Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Moved to /Kat Walsh's statement to prevent the discussion from overwhelming this page.

Could an admin please urgently purge this revision [1] from the edit history. Staines, the subject of the article, claimes that the Guardian newspaper published a retraction of the referenced article and has threatened anyone who links to it with libel suits.[2] [3], [4]. I'd also recommend purging *this* edit when completed. Cheers, DWaterson 09:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also references on the talk page. Cheers, DWaterson 11:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The user was told on his talk page. This story has been mentioned on half-a-dozen blogs, and *all* have since referred to Staines legal threats and taken them down, so I think the anon's claims that he's just referring to a 1986 Guardian article innocently (and 1986 Guardian articles are not exactly something you'd just stumble on - it's only been mentioned on these blogs (and copied from one to another, and each now accompanied by legal threats)). Nssdfdsfds 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. I propose a solution on the Paul Staines talk page.62.136.238.65 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody interested in this? Fys has also joined the battle now. See my talk page for some more discussion. Nssdfdsfds 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack there from Nss.. who is wikistalking me. The article in question is still available on several blogs. I'm not suggesting we do link to it, but merely linking to it does not open Wikipedia to a libel risk even if the article was held libellous. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a personal attack. The fact is that this incident which previously just involved the anon IP now involves you as well. There is most definitely a battle, as is obvious from all your reverts and the series of posts on my talk page. You accusing me of wikistalking seems to me be the real personal attack. Nssdfdsfds 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop implying that I support inclusion of the article when you know full well I don't. You are wikistalking me, reverting all my edits and nominating pages I have written for deletion. You can't hide your actions behind the cloak of claiming it's a personal attack. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your silly wikistalking allegations on my talk page. I will not be wasting more of my time on them. Nssdfdsfds 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal attack. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's personal about that? 1. The allegations are silly, as I've already explained on my talk page. 2. I have responded to them already, so you are wasting my time bringing them up here, where we are trying to clear up a legal issue, not conduct petty squabbles. Nssdfdsfds 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has been closing AfDs with different standards for deletion than some others expect. While specific instances can be taken to DRV (having been raised with him first), the issue is perhaps that there is lack of shared understanding as to what "rough consensus" might mean. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus perhaps gives insufficient guidance. Wikipedia:Consensus states the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision. Wikipedia:Supermajority - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD). Specifically what is the appropriate closure for only 56% delete out of a vote of 16 - ie 9:7 with also an 8th keep vote from a new user? --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know what AFDs you are talking about. AFD is not a vote, the closing admin must and does take into account the quality of the arguments. Proto ► 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I get a moment I will post at DRV so specific merits of the case can be considered. My point in raising here is have I missed something - the standard for consensus was 75% - translated as the range 60-80%, 56% seems too far outside that standard notwithstanding the merits of the argument. If it is to do with the merits of the argument beyond numbers providing consensus then surely the closing admin should comment to that effect - he didn't, not even when asked politely on his talk page, from which I conclude a different standard applies. Is that standard agreed?--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to give you a straight answer without knowing what AFD you are talking about. AFD is not a vote. If we have 50% of people in an AFD discussion arguing for deletion because the article violates all kinds of policies, and 50% arguing for it to be kept because "it is awesome", it will be deleted. Proto ► 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Proto said. Please, don't take anything to DRV if your only objection to the closure is that vote-counting gave a low number. Friday (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely, if the article "violates all kinds of policies" or there is some other reason for ignoring the numbers, the closing admin should specify that, not say merely, "The result was delete." and refuse to comment [5] when queried politely as to the rationale for his decision. What I am seeking here is a clarification of the guidelines for deletion, ie that if consensus is less than say 60%, then further rationale should be given in the comments by the closing admin.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15 contains three relevant requests, all were closed without clear consensus as per simple numbers and no rationale was provided by the (same) closing admin. I am more than happy to accept that the arguments are important, but then the weight placed on those arguments has to be articulated in the decision.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no policy or guideline that says that an admin must specify her reasons for closing an AfD the way she closes it. Many of us do so out of courtesy when it's not obvious, but we are not required to. If you'd like to introduce such a policy, you need to do so on a community-wide level; there's no point in complaining here. Chick Bowen 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is a good idea to provide something more than "the result of the discussion was", not least because it prevents discussions like this one from occurring in the first place. Remember the adage about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. Uncle G 03:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion guideline for admins states quite clearly rough concensus should be achieved - closing AfD is not on the whim of an admin. Rough concensus is a numerical figure unless there are other factors taken into account - that figure has been expressed previously as 75% for AfD or at least in the range of 60-80%. I think admins are accountable beyond mere courtesy to explain their decisions when they are not obvious as per the guidelines -ie when they are ignoring the numbers and considering the weight of arguments. Is that not a shared view? That is the issue I am exploring here - not so much making a complaint. My complaint has been made at DRV where it belonged.--Golden Wattle ^talk 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I don't share it. Consensus is never numerical. Someone making a nonsensical argument will always be ignored, no matter what, whether they agree with the consensus or not, whether I happen to mention it in the closing message or not. Chick Bowen 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that there is no accountability in AfD ? The closing admin can do as he pleases and need not explain why he did it ? Tintin 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about no-accountability? There is WP:DRV for deletion review. The process is not perfect, but it is not incomplete either. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an AFD (or other) discussion often does require a significant amount of judgement, and numerical vote counting is certainly not required and is in fact discouraged. However, I do agree that the closing admin should explain his decisions, especially if queried. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 05:43Z

I have no difficulty with reaching a conclusion that is not number driven, my difficulty is with the lack of explanation of that decision, including after querying. DRV does not incidentally provide the form of review necessary - the DRV debate for the article which drew my attention to the differing standard or lack of explanation (whichever I can't be sure since the closing admin won't reveal his reasoning, illustrates that DRV does not provide accountability, the closing admin hasn't contributed his raationale there and it is a review but not of the decision making because it can't because the rationale for the decision has not been provided (maniacal laugh). Some of that debate focuses on the issue that consensus isn't about numbers. Wikipedia:Consensus is policy and does actually mention numbers - therefore to ignore the numbers, surely you have to explain yourself.--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't push the "WP:Consensus lists numerical thresholds" point; it won't help you because anyone that has experience with AFD discussions knows that !vote percentages often don't mean anything (much more so than at RFA), and in fact hurts your cause because it's too easy to refute. I think your main concern here is the lack of explanation when asked. DRV may be the right forum in theory, but in practice, I have often seen participants of DRV say "keep deleted" if they agree with deletion, without considering whether proper procedure was followed. Refusal to explain admin actions is really a conduct issue and the forum for that would be WP:RFC. However, if this is an isolated incident, I would let it go, since admins do have discretion in closing AFD discussions. Bring it up at RFC if objectionable conduct persists. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 21:07Z

Yeesh, what is it with this 'we do not have to explain' kick lately? First people claiming that they can just say 'BLP' and not have to explain what they thought was 'controversial' and now this. Yes, you have to explain. Always. It's called 'collaboration 101'... or Wikipedia:Etiquette if you prefer the official site guideline. If the reason isn't obvious (as in... if someone asks what it is) then yes, you need to explain it. People explaining themselves is a fundamental courtesy without which Wikipedia couldn't function at all. --CBD 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tools we use for counter vandalism have improved in leaps and bounds; and its been key to maintaining Wikipedia stability. However, I've found even with these tools blatant vandalism is getting by our overworked first responders. I stopped going counter-vandalism a while back as real life got in the way and new admins and tools seemed to be doing the job.

