) Sceptre ^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • What it means, basically, is "don't push the issue." If a gendered-pronoun-change is completely uncontroversial, as in no one would dispute it at all, go ahead. But if even one person begins to dispute it with you, you must drop it. Period. If you're right, someone will sort it out. Actually...I'd be willing to take a look in such a situation. If it's all right with the community (especially SarekOfVulcan), the approved course of action could be "Sceptre disengages, neutrally informs Sarek and I of situation on our talk pages, and I try to evaluate content question fairly while Sarek reviews Sceptre's actions." This obviously would not apply to Bradley Manning-related edits, but to other transgender-related pages. I think I'm pretty good at NPOV in trans issues, and I think I satisfy Sceptre and Roux's previous requests that evaluating editors be familiar with trans issues. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist, which shows the first instance (that we know of) of sockpuppetry on 10 December 2011, EdJohnston logged it as 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since then, numerous SPI cases have come up, including an active one now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist.

User:ScienceApologist (aka: User:VanishedUser314159) seems to have been granted a right to vanish around 2008, then it was taken away two days later, then there was a lot of redactions and gnashing of teeth, with a final WP:RTV granted around March 2011. Jpgordon indef blocked the vanished user on 4 March 2011.[17]

It is clear that this user is not going to vanish. This means that all their past SPI cases and other edits are under a Vanisheduser name, courtesy blanked, which is inconvenient, at the very least. At this stage, after so many socks and opportunities, it appears that the courtesy vanishing should be taken back, and the full account restored, as the editor is clearly not acting in good faith and is continuing to be a disruption.

As a courtesy, I will be notifing those who may have been involved at an administrative level previously, including User:John Vandenberg, User:Steve Smith, User:EdJohnston and User:Nihonjoe. Feel free to notify anyone else that may have been involved previously.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - SA still has the option of requesting unblock if he wants to return to normal editing. Apparenly he declines to do so. He should know that he can *either* edit or stay vanished but not both. More background on the recent socking can be found in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive. At present he uses a series of IPs (and probably one registered account, Hudn12 (talk · contribs)) to putter around with WP:FRINGE topics. His activity includes some edit warring on articles; he charges other people with socking, with apparently no sense of irony. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - and also for any other users with similar failed vanishing issues - like User:ChrisO . Good to see user User:Rlevse has done the correct thing - respect for that. Youreallycan 17:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The last time I had to look into this never-ending story I got RSI from all the clicking around. Ed, I don't think Joshua can understand irony; all the socking and the attendant split personality disorders take that out of a person. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Wow, I didn't know he was still trolling about with IPs. That's clear breach of RtV. Sad thing is, I agreed with most of his points, but his methods were not tolerable in a collegial environment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per EdJohnston point that the user can either be vanished or sock, but not both, and can request an unblock if he'd like to return to legiitmacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Best way forward for all. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above, and likewise for similar vanished editors like ChrisO Minor4th 20:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Oh, and I won't hold my breath for an apology from people accusing me of gravedancing with this [18]. Actually, come to think of it, just unblock him and let him edit since he seems to be able to do so anyway and people like Courcelles are determined to protect the userpages of abusive and unrepentant puppeteers. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Huh. That diff has certainly improved my opinion of Courcelles. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC).

