This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 00:37, 7 July 2007 (→Where to go from here: suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages: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 you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, 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)

Current issues

Unblocking Anarcho-capitalism

Hi. I've been in touch with Anarcho-capitalism (talk · contribs) via email. This user is currently blocked as a sockpuppet of Billy Ego (talk · contribs), based on a checkuser that found them coming from the same geographic area. The IP addresses, however, are dymanic. Having reviewed the contributions of both users (and some other suspected socks), I believe they are different people, and that Anarcho-capitalism is a good faith contributor who's been caught in somebody else's block.

There was also a suspicion that Anarcho-capitalism is the same person as the infamous User:RJII. Having reviewed their contributions, I believe these are also different people. Anarcho-capitalism wants to contribute to Misplaced Pages without being caught by other users' blocks, and I'm inclined to give him a chance. Before unblocking, I'm submitting the situation for other admins' consideration.

This editor has used multiple accounts to work around blocks in the past (User:Personal Business and User:FargoWells are two examples), but has agreed to use the one account, User:Anarcho-capitalism, and to work with me to avoid some of the problems he's run into in the past. He also requests that his roommate's account, Regulations (talk · contribs) be unblocked, as another piece of collateral damage.

The editor points out that, even if one were to think that he's the same as Billy Ego or RJII, the behavior for which those editors are banned doesn't seem to be exhibited from the Anarcho-capitalism account, so there's no real preventative benefit to the block. He's also agreed not to repost his controversial userpage that was MfD'd before. What do other admins think? -GTBacchus 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I am not an administrator, but I have enough pattern recognition at WP:SSP to see that, checkuser be damned, this is far from a clear-cut case. I can see from User talk:Anarcho-capitalism (what I can't see in the emails) that the user is legitimately surprised to be blocked forever, and doesn't seem to be fooling around as a kind of "spite check." I'm more than willing to give him a second chance. Shalom 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Blocking admin: Doesn't worry me, I think the block was requested on one of these noticeboards citing the arbitration case I used as the block summary. Viridae 00:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Starting point here would be to consult with the checkuser who did the check if he is around. (If this was one of the socks picked up during the Billy Ego arbitration case, though, the check was done by Mackensen, who is on a wikibreak right now.) Newyorkbrad 00:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You may want to see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego as well - quite a litany. In the meantime, I oppose unblocking this editor in the strongest possible terms. A large number of his socks have popped up on anarchism-related pages, and they've invariably been disruptive. Another characteristic is impassioned pleas of innocence, claims that checkuser made a mistake, claims of shared computers, roommates, etc. Once the unblock request is declined, these tend to morph into admissions of guilt and vengeful threats that their next sockpuppet will be able to slip by checkuser. Regulations (talk · contribs) was also a highly disruptive single-purpose account prior to his block, and has returned with innumerable disruptive socks since the block. These were role accounts but edited from essentially similar viewpoints with similar editing tics. He tends to boast of having a number of sleeper accounts, etc. I'll provide some diffs when I have a second to look, but in the meantime wanted to register serious concerns about an unblock here. MastCell 01:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

      So... are you saying that Anarcho-capitalism is Billy Ego, after all? -GTBacchus 02:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

      • MastCell, if you provide examples of some of those false pleas this would be a lot simpler to resolve. I'm on the fence at this point - inclining toward good faith but equally respectful of your judgement. Durova 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

        Anarcho-capitalism's reply, via email, is that Mastcell was involved in a content dispute with User:Regulations, and that his objection to unblocking is POV-motivated. I'm not saying that this claim is or isn't true; just relaying the reply. -GTBacchus 04:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

        Also, Mastcell... how would you characterize the disruption on the anarchism pages? -GTBacchus 04:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

        • Hold it. User:Regulations is a confirmed sockpuppet of Billy Ego, correct? Why does Anarcho-capitalism have such a detailed knowledge of what they were up to? Why is Anarcho-capitalism convinced that MastCell's involvement with Regulations is what leads to thinking that he is also a sockpuppet of Billy Ego? There could be innocent explanations for all this, but it still strikes me as suspicious... "MastCell is out to get me because of an argument with that random person" is a bizarre argument. "MastCell is out to get me because of an argument with another of my sockpuppets" makes sense, but would appear to be an admission of guilt. --Aquillion 16:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