But recently I've been running VF 3.3 in the background while I browse Wikipedia then scroll through the backlog about once every hour or two. Now while there isn't a lot of vandalism to clean up; there is a significant amount of blatant vandalism I still come across like this which took almost an hour to be reverted.

So I'd like to recruit and get a little help recruiting people to effectively use this passive tool so that we can catch this blatant stuff that slips by. I suppose a mini tutorial would help for new and experienced users alike not familiar to VF:

• English VF 3.3 download here
• Run file and click Connect button, ideally run VF and browser in windows next to each (overlapping) to easily switch back and forth
• Go to configuration tab and ensure "Automatically remove old edits..." and "Show only IP edits." are enabled.
• Change the color scheme so that it makes sense to you and draws your eye to suspicious edits, while not tiring your eyes. (I recommend a dull color like gray for normal IP edits)
• Hopefully you have a tabbed browser, which will make opening/closing multiple pages easier
• Then go to Live RC tab and rearrange the columns so that you can see article, editor, +/-, summary together
• Begin looking for Admins and others (by looking for reversion edit summaries) and adding them to your whitelist (by clicking on Wlist column) so that you can focus on anon edits
• Begin looking for vandalism, clues include: [[WP:AES| (which means there was a blank edit summary), large +/- numbers, especially for sub-sections (big changes in the article), bold edits (which are highrisk edits)
• When you reach the bottom of the list click "clear list" button and distract yourself with real life for a while as a backlog builds and do it all again! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoyBoy (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hopefully we can improve and organize our 2nd-tier Counter-Vandalism response. Feedback welcome, and if I should improve/post this elsewhere. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the User Lists tab, there is an option at the bottom to automatically import all admins to your whitelist. Also don't forget you can blacklist anyone you see vandalizing. Dave6 ^talk 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, never really worked properly for me (admin import); but good suggestions. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the good people who have worked very hard to unite WP:V and WP:NOR into the brilliant WP:ATT have all gone to sleep, so I'm asking you all to have a look at it, because it has now gone live! It is scheduled to replace WP:V and WP:NOR in one week. (I hope most of you have already heard about it, and that I'm posting here as a mere formality.) --Merzul 04:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look it over. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ILIKEIT. Good work to SlimVirgin, Jossi, Pmanderson, Merzul, Steve block, et al. Teke ^(talk) 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, you're kidding me. Now what. Will WP:ATT acquire and merge WP:RS and every other core policy as well? Then will Jimbo have to break it up? Hbdragon88 04:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because this is an invalid slippery slope argument, and you know it ;) It's actually not so much the merger that I like, but the far more appropriate terminology. You will no longer have to explain to people why they can't "verify" something by their own analysis. In short, the main benefit here is that we avoids the oxymoron "verifiable, not truth", which is a source of much confusion, IMO. --Merzul 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a summary of V and NOR; there's no change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it changes absolutely nothing wrt current policy, but I do think attribution is a better word. This will not have any impact for any of our experienced contributors, but it will help new editors understand "verifiability" better. To make it very clear, in terms of life on Wikipedia for our main projects, I promise that nothing will change due to this policy. --Merzul 05:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we pinch WP:A off Wikipedia:Announcements? I would imagine it would be used more for this than for the less-visited <15 edits since the turn of the year announcements page. Proto ► 10:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How sly do I have to make this? Will WP:AT(&)T acquire so many of our core policies to the point where Jimbo(Department of Justice) will have to break it up? Hbdragon88 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have no appreciation for wit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, WP:ATT, would be sly enough... and don't immediately Assume Bad Wits, we're not all from the US. Still, I guess that's no excuse, sorry for not immediately appreciating your cunning word play, I do now :P --Merzul 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to try this for a while. I've created what should be an index to the archives of this page: User:BenAveling/admin index. If people think it's useful, I can probably fashion it into a bot. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great (except for the encoding problems). For questions such as "When was the ban of Someuser discussed", it should be very useful. Kusma (討論) 11:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Somethings going odd in the initial download, but I'm not sure what. I guess it's do to with the character set being used. I'll have a go at fixing that tomorrow. The links should still work, even if they look a bit odd. Any other problems anyone can see? Ben Aveling 11:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems that I can see. But man. We need to get you bored more often! :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be useful, we really need to start renaming threads with useful descriptive headings referring to the exact page or user under discussion. I've just renamed this thread - and I suggest we encourage people to rename threads with specific titles from here on in.--Doc^g 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still banging my head against the long characters. And there's one or two cases where the redirect gets slightly confused, it hits the right archive, but not the right section in it. (Which may be a wikimedia bug in how multiple spaces in headings get handled under some, but not all, circumstances.) Anyway, I'll have to redo it when/if I work out how to handle long characters better, but I think it broadly works. Is it useful enough as is to move to, say, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/archive index and link from somewhere? If so, I'll do the same thing for ANI as well. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved User:BenAveling/admin index to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives and linked to them from Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox and Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all. I'll now generate User:BenAveling/AdminIncident index and User:BenAveling/Admin3RR index. If everything looks OK to everyone, I'll move and add them as well. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing WP:RFAR

This could be a useful thing elsewhere. There was a recent discussion at WT:RFAR about rejected cases not being archived or listed somewhere. This sort of index would help in locating these if the TOC from the page history of WP:RFAR could be scanned like this. NoSeptember 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading the history is no problem, but there would need to be something specific for the script to look for. It's not obvious what. What would help would be if we changed the template so that instead of:

1. (cur) (last) 02:20, 5 February 2007 Paul August (Talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0) - Decline)
2. (cur) (last) 02:19, 5 February 2007 Paul August (Talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0) - Accept)

We had something more like:

1. (cur) (last) 19:02, 5 February 2007 Barney Rubble (Talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing 'Fred vs Wilma' (4/1/0/0) - Accept)

