Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Vandalism of Grand Southern Trunk Road

Resolved

 – blocked by User:Bearian for 1 week.

This anonymous user has been vandalising the page already three times today. He has been removing material without discussing about it. Examples 1, 2 and 3. He also vandalised my talk page. I guess the 3RR definitely applies here. Docku (talk) (timestamp for archiving purposes Fram (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia

We are creating a learning resource at WikiVersity.

Please look at Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia. You may wish to add your name to the list of human resources. You may wish to contribute to one or more of the items on the to do list. May I request input on proposed ethical guidelines for management of the English language Wikipedia? or suggestions on a practical objective method of evaluating the same? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... good luck getting consensus to implement that here. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We are creating a learning resource. We are not creating rules for wikipedia to adopt. We have hopes that some parts of the learning resource will find favor with some contributors at wikipedia. That is all we are doing. 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)WAS 4.250 (talk)

I hope not. Looking at the brainstorming so far it appears you wish to create a system based false claims and the views of outsiders with an axe to grind. Claims like "more often than not, "BLP" stands for "Blasphemies of Living People."" may provide some emotional release but have no place in rational theory unless you can statistically prove them (which given the number of minimalist sporting bios seems unlikely).Geni 11:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You say "Claims like "more often than not, "BLP" stands for "Blasphemies of Living People."" may provide some emotional release but have no place in rational theory unless you can statistically prove them". I agree. Moulton is human. He spouts off like everyone else on occasion. So what? Have you never said anything for emotional release? Chit-chat and learning materials are two very different things. I'm surprised you did not know that. That sort of unsupported unbalanced claim will not be a part of the end product; but uncensored discussion is an essential part of how to get to an honest and useful end result, which is: useful learning resources on the ethical management of the English language Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If any cool headed admins who are familiar with the history here could lend us some eyes, that would be greatly appreciated at Wikiversity. I tried looking into the history a bit but there's only so much time in a day (and between the stuff here on WP, meta pages, seemingly endless blogs, and Wikipedia Review, it could take months to get an understanding of it). There certainly do seem to be some axes to grind and bones to pick, but I get the impression that they also actually have some respectable "academic" goals, so I'd like to help them cut out the garbage and create a learning resource that distills to the positive aspects. Emphasis on cool headed assistance please: right now it's hard to see which "side" is actually intending to be constructive (in fact, I'm fairly certain that the past rew days have seen Wikiversity's very first edit wars). Our equivalent of WP:AN is at v:WV:RCA... some discussion going on there as well. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We have just started our first class at [1].

Class title - Kohlberg, Gilligan, Rawls, Girard, et. al.
Class method - QA style 
Class materials - Kohlberg, Gilligan, Rawls, Girard, et. al. links at [2] (exact links announced during course)
Class objective - to understand what experts on ethics have to teach us about the management of the English language Wikipedia
Project learning resources - This class discussion will be used as a source to create those resources.
Hours and schedule - none set

Moulton - knows Kohlberg, Gilligan, Rawls, Girard, et. al.
WAS 4.250 - knows the English language Wikipedia
others - also ask questions, also contribute sourced claims

(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I wish you luck, and it's almost enough to make me figure out how to get a Wikiversity or unified login to participate. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfied log-in is a cinch - takes seconds! --Allemandtando (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to be rude here, but aren't at least 50% of your "People resources" indefblocked from Wikipedia for long-term abuse? – iridescent 19:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed that. I was encouraged to see a statement at the Wikiversity page to the effect that modeling ethical behavior is far more useful and instructive than criticizing people whose behavior one finds unethical. At least as far as Moulton goes, his approach seemed to be a poor fit for Wikipedia, but it's certainly possible that this is a more appropriate forum for what he has to contribute. After all, being blocked isn't a moral judgement that someone is a Bad Person; it's just a manifestation of a poor fit between their approach and this particular site's policies and expectations. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get everything in the link that WAS 4.250 provided but it sounds important. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlists

Since this is the noticeboard for admins, I figure this is as good a place as any to ask:

How do you all keep your watchlists down to a manageable size?

I've spent several hours paring mine down, and it's still over 2K items. (most are mainspace and wikipedia space, with category space, template space, and user space close behind.)

Also, any ideas how big the max is for watchlists? (And wouldn't mind knowing how big most everyone else's are.)

Who says that every notice must be a drudgery or work-related? : ) - jc37 06:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You could say you don't want every page you edit to be watched. My watchlist hovers under 150 pages and it has for quite a while.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mine is around 1000, around 10,000 it becomes hard to load, and somewhere around 80,000 it is impossible to load, I do know of people who have 4000+ that they seem to have no problem monitoring. MBisanz ^talk 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have around 2,300. I have watchlist-cleaning days every couple months or so, which keeps it at a manageable size. 2K is definitely a manageable watchlist size though. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mine is usually somewhere between 2K and 4K (give or take a few K). And that's usually not too bad for readability. But I'm wondering what that says about me as an editor (much less an admin : ) - jc37 06:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That you're participating well in many areas? Hell, I'm surprised all I have is 2.3K if I've done all this :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know that mine is partially due to CfD/UCfD activity. But there's still quite a bit more. I wonder if my WikiStress should be higher or something... - jc37 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Presently at about 7,000, been as high as 40,000 no problems here. SQL^{Query me!} 08:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How do we know how many pages we have watchlisted? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's at the top of your watchlist. - jc37 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As Jc37 says, the number of pages watched is shown at the top of your watchlist: its says something like: "You have 400 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages).". Its true that larger watchlists can be slow to load. You can go to your preferences and reduce the number of "Days to show" in your list. This significantly reduces the time it takes to render the watchlist. I have mine set down to 0.4 days, since my watchlist now has over 40,000 pages on it. This loads in a manageable time - My Watchlist usually shows between 1000 and 1500 changes for me. One thing to note is that for very large watchlists (somewhere over 20,000) it becomes very difficult to trim them. Going through and manually removing entries is extremely time-consuming through the "View and edit watchlist" UI and the "edit raw watchlist" option doesn't work. So once you're over a certain size it is increasingly difficult to go down in size. Gwernol 07:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I had heard from "someone" (It was a vandal reverter, probably "Clown"), that over 40k the system wasn't happy, so he would just clear the whole list and start over.

I tend to do like someone else said above, pare down every few weeks or so.

Also, what happens if you're away for a few days? How do you go about re-reading what you;ve missed? (I'm just having a hard time imagining 40K. Wow.) - jc37 07:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll find out if there's an upper limit :-) If I'm away, I just have to accept that I'm not going to catch up. It would be really useful to have partitioned watchlists. Some pages I watchlist because they are vandal targets that I keep an eye on, some because they are articles I am actively contributing to, so I want to see what edits go on. I'd love to be able to keep those on (at least two) separate lists. I care less about missing individual edits on the vandal target pages, but I'd like to see every change to the (much smaller) subset of pages I contribute to. I ought to be able to maintain separate watchlists for different purposes so I could prioritize my time between vandal fighting and article building more effectively. I know there have been proposals for better watchlist management tools in the past. I hope that one day one of these will rise to the top of the devs' priority list. Gwernol 07:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I so agree. I find that there are quite a few things I have watchlisted for, well, "admin" reasons. (Or at least not for personal editorial contribution reasons.) It definitely would be nice to have a second watchlist. (At least I can sort by namespace. That's been a real plus : ) - jc37 07:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got an enhanced-watchlist program I use. It keeps track of when I last visited each page, and gives diffs that show all the changes since the last visit. It also highlights various pages that might need extra attention, such as edits to MediaWiki pages or edits by anons. --Carnildo (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You see, that's what I need. Is this something that is publicly available, or is this a Carnildo-only option at this time? Gwernol 07:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you happen to have a webserver, MySQL, and Perl installed on your computer, I can send you a copy. Alternatively, if you trust me with your password, I can set up a copy on my webserver. --Carnildo (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to trim watchlists (by editing watchlist). If you see a page you don't want to see, you can always go to the page and just click "unwatch". It's much less tedious than opening up the watchlist edit page and going through every item. Most unwanted, but watched pages tend to change seldom and thus always disappear somewhere in the old changes. I haven't unwatched a single page yet, though… Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply; I apparently have 1,620 pages watchlisted! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm the odd one out or what; I only have 112 pages on my watchlist, and I'm an admin. —Kurykh 07:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So you people are watchlisting thousands of pages, but are you actually watching thousands of pages? I trim my watchlist by removing any page I see pop up that I don't actually want to follow any more. I think mine is at a reasonable ~500 and about half are dead archives. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For me? Yes, actually. For one thing, for quite awhile I had nearly all the policies and guidelines watched (and quite a few essays). I've pared that down some, since most are fairly stable. (Oh no, I've admitted to not watching something... And suddently, the vandals appear voraciously out of the woodwork : ) - jc37 07:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've got around 4,000. A lot are image pages and redirects that don't get edited often. Still, it's a bear to keep track of things. Lately I've been using bookmarks and enhanced recentchanges option with recentchanceslinked, to make sub-watchlists. -- Ned Scott 07:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• In a addition to my watchlist (~400 pages), I keep track of thousands of low-traffic pages (disambiguation pages, redirects, obscure vandalism targets) via Recent Changes on subpages, e.g. Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Sgeureka/Dab, and check them once a day. Works perfectly. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Gahhh, some of you are insane. I try to keep my watchlist below 125 pages (right now it's sitting at an even 100, 71 in article space), most of which are pages which I have protected, vandal magnet pages, pages to which I have made significant contributions (or created), noticeboards/wikiproject pages, and pages on which I am actively editing. Because I tend to be a bit OCD, I keep the last three days of changes to the watchlist up, and make sure that I review every edit to the pages that are on it. There is no way that I would be able to deal with a watchlist that included every single page I have edited, and that's with the recognition that my total number of edited pages is far lower than many others here. When my list grows to over 150 items, I will go through and clear out pages that no longer need my attention. Horologium (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. "You have 11 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)", and that includes four RfAr pages which I normally don't have but need to at the moment :) Daniel (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's mine: "You have 269 pages on your watchlist". You guys are insane :) And about half of my watched pages are inactive because they are old AFDs, etc. I guess most of you guys with thousands of watched pages just skim your watchlists; however, I really do read each and every single edit that goes through my own watchlist, which is why I put it on a strict diet every day :) Gary King (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys will think I'm insane, I've got 6,500 pages in my watchlist, and I've got it set to display for 1.65 days. No problems and I usually have between 900-1000 changes on the watchlist at any one time. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That is quite a lot! My watchlist only exceeded 300 pages before it drove me up the wall with the amount of things to keep my eye on, and I've since whittled it down to only 158. I can't keep up otherwise! Or at least I prefer to give pages on my watchlist equal and consistent attention. Lradrama 19:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to being driven up the wall by large watchlists. Mine was a couple hundered, but after a break, I came back and just cleared it out. It's now at 38, which is lovely. I figure, I'll keep the really important things there, and everything else, if it's important enough for me to know what's going on, I can darn well type in the page name when I feel like checking on it. -- Natalya 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I just find it much less stressful with a small watchlist. Otherwise it just starts to get overwhelming. Lradrama 20:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Right now, I'm hovering around 2,500, which isn't unusual for me. I've got a ton of articles watchlisted, as well as numerous images that, while they don't see many edits, are still important to watch (it's amazing how neglected vandalism to image pages themselves can be). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Posh, I got you all beat with 6,909,363 pages watchlisted. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all 61,822,794 huh? I used to have about 2000, but a few months ago I decided a list where I could actually keep track of all the edits and not miss any important ones in the huge list would be better than the huge list, now I have about 260. Mr.Z-man 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have 165 pages in my watchlist at the moment, though a few will get cleared out at some stage. My watchlist page-count has slowly risen over time. Acalamari 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I can barely keep up when my watchlist hits ~50 pages. I don't know how you crazy people manage. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So it looks like there seems to be 3 "sections" of watchlist usage: The "a few hundred or less"; The "several thousand or so"; and those who just "let it all hang out" : )