          • Their claim is that they are roommates. I believe that they're actually role accounts used by the same person, since they share a number of distinctive editing tics as well as a pronounced POV, but that's their explanation. As for turning the spotlight on me, I would say that as an admin, I'm generally "out to get" any sockpuppets of ArbCom-banned users that come to my attention. If anything, I suppose I could claim that Regulations is "out to get" me, as he created a sockpuppet to troll my RfA, but that's not really relevant to the underlying issue here. MastCell 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

            You know, IF Anarcho-capitalism is telling the truth, then what he (and his roommate) have been doing is using sockpuppets to avoid a wrongful block. Yes, that's an "if", but evading a wrongful block doesn't seem to me to be such a crime. If that's the case, and if we unblock them, then the problem goes away, because they can edit from their regular accounts, where everyone can see what they're doing. In that case, this block isn't preventing anything.

            Aquillon, as for your question, whether or not Regulations is in fact a sock-puppet of Billy Ego is what's being disputed. The checkuser suggested they come from the same geographic area, as far as I understand. Anarcho-capitalism is claiming that MastCell and Regulations have had conflict over the FDA article, and that's why MastCell is perfectly happy to see Regulations bannned as a sock of another banned user. I hope that clarifies the claims being made here. -GTBacchus 18:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

            I have to disagree there. There are clearly defined ways to appeal an apparently unjust ban, which were spelled out to Anarcho-capitalism upfront. He chose not to pursue those or appeal to ArbCom, but instead to try his luck with numerous ban-evading sockpuppets. That is against policy, and rewarding that approach would send entirely the wrong message. It also ignores the fact that Regulations was self-admittedly running numerous socks and sleeper accounts at the time of the block, which makes it harder to assume good faith. Further, the checkuser is apparently much more detailed than just using the same IP (see section on checkuser below). As to vindictiveness on my part, I'm happy to have my motivations examined, but please review the actual talk page and be clear that this was not me having a conflict with Regulations. It was Regulations, a tendentious single-purpose account, having conflicts with every editor at the FDA pages (including me). He was headed for an RfC or community sanction proposal when the ban occurred. MastCell 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

            MastCell, please understand that I'm not claiming anything about vindictiveness on your part, I was just clarifying what Anarcho-capitalism is claiming. Regarding your other point, I'll ask Anarcho-capitalism why he chose to work around the ban rather than appealing it through the usual channels. -GTBacchus 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

            Sorry; I understand you're not claiming vindictiveness, but merely presenting AC's arguments. I apologize for being overly snippy there. That said, I do regard his effort to turn the focus to my motivation as a transparent attempt at misdirection. I'd ask that, before anyone gives those claims any credence, they look at what actually transpired on the FDA pages, as I think it nicely illustrates the problems with this editor even before the ban. But even if I were to get up every morning dreaming of ways to "get" Billy/AC/Regulations, that would not change or excuse his conduct, and trying to blame me or ArbCom for his behavior does not inspire confidence in his rehabilitation. MastCell 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

            Wait, wait, let me get this straight--they've confessed to being roommates? That would make them meatpuppets, instead of sockpuppets. It is a common misconception among users that they can evade a sockpuppetry-abuse block by stating that such-and-such an account is a brother, roomate, spouse, or some other relation, and that that is the reason that they show up as coming from the same place on a checkuser. However, this makes no difference; there is no need for us to worry about whether they're telling the truth or not. Using another person to evade a block, or to do anything that would be forbidden for a sockpuppet, is just as bad as making and operating the new account yourself. If what I understand here is correct, there isn't anything else here to debate... the fact that a user appears to have made controversal edits on behalf a blocked user who, by his own admission, he is in personal contact with would be enough to support a block as a meatpuppet. (For the record, I am generally extremely skeptical of claims about roommates who share IPs and other such nonsense where proven sockpuppeteers are involved, and in this case, in particular, it would seem to stretch the limits of AGF past the limits. But, as I noted above, it doesn't matter a bit; meatpuppetry is every bit as bad as sockpuppetry.) --Aquillion 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

            Not exactly.... Anarcho-capitalism and Regulations haven't made edits "for" each other. They seem to be interested in entirely different articles. IF what I'm hearing from Anarcho-capitalism is true, then we're looking at two people using multiple accounts to get around a wrongful block... which doesn't seem wrong to me. Everything hinges on that "if", so the question is how certain the checkuser is. From what we're hearing below, it seems more certain than I was aware of, but I think you may have misunderstood something if you're talking about meat-puppetry. I don't get the impression that's going on, according to anybody's version of the story. -GTBacchus 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