• ^^ Agree 100% with what the honorable "Bish" said ^^ Chedzilla (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So why don't one of you unblock him? The block is totally meaningless anyway, he can edit whenever he likes. After all, an unrepentant "sockmaster" has again had his userpage "courtesy blanked". While we're at it, blank all sockmaster pages and unblock the lot. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Editor appears to have no intention of disappearing. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The vanished user provision does not provide impunity for unrepentant puppetmasters, especially those who have an ax to grind (see some of the above diffs, which indicate that SA/JWS/whatever his current name he is using will attack other sockmasters from new accounts. Pot, meet kettle, indeed Horologium (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support (though a bit belated). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support SA has made a complete farce from the beginning of anything remotely considered "rules" or "policy" for years now. Yet he still manages to keep others running around after him or his various sockpuppets, flaunting bans and rules like there's no tomorrow. Just check out his user page (before one of his mates 'courtesy' blanks it again...) - "It took me four hours to hack back into this account". He's making a complete joke of the community here, and you all fall for it hook, line and sinker. Enough is enough. He is the one who "outed" himself in the first instance, and it was only after he'd done this that he suddenly wanted to be anonymous again. Can't have your cake and eat it too, learn to live with your own mistakes and stupidity would be my advice under such circumstances to anyone who behaves this way. So much wasted bandwidth in this place... Davesmith au (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unvanished"? Changing VanishedUser314159's username to ScienceApologist? Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the short of it. Basically, re-establish his name, undo courtesy-blanking of pages relating to him, and adjust ArbCom pages to clearly reflect whom they are referring to (rather than the VanishedUser name). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. As if he had never vanished. Requires a 'crat to accomplish. I don't think it requires a discussion at WP:AN, but I think that is the best way to handle these: one at a time, in full public view. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• In light of the snowy nature of the above discussion, and the fact that the user's activity is well out of the scope of RTV, the user "VanishedUser314159" has been renamed to "ScienceApologist", and all the pages in the userspace have been moved over accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Bless your heart. SA is at least the third person to blatantly violate the vanishing policy that I know of, and the first one to have their vanishing properly undone for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• If I am not mistaken, only four hours has elapsed since this request has been initiated at ANI, making it very hard for large segments of the world to comment, and no comment from the accused. There is only one SPI allegation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive which didnt have a Checkuser result, but was basically determined to be WP:DUCK, and only one request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist, which was pending a checkuser result when you 'unvanished'. Why the urgency?? It doesnt appear that he has been editing a lot and causing lots of problems. arb user:AGK has now done the checkuser and concluded there is no technical data to support the socking allegation, but asserts WP:DUCK. user:Hudn12 has now been blocked as a sock by admin user:Dennis Brown, the same person who initiated the SPI and this unvanish request. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The accused couldn't have commented anyway, as SA was indef blocked in March of 2011 for block evasion, which raises the question of why the vanishing was allowed to begin with. Yes, I filed the SPI and made the call to block based on duck evidence, after another editor, AGK confirmed my suspicions. Technically, I didn't have to go to SPI and could have just blocked him as a duck, but chose to stay in process and get a second opinion for good measure. CU was run during the change over, which was bad timing as everything hadn't updated so the results couldn't possibly be obtained properly, but a look at the IP addresses compared to previous, plus the contribs evidence, was clear enough to at least two of us. I didn't ask for the CU to prove the case, I asked to establish a record and find sleepers. As for bringing the case here, of course it would be someone like me who actually had to deal with vanished user cases at SPI more than once. No one who had never heard of the case would stumble across this otherwise. You're welcome to check my work if you think I've made a mistake, I don't have a problem with that at all. As to the amount of time spent here, that wasn't my call, so I can't really speak to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I forgot to add: technically, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that I come to WP:AN to get a vote anyway. WP:RTV appears to be intentionally vague about this, indicating that whatever method that is appropriate, is appropriate. I chose to come here instead of asking a 'crat directly, to keep everything in full daylight, and notified you and others who were involved previously. This might have been quick (not my call), but everything has been in full daylight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • If I may insert my $0.02 here, I feel you were quite right in keeping it in full daylight. It was quick, but that's because it was such overwhelming WP:SNOW. While I had no opinion on the unvanish request itself - I didn't feel I knew enough - the discussion and consensus seem clear enough to me. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 06:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've courtesy-blanked some of the pages linking the ScienceApologist account to its owner's real-life identity. I don't think the "unvanishing" was really necessary; it feels a bit vindictive, but I don't oppose it since it will make it easier to address further sockpuppetry if it occurs. But we need to courtesy-blank the pages that link this account to its real-life owner. We've done this for editors far more abusive than SA. Our basic ethical principles include (or at least used to include) the idea that we don't use Wikipedia's online prominence to "punish" editors by damaging their real-life reputations, no matter how abusive their on-wiki behavior.