Nice to know I'm not the only one : ) - jc37 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the watchlist note from my talk page: "You have 2,928 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)."

-- Fyslee / talk 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

When I first posted this thread, I was at 2137. Now I'm at 2142. It's already creeping up : ) - jc37 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have 187 on mine, but most of those are talk pages of people I've warned. I usually remove those once a week, or if I don't do a lot of editing for a few days. Normally, I have around 70 or so, and most of those are the Huggle warning templates. I think I have around 30 or 40 on it that ever get edited. I've never liked having a huge watchlist, because I tend to miss stuff that matters in the flood or random edits. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"You have 22,326 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages). Below are the last 1,684 changes, as of 07:20, 14 July 2008." Uh-oh, perhaps time I trimmed it down a bit :-) Fram (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You have 1,170 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages). Below are the last 197 changes, as of 00:46, 14 July 2008. Not as bad... ;) Although the vast majority are subpages of some sort that are only edited once a year by a vandal, then reverted. Although I do have some pages in the Table and Table talk namespaces listed that I can't get rid of anymore, which I wonder if anyone else has. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And 50 more (2192). If I wasn't watching, I wonder if I would have noticed? : ) - jc37 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You have 1,976 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages). Below are the last 391 changes, as of 08:12, 14 July 2008.
And it's getting pretty hard to manage at this size. I usually have a watchlist-midlife-crisis when it hits 2000. (Which takes me down to less than 1000.) —Giggy 08:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"You have 2,982 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." :D I do occasional pruning, but unfortunately, my watchlist is almost to the point where it's not worth the time spent trying to trim it down. GlassCobra 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Two separate watchlists here, one on my main account that covers what I'm working on, and who I'm talking to, and the pages I want to see changes on most frequently; I weed it down when it hits about 700 pages. My alternate account, Risker checklist, has about 3000 non-BLP, seldom viewed pages on it, including an amazing number of celestial objects, and will continue to grow as I get around to it. Thanks for the heads up about the problems with long watchlists, I'll make sure it doesn't grow larger than that. Risker (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Geez, a lot you guys (non-gender specific) have an awful lot of watched pages. I keep mine below 100, by deleting items when the reason I watched-listed them has passed, or when a particular "crisis" is over. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an essay about this User:James086/Watchlist philosophy. Although admittedly the list has crept back up to 125 pages since I wrote that. James086^{Talk | Email} 16:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"You have 647 pages on your watchlist." Wohoo! Back in the days when I had about 200 pages on my watchlist, I used to look at basically every diff. Nowadays, I usually just skim my watchlist and therefore tend to miss a thing or two. If I don't want to miss anything, I use the article history RSS feed for articles and discussions, which works just perfectly for me. Although I'd wish it'd be possible to get more than the last 10 edits on some bigger pages like this one. --Conti|✉ 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

100 even. Only 6 are articles. Most are from user and wikipedia namespaces. Now that I think of it, there are a bunch of user pages I can probably drop, as I have no idea why I'm watching them. --Kbdank71 20:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm at 2700, and I just started to notice performance problems loading it within the past couple of weeks. Considering trimming it down... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Am down to 2558 myself. It took some work though. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many of us got here because of our watchlists?  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did. I have about 800 in my watchlist (including this one, that's why I went here). I always look at every diff. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboards and large project talk pages change so often that they're worthless for watchlist purposes, in my opinino. I have "an" "ani" and "rfar" for my main keyword shortcuts, with "cvg" and "pcp" as my project talk page shortcuts. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It was said above that Edit Raw Watchlist doesn't work. I just tested it, it works for me. As a raw text file, it should load into a text editor pretty quickly. One could have different watchlists, without resorting to multiple accounts, which is how some handle the problem. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I recently posted to the WP:VPT about the trouble I was having editing the raw list of a 9,000+ entry watchlist. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_41#Can.27t_edit_watchlist I suspected the problem was due to the size, but I later realized it was due to editing the file in a text editor. Some illegal characters must have been introduced. The symptom was that the edited file would never load, leaving me at a white screen. I found I was able to edit the list directly in the "raw list" window. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  Hmm. That advice should be listed in a help file somewhere if it isn't already. - jc37 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a bad feeling about this...

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

---

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the image of Ian McDiarmid, the subject of a BLP article is being used in the TFA Palpatine. The image is not, in point of fact, even in the Palpatine article. I am guessing that Mrs. McDiarmid and all his young-uns would be mighty disappointed to know that the chap they have been calling Daddy all this time is in fact a force-abusing megalomaniac from Naboo. Maybe we should reinsert a more appropriate image from the Palpatine article, instead of damaging the actor's reputation by equating him with a character he finished portraying over three years ago?
How did this mistake happen? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 00:59, July 13, 2008

Could you link to the relevant discussion? I don't really see it as a huge problem, though. It comes with the territory of being an actor. Likely all the images from the Palpatine article are non-free. –xenocidic (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How did this happen? Well, first, the article was promoted almost two years ago, and second, even today, editors who work on image issues give up quickly because of the abuse. Anyone who can take the abuse is welcome to come to FAC to check and oppose on crit. 3, images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

These are images of a professional, noted actor doing his job, so no BLP worries there. However, the non-free images indeed aren't being used under a valid fair use criteria. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the question might be put whether or not it is appropriate to use an image that does not appear in the article simply to have an image on the main page. We've run TFAs before without images for various reasons. The image, however, is indirectly related to his role (he was speaking at a Star Wars convention, I believe). I'm not sure I have a good answer to whether or not this is the best image to put on the main page, but at the same time it's probably more a philosophical point that might more thoroughly be discussed at WT:TFA.Risker (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the alternative would be to have no image at all in that section of the Main Page, since there are no free images of Palpatine. Would that be better? Kelly ^hi! 05:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC 3x) ::It is the mainspace Today's Featured Article, Palpatine. Respectfully, if an article has no free images, and the TFA or Mainspace requires free images, then Palpatine pretty much disqualifies itself, yes? While we are on the subject, where is the bit of TFA that says that the imae onthe Mainspace has to be free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 01:17, July 13, 2008