          • Again, using multiple accounts to evade a ban is wrong. There are appropriate ways to contest a ban or block; creating 60+ socks is not one of them. I'm disturbed by the statement that using ban-evading socks is no big deal if you consider the ban to have been unjust. It's not just a question of how certain checkuser is (though they sound pretty certain to me). We've now heard from ArbCom (which labeled the accounts "independently disruptive" socks in no uncertain terms - see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Billy_Ego-Sandstein#Multiple_accounts) as well as the involved checkusers (who testify to a high degree of certainty), and from editors who have interacted with these various sockpuppet manifestations as to their disruptiveness and suspicious similarities. We've even heard, in Billy/AC/Regulations's own words, their intent to continue to game the system and their disrespect for the spirit of Misplaced Pages's most basic policies. Short of a signed and notarized affadavit from Billy Ego admitting it all, I don't know what more evidence could be assembled that the decisions were correct, and that unblocking any of these accounts would be a mistake. MastCell 18:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
            • MastCell, at this point, I don't think I'm going to be unblocking anyone. That makes any question of whether it's right or wrong to work around a wrongful block pretty much moot. -GTBacchus 18:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Hypothetically, if I were caught in a neighbor's ban, and wanted to improve Misplaced Pages, but couldn't convince people that I was distinct from my neighbor, I'm not sure whether I'd try to work around the ban, or whether I'd just accept that I don't get to edit. I might decide the the good of improving an article outweighs the bad of breaking a rule.

              It seems more likely in this case that I've been exchanging emails with some aspect of the RJII manifold, or whatever the hell it is. I'm glad I asked before I did anything. -GTBacchus 18:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I should point out that this was an ArbCom-imposed ban, not a block. Preventiveness is not an issue; ArbCom has decided that this editor is not welcome to edit Misplaced Pages at this point. If he believes ArbCom has made a mistake, then the correct approach is to take it up with ArbCom. More on this below. As to the argument that "...even if one were to think that he's the same as Billy Ego or RJII, the behavior for which those editors are banned doesn't seem to be exhibited from the Anarcho-capitalism account": this is an admitted and confirmed user of numerous accounts. The fact that he's managed to keep one account's nose clean is not that impressive, to me at least. I've provided a skeleton of support for my concerns immediately below. MastCell 06:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Billy Ego being banned by ArbCom is different from Anarcho-capitalism being banned as a sockpuppet of Billy Ego, especially if he isn't the same person. His justification for using multiple accounts is that he was unfairly blocked as a fascist, which he isn't, and wanted to improve Misplaced Pages. That doesn't really prejudice me against the guy. At the same time, you're making some pretty serious claims below, that deserve looking into carefully. I'll have to research this matter further. -GTBacchus 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been an editor on the anarchism pages long enough to have interacted with RJII, anarcho-capitalism, and a dozen or so sock-puppets. I did not interact with Billy Ego, and have no opinion on that part of the case. My sense from a great deal of interaction on various talk pages is that RJII, anarcho-capitalism, and the rest are the same user or group of users. Their concerns have remained the same, as have their editing styles. A quick look at the various contributions pages shows in each case lots of small edits, one right after another. The later sock puppets sometimes avoided this, but only after other users and admins mentioned it as a characteristic tic. Lines like "I'm only trying to improve Misplaced Pages" are characteristic as well, although these users just as frequently argue that "truth is unimportant" in articles. I have personally found them disruptive users. They have discouraged me from doing much more than "damage control" on articles within my field of expertise. You have to make your decision based on policy, but an unblock will undoubtedly have unfortunate consequences for already troubled articles. Libertatia 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A start

Sorry for the late reply; the weather has been too nice this weekend, and this requires some digging as the sockpuppetry here runs several months and 70+ accounts deep. I'll start from the accusation that my concern with unblocking ArbCom-identified sockpuppets of an ArbCom-banned user is POV-motivated.