I feel strongly about this - strongly enough to protect the pages in question if there's edit-warring over the courtesy-blanking. This should not impact our ability to identify additional sockpuppets of SA, since the relevant details will be preserved in pages histories under the account's original name. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm certainly not going to edit war with you MastCell, not my style after all. I can honestly say I have never have reverted an admin action, ever, without discussing and consent, which is more than was done here. Not sure why you would even bring that up. I didn't unblank them until after this AN discussion, after all. The goal wasn't because of being vindictive or trying to punish anyone, it was exactly as stated and within a process that isn't technically required but was done for the sake of being open about it. Since I am the one that unblanked them, you could have just asked me about it on my talk page. There is really no need for posturing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually didn't look to see who had unblanked them, and my comment wasn't intended to be a shot at you personally. It was actually triggered by a discussion at User talk:ScienceApologist, in which another admin declined to blank the pages. I apologize if it came across as personal criticism of your actions. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Then I'm sorry if I came across overly defensive, as someone kindly pointed out I might be on my talk page. I started this AN discussion and proposal, the current SPI report, the last series of blocks and the page blanking. In this case, it might have been more fruitful to just approach me as the person most involved in this current round of affairs with your concerns and I would have likely just reverted them back myself. My actions in all this was based on procedure, not personal feelings, as someone who has had to dig through the archives to match up the socks, and wasn't aware of the potentially personal information involved. And for the record, I'm always open to criticism even if that doesn't apply in this instance, I just prefer my talk page as a starting point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Understood. No hard feelings, hopefully. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
        • No harm, no foul, just a communications mixup. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the RFC on Verifiability language is fully protected, so that only administrators may edit it. Why is this? It makes it rather hard to opine on this alternative or that without the ability to save an edit... Carrite (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Only the main page is protected -- if you click the section edit link, you'll be editing a subpage, which isn't protected.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If people are getting confused about the protection, then it's a good sign that we need to do more to draw it to people's attention. I've made a suggestion for a banner to go at the top of the RfC at the RfC talk page. If any admins agree and want to add it to the main RfC page, I would appreciate it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and please do. It needs to be obvious. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the banner has now been posted on the RfC page. Just the watchlist notice to do now. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 23:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the verifiability RfC, would anyone object to advertising it using a watchlist notice? I made a suggestion for a notice over at MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details two days ago, but it has only received one reply so far. More input would be very welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, hope that somebody can do this. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I, too, would like to urge that this be acted upon promptly. I think it's important for the entire community to know about it. A couple of days have already passed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE, somebody do this as quickly as possible. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The watchlist notice has now been added for 10 days by MSGJ. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, MSGJ! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Two words: Cat Daddy on Twitter." — Drmies
• User talk:LadyofShalott/Archive 22#Twitterpedia
  • "Lady, I was hoping to get your help creating List of notable people who have articles on Wikipedia regarding their use of Twitter but I guess I will hold off for a week or so." — Dennis Brown
  • "This is a list of notable people who have articles on Wikipedia regarding their use of Twitter." — Drmies
  • "I had a feeling Bieber and Gaga would spawn similar ones. Kudos to the nominator for picking up on this tripe." — Dr. Blofeld  · "Wonder no more, Drmies created List of Twitter users." — Dennis Brown
• Category:Twitter accounts and Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts (CFD discussion)
• Barack Obama on Twitter (AfD discussion)  · (DYK nomination) (GA nomination)
• Justin Bieber on Twitter (AfD discussion)  · (DYK nomination) (GA nomination) (FA nomination)
  • "Delete as fancruft. Delete as fancruft."
• Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (AfD discussion)  · (DYK nomination) (pending GA nomination)  · User talk:Scottywong#Close rationale User:TonyTheTiger/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter
  • "Feel free to WP:AFD it, but it is the future of WP." — TonyTheTiger
• Lady Gaga on Twitter (AfD discussion)  · (DYK nomination) (first GA nomination deleted) (second GA nomination)
• Rihanna on Twitter (AfD discussion)  ·
• Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and List of Twitter users (AfD discussion)
• 2012-06-16 unanswered Administrators noticeboard request for closure by someone uninvolved of the List of Twitter users merger discussion.
• 2012-06-24 Administrators noticeboard request for closure of the Ashton Kutcher on Twitter AFD discussion, declined by Tom Morris on the grounds that very few people in the AFD discussion were actually treating this in terms of Wikipedia content and deletion policies.
• 2012-06-24 DYK talk page request for closure of DYK promotion discussions of the Ashton Kutcher and Barack Obama on Twitter articles
• Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion (MfD discussion)