Well, per WP:NFCC, non-free images may only be used in mainspace. The Main Page is, technically, project space. Also, we don't want to highlight abuse of this this pillar by using someone else's copyrighted work on our front page. Kelly ^hi! 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ian McDiarmid is not Palpatine. I am pretty sure his publicist and family would concur with this assessment. As the McDiarmis article is not FA, we shouldn't be swapping images around like that. Of course, I could be wrong. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Worldwide, he is most famous for his role as Palpatine in both the original and prequel Star Wars trilogies." Really, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. His wife and his children probably know he's an actor, and probably know he played in Star Wars. I doubt his publicist would have a problem with him getting this kind of positive exposure. He was great as Palpatine. –xenocidic (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we pull the image, since apparently there is a rule I cannot find that says we canot use fai use in mainspace. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The rule is WP:NFCC#9. However, I think the image is fine. Kelly ^hi! 05:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, no fair use on the main page. That's why it's using a cca 2.0 image. –xenocidic (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no BLP worries here and the image on the main page is free (cc). Gwen Gale (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Okay, i am looking at NFCC#9, and I can see that. Thanks, Kelly. However, as an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be in the business of actually being accurate. As the image is in fact not of Palpatine, we shouldn't use it, especially since it isn't even in the FA. Additionally, we are representing a real-life person as a fictional character. I am pretty sure that BLP doesn;t intend for us to do that, right?
Perhaps we need to pull the image and let it run the article without one. As well, if exceptions (detailed in that very same NFC#9) we might want to put some serious thought into elevating articles that don't have at least one free image in them, and maybe going through ou current FA articles to ensure that they have at least one free image to use, should they become TFA. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that the TFA image is implicitly depicting the actual subject of the article. That's not always the case. Nufy8 (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the text that appears next to the picture: Palpatine is a fictional character in George Lucas' science fiction saga Star Wars. The character, portrayed by actor Ian McDiarmid in the feature films, is the main antagonist of the saga. Seems pretty appropriate to me. –xenocidic (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A caption would be helpful but even without one I don't think there is any reasonable need to worry readers will misunderstand the image. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone added "(pictured)". That should help to allay any concerns, no matter how unlikely, that might be raised. –xenocidic (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec 2x)Respectfully, Xeno, the article is not about McDiarmid, but simply a part he plays. As the Palpatine doesn't even have this image, we are misrepresenting an FA article as something it simply is not; to whit, this image is not in the Palpatine article. Period. The article is called Palpatine, not Ian McDiarmid (which, btw, is only GA-level). If there are no free images for for a TFA candidate, then we either don't choose the FA article or the article runs without an image. Seems pretty clear to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And Nufy, I understand your point about Mockingbird, but using an image not appearing in the TFA is simply dishonest. Is there a terrible issue with running the TFA w/out free images sans image? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate image use with zero BLP concerns in the absence of other free images allowable on the main page. It's not used in the article because fair use statements were written for more descriptive images. If you don't think that this type of workaround should be used in featured articles for other reasons, then you can certainly raise those concerns at the appropriate venue. IMO, there is no further need for administrator intervention here, other than the action already taken. –xenocidic (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. When Darth Vader makes TFA, this particular justification argument is going to get very amusing, very quickly. Just remember this particular need for an image in articles the next time someone recommends interpreting NFC#8 as a stranglehold. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Look this another way: we are looking at this argument in perhaps the wrong way. Remember All the Crazy™ regarding the IfD/DRV stuff just a day or two ago? That was about images, specifically NFC's #1 and #8 (but primarily 8). By insisting that we need to insert a free image in a TFA suggests that articles without any free images will never be TFA. That would exclude almost all comic book articles, television- and television episodic articles, and most films. If TFA must have images, then certain FA articles are going to have an advantage that is non-representative of what articles likely should be TFA - we are potentially excluding better-written articles for those which have free imagery (or connectably free imagery). Is this really the slippery slope we want to walk on down?
Let's save outselves the hassle and simply remove the non-article image. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't pretend to be an expert on FA, but as far as I know, having free images is not a requirement for FA nor do we require images on a main page feature. However, I see no reason not to use a completely appropriate free image that's available even if it's not used in the FA itself to use as a picture on the main page. People like pictures. Again, this concern should be raised in the appropriate venue, and I still see no urgent need to pull the image just to make a point. I'm off to bed. –xenocidic (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind the image, but I think it should be removed. It makes the main page look nicer, but it also misrepresents the subject of the article ever-so-slightly. I don't think it's a big deal, but it's even less of a big deal to not have an image there at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No BLP worries, no fair use worries, no policy worries. However, there is an editorial glitch here with an uncaptioned image. If the image is pulled only for the editorial reason, I'm truly neutral (don't care). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time following your logic on this one. If this all suggests that articles without free images will never be TFA, then why is an article without any free images currently TFA? Additionally, comic book articles could feature a free picture of the author and television/film articles could feature a free picture of the episode/movie being shot on set or something. If nothing free is available, then it goes without an image, which isn't a problem. We have something relevant available for Palpatine, though, so I don't see where the problem is. Nufy8 (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So, let's just pull the image and be done with it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Arcayne on this one. Having the image up there on the main page clearly suggests the image is meant to show the subject of the article, this at least creates a moment of awkward misunderstanding. I've never been a big fan of the rule that non-free images are categorically excluded from the front page, but in a case like this no image is clearly better than a misleading image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, for editorial reason only. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And I've removed the word (pictured)... Bencherlite^Talk 07:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no stipulation at WP:WIAFA that an article can't be featured without an image. Raul ran the TFA without an image;[3] the image was later added by User:Lid.[4] Arcayne, did you alert Lid (talk · contribs) to this topic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, I did not. I notified Raul of this discussion, but wasn't aware that Lid was the actual image adder. That's on me; I would have notified him.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this fair use image thing in the MainSpace something that should be discussed? I've started discussions on the subject at TFA/R([5]) and Talk:TFA([6]) There was no intent to forum shop, as Xeno suggested in Alison's talk page; I have never encountered this sort of problem, and I am aware that some folk simply don't like my way of doing things, so I figured I'd get a lot of input and not waste everyone's time once I found the right venue. Sorry for any confusion or Machiavellian suspicions my requests might have engendered. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And I added the image based off a suggestion made on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 13, 2008 by Lenin and McCarthy (talk · contribs). Personally, and seemingly policy wise, I do not see why the image needed to be removed. Seemingly if I added the image of Iam McDiarmid to the Palpatine article with the caption "Ian McDiarmid portrays Palpatine in the Star Wars films" there would be no issue. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In regards to the "no fair use images on TFA" I think it started here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 12, 2007. At the time, and in fact still now, am on the side of fair use being perfectly acceptable but have come accustomed to free use prioritising. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Only to be clear about this, the image was not removed for any policy reason at all, but only editorially, in that the photo was not of the actor in the role of the article topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Peripherally related free use has been used before if memory serves, though I can not off hand give you an example. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a long-standing convention to not have non-free images on the Main Page. It is also a long-standing convention to try and find an image that is related and free, though some (including me) think it would be better to have no image at all, as sometimes (as in this case) the image of the actor leads to a double-take ("huh?"). Have a look back through the TFA archives to see what I mean. This is nothing new, and doesn't really belong at AN - it's been discussed many times before - apologies for not having the time to find the previous discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just add a picture of George Bush (either one) and be done with it. Jehochman ^Talk 09:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Make that, agree with Carcharoth. Archiving. Jehochman ^Talk 09:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Sorry to revive this, but the entire discussion was held while I was asleep. All I've got to say is, wouldn't it have been simpler and quicker than all this to simply email the publicity department at Lucasfilm and see if they would be willing to provide a free-licensed publicity photo of MacDiarmad as Palpatine for Wikipedia to use? Given that virtually every major character in a movie or TV show has publicity stills taken of their actor in costume, and these photos are meant specifically to be widely published without royalties, I'm sure they would have been quite willing to send us something we COULD use on the Main Page without violating NFCC 9... Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

On a weekend? I doubt it. If you mean they should have tried that weeks ago, when this was still being discussed, then I suppose. But I still think those particular images are still copyrighted and not compatible with free image licensing. –xenocidic (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The chance that Lucasfilm will release an image of Palpatine under a free license is close to zero (althought you're welcome to try). You seem to be forgetting that publicity photos are nearly always only intended to be used in certain circumstances which while probably including this usage, is clearly not a free license. (Most only allow limited derivatives for example). Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a followup note, for the record: almost every editor who had been willing recently to review at WP:FAC for image compliance has given up on image work or left Wiki because of the abuse. If we're to avoid issues, editors who understand image policy will need to begin reviewing there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just went through all the FACs (except a few that were definitely going to fail) and reviewed image licensing. I'm probably a bit softer on fair use than some, but am harder on claims of public domain. --NE2 13:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, NE2, but we still need more regulars checking images at WP:FAC (because of the burnout factor) including those on Commons (just because an image is hosted on Commons doesn't mean all is in order). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly - I gave every image at least a quick look. --NE2 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

This may not be the right place, but whatever. IMO Falun Gong articles have been getting very biased as of late. Examples include Falun Gong itself, Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (there has to be a better title than this), Persecution of Falun Gong, and Criticism of Falun Gong, which doesn't even exist.

Now, don't get me wrong, the PRC government has given Falun Gong a very rough ride for no good reason, but at the same time there does appear to be legitimate criticism of Falun Gong that is not PRC propaganda. This barely gets a mention anywhere. Meanwhile, the PRC government gets heavily bushwhacked in Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, in particular. This is because, I suspect, we have a large contingent of pro-Falun Gong SPAs, including Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs), Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs). These guys are not editing in bad faith, far from it, but at the same time they're not helping with overall neutrality. They also have a tendency towards edit-warring. What, if anything, can we do about this? At the least I would like more eyes on FLG articles and a slightly more rational-skeptic approach. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring isn't so hard to tamp down, meanwhile you might post this to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not edit-warring that usually involves 3RR, though. It's just very persistent and lowish-volume. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered bringing it up at WP:NPOVN? I'm not a participant at that board, but I know that I have added articles to my watchlist that were brought up for recurring problems at WP:BLPN. It's possible that some of the contributors at NPOVN will be similarly inclined. As far as the tendency to edit warring, I'd give them a friendly refresher on WP:Consensus and then follow the steps as necessary at WP:DE. It's possible that editors at the NPOVN will help control the problem. I'd try to pitch in myself, but I have no familiarity with the topic and limited time at the moment, and I'm still committed to remaining on top of the WP:CP page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to see a good contributor featuring the digits 1,2,3,4, and 5 in either ascending or descending order in their username. I realise this is not very constructive, so to atone I will watch WP:NPOVN and see if I can help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

moot (4chan)

Resolved

 – moot's a pretty cool guy, ehs has no say and doesn't afraid of anything. ;) The Subject of an article has no say in that article, unless you're in cahoots with the cabal.

Moot's here? Srsly? Pic definitely related. Dragon695 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's moot here. I'm just writing to say that I'd like the article about myself to be deleted. Yeah, I did get two articles written about me in major publications, but I'd rather this information was either included in 4chan or not at all.--Christopher Poole (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The best way to prove you are moot is to send an email to Wikipedia:OTRS, requesting your article's deletion in that way. —Giggy 09:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There's really no way of us knowing you are who you say you are. On the upside, though, since your biography might fit notability for one thing, it might be okay to simply merge Christopher Poole, moot (4chan), and 4chan into simply 4chan. On a related note, it'd be cool if you guys took a few more steps to banninate people who rally people from your site to vandalize our featured articles, among others. Just a humble request. :P --slakr^\ talk / 09:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There's not that much I can do about it. There's so much spam on /b/ these days and when we issue bans the spammers just come back using a different IP address.--Christopher Poole (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've gone ahead and merged moot (4chan) with 4chan (diffs; [7][8]), as it wasn't particularly notable, and was a living person bio. Leave a comment here or on Talk:4chan if you have any issues with the current content, or anything else. Cheers —Giggy 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is something we can do about it. If the mediawiki developers could implement checking referrers then we could deny automated edits (pre-formatted URLs that get spammed in /b/) to any referrer matching 4chan or tinyurl. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't mootykins. Beam 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not. The point is moot (pardon the pun) because the article is borderline notable, was tagged for merging, and is a BLP. moot (if he reads this) is welcome to clarify on the situation by emailing OTRS. —Giggy 11:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, definitely not. But yeah it doesn't affect us either way. Beam 11:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