• Regulations is a single-purpose role account used on the FDA page (see contribs). He came into conflict with every editor on the FDA pages, including myself, as a result of tendentious POV-pushing. See Talk:Food and Drug Administration for the whole thing, or the highlights:
  • Another editor points out the single-purpose nature of the account
  • Another editor expresses despair at dealing with Regulations' tendentious tactics
  • Another editor describes Regulations' history on the FDA pages
  • User talk thread in which several editors discuss Regulations' disruptive impact
• Regulations was blocked, by ArbCom decree, as a sockpuppet of Billy Ego. His parting shot, delivered via sockpuppet, is here. He boasts of having already developed numerous sleeper accounts, announces his intention to exploit his dynamic IP and an open proxy to evade his block, etc. An upstanding citizen.
• Here he trolls an admin who blocked several of his checkuser-confirmed socks - again boasting of his numerous socks and intention to continue evading his ban.
• While we're on the subject of any personal conflict between myself and Regulations/Anarcho-capitalism/etc, I should note that he also used a sockpuppet to troll my RfA.
• More of the same from another sock, again with the conclusion that "I just noticed I can turn my modem off and get a new IP, so I'll be back..."
• Here he notes that he's figured out how to game checkuser so we can no longer pick up and block his sleeper accounts when one of his socks rears its head.
• Here I blocked Illegal editor (talk · contribs) as a sock based on the duck test, despite a checkuser request that came back unrelated. His initial unblock request denies being a sock, and points to the negative checkuser as evidence he's being persecuted. As I figured the block was controversial, I posted it to AN/I; Dmcdevit re-ran the checkuser, and it turns out not only was Illegal editor a sock, but he had a dozen or so sleeper accounts lined up. Then, when the new checkuser results disprove his initial excuse, he says, "OK, I'm a sockpuppet, but not of Billy Ego." Finally, after 3 denied unblocks, he leaves with the now-standard tirade and promise to be back with more socks.

My point, with the above, is that this is not an innocent victim of collateral damage. Even assuming that everything Anarcho-capitalism claims is true, he was told upfront that as he was banned by ArbCom, the only way to get unbanned was to take it up with ArbCom and the checkuser who nabbed him. Instead of doing that, he chose to create more than 60 ban-evading sockpuppets, leaving a trail of denials and verbal abuse and making a mockery out of the concept of a ban. Even assuming he's not Billy Ego, this has to be the biggest case of disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point that I've come across in awhile. Unblocking him would ratify his unacceptable behavior and send entirely the wrong message: "If you're banned by ArbCom, go ahead and create 60 or 70 socks. If those all get nabbed, try pleading your innocence to an uninvolved admin." He could have appealed to ArbCom at any point; in fact, he was specfically directed to do so, and chose this path instead. That, in conjunction with his behavior even before the blocks, speaks volumes.

I hope I'm making sense; it's late. I can elaborate further; for example, I do believe that Billy Ego and Anarcho-capitalism/Regulations/etc are the same user. The denials are always based on the argument that Billy was a fascist POV-pushing SPA, while Anarcho-capitalism/Regulations/etc is a libertarian POV-pusher. Needless to say, a single user with multiple POV-pushing role accounts is not unheard of. There are other things: editing tics in common, and the fact that Billy Ego's edits conceivably suggest a libertarian masquerading as a fascist (i.e. "good hand, bad hand" accounts) - but these are circumstantial and would require some time for me to develop and support. I'll do it if it comes to that. As the title says, this is a start.

Bottom line: a guy who's banned by ArbCom, told to appeal to them, and instead creates 60-70 ban-evading socks, all the while explicitly expressing his intent to game the system, is not a good candidate for an administrative unblock. As a side note, these accounts were identified and blocked under the aegis of ArbCom. Should any decision about unblocking one of these accounts be made by them, rather than here? MastCell 06:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with going to ArbCom. I certainly am not trying to bypass any proper channel by posting here. I'm interested in the editing tics that you've noticed - if you can email me some evidence along those lines, that would be best. -GTBacchus 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It might also be worth mentioning that, per our email conversation, Anarcho-capitalism is willing to change some things about his approach. MastCell, would you be less opposed to an unblock if there were some kind of mentoring going on? -GTBacchus 15:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is a committed pattern of sockpuppetry. He's trying to figure out how to game checkuser; he's utilizing his dynamic IP; he's using open proxies. Next time he misbehaves, it will be harder to track him down with checkuser, and assuming we do, what's to stop him from again claiming to just live in a big building and have fallen victim to his roommate's abusive editing? MastCell 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I will email you. Having reviewed some edits from User:Billy Ego, User:Anarcho-capitalism, and User:Regulations, I'm more convinced than ever that these are the same editor. As to User:RJII, that was before my time, but that account shared similar editing tics. And lastly and most importantly, after compiling the above, I realized that RJII had summed up his/Billy's/AC's/Regulations' approach to Misplaced Pages and motivations better than I could ever have: This is a must-read and an excellent description of what we're dealing with. We should be opening a long-term abuse page on this editor. MastCell 15:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll stand with MastCell on this. The argument about venue looks rock solid and the evidence (although missing a few specifics) is enough to make the basic case. We don't unblock under these circumstances and if anyone were to unblock the decision belongs with ArbCom. Quote me as necessary in future discussions: all future unblock requests from confirmed sockpuppets of Billy Ego should be regarded with extreme suspicion. Durova 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If this does go to ArbCom regarding an unblock, I'd like to be informed as I'd like to submit evidence, via email, regarding my belief that these accounts are in fact related. MastCell 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova: don't worry, I'm being very careful, and won't push any unblock buttons unless I'm convinced it's the right thing to do. As for whether we're talking about "confirmed" sockpuppets of Billy Ego, that seems to be the question, not a prior assumption, no?