Without something like that, it's hard to know what to look for. I guess it would be possible to say something like here is the first and last times that an edit was made to a section with this name, but I'm not sure how useful that would be? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more in terms of the bot looking at one version of the page for each day, and picking up the case names from the headers, just to show what cases were open at that moment. Then the scanned headers could be alphabetized with a link to the version it came from. It would miss the exact moment the case was removed from the page, but would make it easier to find cases nonetheless. If someone doesn't remember the date that a case was filed, just having the date is good; as is being able to check the index to see if a user or an article has been the subject of a proposed case before. NoSeptember 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that could work. Recovering the full history will mean at least couple of hundred lookups but it won't have to be done often. Once that's done, it might be useful to use binary split to find the very last version of each case, but first things first. Good idea. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newtownards has been making legal threats in his edit summaries. I've warned him twice, but if some admin would keep an eye on him that would be kick ass. Natalie 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are his/her contribs and talk page. Natalie 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. Hopefully the warnings you've left will be sufficient. Please update us if the situation continues/worsens. Having said that, I've seen serious legal threat problem situations, and I don't think this is one in which we need to warn the Office to expect papers. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence (Research) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), this article was started yesterday and has less than 50 edits but is already 58KB in size. Given the nature of the subject matter I question this article's rapid development. I'm I a bit off on this one? (→Netscott) 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if this article is a WP:CSD#G4 candidate. (→Netscott) 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be. It might be a fork of Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WP:AGF, the individuals who started it did a draft off wiki to get it into a decent state before posting it here. On the surface it doesn't look like anyone did anything fishy here.--Isotope23 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Isotope23, I'll get back to AGFing. :-) (→Netscott) 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, seeing a mature article suddenly appear would pique my interest too. It is the exception around here rather than the norm.--Isotope23 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be a fork, it's simply the "Research" section of race and intelligence broken off to form a new article in summary style fashion. I don't see what's surprising about new articles being long and well-developed either, I draft all of my articles off-wiki and I'm sure plenty of people do too. --bainer (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've just been seeing too many poorly written stubs lately. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing people draft up a good article before they post it here.--Isotope23 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please close Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurel_Nakadate? The nomination has been withdrawn. If this is not the proper place for this request, I apologize. Please tell me what is. --Selket ^Talk 18:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as speedy keep, because the nom withdrew and nobody wanted it deleted. --ais523 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Serafin has been evading his block, and has been continuing his disruptive editting. He was blocked on 19 January for 1 month, but since then has made 100+ edits see here, most of which have been personal attacks and none of which have been useful contributions. if you will read Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Serafin you will see how problematic he has been. He has been banned from both Polish and German wikipedias (sometimes known as Aserafin, Bserafin, Cserafin), further indication that his actions are not likely to contribute anything to the English wikipedia. if that wasn't enough of a smoking gun, I would like to direct you to a talk that took place between him and another polish-speaking editor, User_talk:Philip_Gronowski. Much of the discussion is in Polish, but Philip was kind enough to translate it for me here. the most incriminating part is where he states You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can. This was commented soon after the all the articles he had been editting were protected, and he had been blocked for a month. Can someone please block all his sockpuppets to allow the normal editors with good intentions to continue on wikipedia. and if he uses another anon IP, perhaps semi-protect the pages he has been seen to frequent.

--Jadger 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is simpler just to block with ACB. Yuser31415 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is ACB? and has it been done?

--Jadger 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who'd have thought that a short, innocuous essay on measures by which Wikipedia could be considered to be failing would cause so much ill feeling? First people tried to re-write it so that it said Wikipedia was succeeding. I got blocked for trying to prevent them from doing that. Then the bowdlerised version got moved to my user space while I was blocked. Now User:JzG has deleted the link from the original location to the present location. Not only that but he's also protected it to prevent recreation.

Given that the essay was linked from slashdot, it seems not unreasonable to provide a redirect so that people wanting to see what was written can do so. In addition, JzG has stated that cross-namespace redirects must be deleted. However, WP:RfD clearly states that 'a cross-space redirect out of article space' is deletable, not just any redirect that an admin decides they don't like.

Thoughts, anyone? Worldtraveller 23:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were blocked for three-revert rule for this edit war [6][7][8][9][10]

That said, I believe the redirect should be left there so people can find the essay. While there were issues with ownership of the essay when it was in the namespace, it is now in user space. There are also a lot of people coming to this essay from outside WP. Will others support restoring the redirect?--Alabamaboy 23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why Wikipedia needs to host demolition job essays on itself. We're not a soapbox. There's plenty other sites that will only to happily host this for you. Plus, essays in project space are actually improperly so called, they are corporate works that are open to ammendment. So people are entitled to change it to whatever. So, even if it was allowed, it will not be the essay slashdot featured - but something else. If you want a monographed essay, it needs either to be in userspace or off-wiki.--Doc^g 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted WP:FAIL and Wikipedia:The sky is falling, redirects to the essay. I would suggest moving the essay to Meta and creating a soft redirect there, but I am not sure if the essay would stay in Meta for longer than here. Redirects to nowhere are not useful, being them in the main namespace or in the Wikipedia one. -- ReyBrujo 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Doc, you actually think that Wikipedia editors should not be allowed to point out potential failings of Wikipedia? Worldtraveller 00:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title alone seems to be pushing a point of view that is far from proven. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This article and this section are patent trolling. I guess it worked since I'm responding, but still. Please don't feed the trolls. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You hit the nail on the head.--Doc^g 00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? It seems like intelligent constructive criticism to me. What am I missing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldtraveller has done tremendous good for Wikipedia, with all his featured article writing and other efforts. His input and thoughts should be welcome, even if they are critical. We should be able to accept criticism and have discussions on how to make Wikipedia better. I think the focus on where the essay should be detracts from more constructive discussion. I'm also not interested so much on specific metrics used to judge whether an article is "good" or whatever. My main concern is about the rise in (seemingly so) in vandalism, tendentious editing, harassment, and other things that (1) make the editing environment less comfortable (2) less productive, as I'm increasingly sidetracked to deal with administrative tasks and maintaining articles. If we can find some ways to improve the situation, so that editors can be more comfortable and productive for long-time users as well as newbies. The way that Worldtraveller has been treated is very bothersome to me and poisons the well. I'm really in no mood to edit and work on articles. It's disheartening. --Aude (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction to this article probably did more to prove Worldtraveller's point than an evening of RC patrol would have done. On a good day, I may have a total of an hour to work on WP. Most of that time is taken up checking my watchlist and reverting stupid edits in those articles - and not a one of the articles on my watchlist is anywhere near as good as the ones Worldtraveller is associated with. Risker 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read this when it was first linked from Slashdot, and I'm surprised to see so much angst about it. It seemed like a reasonable examination of some things the principle writer was interested in, and it just didn't seem all that controversial. I don't remember seeing anything I haven't heard others say. It seems like a more useful response would be to let the guy have his say, and then write and link to an essay of your own, Why Wikipedia is Succeeding Brilliantly. Maybe I'm missing the point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles:

7. Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Jimbo goes on to explain that we're not talking about unconstructive bitching, but thoughtfully presented critique. I guess readers can decide for themselves whether Worldtraveller's points are constructive or not. I found the essay an interesting read, although I don't agree with everything in it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my earlier point about keeping the redirect to the essay. Will others support this?--Alabamaboy 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not about respecting or not respecting Worldtraveller's grievances (I respect them just fine, I'm in discussion rigt now with WT about this). It's about WP:OWN, pure and simple. The essay made several salient points that were well worth making, but it had some issues that others wanted to correct. That's how Wikipedia works. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely I do anything controversial, but for the sake of readers following bookmarks and links to this page (to find the essay) the redirect page needs to stay. I have restored it, and if anything this needs to follow process and go to AFD. Please quit edit warring over what IMHO are petty details and wikilawyering. --Aude (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this specific link is bookmarked 26 times on del.icio.us For a page that has only been around a few days, that's a lot. Surely there are scores of other links and bookmarks that people have out there. --Aude (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of analysis we should be encouraging. It seems well researched, accurate and thoughtful, and can only lead to an improvement in the project. Self-criticism is vital. Tyrenius 06:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is dumb. Regardless of the merits or flaws of the essay itself, it has been widely read, linked, and discussed; bickering about what namespace it belongs in and where the redirect should go is bureaucratic and lame. There isn't an eyeroll big enough for the argument that we should let masses of slashdotters' bookmarks go dead because of an obscure internal policy that doesn't even really apply here. Opabinia regalis 07:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed out here, but wasn't part of the original problem that the original author wanted to own the essay in question? If so then the redirect would just seem to be a way for him to bypass that need by keeping it in userspace, whilst providing the "benefit" of an "official" url. The brief statement and valid link which is there at the moment looks like it sidesteps the issue of broken bookmarks, but I guess this should ultimately go. --pgk 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who is more concerned with the essay than with the reaction to it is missing the big picture. We should encourage this type of analysis and critique. The ability to look critically at the project is the exact thing that is needed if the title of the essay is to be proved false. Frankly, I think the essay should be moved back to project space and all the redirects restored. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing was created as an essay. It was linked from Slashdot. It contained numerous points that were contested. The originator was unwilling to allow any edits to it, resulting in a lame edit war. It was userfied. I deleted the redirect as a cross-namespace redirect and because you don't get to take your ball home if someone points out you're getting the rules wrong. I suggest it stays that way. We really do not need people setting up essays, flatly refusing to allow them to be edited,. getting them on Slashdot, and then asserting ownership (by whatever means). Links back to the essay from Project space give all the coverage and publicity but without the "owner" allowing the Wikipedia community to challenge the assertions in any way, which is fundamentally against the Wikipedia ethos. Fundamentally against. Either it's an essay in project space and gets edited mercilessly to fix the problems which numeorus editors pointed out with is basis, or it is a user page in user space. WP:NOT MySpace, you don't get to have your say as the only authoritative version. You just don't. This has nothign to do with not allowing analysuis and critique, the critique was fine as long as other editors were allowed ot give their context, it's all about saying "This is my essay that Slashdotters see, and nobody else can correct it".

For the record I am perfectly happy to have the edited essay back at that site, or nothing, but pointing everybody back to an essay WP:OWNed by a particular editor is simply not right. It wold, as far as I can tell, be unprecedented to allow a user to override the "edited mercilessly" clause in this way. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Allow it to remain in user space. We cannot censor users for criticising Wikipedia, but they cannot claim ownership over Wikipedia space. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that actually I thought it was a perfectly legitimate essay, and the edited version was shaping up reasonably well, the problem is not that it criticises Wikipedia but that the editor asserts ownership. If someone wants to poke a stick at Wikipedia without it being in any way challenged for accuracy or interpretation, they need to do it on someone else's servers, is all. Combining high traffic with WP:OWN is a very bad idea. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

allowing the Wikipedia community to challenge the assertions
I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of an essay. An essay is to present a point of view. An essay doesn't need to and in fact really shouldn't try to present all points of view. I haven't looked at the history, but if the attempts to challenge the assertions were for the purpose of trying to correct factual errors, then you have a point. If the purpose of the challenges was to present an alternate point of view, then you don't. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'ownership' stuff is bullshit. Everyone's happy to trumpet all this 'this is a wiki, anyone can change anything', but you all implicitly assume that User:WillowW's altering of the essay so that it concluded that Wikipedia is succeeding was backed by Consensus. You seem to not get that obviously, the only consensus view is that 'Wikipedia might have problems and it might not', and altering an essay so it says that is hardly useful work. Some rather more sensible people were challenging the assertions of the essay, not by removing all critical material, but by discussing on the talk page. That's really quite a useful thing. JzG appears to not want any discussion of a critical position to happen.

If someone edits evolution so that it's actually all about creationism, and someone else repeatedly reverts back, are they asserting ownership? Worldtraveller 10:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Wikidrama galore! Actually, ownership issues apart, it was good to see someone finally raise the point of the infuriating lack of importance that we attach to quality articles, and our wrongheaded and somewhat rabid fondness for quantity over quality. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is useful. But if he keeps on reverting other users' edits, it's an WP:OWN issue. We are not against censoring him. Just that Wikipedia space should not redirect to his userspace. WP:OWN and high-traffic are a lethal concoction. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not lethal, but certainly against the principles of the project. The best result is obviously to have the essay back in project space and edited by those who want to extend or clarify it. As far as I can tell the only person who has a serious problem with that is Worldtraveller. Pride in one's writing is one thing, WP:OWN is another. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly should there not be a link from where the essay was to where it is now? Do you understand that there was not a redirect, but just a link? Do you understand that changing an essay so it says entirely the opposite of what it said originally, without getting any consensus for the change, is disruptive, and that reverting disruptive changes has nothing to do with the 'ownership' you're bleating on and on about? Worldtraveller 12:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "official" versions. Maybe if we did the degradation of featured articles which you and others identify would be less of a problem. But rightly or wrongly we don't have that. Here's a possible solution: somewhere around there is a Slashdotted template, which I think allows for diff-linking the version they linked, to go on Talk. Why not subst {{High traffic}} on Talk and add the diff link? Guy (Help!) 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're under the impression that I added the link to the older version. That was not the case. I've been a bit mystified about how you kept on reverting it quoting WP:OWN - I see your mistake now. Worldtraveller 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe Guy is wiki-lawyering to find any available excuse to cover from public view a widely publicized analysis of the state of Wikipedia. The soft redirect page linked to the original essay, as well as the rebuttal; how more balanced could the situation be? The talk page for the original article contains a wide variety of extremely useful discussion about the current issues with the Wikipedia model and what should be done to fix them. The censoring of the article and its associated discussion is intolerable, and if it continues it clearly indicates that wikipedia has already failed and it's community has come under the control of a totalitarian regime. (MichaelJLowe 13:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This is so disgusting that JzG is wikilawyering over the redirect page. Not only was the essay by Worldtraveller linked there, but so were several other opposing and "rebuttal" essays. Honestly, I have no clue where those rebuttal essays are now and can't find 'em. You are depriving me to be able to read those, in addition to scores of people coming in from bookmarks and external links into Wikipedia from reading the essay by Worldtraveller. The page should not be unilaterally deleted. If anything, this needs to go to WP:AFD. --Aude (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Guy's point about ownership. I'm not saying that's what happened, because I wasn't involved in the editing, but it is a legitimate concern. I don't think Guy is wikilawyering or trying to cover up anything. At the same time, I don't expect essays to be individually balanced, but to balance out in the aggregate by other essays from other points of view. Everyone can edit it, of course, but rather than completely change the direction of the essay it would be better to write another essay elsewhere. I mean I could in theory go edit Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to be instead about Superman's obligation to save the world, but I would do better to write about that under a different title. I thought the disambiguation page was useful. Would linking to a particular version of the essay be helpful? Restore the page, and add a note at the top, "This version [link] was linked from Slashdot on Wednesday" or something? Of course someone could host it off-site, but I'm not sure that's the best outcome for Wikipedia. Let me say too that for someone from outside going to read about how 'Wikipedia is failing', it looks bad to get This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation. I don't think that's the best option for the long term. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping Guy or anyone else from forking the essay by Worldtraveller and creating a version they think is "right". I would indeed like to read responses to Worldtraveller's essay and other viewpoints. Right now, all those links are gone and denied to me and outside readers coming in. --Aude (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, thanks - and don't get me wrong, I don't think the essay has to be balanced or anything, we're pretty clear about essays being held to a lower standard of neutrality than other content, I just don't see how we can allow one editor to assert absolute ownership. Aude, I don't want to fork it, I want the original back and being edited. If Worldtraveller is content to allow the thing to be edited, and accept that some of the original critiques may be contextualised or explained, then I have no problem at all. For me, the best result is to have the essay back in project space and being edited. Sure, from time to time someone might "subvert" it, but we can deal with that in the usual way. It's not like we've never been there before. This is absolutely not about Wikilawyering, it's about WP:OWN and WP:SOAP and WP:NOT a free webhost and a whole lot of other things that get violated as soon as we allow people to start insisting on their version of something. It's a route down which I think many of us would rather not start. So: let's have the essay back and editable (and edited), by all means. Anyone who wants to do that is more than welcome. But please please let's not have any more of this disgruntled "here's the version I think was right" stuff, it's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If returned, I think it is best in his userspace, but it can still be edited by anyone, userspace is not that different. The first edit I would make is to the title, it is pushing a POV that is not proven or generally accepted here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title is not especially important, it's a critique and the fact that we still have 1.6 million articles and are a top-ten website (more or less) says everything you need to know to balance it out. We all know that mathematically speaking bumble bees can't fly, and it's not like this is the first time we've been told Wikipedia can't possibly work is it? Guy (Help!) 14:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; can we restore the essay and edit it normally? My first edit would be to add a link to the version that people saw from Slashdot, and any See also links that aren't already there. I'd like to hear from Sir Nicholas before I undo his protection, but I'd like to have something informative up again as soon as we can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, no problem whatsoever with that, I've just done it, but linking to the Slashdotted version? No thanks. This is a Wiki, if something is broken we fix it without pointing to the broken version. Not that there's a lot broken about this, but we don't need to have ownership issues and silly "yeah, but I said it better" disputes. Just edit the thing, and if it gets subverted then some of us who agree with the original can edit it back. Just like we usually do. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if slashdot wants the old one they can go through google cache or history, nobody gets to choose the POV displayed here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And I think there are enough admins who are sympathetic to the spirit of the thing that we can be reasonably sure it won't get subverted again, or if it does, not for long. Christ, that was like pulling teeth! I really thought it was a blindingly obvious call, but apparently not. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested that the name be changed to "How Wikipedia can be better". That essay is simply making up criteria for success and applying it, nowhere in the mandate of Wikipedia are any of his criticisms mentioned. I could say the Apollo mission failed because they didn't go to Mars, but it carries no weight because that was not their mandate for success. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the essay as it stands should redirect to a copy of the original in userspace. Obviously, nothing is owned on Wikipedia, but an essay in userspace should not be altered by other users. After all, because the essay is a part of the user's domain, it would be assumed that the content has been written by that user (unless it's a talk page, obviously, or a misc placeholder page). .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user's domain? Have you read WP:OWN? Essays in userspace are no more owned than essays in Wikipedia space. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, however, if an essay is edited in a userspace, the outside editor should mark his changes clearly on the essay (unless it fits consensus.) Not doing so would be akin to changing someone's "About Me" section; while nobody owns that section, it's still bad form to misrepresent someone's work... and chances are, things in userspace are likely to be attributed to the user unless explicitly said otherwise. .V. _[Talk|Email] 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent essay! Please maintain it carefully. People should be careful not to nerf it either. Instead, try to figure out ways to fix issues (unless you're sure it's a feature, not a bug, if so, argue so). Use page as checklist! Strike items that you fix ;-) . --Kim Bruning 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) What, that's not so easy, you say? ;-) [reply]