O RLY? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 13:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mootykins? On my Wikipedia? It's more likely than you think. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

given that the name was published in the WSJ, and confirmed by an interview in Time, I see no reason why we can not make the equivalent. A person responsible for creating something as prominent as 4chan is in my opinion more than borderline notable. I think it would fully justify a separate article regardless of the the wishes of the subject. (I assume that t here is enough information in those sources to write one) DGG (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really, though... in the two pieces (WSJ and Time) there was enough for two paragraphs before I merged - that was all the biographical information available. It said very broad things like "Poole went to college in 2007". Not the best BLP. —Giggy 08:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Giggy's actions here. the subject is only notable for his hugely notable website. better to just include relevant bio information there. Should he do something else notable, we can always add an article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Move-protection

Hello fellow admins. I recently move-protected a batch of policy and guideline pages (I took {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} and made sure each page was move protected). My reasoning was that these are high-profile pages that are juicy targets for some page-move vandals we have around here. After protecting said pages, I have had one editor who questioned my protection of WP:MOS and WP:NAME (see here for reference) and another editor question my protection of WP:NC (see here for reference), a page which ironically was at WP:RM (wasn't aware of that). Neither editor has really given me compelling testimony on why these pages shouldn't be move-protected, thus I have not unprotected them myself, but one has called for a wider audience to gain consensus, so here I am. I want to point out that my actions were what I felt was the best for Wikipedia, and I still feel they are, but if the consensus here comes to un-move-protecting these pages, then any admin, feel free to un-move-protect any of these pages. For ease of reference, you can see which pages I protected at my protection log. I probably am not going to be a part of this discussion here, because I really am tired of discussing this and I have better things to do, so if anyone needs farther clarification, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. Cheers everyone, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I somehow endorse this action if it's really a big issue with vandalism (Grawp attacks and as such). Otherwise the protections aren't really needed unless the policies are a big vandal target. What I will not endorse is a possible full protection from editing the policy articles (Just including this here, even though Gonzo didn't edit protect the policy pages). --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Batch move-protection over a certain class of articles should almost always be avoided. There's nothing specific or special about the pages you move-protected, other than them being Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is to say, if a pagemove vandal is targeting policies and guidelines, the vandal could just as easily be targeting all articles about countries, numbers, shapes, porn stars, athletes, or any other category. It's fairly anti-wiki to disallow pagemoves is such a broad fashion. And, it's fairly inefficient, time-consuming, log-clogging, and in the end accomplishes very little except to disrupt legitimate future pagemoves. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a compelling reason to unprotect pages. We need a compelling reason to keep them protected at all; is there one, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't. They should be batch-unprotected. I noticed this when WP:MOS was protected, and I checked the history. Going back 12 months I could only find one move, it was good faith, and it was bold-revert-discussed. Livitup (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with unprotecting them. Haukur (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Any admin volunteer to start undoing the protections? Thanks! Livitup (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems with User:Xasha again

They are problems with the user Xasha again concerning this article. He persist to remove quoted data and he prevokes me to an edit war. But an edit war is truly the last thing I want. So please someboy stop this user to continue his disruptive edits. --Olahus (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I echo Olahus' call for restrictions on Xasha's editing. Since June 25, he has been conducting what can be called the "War of the Asterisk" - constantly and disruptively removing an asterisk in a list. It has been explained to him repeatedly that what he is doing is tendentious. First, because even if Moldovans are to be considered a separate group from Romanians, ethnographic texts consider them equivalent, and moreover, in any case, the supposed difference between a Romanian and a Moldovan is vastly smaller than the difference with an Aromanian, an Istro-Romanian or a Megleno-Romanian, yet Xasha's edits suggest they are on the same scale. (Just two examples, for those who are unfamiliar: Moldova is geographically contiguous with Romania, unlike the places where the other groups live, and the "Moldovan language" is identical to Romanian, unlike (say) the Aromanian language.) Second, his edit also leaves a black hole - people in the Romanian part of Moldavia (the dark green portion here) are indisputably Romanian yet also call themselves Moldovan (in addition to Romanian); Xasha's edit leaves no place for them.

In short, despite repeated warnings, pleadings, demonstrations of sources, proposed compromises (such as using the more inclusive term "Daco-Romanians"), etc., Xasha persists in the disruptive pattern that has already gained him a growing block log under the Digwuren restriction. I trust administrators will act accordingly. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, at least 2/3 of the Moldovans (no matter in which country they live) do see themselves as a part of the Romanian people. That's exactly what I already mentioned in the sources that Xasha permanently insist to delete. Xasha also didn't reply my last edit in tha talk page of the disputed article. However, on 28 June 2008 he was alraedy blocked by the administrator Moreschi because of the same article.

I reverted Xasha's edit. (see here). --Olahus (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to block both Olahus and Xasha for persistent revert-warring. I don't care who's right or wrong here, they are both warring and both equally motivated by national POV advocacy, that's for certain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be abusive. I discussed the issue in the talk page. Xasha refuses to answer on them. His last answer in the talk page is from 28 June 2008. Xasha is the one who deletes the references, not me. If you feel tired about this issue let another administrator handle it, but don't act abbusive and incorrect. --Olahus (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I too believe a block of Olahus would be misguided, because as I pointed above, very solid reasons for Olahus' and my (and User:Vecrumba's) position have been repeatedly and civilly adduced, while Xasha has ignored attempts at understanding our position and continued reverting using an argumentum ad populum rather than relying on relevant sources. For this reason, I find Xasha's conduct disruptive and tendentious, while Olahus is doing what he can to hold the line against this sort of thing. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It now appears that Xasha has decided to follow my edits. Having never expressed interest or edited in the Latvian space, he undid my edit on the Latvian SSR with his own substantially less informative version here, then reverted to his when his changes were deleted, accusing Olahus (who did the revert) of harassment. That this was Xasha's first edit on the Latvian SSR, that it immediately followed my edit, that this occurred after our editorial disagreements in the Romanian/Moldovan space, and that he put in his POV including eliminating the change in status of Latvians in their own territory (to second-class citizens)--a fact, not a "peacock" term--can only mean that Xasha has decided to expand his assault on editors who would put an editorial check on his extremist views and edits. —PētersV (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To suggest both sides (Xasha, Olahus) are motivated by national POV advocacy is a gross misrepresentation of Olahus's involvement. My own participation in the Romanian/Moldovan identity debate has nothing to do with nationalism. If anything, I am pro-Moldovan. But that doesn't mean I support extremist nationalist Moldovan pronouncemnts that ignore historical fact. And if you check my discussions in the Romanian space, you will see that I deal with/dispute Romanian super-nationalists the same way. Olahus has attempted to reputably deal with the issue based on facts and for his proper conduct has been become a lightning rod for Xasha's disruptiveness. —PētersV (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment; the comments above (which are all from parties to the dispute on Olahus' side) strike me as unconvincing. Olahus has now also followed Xasha (who may in turn have been following Vecrumba) into the Latvia article and began revert-warring there too. Olahus' edit summary ("The image of the Soviet opression shoul't be trivialized. It was one of the worst periods in Latvia's history") clearly confirms there is national POV motivation involved on his side too, just as I said earlier. Blocked both Olahus and Xasha for 48h each. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to criticize your block of Olahus, he is not even Latvian, so how on earth can it be called "national POV motivation" to recognize that Soviet repression was awful? Truly mind boggling. Martintg (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User repeating same new sections in several articles without any consultation with any other editors

User:Thegone has added the same very long section called Sectarianism and the Dalai Lama's reasons for banning Dholgyal to three articles where it is entirely inappropriate -- the only article this section might possibly be in is Dorje Shugden controversy and he has added it (copying and pasting from an anti-Dorje Shugden website called Western Shugden Society unlocked) to Kelsang Gyatso, New Kadampa Tradition and Dorje Shugden.

He has made a huge amount of edits without any discussion with other editors. He has used language hateful to other users and continually and immediately reverted any of the changes they have made. Please look at the history of these sites for details. All that can be done at the moment is to try to revert his huge undiscussed changes or move them temporarily to the bottom of the article so they are not right at the beginning or in the middle. He has also enlisted other editors to revert any other edits that conflict with his own. The material is by and large all cut and pasted with not alternative point of view. Please ban this user. (Truthbody (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

For some background to this, please examine this user's language and behavior on the entire Talk:Rime movement, which is where all this started. Things started off quite cordial but then he exploded. Emptymountains (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to bring this to the attention of the administrators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama#Coordinated_Stealthy_defamatory_attacks_by_NKT_organization

Thegone is engaging in hateful accusations against six Wikipedia editors. Thank you. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

'Thegone' has engaged in downright hostile abuse towards me. He repeatedly called me a neo-nazi, Chinese collaborating, devil-worshipping, dishonest, blood-thirsty, murdering cult fanatical liar. Gee, that doesn't seem to me to be Civil. This can be seen in the talk pages of the Rime Movement article. Can one of the WP authorities here please look at these pages and see what kinds of things he is saying. This is poisoning reasonable and rational discussion of what are already very sensitive topics. --Dspak08 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

COI

Is it just me, or has there been a spike in COIs lately? I've found myself giving out up to half a dozen COI warnings a day now. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Spike hasn't edited recently, and there are no warnings on the talkpage... Perhaps it was another editor you were thinking of? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In My Humble Opinion, it's easy to broaden WP:COI so it includes a lot of people. To say that people have a WP:COI is often not all that helpful in debate, unless, for instance, they're editing an article about a company for which they work. A lot of people labelled as COI could just be described as "a bit keen" on a particular subject or something. Resorting to the three letter acronyms and so on is not always the best way to describe others or communicate, it forms a snap judgement of someone that may not quite be the case. Sticky Parkin 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation on the Main Page

Resolved

According to the page Image:Dayana Mendoza for ITN.jpg, (the image is used on the Main Page in "In the news") the image is a copy of Image:AMAZONAS.jpg, which has been tagged for speedy deletion as a potential copyright problem!!! Shouldn't we remove the image from the Main Page, at least until this gets sorted out? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in a week there has been a copyright issue with "In the news" on the Main Page - the last time was the Ingrid Betancourt photo. Kelly ^hi! 15:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, working on cleaning it up now... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Side effect of the higher rotation rate of ITN.Geni 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Stayfi