Based on what I've read here, I'll take the question to ArbCom. Thanks to all who have provided input. -GTBacchus 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the checkuser

Newyorkbrad suggested contacting Mackensen, the checkuser who confirmed these socks from the initial ArbCom case. While Mackensen is currently on wikibreak, the following exchange (between Crashola, a Billy Ego sock, and Mackensen) at WP:RFCU may be illuminating:

• Crashola's initial excuse: I just happen to share a major IP with these guys.
• Then the taunt, just in case we were tempted to assume good faith: "How about my 300 other sockpuppets that have been operating for 4 years?" (Note the quick turnaround from the earlier protestation of mistaken identity).
• Back to the protestation of innocence/mistaken identity: I just happen to be on the same ISP as these other editors.
• Mackensen: "All operating out of your living room." Suggesting this is not as simple as collateral damage, mistaken identity, or sharing an IP with thousands of other users. MastCell 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not mistaken identity, (and the "roommate" claims are a bit cliche). As I recall, Mackensen and I both determined the sockpuppetry independently, during the arbitration case. Dmcdevit·t 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This one's about as cleancut as any Checkuser analysis can be. Billy Ego and Anarcho capitalism are the same editor. --jpgordon 14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, we did, and so did Fred. Strongly oppose unblocking. Mackensen (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. There appears to be a consensus to leave the account blocked. -GTBacchus 22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD discussion

I'm looking for advice. User:Serenesoulnyc created several articles in the past, and I just nominated two of them for deletion because their references did not check out. However, someone in the AFD discussion sort of implied that I made the nomination in bad faith. I said I would request comment by more knowledgeable Wikipedians, but I don't know where to make the request. Does WP:RFC handle requests on AFD discussions? Or should I just wait for other people who may want to comment? — Zerida 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(Shrug) I don't see any problem. It's clear to me (and to you) that this was a good faith nomination, so try not to worry about it. FWIW, I don't think Dan Gluck was implying anything different - he was trying to think out loud, if this article isn't a hoax, why should we want to delete it? This should be the worst of your troubles on Misplaced Pages. Amen. Shalom 20:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone implying that the nomination was made in bad faith, either. Dan Gluck just said that the article's creator "got involved in some fight with Zerida"; he doesn't even connect that to the nomination... and he's still for "merge or neutral", which isn't how people usually react when they think a nomination was made in bad faith. --Aquillion 16:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. However, Dan Gluck has chosen not to clarify what he said, and I've also been unsuccessful in getting others to discuss the claims presented in the article more thoroughly. I've decided to withdraw the nomination so that it does not become about my motivations rather than the article's content. Hopefully, someone who has not had the misfortune of dealing with the Serenesoulnyc episode will choose to address it. — Zerida 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That is... extreme. After all, it was headed towards delete. And then someone closed it as withdrawn (which isn't usually done when the nominator withdraws after someone else supported deletion), then changed it to delete (which short-circuits its five days on AFD, but is at least probably where it was heading anyway). Well, whatever, it seems all right. --Aquillion 01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not "extreme" to request that a nomination for deletion be withdrawn if doubts were cast about the nominator's intentions. WP:AFD states that "If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator." In addition, WP:DP states: "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute." I felt that this was the implication made by changing a vote twice with the reason given being "a fight"–a mischaracterization of what had actually ensued between me and the article's creator. I would have been perfectly satisfied with an opposition to my deletion proposal for content reasons that did not seem to reflect on my character. I did not prticularly appreciate it after I gave a reference-by-reference explanation of why this could not possibly have been genuine research.