• Keep The essay does point out some failings of Wikipedia. I am going to improve the essay quality when I get time, because I see so many people have contributed and made references for the essay Wikipedia is NOT failing. --Parker007 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dealing with Matrix17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on and off for a week or so now. He is creating quite a bit of content that isn't of very good quality and he seems to have something of a problem with formatting his articles, as well as what constitutes acceptable external links and sources for a biographical article. It is kind of hard to tell from the way he archived his talk page, but several editors have brought this up to him and his [[11]] would appear to be that he resents being told to do things the right way (I'm not sure what the blocking thing is about; other than telling him he would be blocked if I saw him adding unsourced rumors to WP:BLP again, he's never been blocked... just warned). Despite the fact that he's been told some basic markup, this makes me think that he just expects others to follow him around and clean up the articles he creates. To me that is unacceptable. I'm not trying to be hard on this guy, and at this point he is starting to wear out the patience of the editors who have come in contact with him. Any ideas here? I don't think anyone wants to follow him arond wikifying his articles until the end of time. At this point I'm not sure anything I say to him is going to have much of an effect because I suspect he thinks I "have it out for him". Anyone had a successful approach to getting an editor to start contributing per policies and guidelines?--Isotope23 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a vandalism warning on his talk page for a specific edit of his. I've also told him to not remove the warning b/c that is also vandalism.--Alabamaboy 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I don't think the Censure edit was meant to be vandalism, he just doesn't seem to understand the concept of what a good sourced edit is as opposed to opinion or rumor, even after the concept has been explained to him. Warnings are probably not going to do a lot of good given his response to every previous interaction... that is why I'm fishing for another approach here. He's obviously run into a similar problem at se.wikipedia.--Isotope23 03:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of warnings is not vandalism. Many people get this misconception due to old obsoleted discussions and templates. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, didn't know removal of warnings was no longer considered vandalism. Can you provide me a link to that change so I'll have it for future reference. Anyway, while I agree most of Matrix17's edits were not vandalism, the Censure edit seemed to be clear cut vandalism, while attempting to speedy delete black people was borderline vandalism. I do agree, though, that the large issue with this user isn't about vandalism but about making properly sourced edits.--Alabamaboy 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff of the removal. I think people were abusing the warning templates for established users and it became a vicious cycle as part of edit wars. But editors are allowed to remove warnings. --Tbeatty 18:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Alabamaboy 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor asked me if I would delete User talk:Fourstrings@earthlink.net and User talk:I think I just stuffed a toy truck up my ass. They are both protected redirects to redlinks. I am assuming this would be ok since they are redirects to now-deleted userpages, but since they are protected I thought I'd ask here first. If yes, can I assume it is ok to delete protected userspace redirects to redlinks in the future (Of indefinitely blocked users)? This isn't the first time I've encountered one of these and I wasn't sure on what I should do. Also, should I unprotect after deleting? (or does it auto-unprotect? Yes, I'm a new admin :)) VegaDark 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD R1, I believe :). As far as I know page protection stays when pages are deleted, but I can't confirm it. Experiment and see :P. Yuser31415 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or CSD R2. It's up to you, they are both appropriate. Yuser31415 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection goes with the page itself. Go ahead and delete them. (ie I'm leaving them for you) Viridae^Talk 07:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done and done. Thanks for the help both of you. VegaDark 09:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion to WP:AN/I#Disruptive editor? to keep comments about BabyDweezil in one place. -- ChrisO 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Disputed fair use images is terribly backlogged. There are many images in there that have been tagged for many months and never taken action on.