On [9]. Stayfi is just a very uncivil (I'm really sorry to say that) troll in Arabic Wikipedia. We have blocked him for more than month. Anyways, He started gaming system. Sure, It is early to block him, but please give him a warring.--OsamaK 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say too much about the "troll", you are talking about. However in the diff you gave I can't see any form of obvious incivility. One thing did notice were these [10] [11] posted by you on the talk page. I think that it might be helpful if you try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you need help in this process, I may be of assistance. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Scratch the last part it seems I misread the user names. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 00:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Dr.SCUMM

For some reason, this page has been blacklisted. This is a new user who left a three-word, nonsensical nanostub which someone tagged as a speedy. I tried to leave word on the talk page, but I'm locked out. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably because it matches the string "scum". The page isn't protected. I'll leave a note on the page if you wish. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Pete. Signing off for now.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't an entry for "scum" on the title blacklist, however there is "CUM" (case sensitive) which would match this username. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

After Rjd0060 discussed this idea with me, I was bold and created a new proposed "request for permissions page" which would handle all admin-granted requests for permission here. It would basically keep it all organised onto one page. The page would handle rollback, IPblockexempt and account creator flags. It would be based on the current RfR page and the permissions could be granted by any admin after a flick through a users contribs/logs. Let me know your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Moval of SP on Portal:Denmark

I have begund the moval of the selected pictures on Portal:Denmark, as per Portal talk:Denmark#SP moval. Because of that i will create a large amount of moves (in the area of 90 moves) and sequently a similar amount of pages will be tagged with {{Db}}. It will all be with reference to Portal talk:Denmark#SP moval!. Progress can be somewhat followed on User:Hebster/Sandbox/Portal:Denmark/SP. --Hebster (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision#Question remanded

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

---

It's technically before the case has closed, however, in the event the remedy did pass, I don't think it will make a difference if we begin the discussion now or later. Although, I wonder if we will come to a consensus here.

Short blocks have obviously not been working in fixing the problem in the long term. Ban proposals seem to get the same negative responses from the same set of individuals on the public pages, while the more positive responses seem to be voiced in private (whether by email, or chat).

Civility is not an optional policy, nor are vested contributors exempt from following Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and norms. So...the question is simple: what ideas does the community have to deal with future outbreaks of such attacks? How should we proceed? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Geogre and William are both adults, they should be capable of understanding that a change is required in the way they interact. Both are clearly committed to the project of building a great encyclopaedia, so I doubt their differences are irreconcilable. Whatever, I don't see the need to discuss this in a vacuum: what current issue needs addressing? Guy (Help!) 09:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposed remedy 5. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please use the arbitration pages and spare the rest of us the farce. El_C 09:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think now I get it. El_C 10:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Make Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks policy. —Giggy 10:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a nice idea to an extent. But, although the page notes "People who make personal attacks do damage Wikipedia, and it is right that we do our best to prevent personal attacks from occurring here", it doesn't really help fix our issue in how to prevent them from occurring in the long term. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That's the point - rather than try and prevent them, just ignore them. (And to rebut the inevitable response; read the third paragraph of the essay. I don't think most of the Giano civility drama comes as a result of egregious stuff.) —Giggy 10:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There are differing opinions on whether it's egregious. I think some of it is, with other bits not so much. In any case, I don't think it's unreasonable for any person to expect a standard of decorum; professional commentary and so on - when it isn't maintained, a lot of contributors are put off in some way or another. Creating a high quality free encyclopedia does not mean we become Wiki-Personal-Attacks-Central. I also don't think Giano is the only user who has made positive contributions to Wikipedia. I therefore don't see how ignoring them will be a net benefit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oh dear. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Stop Giano from contributing until he learns to be civil. I was for a stern warning originally, thinking that this has only started recently, but seeing as the proposed decision page highlights a chain of progressive stricter warnings dating back nearly two years... it's becoming a problem. While he does get a bit of lee-way for being a good article contributor, he's getting too much rope as it is. I'm frankly appalled at the admins who wish to give him more. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• What's wrong with using the standard procedure: if editors persistently engage in misconduct, ask uninvolved administrators to apply appropriate sanctions through WP:AIV or WP:ANI?  Sandstein  13:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, the standard procedure has been used several times - except, unlike usual circumstances where blocks escalate in duration, the same short blocks are applied (presumably because of being a vested contributor). That, and the fact the ArbCom remedy mandates it. Yet, the (mis)conduct still does not cease. That's why we're here - what can be done to fix it in the long term rather than the short term (in the event the community needs to deal with it yet again)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• If there is one thing I'm learning, it is pointless to initiate a drama based on something a single arbitrator says on a case proposed decision page. That is a level of support insufficient to be meaningful, and the drama never seems to have much effect on the rest of the committee's deliberation - which is a good thing. GRBerry 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• A little late in the day for that now GRBerry, you have all fallen into the Arb's trap tp create even more drama about me [12]. I just hope you are all ready for it. Giano (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not just act like we would to any other user acting this way? _{1 != 2} 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we wait until the remedy actually passes? Right now there's just one arb supporting it, which doesn't mean much, especially in a case like this one. There's no point in starting an endless discussion that might turn out to be, er, pointless, anyhow.--Conti|✉ 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Waiting ehh? Okay I was thinking we could do something new and treat him like everyone else, but since waiting has such a long history of reducing immediate drama lets just keep doing that. It has worked to reduce drama for several months now, except when it has not. I do agree however that this is a moot discussion until the arbcom case is over because currently arbcom has passed a prohibition on blocking Giano, there really is not much for administrators to do about any of this. _{1 != 2} 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If the goal is to reduce drama, telling the community to deal with this really isn't the way to go. We have discussed this countless times before, and we couldn't find a consensus on what to do, and I dare say that this discussion won't end with a consensus either way, either. --Conti|✉ 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we don't find a consensus, then the remedy should not pass as it is ineffective and pointless (as you say). If we can find consensus, then there's no problems. So rather than sitting back with uncertainty until the case closes, we'll know for a fact (as opposed to imagine) if it's a tragic remedy or one that's worth considering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly would welcome a community consensus on this issue, but I don't see why one would form now. It hasn't worked in the past, which is why we had all these arbcom cases in the first place, right? So I don't think there'll be anything resembling a consensus this time, either. I'll be glad if I'm proven wrong, tho. --Conti|✉ 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I find the whole thing completely baffling. Giano is a prolific writer of good content for whom English is a second language (albeit his command of English is substantially better than that of many for whom it is supposedly their mother tongue). People persist in baiting Giano, and the result is never good. For some reason this appears to be blamed on Giano, as if Wikipedia is supposed to conform to some grade-school ideal of personal interaction. Wikipedia is not Usenet for sure, but the vast majority of supposed incivility I see from Giano is simply forthrightness, and many of the comments made to him are really quite remarkably rude. Teenagers would, in the real world, hardly be surprised if they received a trenchant response to a patronising comment directed at someone older and likely better educated than themselves. The plot appears to have been lost at some point - we should be educating people on how not to piss off people who do good work, as well as trying to help those who snap back, to resist the temptation. In any work situation this would be perfectly normal and hardly need saying; I guess the problem is that many of our less tactful contributors have little or no experience of the workplace. Giano has said nothing, as far as I can see, that would lead to disciplinary action in a workplace - at least not recently, if at all. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. I know it's not RFC but who cares - I couldn't have said it better... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful with the generalizations - they may not apply as widely as you seem to believe. It may be down to a pure cultural difference in expectations, but many people view the comments in the opposite way you do - as hardly offensive comments generating quite remarkably rude responses. If my employees routinely called eachother ignorant and stupid, its quite likely that some disciplinary action would result. Avruch ^T 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• A reasonable change to the civility policy might be limiting enforcement to those cases where incivility results in disruption - i.e. barring incivility with disruptive effect, rather than incivility by itself. Of course we'd get into long, philosophical debates about what consists of "disruptive effect." Clearly the remedy isn't having its intended effect, and clearly Giano represents a corner case where the civility policy as written can't be applied. Perhaps its because the policy doesn't truly reflect the will of the community - if we can't have a consensus on enforcing it, then it needs to be written into the policy that the enforcement bar needs to be higher than Giano-like conduct. Avruch ^T 14:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat of disruption