At any rate, I don't want to belabor the issue. I was just going to mention that Jewish Slave trade still appears to be alive and kicking after taking a closer look at this user's contributions. Not clear why it was duplicated; perhaps the creator feared one would be deleted or tried to make a redirect but didn't know how. It may be a candidate for speedy deletion, but I would ask again that it be re-nominated by someone who did not interact with its creator and let it run its course this time. Some of his other work appears curiously genuine , but again it could use a second a look. Also, I have closed my other related nomination as 'Withdrawn' (a person who left input there after I withdrew the nomination is a confirmed though unrelated sockpuppet). I would encourage someone to re-nominate that one too. — Zerida 01:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel 17:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Principle #4 in this case could set new policy for BLP. The question is, do ArbCom decisions stand as policy en.Misplaced Pages-wide? If so, then someone needs to add the wording from this case to the BLP policy page. CLA 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, and they don't. WP:BLP says that, and WP:CSD may - I haven't kept track of the back and forth editing there. ArbCom doesn't set policy, but their precendents are often watched (comparable to the American Supreme Court, versus policies as "laws"). ArbCom decisions don't prevent policies from later being changed, either. WilyD 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration decisions impact policy in complex ways. Just suppose there was no consensus for a change in policy, and just suppose an editor encountered an extremely damaging article and deleted it "per BLP". And just suppose another editor, without discussion or seeking consensus, undeleted it as "out of process deletion". A naive person might think that, the policy not having changed, it would be okay to do that. However the arbitration committee has ruled here that the spirit as well as the word of the BLP matters, and that undeleting a BLP deletion without consensus is against the spirit of the policy.

But of course someone who goes and deletes stuff simply because he thinks he can get away with it isn't going to have much joy either. I don't think those who have lamented this ruling so loudly on the talk page of the proposed decision have realised how balanced it really is. Although the Biographies of living persons policy is important, abusing it for arbitrary deletions would be just as much against the spirit of the policy as capriciously undeleting, and would attract similar sanctions. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The topic of ArbCom decisions and policy I think is important, especially since I've observed editors being threatened with blocks and blocking rationales that quote ArbCom opinions/decisions. Either ArbCom makes or defines policy or they don't. I don't have a problem with either one, as long as this is stated somewhere in unambiguous terms. In this case, ArbCom does appear to be adding further detail or definition to the policy with the line, "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." I just reviewed WP:BLP and don't see a statement to this effect in the current policy, therefore, ArbCom appears to me to have added some definition to the policy, if, in fact, they have the authority to do so. CLA 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They don't set policy, we do. Viridae 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point. Conduct of disputes is in the hands of the arbitration committee, which gives the committee the final say across a great swathe of policy. It's collective view cannot be cast to one side. --Tony Sidaway 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but does it state this anywhere on a policy page? If it did, in which policy page would such a statement be most appropriate? CLA 01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're still looking at the words on the page. As I said before, the spirit of the policy is what matters. Editors who say "but it isn't written anywhere in the policy document" are likely to get short shrift from the arbitrators in BLP cases. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Being that the "spirit" of the policy can be applied pretty much without consequence and to vastly different interpretations doesn't help matters. The intention of BLP was to get rid of unsourced and possibly libelous information on Misplaced Pages, it's now morphed into an ill-defined "Protect the victim" catch all. How can it possibly be argued that by protecting Tanya Kach follows the spirit of the policy? I'm sure Doc and JzG mean well, but given that the AFD was speedily closed (after DRV sent it back there), quite a few would argue that such a backdoor deletion is not in the spirit of BLP and is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Short shrift from the arbitrators? Given the absolute "spirit of BLP" paranoia that affected Newyorkbrad at Talk:Michael J. Devlin, I'm not sure it really matters. - hahnchen 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think cautioning him as suggested by ArbCom is pretty much futile. He's effectively left the project. bibliomaniac15 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The general principle to be drawn from this case is that reasoned opposition to a policy does not exempt an editor from following the policy. There is no change to the policy itself implied. Chick Bowen 02:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor abusing e-mail

I found an e-mail from Timepressed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tonight. In it, she is essentially asking me to join her website (which I will not mention here), and according to the text of the e-mail it was designed to be a mass spam mailing. I have blocked her account indefinitely and activated e-mail blocking for this reason. I request input and whatnot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Keep blocked. --Ezeu 05:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what e-mail blocking was designed for. I suspect it happens more than we realize, but many cases never reach admin attention. Chick Bowen 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. If this becomes a common scenario, I'm a little concerned about how we avoid having accusations of mass emailing become something more concrete than a "he-said/she-said" situation, but I'm not aware of any reason we should suspect foul play, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If it becomes common, maybe set up a mailing list where the original message can be sent to if its spam? Another idea (though I'm not sure that people would like this, and it might violate the privacy policy) would be to log all e-mails, and have them viewable like its set up so that CheckUsers can see what IP addresses editors use. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A middle ground idea could be to log the date and recipient of e-mails with a hash of the message. That way the hash can be compared with the hash of the message the recipient claims to have received. That way we don't keep messages but we can check that a specific message was sent. -- lucasbfr 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Complex interwiki link question