I've done a first step to try to bring that category more in line with the process outlined at WP:CSD. I added instructions to {{Fair use disputed}} telling taggers to give the proper notice to uploaders (as required by CSD I7), and to use {{db-badfairuse}} if the issue has not been resolved after the waiting period. I also created the user-talk notification template to go with it, {{No fair}}. However, to reduce the process overhead, my preferred solution would really be to bring the whole thing in line with the process of {{nrd}} ("no rationale") and {{rfud}} ("replaceable"), i.e. create a dated category queue that leads automatically into CAT:CSD. Right now, to get an image deleted if it is a clearly invalid fair use, i.e. a plain copyvio, is paradoxically more difficult and more work than getting an image deleted that is perfectly legal but just "replaceable" for the sake of our free-content ideals. It shouldn't be like that. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long time vandal on wikipedia known for making well over a dozen sockpuppets, not including I.P's. We have since designated him his two most well known alias' User:Martin181 and User:Verdict... at first we believed that he just didnt understand some aspects of Wikipedia policy however i came incresing clear that the user had no intention of listing or paying attention (notable disruptions include the repeated reverts on the Brock Lesnar article to a previous version of his [as he believes only he should edit the Lesnar article] which has forced the page into numorous Vprotects stopping all edits). Many attempts through various means including personal emails have been made by myself, User:Lid, and admins User:Yamla and User:Woohookitty but they have all ended with the admins having no choice but to block the user puppets indefinitely. After months of personal attacks (on wikipedia and via email) and repeated breaks in wikipedia policy im looking for any ideas short of letting him forcedly keep pages like Brock Lesnar the way he wants them. --- Paulley 15:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone go through and remove the obvious and unending harassment of me in this section Talk:James_Kim#The_James_Kim_.27Talk.27_page. I'd do it, but I'd like a third party to for impartiality. Someone made some inappropriate and off-topic comments on there months ago, and some people (or one person with proxy access) just will not let it die by continuing to harass me there and then often vandalizing my user page and talk page with the same IPs.--Crossmr 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad we got rid of WP:PAIN. The harassment continues and no one wants to get involved.--Crossmr 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antandrus has pruned the thread and I blocked the latest harasser. Looks like you've got a bit of a stalker on your hands, though... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the whole thread. It was just too difficult to excise individual harassing posts (there were many). Under talk page guidelines, threads which have nothing to do with improving the article can go, as you pointed out yourself there. It was quite clear there were some individuals bent on harassing you personally (I remember reverting a couple of them today). I hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and could this go on AN/I next time? That board is more geared toward this type of stuff and will probably get you a faster response. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Trying to figure out who the stalker is on that page would be rather difficult. A number of point of view pushers got really upset that I wouldn't let them fill the article with unsourced opinion and agenda, and of course the user who's off-topic comment I removed got quite riled up as well. If I didn't communicate with IPs so often I'd ask to have my page semi-protected (as I've seen it done on occasion) but get the odd legitimate question from an IP on my talk page so I wouldn't want to lock them out.--Crossmr 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Straw_poll needs closing, new opinions are decreasing and repetition of old opinions are increasing. I was rather involved, so I cannot, and should not, close it myself.

Please, remember not to vote count, but to take into account the level of reason and compatibility with policy and guidelines(such as WP:CREEP, WP:OWN, WP:USER, and WP:NOT) each opinion carries. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to close this - it is an ongoing discussion. What would a 'result' prove but lack of consensus? Polls are very evil like that.--Doc^g 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, using a poll the decide a debate is unwise, evil I am not so sure about, however, using a poll, and the surrounding discussion, to help determine a consensus is just fine. A subtle point, but an important one. As for what a result would prove, we are waiting on this discussion to decide if a policy change should be made. I don't see a lack of consensus, perhaps by raw counting, but not if you consider the arguments. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polls aren't evil, they're just not a substitute for discussion and one thing for sure is that the folks there are leaving comments in their !votes and others are responding accordingly. (→Netscott) 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, there have been arguments, and responses and even agreement. This is not an example of a poll, this is an example of a discussion assisted by a poll. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Well, if every single admin has participated in the (crazy and unnecessary) debate, I would be happy to close it. It would be my pleasure, in fact :P. Yuser31415 19:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If every single admin has participated, then perhaps the debate is not crazy and unnecessary. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why so many people wished to poll over such a small issue that should have been resolved in about three statements. Oh well ... Yuser31415 23:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what to do as this is my first time coming to the determination that I am in weak opposition to a block issued. I have notified issuing admin user:Yandman that he may have incorrectly blocked User talk:Marshalbannana. Please post to my talk page with any advice on how to handle this determination. TonyTheTiger 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first step is usually discussion with the blocking admin -- sometimes they'll know something I don't, or there were sockpuppets/deleted edits/some other skeleton in the closet. If that doesn't yield anything fruitful, I see if they'd be willing to see the block reduced or lifted. If the two of us can't reach some sort of agreement, then bring it to the community for a larger discussion -- AN, AN/I, maybe CN now that we have another. Something like that, anyway; there's no set rules, and some people do come directly to the noticeboards. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you seek ample evidence, go to my talk page and click on "history". All IP adresses can be traced to the same town, that of Jacknicholson/Marshalbanana. I'll try and sort this out tomorrow. yandman 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an email I got from User:Jesup explaining the situation:

Marshalbannana aka Marshal2.0 aka Jacknicholson (indef-banned for puppetry) has a long history of puppetry and anon-IP edit-pushing (on Katana, trying to insert a youtube video for months, eventually resulting in full protection being required). After I (Wikipedia User:jesup) accused him/Jacknicholson of sockpuppetry here, he started abusing my user page and later (after user was sprotected) my Talk page occasionally (still doing it as of last weekend).

Appears to be a high-school student from somewhere in the south, perhaps Georgia, on a dynamic IP (BellSouth) which frequently changes or he forces changes.