I'm sorry for pointing this out, and I'll no doubt get shot down hard for it, but this is a clear threat to disrupt the project - he's calling out for other editors to participate "in what is going to be Wikipedia's biggest punch up ever!" Then threats of bandishing around a few emails to finish it off - I don't like that, I don't like that one bit. Any other editor would be blocked for that, and I mean any. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has passed a prohibition on blocking Giano, you will need to appeal to an arbcom member, administrators cannot take action regardless of the appropriateness of the block. _{1 != 2} 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe he knows that. Wow, Giano taking advantage of his invincibility? Who'd have thought he'd do that? - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of Mario Bros, running through all the turtles with that cool music playing. Only problem is that it does not last long. _{1 != 2} 14:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Until 1==2, let me be frank here. Some have accused Giano of a campaign. Even if his actions do amount to a campaign, things like IRC and ArbCom reform are broad targets. You, on the other hand, have made things increaasingly personal. Ever since (and maybe before, I haven't checked) Giano pissed you off with that comment, you have been commenting on him ceaselessly, with the above comment you have made being typical of your attitude. What does that tell us about you and your campaign? Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Er... if the "above comment" is about the Mario Bros one, I'm not sure what the deal is. The music in the game really doesn't last long... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really accurate, in fact downright unfair. You can see by my edit history that I have been perplexed as to why Giano is not blocked for his actions long before we ever conversed. The comment was rude and I was offended because I have been stalked in the past, but that has no bearing. The fact is that anyone who points out Giano's behavior is called bias. I think that if you do some real research you will see that I have only spoken to and about Giano regarding his behavior. I am not really upset with Giano, I am upset with the communities inability to deal with the situation, I think it stinks. _{1 != 2} 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that means what you think it means. I think Giano means that he's a victim of "what is going to be Wikipedia's biggest punch up ever". No? And then he will send some e-mails. What do you think he's threatening to do? Spam us all to death? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he's going to smear some of the committee in an email campaign - that's what it's implying - "to finish it off". I don't think you can honestly interpret the first part as Giano being the victim, he's trying to lead a vigilante mob. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wknight94, did you see the edit summary: "They want a fight - they got one"? The context is clear. _{1 != 2} 14:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but those of us who have been unfortunate enough to come across Giano have probably been subject to incivility and unecessarily heated discussion. Look at the state of his block log. In light of all this, why is he still being allowed to edit Wikipedia? Lradrama 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of Lradrama's statement: at some point don't people with chronic civility issues just need to be shown the door? –xeno (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, Lradrama, it's because sometimes we have spines of wet spaghetti, and balls the size of raisins. I've always been baffled at how Giano can get away with so much. If someone adds a single penis picture to an article, they can be kicked to the curb without blinking an eye, but for someone that repeatedly showcases a severe disinterest in civility or positive collaborative contributions, we must bend over backwards and coddle them. Ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that basically sums up the answer. Have a guess why he hasn't been community banned.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason he hasn't been community banned is because most of the time he is civil, he collaborates, he talks nicely to people, he does good work. In fact, he spends more time doing that than engaging in drama (I wish I could say the same for some of the names I see popping up here). Giano does react poorly to baiting, but his incivility has long ago been blown up to be a problem larger than it is. I recognise some of the names here, and I can point to cases where they are in all likelihood harbouring an unsettled grudge against Giano. I'm not going to name names, as that would be unproductive, but I would urge everyone to examine their consciences and look at why they are reacting the way they are. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I have worked closely with the vast majority of the names in this discussion. You may have been refering to me, but I can confidently say that each of us engages in highly productive work on Wikipedia, and avoid drama at all costs (hence this debate). Most of us are administrators like yourself, and we got where we are through hard, hard work. Lradrama 15:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, do it: name names. Please, point to examples of why some of the people here harbor grudges. That would be far more productive than your subtle and blanket dismissal of people's attitudes. I've seen lots of statements about how people are biased, but none of those claims have been backed up with diffs or talk page archives or anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - 0 out of the 2 edits Carcharoth has made to this discussion have been productive so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it 0/3 then. About as productive as your edits here and here. Do you really think removing people's comments, or retracting and changing your comments, will help in a thread like this? Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreso than your edits so far, the latest which is no different to El_C's addition here. I don't expect Giano to understand the purpose of this thread (or anything else in relation to this matter), but several of us are keen on having the dispute (among many others) resolved in some way, with or (if you choose), without your/his participation, and currently, it has not helped in doing so. Stop casting aspersions, and instead, please focus on the matter at hand, if you wish to participate. NO ONE gives a toss about vague assertions - if you have issues, you should be well aware of WP:DR. If you have personal concerns, use user talk pages and I'm sure you'll get a response when a user is ready to give you one. Please also do not reply to this message (unless it's on my talk page), as I will not respond further (at all) if you do. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No kidding! Let's see some evidence, instead of just calling people bias and dismissing them. _{1 != 2} 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup EVula put it well. _{1 != 2} 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You see, what none of you know, is that while you have all been putting the boot in to me, encouraged by the Arbcom adding me to the case, I have been quietly minding my own business, working on a page as an alternate account, with the full permission and knowledge of the Arbcom, only stopping when I became tired of outing myself (as a sock I'm not very good) you see no drama, no nothing. Then suddenly the strings are jerked and the jackals and hyenas enter the arena as prophesied here [13], Oh and Ryan, please do relax, calm down, you seem very jittery, you know how you re-act when you become over-exited, I can promise you any emails I post will have the full permission of their senders, unless of course they are one's I have sent to others. As for this being the biggest punch -up in Wikipedia's history, yes, it probably will be, that is not a threat, it is obvious to anyone who studies Wikipedia form and it's probably what the Arbcom want, then you can all say Giano is causing more drama. I suggest you look at those who started to promote this debate, rather than me. Now I will leave you all to bray and scream to your heart's are contented - I have a page to write. Giano (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You know Giano, I've always seen you as a force for positive change. Always thought you were right more than wrong and a net gain for Wikipedia. I hoped to see you succeed in the effort you've put forth. But I think it's gotten to the point now that it's gone too far. I don't understand why you think you can talk to people like that...I guess it's fine for a while in a kind of IAR way but at some point we need to be clear about what's an acceptable way to speak to each other and what is not. I just think it's gone to far. RxS (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed probation on comments to Giano

Perhaps to stave off any problems the community should put comments to Giano on probation, so that any user or admin baiting him is subject to the same sanctions Giano may be subject to if he responds negatively. Poke a lion to get him to bite you, you get blocked as well. That would stop a lot of nonsense. Nothing else has worked, why not try it? If anyone baits any user they deserve no less, but in this case the benefit would be to stop troublemaking and drama. rootology (T) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and while we are at it nobody can revert his edits, or even have hurt feelings when he is nasty. If a policy gets in his way we should change it to allow for his actions. Surely there are other ways we could make his behavior cause less drama? How about no talking about him in the third person either? _{1 != 2} 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And when no one acts like an idiot and doesn't insult or bait Giano he vanishes into his user pages and spits out FAs. Would it be bad to rigorously enforce NPA in regards to comments made to and about him? rootology (T) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

FAs are not a currency that can be used to purchase exemption from civility. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone is a problem, why do we need to set up special rules just for them? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you shit on someone's head, it's understandable for them to get heated. I'm just saying we should apply the same standard to those passing their bowels. :) rootology (T) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, when you are not allowed to block them and those who are allowed to do not, you need to get creative. If he won't change and we can't block him we will just have to change everything else to make it work. _{1 != 2} 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments aren't helpful since you obviously have a problem with Giano. Maybe let others posit here, and less snark from ya would be helpful. You can step back now. rootology (T) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How about you provide some diffs showing that Giano's incivility is due to baiting? _{1 != 2} 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, surprise surprise, lots of people have a problem with Giano and his behavior. Maybe we should let those people posit, rather than telling anyone that doesn't like his disdainful behavior to stuff it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Enforce civility both ways for real, rather than half-assed towards Giano and eighth-assed at pokers? Might work ... WilyD 15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's all I'm saying. If nothing else has worked, actually ENFORCE all civility standards evenly and see what happens. rootology (T) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else care to participate in mine & Xenocidic's query as to why he is still allowed to edit here? Why are we this lenient with such a disruptive editor? Why can we not learn, despite a block log the length of the River Severn? It's at the bottom of that sub-thread up there ^ Lradrama 15:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rootology, you seem to think I was being sarcastic. I am completely serious. If Giano will not change, and we cannot block him, and those who can block him do not, and disruption keeps occurring then we do need to take drastic steps to stop this disruption.

Wikipedia policy should be set by our best practices. Our current best practice for dealing with Giano is to hold him to a different set of rules, we have been doing that for months so lets just codify it. Lets make an alternate civility policy for him, restrict what criticisms can be made etc... otherwise this will just keep coming up. This is of course my third choice, my second choice being blocking him, and my first is him being civil. We cannot however keep this double standard hidden, if we are going to keep it lets make it official. _{1 != 2} 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic, much? Beam 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Civility is overblown and abused in Wikipedia. Admins who have an issue with a user, rightful or not, abuse the civility policy to ban/block them. Passive incivility or borderline incivility shouldn't be a reason for a ban/block. I wish this blessed essay was used more often, in certain cases, than admins going on a crusade against a user masked in WP:CIVIL defense. Admin power abuses are plentiful in this way, and having been a victim (in my eyes) to this previously, it totally ruins the project. Anyway, to those asking a question in response to the suggestion that admins and others be civil towards Giano: Hypocrisy much? Beam 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should be civil towards Giano and every other editor, if anyone can point out who is baiting him then we can take action, but nobody provides any diffs to show his incivility results from baiting. _{1 != 2} 15:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I definitely include you among those repeatedly baiting him. But I'm choosing not to take action. GRBerry 15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuh-uh, that's a cop-out. The whole point of this sub-thread is that we hold both sides accountable. If you've got solid evidence of baiting, present it so that the baiting party can be held accountable. What you're doing is laying an insult at someone's feet and then acting like the bigger person for not doing anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you missed the part when I said diffs. I have seen lots of accusations, but no evidence. Come one, you just made a real nasty accusation show where I have baited Giano or remove your comment. _{1 != 2} 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary to post diffs because I believe almost everything you have said in this discussion constitutes baiting Giano. Anyone reading the conversation will have already seen your statements before they saw mine, because they were above them. If your really want me to go link 40% of your last 50 contributions, I'll go through the mechanical exercise of proving that you made the contributions in this thread signed with your username. GRBerry 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is the same as baiting? Really? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is what you call baiting then you need to take a second look. I support either he follow policy, we block him, or that we change policy to suit his presence. If that prevents him from following the civility policy then I can't take the blame for that. Sorry man, but that is a very weak evidence for such a nasty accusation. Please remove it or provide some real evidence. _{1 != 2} 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You [14] know] well that Giano is sensitive to your comments about him. (If you really want us to dig up more evidence of this, it could be done.) Your seem unable to accept the criticism you have repeatedly received that your behavior here is a problem. Do you intend to change your behavior, or should I treat you as I would any other editor whose conduct is unacceptable? GRBerry 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A problem that arises when you try to push people into following policy is that those who ignore it see it as "harrasment" - even if they're totally in the wrong. POV pushers serve as proof for this. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• feh. 90% of this comes from the inability of folks to deal with the problems created through the use of IRC to hassle users and foster a culture of "us v. them". The committee has not delt with management of irc as they requested of themselves. Ban everyone who doesn't use irc, and the problem goes away (except then so do most of the users). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day...

At the end of the day, you can tell this will be one more of those situations where nothing changes, nothing gets sorted out, because no one can agree. There is a big divide of opinion here. Giano has plenty of supporters, as it is, many of whom are administrators like ourselves, and that means no action can really be taken. Which is really sad, and really depressing, because any one else would have been blocked indefinately a long while ago for behaviour like that, and it appears no resolution can ever be reached if we keep squabbling like this.

My view at the end of it all is this. Why must we change our policy to suit one, incivil, repeatedly blocked individual? Why? All the rest of us can cope, I think we'd be going out of our way to bend the rules for someone unable to work decently within our community. Surely we're not that tolerant of inhumane behaviour are we? Lradrama 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but reading that i seems you're just upset you're not getting your way, not that "the right thing" isn't getting done. Seems very selfish, honestly. Beam 16:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My own way? It wasn't even me who started the discussion. I'm just stating what myself and others think is right. But if this is going to cause yet another rift, then I'm not arguing it anymore. You try and improve Wikipedia, but more often than not, nothing is done. All that happens is people fall out. Lradrama 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of this discussion?