Will parser functions work on MediaWiki pages? Would it be possible to include something on MediaWiki:Dellogpagetext that, for images only, would link to the deletion log for the same image name at commons? Chick Bowen 16:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You can try asking over at the Village Pump. Sasquatch t|c 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They don't work properly (although I seem to remember they do work in some situations), but there's a workaround that sometimes works. You can put the parserfunctions in a template (make sure to full-protect it; such templates traditionally start Template:MediaWiki_), using $1 and $2 (etc.) literally in the template to refer to the params of the MediaWiki page. (Remember to test this carefully; it's a bit of a hacky solution, and if I remember correctly it doesn't always work.) --ais523 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--those templates are useful--hadn't known about any of those. I'm now remembering the last time I tried something fancy like this, though, when I broke stuff and got yelled at. . . Chick Bowen 02:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

New General Counsel and Legal Coordinator

Looks like the Wikimedia Foundation has a new General Counsel and Legal Coordinator, Mike Godwin. (His biography also has had an "Unreliable" tag slapped on it, so someone may wish to look into it.) --Calton | Talk 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, Mike! --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was never sure why that got added; VanTucky added it without really stating (in Talk or otherwise) which sources he found unreliable. I don't find any of them unreliable, so I don't know what the issue is. It may need more inline citations instead of the ELs, but it's all there and good.--Thespian 01:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the claims in the article are unsourced from reliable sources, including his involvement with EFF and his schooling. Even the mailing list announcement of him as Misplaced Pages's general council is not a reliable source. Misplaced Pages is never a source. -N 01:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That last statement is pretty much nonsense on a stick: it's absolutely a reliable source -- like any other subject's self-source -- for what a subject says about itself. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages can not be used as a source because it can be edited by anyone. - NeutralHomer 05:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but a mailing list message from the Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be edited by anyone as it is not part of Misplaced Pages. Raven4x4x 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point:) - NeutralHomer 05:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So, is Mikegodwin (talk · contribs) one and the same? - auburnpilot talk 02:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes.--Thespian 03:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's also the Godwin's Law Godwin... so if you find any of his pronouncements of Foundation policy to seem repressive, don't call him a Nazi... that would be ironic. *Dan T.* 03:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he isn't a Nazi. You are all Nazis. Oh, wait... crap, I triggered it already. You win. Titoxd 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a corollary of Godwin's Law that you can't use it to end a conversation. So I guess it is invulnerable to thread-Nazis. (Er, I didn't mean to type that, did I? Does that mean now I've triggered it?) -- llywrch 20:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good thing, maybe exactly what Misplaced Pages needs. Without everyday access to sound legal advice, Misplaced Pages is too easily bullied by legal threats, which may have no basis in legal reality. --W.marsh 04:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. This seems to be very good news :) --kingboyk 13:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the Mike Godwin? This is definitely good news. - Merzbow 04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Now we need to appoint the one who created All your base are belong to us to marketing, and our success is ensured :-) Now seriously speaking, welcome Mike! -- ReyBrujo 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's You !! --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 05:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How are you gentlemen? hbdragon88 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Move Godwin for great justice. -- ChrisO 00:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what you doing. Take off every Godwin. Will 13:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcomes, folks! -- Mike Godwin 14:19. 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice to have you around. Titoxd 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that as a Misplaced Pages discussion grows longer the probability of a threat of Mike Godwin becomes unity? Guy (Help!) 07:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete an edit from a page's history?