He seems to have started vandalising my userspace too, but Luna et al. are quick to revert it. However, this trick seems to have got past unnoticed. I'll reinsert it tomorrow, if only to please my bureaucratic urges.. yandman 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's this at ANI. yandman 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This individual keeps posting the same personal attack on my talk. Given his/her attitude it seems like a warning would be more strongly received if it came from a third party. Natalie 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it {{bv}}. Half-inclined to just block an be done with it -- high probability this is a trollsock, as I'm reading it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would say you're probably right - he appeared right after We have 6 heads was blocked, who got in one vandalistic talk message to me before being blocked. Sigh... children.Natalie 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of individual admins blocking accounts that have bad usernames, why doesn't Wikipedia just modify the software so that names that contain certain key words (e.g. fuck, shit) can't be created in the first place? That would save the admins a lot of time.--71.155.168.90 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because software can't make a judgment call - many real, proper names across the world happen to have "shit" buried in the middle of them. Also, the software can't make judgment calls in the opposite direction - User:Sh1t would be blocked by a human, but not by a computer. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay it would be possible (use letter-number regexp). 99% of usernames containing "fuck" or "shit" are bad anyway. Yuser31415 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Shitomi" would be legitimate, whereas "Shitonme" would not be.
However, this is a solution looking for a problem. Let's just leave the system as-is; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Is it really necessary, is the real question. I've looked at the user creation log occasionally, and out of, say, 100 names, I've never seen more than 2 that were inappropriate, and more often 0. And in my experience, most people with inappropriate usernames turn out to be vandals, so they get noticed and blocked pretty quickly. Natalie 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still remember the Scunthorpe Problem, I have no faith on automatic systems. In all cases WP:RFC/NAME works pretty well. --Asterion^talk 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The major point with this is that inappropriate username accounts aren't a problem until somebody starts editing with them and these are quickly dealt with at WP:AIV and WP:RFCN, many accounts are created and never used RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be an inappropriate place to put this, but I was just wondering if anyone else has had problems with logging onto wikipedia? I've had to delete all my cookies and temporary internet files to get back on and my watchlist hasn't changed since I first started having problems 40 minutes ago RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did too, but it is fine now. — MichaelLinnear 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, it was hard, but I got through it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem not too long ago and I'm still experiencing some problems when editing. But with this piece of crap my parents call a "computer," I'm not really surprised. // PoeticDecay 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we'll get a report about it, but the load balancer went down and no backups of the config could be found. As soon as they moved the A record over to the IP of a backup load-balancer, everything came back up. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank god its back up, I started having a nervous breakdown! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the Great Power Outage of 2006, I think some came close to suicide. It wouldn't have suprised me at the the time if #wikipedia had caused freenode to crash. Teke ^(talk) 05:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooohh yeah, and the article links to the Great Power Outage of 2005. I was just an IP occasionally fixing back then, so it just left me bored for a day. Teke ^(talk) 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After much discussion and back and forth I have added a section and subsection to WP:UP arrived at by a number of the parties involved in this. I invite those who have been following these developments to review this new section. As well as the talk that developed it. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat ambiguous for new users. I know what it means but I doubt a newbie would. Viridae^Talk 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, this addition is meant as a citeable reference for folks to use in encouraging users to remove simulated MediaWiki content. At this point it has been left like that to avoid teaching users about how to simulate MediaWiki content and also to avoid instruction creep. (→Netscott) 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The version I put online didn't have the Jimbo quote ref. that is currently showing which is rather out of place now. That was added by User:Yuser31415 who I requested to remove it. (→Netscott) 00:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its not a major quote and consequently seems irrelvant. Viridae^Talk 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for anyone to remove it if it seems out of place. This is a wiki, after all :). Yuser31415 03:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be removed ... rather, the language should be made stronger. The "you have new messages" joke is merely annoying ... but someone could spoof the donation link and that would be more than annoying. We should definitely have it written down that spoofing the interface or any official content is not permitted. --BigDT 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BigDT, there's a big lack of consensus gray area in terms of consensus to do what you are talking about. Before editing in support of your thinking I would highly recommend you properly research this as this was the source of serious disruption for the past few days. Cheers. (→Netscott) 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am here requesting that my indefinite block of Nirelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be reviewed. I had originally blocked him because I found that he was using sockpuppets to game 3RR at Dave Winer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After Nirelan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) showed up, I extended the block to a week. The block expired recently, and it was brought to my attention that he edit warring, again, I blocked him, as his only major edits are to Dave Winer as well as a handful outside of that article. Now that I look back on it, an indefinite block may have been a bit much, but disruptive activity like Nirelan's should not be allowed to continue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a few more edits at Special:Undelete/Guitar Programming.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be trimmed down to between two weeks — a month. I don't think blocks on users like this should be done unilaterally; if the same disruptive editing continues after the block, take it to the WP:CN (I doubt much resistance will be found). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted and changed to a month.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather afraid that I need to give an apology to all concerned that surrounds myself sending a whole raft of messages to people who had already contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. For those who aren't aware of it, I was pretty annoyed that a very clear AFD had already been held and a clear consensus to keep the article was made. The article was kept. However, it was then (IMO, pretty reasonably) moved to the Wikipedia namespace. However, it was then soon added to MFD. This really got on my goat (as has other similar AFDs) as I really saw this as deleting the article through stealth. I argued quite strenuously against those who wanted it deleted and who referred to things like WP:ILIKEIT, etc. as I felt that this was unfair and missing the point. I don't apologise for that, as I didn't personally attack anyone, though I did message on person to ask a question and they found this to be somewhat confrontational.

However, where I did go wrong was to send a message to all the people who added a keep to the discussion informing them of the new MFD. I also erred in calling it a "vote". Several people found this to be unacceptable, and yes, it was. After reflecting on my actions for some time, I would therefore like to apologise to the community at large for violating WP:CAMPAIGN. It was wrong to do, and I should have known better. Should anyone wish to apply some sort of decision against me, I would appreciate it if they could first take it through ArbCom. I will certainly not dispute the facts, and in fact I will take any punishment that they deem necessary without protest.

I should note that this isn't a particularly easy thing for me to admit to, as I really felt at the time that I had no recourse but to send messages to these people. Something I now see wasn't particularly wise. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for owning up. I know, AfDs can be annoying sometimes. One learns from mistakes, and I'm sure you will learn from this one. Cheers :P Yuser31415 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that two wrongs don't make a cat. That said, best to move on, punishment-free, even! El_C 10:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm being stalked by a user who is possibly using his IP account to avoid being blocked. I have apparently got on the bad side of User:Em0909153, when I noticed he/she was uploading a lot of copyrighted images of baseball players that were destined to be deleted as fair use images, and advised him on multiple occasions to stop uploading non-free images.

After a couple of user talk exchanges, I received this message from 24.184.177.78, titled "Loser alert". I assumed it was the same user, so I left a message at User talk:Em0909153 and got neither a denial or admission, but this response.

I gave up on trying to communicate with the user and decided to simply stay out of the way. But then, Em0909153 reverted my edits twice at Don Shula, and possibly again with the IP the third time ([12]), although I requested that the change be discussed in Talk. The IP account reverted another one of my edits ([13]) without giving a reason.

I have no doubt that the IP address belongs to the user, especially with the image vandalism from the IP address, using an image by Em0909153 specifically for vandalism.