I am sorry but why are we having this discussion? It seems to me one overly divisive to have "just in case" ArbCom wipe their hands of the matter and refer it back to the community. I happen to think that would be a ridiculous step for it to take - ArbCom exists to solve conduct issues the community cannot, not vice versa. But can we not shelve this whole discussion until after we know what the ArbCom decision is? All this thread is doing is raising tempers and discontent. I think bringing this here now was a poor decision. WJBscribe (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No. If the community is unable to come to a decision now, we will not later. This is to make it clear, factually, whether we can come to a consensus eventually or not. It's futile and stupid to think it's even possible within a few hours, let alone a day - I was well aware that it would take a bit of time. I myself will archive this if the tempers and discontent remains. But it's too early, and once part of it has washed away, I think we can make a bit of progress; however little or great. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano-bashing: vituperative rhetoric in order to harass perceived adversaries

I can't believe that this whole slugfest is posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard because one arbitrator has proposed "The question of what, if anything, should be done about Giano's continued public attacks is remanded to the community as a whole. The Committee asks the community to come to a consensus on how to proceed within a month of the closing of this case"? Ask yourself: how many individual propositions on the RFAR page generally get enough arbitrator votes to pass into the Final Decision? One in ten? Less? Much less, that's right. In the case I know best, RFAR/IRC, it was a lot less. And yet this vituperation, this character assassination, this blithe assumption that Giano makes public attacks, and Giano is in bad faith, is started on the noticeboard from a proposition signed by one single arb (Kirill Lokshin)? Started here, yet, before the case is closed, nor anywhere near being closed? Why this timing—could it possibly be because the proposition obviously is not going to pass? And if the Giano-haters were to wait for its close, there's maybe one chance in a hundred that they would get to have this kind of fun on the WP:AN? No, that can't be it, because I need to assume good faith—never mind that the amount of good faith people are here assuming from Giano wouldn't cover the nail of my pinky?
I suggest you apply another quote from Kirill, from the same Proposed Decision page, to what you're doing here, oh most noble Giano-bashers: "Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engaging in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries."[15] OK? That's well put. ...rather than engaging in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries. This thread is completely irrelevant on this board. And it's an utter disgrace. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

I think Bishonen makes sound points above. This is one of the more ill-advised discussions brought to a board where ill-advised discussions regularly abound. A proposal by a single Arb should not be enough to start something quite so introspectively self-destructive. If the point of this thread was just to prove to the Arbitration Committee that the community cannot resolve the matter I suspect it will succeed - though I would have thought the long history that has brought us to that point made it clear enough already. These flair ups reflect sadly on the ability of the community to manage itself when tough questions are asked. Until someone comes up with a solution, one likely to be acceptable both to Giano and those who find his conduct troubling at times, I am not sure what point there is in discussing this. If anyone is unable to sketch in advance an outline of how any discussion like this one will deteriorate, I would be astounded. WJBscribe (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary 1 & Part 2

As expected, the discussion has only gone so far. Sifting past all the incivility, irrelevant crap, and so on, we have the following suggestions so far. A suggestion that:

1. We should be able to Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks - but using that, it's applicable to WMC's initial block, but doesn't resolve the overall problem I think.
2. We should be able to treat problematic conduct in this case (should it occur in the future), no differently to problematic conduct by other users.
3. We should (in the future, if it occurs) treat users baiting Giano the same way as we treat his incivility in the same way we treat other users incivility.

I'll add any others to the list on request. Is there any disagreement with that summary of the suggestions relevant to the spirit of the thread? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. This is the summary as far as I can tell:

1. BBBBBBAAAAWWWWWWWWW GIANO BBBBBBAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW

There is no point to this as Scribe pointed out. Just drop it until there is a point, for the love of all WikiGods, drop it. Beam 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since the community has failed to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "Giano problem" (i.e. an approach that has broad consensus and avoids drama), the suggestion that Arbcom, "the final step in dispute resolution," would toss the issue back to the community is profoundly disfunctional. Until such a proposal is passed by a majority, it should not have been brought here for discussion. Thatcher 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, I don't think there will be 1 Giano in the history of Wikipedia - if it happens again, at least we have some sort of place to follow up on rather than starting a bare discussion and going through the yearly cycle again. I'll be clear - I am not fond of this idea of ArbCom passing it back to the community. Nevertheless, why should it preclude our own discussion? Rather than imagining no consensus being formed at all, why not go through this properly instead of all of us raising our hands in the air and walking away, again and again? Let's focus on the issues and see where we can go - a little further at least, hopefully. Assuming the rifts and personal tiffs can be controlled or closed off whenever it starts getting out of hand, what's there to lose? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At the current time this is a waste, and can only lead to problems, imAWESOMEo. Beam 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on what 'problems' you're talking about? Or did you happen to miss the assumptions and the 3 genuine suggestions made amidst the discussion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OH ye of little good faith, I guess I care not to elaborate, as I do not care for your tone or assumptions. :) Beam 18:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too subtle earlier. But I, for one, find it revealing that Ncmvocalist, Kiril's favourd clerk-to-be, is so quick to consider his patron's single vote as the vote of the entire committee and is already on the remanded train. It all works to inspire little confidence in our future clerk. El_C 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider Kirill's vote to be the vote of the entire committee; indeed jpgordon explicitly opposed (and I agree with both the reason and the vote wholeheartedly). I've made it explicitly clear more than once here that this will either provide solid evidence of why the remedy should not pass, or if it is to pass, not to leave a 1 month limbo of what to do if it occurred again. Perhaps I was too subtle in not replying directly to your disruptive trolling the first time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also revealing how quickly Ncmvocalist's politeness facade cracks under the satire. Not a good sign. El_C 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Albeit for me to label his very first comment that started this entire thread as "trolling" — clearly, he has monopoly of the inflammatory. El_C 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This will be my last comment, as imo any further comment by anyone here isn't productive. I feel that Ncmv has an agenda to push and is masking it in "for the good of WP" bullshit. That's just me though. Beam 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• What a shameful disgusting and manipulated debate, in the history of Wikipedia, I think this is probably one of Wikipedia's most revealing and repulsive days. If this had happened to any other editor (Any) I would be defending them left, right and centre, no one deserves to be to be at the eye of such a contrived storm. Yet Not one Arb said, this debate is not what we intended or wanted, and that rather proves my point. You who have shouted here today, screeching for my blood, are nothing more than manipulated thugs. Well, I am better than you are, I am more moral, I am more just, and I am a better writer and contributor to this encyclopedia (remember it's an encyclopedia) and what's more, I am here, and I am here to stay. So get used to the idea! Giano (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

How to drive yourself crazy

Believe it is a good idea that:

1. anyone should be allowed to edit without revealing their identity
2. no one should be allowed to act as if their multiple accounts are different people
3. it is important for you to volunteer your time to enforce this

WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys should cut each other some slack. You have chosen to do the impossible. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Avruch ^T 19:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to do the impossible, as long as you can accept a high failure rate. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Missed the close of Connolley/Giano flap, due to edit conflict.

_{I have moved this from the AN talkpage where it was inappropriate as that is for the discussion of the page not issues raised on the page. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)}

Allemandtando edit warred to get this here, which may or may not be important. I contend that the Talk page for AN was exactly the right place for the comments, once the section had closed, but, hey, I'm not going to hit 2RR to make that point, I'll leave edit warring to Allemandtando, and likewise wikifuss over it. --Abd (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello extra-ludicrously pointless drama! --CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite how I feel about it. The primary discussion was closed, over, and I didn't want to reopen it, but I had some comments already written, which, following instructions, I placed in Talk. It was reverted with a comment that misinterpreted the Talk page instructions. I reverted that, pointing to the explicit Close template instructions. It was then reverted again and moved here, taking up bandwidth for a Noticeboard, something I dislike very much, with the original substance relating to a closed discussion that I agreed should stay closed. There is actually an issue here; but it won't be resolved on this page, I think, nor is this the place to discuss it. Below, I recommend that this be closed, that's the simplest solution. I can't do it myself because of COI. Somebody, please, put this out of its misery!

I missed the close of what had become a brawl, [16] and I think that at least some of what I wrote is worth putting up instead of it merely being buried in history (it was removed by another user, and I concluded that the removal was legitimate, but that doesn't extend to this Talk page.)

First in response to a user's apparent accusation of bad faith, I wrote:

(edit conflict with Giano, :-):Maybe it's time we reinstated WP:AGF as policy. In other words, if an editor blatantly and without necessity and evidence, directly accuses another user of bad faith, that is incivility and a blockable offense. I'd argue that it is one of the most disruptive activities that is allowed to continue here. We obviously have different opinions about Giano and the import of his participation, but I don't find it necessary, so far, to fail to assume good faith on the part of any participant, including those who have commented above. But you can be blocked for being uncivil with good intentions. Now, to give [this editor, whose identity isn't important here] the full benefit of the doubt, the comment is stated as being about how the editor feels, and how we feel isn't ever, in itself, a reason to be blocked. But it certainly pushes the edge. The comment remains uncivil. As to Giano, I wrote something about him on Carcharoth's Talk page. The diff. --Abd (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And then, the comment Giano had added while I was editing (so my first submission was actually prior to close and I missed the close simply because I had to deal with the conflict.):

• What a shameful disgusting and manipulated debate, in the history of Wikipedia, I think this is probably one of Wikipedia's most revealing and repulsive days. If this had happened to any other editor (Any) I would be defending them left, right and centre, no one deserves to be to be at the eye of such a contrived storm. Yet Not one Arb said, this debate is not what we intended or wanted, and that rather proves my point. You who have shouted here today, screeching for my blood, are nothing more than manipulated thugs. Well, I am better than you are, I am more moral, I am more just, and I am a better writer and contributor to this encyclopedia (remember it's an encyclopedia) and what's more, I am here, and I am here to stay. So get used to the idea! Giano (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To which I replied, not realizing that the section had been closed (that's why I didn't get an edit conflict from the closure, it was already there when I loaded the page, but it isn't clear in an edit window):