Interchangeable asked "Has there ever been a case like this, in which an article is simultaneously up for AfD and FAC? And is that allowed?".

The answer is that yes, we've had a few cases where featured articles, and DYK nominations, have been nominated for deletion. Bulbasaur (AfD discussion) (2nd AFD discussion) (3rd AFD discussion), for example. The subjects tend to be U.S./global popular culture and recentist. And the deletion nominations tend to share a taint of "How can this be on the main page as an example of our good work?", which isn't the remit of AFD. Procedurally, they can be knotty. But that's mostly the case when a new article that was too suddenly nominated for deletion without proper research being undertaken turns out to be a DYK candidate, and the AFD 7-day clock conflicts with the DYK clock.

That's not the case here. And what we have here is taking on all the signs of a problem that I've seen before, as possibly have many other administrators, years ago.

The problem here is a rash of "… on Twitter" articles written by editors who have quickly headed for DYK, GA, and FA, saying things like "this is the future of Wikipedia" along the way; a backlash against that by a sizeable subset of the community; and some rather wrongheaded disruptive point-making in the guise of superficially helpful attempts to extend things in absurd ways, such as the "new process" by Br'er Rabbit, and the various sarcastic (but not clearly to the casual reader) further article suggestions of others, some in the encyclopaedia proper, alas!. Witness List of Twitter users (AfD discussion), for example, which started as a deliberately absurd suggestion on a talk page, was created as an article, and which I've tried to turn around away from the absurd direction by pointing out that there was actually a prose article to be had, that was hidden in plain sight, once one ignored the absurdism.

The fact that people have already started using the "-cruft" suffix again, and otherwise parrot-voting with entirely rationale-free AFD discussion contributions, indicates that we're rapidly heading back to the days of the schools AFD discussions, if we don't start reining in the supporting-what-one-actually-opposes-to-absurd-extremes pointmaking (in the project and article spaces) and the policy-free arguments. We need to nip this in the bud.

Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen a lot of these "...on Twitter" articles, and I think the best solution is to "freeze" further action pending an RFC on the matter (neither AFD started, nor creation of such articles, nor initiating GAC/FAC) until we figure out if these are appropriate given that they do involve BLP issues as well. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• This may be the first to deal with this. However, I know of several instances of former FAs that were listed for deletion and went through. Obviously, most of those were articles promoted to FA 7 or more years ago, in which FA (and Wikipedia) standards were far lower than they are now. --MuZemike 18:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There have been plenty of (at the time) current featured articles nominated for deletion, where the very placement on the main page has itself triggered the deletion nomination. But this case is indeed not the same as those. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• I don't mind these articles that much, largely as so far they've been created on clearly notable uses for Twitter and lots of work has gone into them. They're obviously better and easier to police than the drive-by articles on wrestling matches, football players, and high schools which constantly spring up. However, it would be helpful if the editors involved in writing these articles developed some kind of guidance (if only an essay, at least initially) on where the articles are justified and what they should and shouldn't cover. In the longer run, we're probably going to need something like Wikipedia:Notability (twitter accounts). Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it would better to expand the Wikipedia:Notability (web) guideline to include individual, notable social media pages of all kinds (not just Twitter) in the case of any social media platform rising and falling in popularity. — Moe ε 08:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • People are ignoring the notability criteria that we already have, in favour of their personal opinions of Twitter and the named celebrities. The problem isn't the lack of criteria. It's the unwillingness of editors to be objective about something that they like/dislike, and essentially rationale-free AFD contributions. It's also the mucking around in article space to make points. More notability criteria won't fix either of those. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • NOT FANSITE is not a like/dislike, but a policy based criterion. I would oppose such a page on anyone no matter how much I liked them without extraordinary evidence of real importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I do think that if we freeze creation/deletion/promotion and figure out if and when these are appropriate, something can be written to prevent further poor AFD arguments. The results of those discussions may fall into a notability guideline. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started a general discussion of the appropriateness of these types of articles here. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• In the meantime, the two remaining as-yet-unnominated articles were both nominated for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• I've also pointed several of the people who have taken just a single word on a policy page, that was actually a longer-after-the-fact addition so that a prior section heading wasn't continually misinterpreted, in the direction of User:Uncle G/On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate so that they learn their history. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• They all have to go, they are duplicates/forks of their celebrity and nearly all the sources are about the celebrity NOT the accounts, that is my problem. You can deduce this from the fact that none of them are titled after the account but rather X's account.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what's wrong with the user, but appears to just be reverting everything, including ClueBot. [19] [20] [21] Aboutmovies (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved to ANI. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to a problem with toolserver, The outstanding AFD log was not updated for two days, which means 22 June and 23 June are not showing, although June 24 now is. I cleared off 22 June apart from a few that I was involved in, but there are still quite a few at 23 June. I'll try to clear these tomorrow (it's 1:40am here), but if anyone's bored in the meantime...

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_June_22
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_June_23

I manually fixed the creation of the AfD page that was missed for July 4, and will keep an eye on that. Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Mybcd

I know COI-named accounts has been discussed back n forth, but not sure how things ended up. So I thought I'd note it here for someone more knowledgeable. - jc37 03:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Softerblocked. The place to report usernames like this, which are names of companies or groups, is WP:UAA. JohnCD (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment we are trying to draft some new blocking policy for editors who use their own talkpage while blocked, and I was wondering if anyone could offer some guidance at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy on what is ok and what is not ok, there seems to be some confusion. Penyulap ☏ 06:41, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Despite a final warning that I issued one week ago, this IP address has repeatedly made unsourced, factually inaccurate edits to Albany International Airport. The editor has repeatedly deleted nonstop destinations served by Southwest Airlines, even though as I explained on the user's talk page, the airline's own website (southwest.com) shows that these flights exist. The nonstop flights in question are Albany-Las Vegas (offered year-round) and Albany - Fort Myers (offered seasonally in March). These tickets can be purchased on the airline's website, so it is trivial to verify that the user's edits are factually incorrect. Additionally, the user has deleted a seasonal nonstop flight between Albany and Denver, even though the airline has made no announcement as to whether this route will be resumed or terminated next year.

While I have tried to presume good faith, this user's actions evince indifference to the factual accuracy of his/her edits. I have had to revert this user's edits four times: once on Oct. 28, twice on Oct. 30, and most recently on Nov. 8. This user has never offered a source or explanation for these edits and has been blocked 4 times for disruptive editing since June 2015. I respectfully request that this IP address be blocked because this user's track record shows that there is a substantial likelihood that these disruptive edits will continue.129.133.189.185 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Auerbachkeller, a writer with Slate and the New America Foundation, asked the Arbitration Committee to clarify the current status of Gamaliel's relationship with Wikimedia DC after meta.wikimedia.org and Arbcom published contradictory information. Gamaliel and at least one other Wikipedia editor responded by contacting Auerbachkeller's employers and trying to get him fired.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/left-wing-wikipedia-editors-try-get-journalist-fired-criticizing/

At least two other people encouraged the harassment.

https://archive.is/wp0J1

https://archive.is/SdGWR

130.157.201.59 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)