What can I do to resolve the situation? Trying to communicate with Em0909153 seems hopeless. --Mosmof 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a notice on Em0909153's talkpage, to make him aware of your post here and ask him to remain civil. As for the IP and the account being the same user, that's too obvious to bother CheckUser with, considering the links you post and the IP's general contributions. This pair of edits alone is enough to convince me. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It looks like someone (perhaps several people) are excited about February 21 being the day that Brian Peppers can possibly have an article again. There has been multiple blanking of the February 21 article announcing the event. I'm not familiar with what happened way back that got the article deleted (looks messy), but I went ahead and semi-protected February 21 for a couple of days after the 21st to prevent further uhh... celebration (?). -- Gogo Dodo 07:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's because Jimbo had salted it and set the date for discussion to begin again on Feb 21, 2007. It's very unlikely to happen. The most that will happen is a WP:SNOW WP:DRV to endorse the deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured that part out. Just wanted to give everybody a heads up on the potential for vandalism on the 21st. I actually botched the semi-protect and did it for longer than I wanted to, but I'm not going to fix it. If some other admin wants to shorten the semi-protect, feel free. =) -- Gogo Dodo 07:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I blocked the IPs involved as open proxies. One relegated to a Hungarian ISP, which is nigh impossible for someone involved with YTMND and the Brian Peppers nonsense.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also being pushed on YTMND, unsurprisingly. I checked around, there are no more sources now than there were a year ago, and none for any significant biographical data. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our friends at Wikipedia Review were talking about a big trolling session as regards this article a few days ago, which explains a few things, I guess. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted before that sourcing is not the only issue here. We don't allow attack pages against non-notable people, and that's all this article could ever become. If it were up to me we'd cancel the preannounced troll festivities by deciding right now that this article isn't going to happen. Newyorkbrad 14:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.--Doc^g 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make it so. --bainer (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google news and archives reveal two unreliable sources. Snopes does provide some helpful, verifiable information, but maintaining this article for a marginally notable man and continuously fighting against unsourced memes doesn't seem to be worth it. Gracenotes^T § 16:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey. While I am no fan of the Brian Peppers article, it's extremely conclusive that an encyclopedic article about a sex offender with a congenital defect is automatically an attack article. Many people will tell you that Dick Cheney only cares about money; does that make his article an attack page? What about Joseph Stalin? Because he locked people up in Gulabs, that makes his article an attack article? Yeesh. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's conclusive that all the people interested in creating such an article wish to do so in order to create what would be an attack page, and that the person is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia and that any possible notability would derive directly from online attacks against the person. Cheney and Stalin are both historically important personages for which there is a superabundance of reliable source material, because historians, authors, etc. write about them as having a major effect on the world. There is almost no reliable source material about Brian Peppers, and the only reason anyone would wish to create an article about him is because some people online amuse themselves with his physical deformity. —Centrx→talk • 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Anyways, I read the latest version of the Brian Peppers article before its deletion, and it didn't seem like an attack to me. Now, if this article had reliable source, we would maintain encyclopedicness and revert attempts at transforming it into an attack article. But, oh wait, there's barely anything out there about him. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with MessedRocker. We don't have pages about non-notable people full stop, regardless of whether it is an attack page; similarly we don't delete articles about notable people because they are liable to vandalism. Although I'm not au fait with all the background to this, the fact Jimbo set an end date implies that the presence of this article is still open to debate. I think there should be a pre-emptive AfD (if that makes sense), where standard concerns about verifability and notability will be raised and considered. Then, on the consensus of that, we decide what to do with the page. But this should be about whether the subject deserves its own page, and attempt to avoid the trolling issues. (And in response to Centrx, this is why this article needs due consideration in the appropriate forum.) Trebor 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support a preemptive review of the sourcing/notability issue in some more open forum, such as AfD or the new WP:CN. The article should remain protected during the time of the review, or maybe created as a provisional stub, so that uninvolved editors can assess what this is all about. Sandstein 19:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh just unprotect the talk page and leave those who wish to do so to fight it out.Geni 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose doing any such thing. Newyorkbrad 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Do we consider the snopes article a reliable source? If yes, I believe that an article can be made that is not an attack and asserts notability. If not, then it cannot. Here is obviously a reliable source but that site cannot verify much, only basic details that verify he is a sex offender. here is another but that is again only basic details that do not show why he is notable. Other than the snopes article, there is one final reliable source that verifies notability but as you can see they took the link down to the news story and now it simply leads to their main page. The only remnants of the article's contents that I found are now, sadly, on the YTMND located at http:// brianpeppersfoxtoledo dot ytmnd dot com/ (can't write out ytmnd links due to blacklist) However, as an admin I can verify that the website did indeed have that information at one time (and it definitely asserts notability). Now, this brings us to an interesting scenerio. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22, this reference is still considered a reliable source and should not be removed. If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. So if we follow that guideline the link I provided should be considered a reliable source, and along with the snopes article that would be two reliable sources that assert notability, plus we have the other ones that verify he exists. I think we have ourselves enough to make an article. VegaDark 21:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have a basis for making an article that any self-respecting encyclopedia would want to contain or that has any chance of meeting reasonable standards for inclusion. There is no valid basis for asserting this person's notability whatsoever, even if the basic facts of the prior version were certified as true by a chorus of angels, which is why I have argued that the emphasis on sourcing, important though that is, is actually a digression. Valid topics for Wikipedia articles do not include persons who would otherwise be entirely non-notable, living sad and lonely lives of isolation and rejection. That such a person made a mistake and now finds himself treated as a figure of fun because of aspects of his physical appearance over which he has no control, and thereby faces the deprivation of self-respect which must be one of the few things that allows a person in such circumstances to want to remain alive, does not provide the foundation of an encyclopedia article. We do not include articles on people for the purpose of making fun of them and causing them emotional harm, and we do not include articles on people who are not notable. In this instance, I gather that the notability rationale is that the subject has become famous, and is therefore notable, precisely because people make fun of him. Famous for being made fun of, an "internet meme"—this type of bootstrapping does not impress me. The way this sad individual has been treated on Wikipedia, and on the Internet more generally, is sordid and horrible. Making sure that the Wikipedia is not used to damage people in this way is one of the most important tasks facing us as administrators. (It is a task that our detractors believe we need to place an even higher priority on than we do, which is one of the reasons I find their desire to see this article re-created so odd, but that is a digression.) The people counting down the days until they can re-create the prior article or a similar one are not here to provide information that is either educational or informative or legitimately entertaining, which are the reasons a good-faith contributor creates or edits an article. Anything on this subject is going to get speedied as db-attack on a non-notable person so far as I am concerned. Newyorkbrad 21:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the user Ken Perlin (talk · contribs · count) has edited about himself. The edits are in good faith, but it cannot be said for sure if the editor is Dr. Perlin himself. I request an admin to look into this matter. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 11:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guideline does not prohibit it, though it is suggested that the subject add to the talk page rather than the main article. As he is a new editor, he was likely not aware of the guideline. I left him a note on his talk page referring him to the guideline. — ERcheck (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Springfield Isotopes had an AfD that ended on February 15, 2007, the result of which was keep. User:Eluchil404, the closing admin, left a note at the talk page, noting that "Anyone interested in merging or redirecting should first seek consensus on this talk page." User:Scorpion0422, who had nominated the article for deletion, has now since redirected the article three times, without discussion at either the talk page or his user page. Please advise; this user, in my opinion, seems to have a tendency to disregard community consensus. --Maxamegalon2000 17:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a note, but this isn't an administrative issue. Consider using the dispute resolution procedure next time, e.g. WP:3O. Sandstein 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I wasn't sure where to go with it. --Maxamegalon2000 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chill77 (talk · contribs) is relatively new user who seems to be completely incapable of understanding what Wikipedia is. He started by repeatedly adding unconfirmed characters to Naruto Shippūden: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX without any sources to prove it, and despite repeated warnings not to do this without sources, he continues to do so. His comments when creating the redundant article Sasuke Uchiha (Naruto) seems to indicate he thinks the site is some kind of fansite or forum where he can list his opinion and wishes about a ficitonal series. He doesn't respond to any messages on his talk page, and his continued editing after every time I warn him show he's either ignoring them or not understanding them. My patience with this user is down to nothing; can somebody please deal with this user and get him to understand that his edits are unconstructive and/or to get him to read the site's policies and rules? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-create3}} warning issued. If he keeps it up, next stop WP:AIV. Sandstein 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a non-notable engineer, and I have reasonable suspicion that the article was created by this individual, despite his claims to the opposite. I would appreciate if an administrator would look into the matter, and delete the article if he or she agrees. --Nevhood 19:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as nn-bio and deleted. --Ragib 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Nevhood 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]