• Nah, Giano, this kind of stuff happens all the time, but with editors who aren't as well-known as you. You may be right (probably are right) about some of what you've written, but, shhhh..... it's quite rude to toot your own horn that way, most very bright kids get it early on. Those that don't may end up drinking hemlock (see User:Abd/Rule 0). And there is another side, there always is; when we need to discriminate distance, most easily, we need to see from more than one point of view simultaneously, and presto! depth perception. There is a time for passionate hyperbole, but if you believe it, you're stuck. The world is a bigger place than you think. Good luck, I'm sure we will meet again. --Abd (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Long post. And your point is? Reinstate AGF as a policy? Then the post would have been 3 lines long, not 30. So what was the point? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the following before Allemandtando edit warred the section out from under me, in response to Tagishsimon. "Here" refers to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard:

There is more point than there is to much discussion within the closed section. These were comments written for that section, not for here, but because the section is closed, and my placing of them within the section missed the close (initially due to edit conflict with Giano, which was just prior to the close) was reverted, I followed the suggestion in the close message. These are comments on the closed section and on comments within that section. There isn't any "point." It's discussion of issues that were before us in the section. If it's too long, I have an easy suggestion: don't read it. It's not a complaint, an attempt to blame or punish or call down the wrath of the gods or administrators, nor is it a call for action. Just a comment. It's what I do, most of the time. Some like my comments, some don't. However, yes. Reinstate AGF as a policy is one possible suggestion, but, of course, that would be a huge topic, wouldn't it? I wouldn't make that point here, beyond mentioning it so that, maybe in a year, the ground has been prepared a little. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Posting this here was selfish and did nothing to help any situation on Wikipedia. Beam 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe, maybe not, but I didn't post this here and tried to stop it from coming here. I'd suggest closing it, or moving it back to Talk, either one is fine with me. Or discuss it, for all I care.--Abd (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved it here because the talk page is for the discussion of the mechanisms of AN - it's not for the discussion of ongoing issues with editors or the like - as the big notice at the top says. I have no interest at all in this matter beyond that and don't plan to comment on this matter. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to discuss the issue of where my comments should have been placed in ... Talk for this page, which is where it should have been discussed before edit warring over it. --Abd (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Use of this page for comments made after closing of AN section. --Abd (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a page, but I don't see it in the log...

I just deleted Susan McNally, but it's not registering in the deletion log. I'm pretty sure this is because I navigated away from the "delete" page because I thought my browser was stuck (it has a tendency to do that, happens at least once every few minutes), but apparently it was actually working on it. I'm completely at a loss as to what to do here, so I could use some suggestions. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I suggest opening a bugzilla report. In the mean time, you could create a minimal page and redelete with your deletion reason so that gets in the log. GRBerry 20:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that works. Time to go play with bugzilla, I guess. After that I think I should log off, it's really acting up horribly right now. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Very, very rarely, log entries do not register. You might mention it to a developer, but it's a known issue. Ral315 (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with vandalism/unsourced insertions

Resolved

 – blocked indef. Started poorly then went rapidly downhill --Rodhullandemu 21:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lawinformationhelper (contribs), the same user I complained about here, has been vandalizing and making unsourced additions to a range of law firm related articles. One user has already warned him about this. I had reverted most of his changes, but he keeps putting them back in. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning user page comment

User:Ksofen666 states on his user page that he watches a certain sport because he likes to see people have the shit beaten out of them. Is this appropriate? It's certainly not as offensive as a swastika but still, it's just not...decent. — Realist² (Speak) 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well he is talking about ultimate fighting! --Allemandtando (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection. Is it indecent to enjoy bloody sports or to announce one's enjoyment of them? I don't see who could be offended, or how it would bring disrepute on the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm maybe it's a cultural thing, where I come from it is really controversial. Maybe the american version isn't quite as brutal. Hehe. — Realist² (Speak) 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you posted this at all Realist...? Beam 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's no less offensive than the message you've got at the top of your talk page. –xeno (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC) (This is directed to Realist2)
  • My goals aren't offensive.... BBBBAWWWWW :( Beam 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That's directed at Realist2. (clarified) –xeno (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
      • So you like my goals? Beam 02:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Realist2 removing stuff from his talkpage without comment

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

---

Resolved

 – No admin action required. No discussion required. Taking up valuable Watchlist space, and henceforth is archived. Beam 02:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today, I failed 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson as a GA due to the presence of maintenance templates. I tried to inform Realist2 of this, only for them to undo my comment. I then asked them why they did this, and my comment was removed again. A third attempt to get through was undone, as was another user's attempt to ask them. I feel that this user is being incivil by simply removing talk page commentary without saying a word, and seek further comment from an admin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

He's allowed to do this, it shows that he's read your comments. He doesn't need to reply, as I see it, and is given considerable latitude to manage his own talk page. --Rodhullandemu 01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

While common courtesy says that he should reply, he really does not have to. Like Rod said: "he is given considerable latitude to manage his own talk page". Tiptoety ^talk 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Old versions of Philippe Graffin

The current version of Philippe Graffin is fine, but the following old versions of the article contain copyvio text and should be deleted.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_Graffin&oldid=225910646
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_Graffin&oldid=225910280
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_Graffin&oldid=225910183 --Eastmain (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple enough. Done. - auburnpilot talk 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

This page is now up and fully active, and as such users are now able to request both rollback and account creation on one standardized page. This also means that Wikipedia:Requests for rollback is now marked {{historical}} so everyone can take it off their watchlists. Tiptoety ^talk 02:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How do I request to be ultimated Dictator of Awesome? I didn't see it on that page.... Beam 03:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well you ask me of course..geeze.. Tiptoety ^talk 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:DoUA is that way. :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried claiming my title, but they deleted the page and called it silly. :( Beam 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 Not done, as I claimed the position first. —Kurykh 04:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, I said you had to as me for permission... Tiptoety ^talk 04:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Since when did I, as the ultimate Dictator of Awesome, have to ask you for permission? :P —Kurykh 04:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think he'd actually create it. (although originally I was going to say something like "that had better stay a red link") Now I'm curious. Can an admin email me the wikitext of the page? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to email, it reads as follows:

== Dictator of ULTIMATE Awesome == User:Tiptoety has granted me, Beam the power of Dictator of ULTIMATE Awesome. This is simply an announcement for now. More details on my powers to come later. Beam 03:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC) --Chris 08:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry template overhaul

A few weeks ago, MBisanz asked me to merge a few templates that dealt with sock puppetry. I said okay and went to work. I looked at the ones he wanted merged and thought "No problem," and merged them into Sockpuppet. My mistake. In come the people who complain about how my changes have broken other templates that use the one I changed as a base. I am thinking to myself that they could just switch to the new shorter template and everything would be good again. No such luck; they didn't want to take the time to change the templates out. Also, I found out just how badly organized the whole sockpuppet process was.

I found out that there are times when there are puppet strings through several Suspected sock puppet cases, and the same is happening at Check user. I feel this is counterintuitive.

If I am understanding things correctly, the process is really complex. Let's say that they suspect PuppetMaster 1 of having two or three puppets. They may start a SSP case or not. Now, let's say that they do. After a while they find that PuppetMaster 1 is actually a puppet of PuppetMaster 2. Instead of moving the case from PuppetMaster 1 to PuppetMaster 2, they just start a fresh case for PuppetMaster 2 with a link to the PuppetMaster 1 case. Well, PuppetMaster 1 is not a puppet master but a puppet. Would it not be better to keep all of the puppets of one master on one page with just one case opened?

As I see it, that area only needs five templates.

• Puppet
• Puppet master
• Puppet notice
• Puppet discussion
• Puppet category

With parser functions, these templates can cover all of the work that is currently being done with almost 20 templates. It would take a little work on the part of those involved with puppetry cases to make all of the switches, but I am sure that someone could come up with a bot to do it.

Hopefully, this will be a spring board for a more streamlined sock puppetry process. - LA @ 07:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support this proposal. Lady Aleena has put a lot of work into this template which is commendable. A cleanup of the templates is overdue, and with Lady Aleena's efforts, the process can be simplified. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• While in principle I naturally support this proposal, we need to make sure that all the requirements are met. An RFCU may be useful for some sockpuppets, but many will be blocked either on behavioural evidence or a CU investigation not listed at RFCU. Equally, an SSP case can exist and have no mention of a sockpuppet on it. It would certainly be useful to have all these automatically mentioned in the sockpuppet tag, but we need to do so in a fashion that does justice to the complexities of sockpuppet investigations. I think we really need to plan everything out before the templates are designed -- and perhaps we can also consider the proposed merger of WP:SSP and WP:RFCU? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Being the guy to ask for this of course means I support it. I'll also toss in some AWB hours to go through and update pages when we figure out what a final tag looks like. MBisanz ^talk 11:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandal user:AlasdairGreen27

I report vandal user:AlasdairGreen27 for these actions:

• 1
• 2

I am editor in Portuguese wiki then I add related links but vandal removes appropriate links. 16 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.87.105 (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The board you're looking for is WP:AIV. shoy (reactions) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

PIO, what are you doing? Have you forgotten that you are banned? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just returned from denying the AIV report, and blocking 151.67.87.105 for 31 hours. I noted the Portuguese Wiki editor is based in Milan, Italy, and was labelling your reverts as actions by a banned editor... so I blocked on suspicion. Nice to see it justified. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks LessHeard. My friend PIO crops up most days with an edit or two, despite the fact that he and his several subsequent socks have all been firmly escorted to the exit by our burly security officers. The problem is that it seems he's on a dialup connection which assigns him a new IP address with each logon. Would a range block of 151.67 be appropriate or would it catch too many good faith editors in its indiscriminate net? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I shall allow someone with more technical knowledge of rangeblocks to answer that one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What are the IPs? All I see are:

151.67.87.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

151.67.85.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hard to guess the full range on only two IPs. You can get both of these with a 151.67.84.0/22 but I'll bet the range is larger than that. Whois says 151.67.0.0/16. Surely semi-protecting the two articles would be preferable but even that's overkill on only two edits apiece. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) See [Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PIO] and [Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_PIO]. There are lots of others, as yet untagged, nearly all in the 151.67 range. Would it help if I tagged them? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalizing my pages

The IP 86.128.210.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has vandalized my user page, talk page and an image I have uploaded. Also he has added some acsi code to an article twice. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Next time please take this to WP:AIV for a faster response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. This is an admin account. It is insecure. You know what to do. --User:Zoe|(talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)