Can an administrator please delete this edit from Template:Fall Out Boy's edit history, and my revert if necessary? It's not my phone number, but I'm sure that whomever the number belongs to (as I seriously doubt it's really Pete Wentz') won't be happy with all the calls. Also, can someone please get that template permanently semi'd? All the edits from IPs and new users are just vandalism attempts and fan girls proclaring their love for the band members. // DecaimientoPoético 18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. --Deskana (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gone. --Deskana (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointy AfDs

Could an admin close these two AfDs? (AfD Alfonso Fraga and AfD La Mansion). The nominator (and author) User:Callelinea AfDd them to make a WP:POINT after numerous COI articles of theirs were AfD, and believes if these pass AfD now, they can't be deleted in the future. They have also voted Keep on both AfDs. I'd close them myself as an uncontroversial nomination withdrawn, but I commented on both, so probably best not to. EliminatorJR 21:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian protester

At xkdc.com, . Well, it amused me anyway ;) --Steve _(Stephen) 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Very cute! It would be a nice stunt if someone actually did this at a rally. Is anyone here likely to be invited to one? :-) -- ChrisO 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Heee. I emailed the creator to release that one under cc-by or cc-by-sa. I think it would be a hilarious addition to his article (He appears to be a Wikipedian, from the note here. -N 01:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He has his own article (Randall Munroe) and the talk page says that he has edited under the username Xkcd (talk · contribs). hbdragon88 01:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't he also make a fake Misplaced Pages article out of his whiteboard a couple weeks ago? I think I saw it on the village pump.

That comic scares me, since I see myself reflected in it far more often than I would like to. --tjstrf talk 01:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My mother has hated me ever since I showed her the comic about cats. She says now whenever she talks to her cats she thinks about that comic and it makes her feel dumb. Heh. --Golbez 02:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I found it hbdragon88 02:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Even there, you have penis vandalism. How sad. Titoxd 03:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Very sad. Ha, next rally I go to I am SO tempted to bring one of those signs ;). Loved the wiki-whiteboard! :) CattleGirl 05:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Student organization officer lists

A few people are protesting my removal of a list of national officers for a student organization I'm involved with off-wiki. As far as I know, it's always been a Misplaced Pages standard not to include such lists (for the same reasons we don't allow schools to have lists of a student government executive board). Is my interpretation correct? Is there a relevant standard that I'm missing that I should point them towards? I say it falls under, mostly, not a directory but just want opinions to see if I'm missing something bigger than that. Thanks, Metros 11:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, definitely delete. Generally, student organizations are not important enough to impart any notability to their officers. --Haemo 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, I know that; I'm just looking for a better way to explain this in them using relevant policies. Metros 11:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III

This page was reverted to remove mention of this Gore's arrest yesterday (speeding, possession), by Kaldari, who then fully locked it, made a further edit, and went away (without putting the lock template on it).

Can this please be undone, or the template added, and if appropriate, would someone please discuss how to lock and when to lock with the admin? --Thespian 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the BLP concerns which led to the article being protected as someone had gone and written a lengthy, boring, windy, bullshitty section on Al's legal problems, which is not what we're all about. The problem is, some of what was removed was well sourced though poorly written, something could and should have been done to tidy it up, in my opinion. I've downgraded the protection to semi protected at the moment as I'm fairly sure the moment for everybody to load the page and edit away has probably passed. I've added a small section of sourced material back concerning the recent arrest and I trust the page would be unduly modified into something approaching a criminal record once again, or it will end up being protected once again. Finally, I must caution everybody who wishes to edit the page to remember our polices on the biographies of living people when editing this or any other article where the subject or their family is still living. Nick 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"...lengthy, boring, windy, bullshitty...": Let's address these accusations one by one.

• Lengthy: The "Legal trouble" section is five paragraphs long. Each paragraph corresponds to a particular, documented incident and none is more than three sentences long.
• Boring: Arrests on drug charges are boring? Does every Misplaced Pages article need a sex scandal?
• Windy: Each of the paragraphs presents only summarizations of the facts as reported.
• Bullshitty: Each of the paragraphs is sourced to major news media articles.

I did not write this section of the article, but I will defend it, because the material is notable. When I heard about Al Gore III's latest arrest, I thought to myself, "That isn't the first time he's been stopped for a vehicular infraction and caught with drugs, is it?"--so I went to Misplaced Pages looking for succinct detail, and I found it. I will oppose thoughtless censorship of this article that would pretend every major news outlet in America didn't have coverage of the story. Robert K S 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of which, you're not helping anything when you revert and in doing so delete things like the sprotect tag, instead of looking at what is on the content of the page. I stuck my neck out here because I believe the admin was incorrect in what they did and how they did it, as a favour to Steven Andrew Miller, but when you run over it with a truck to get back to your preferred version, you're actually sort of showing why they did it. If a page is protected and you revert it to a pre-protected version, it's your responsibility to add the tags in to warn people on the page, since the protection is still there. --Thespian 14:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That was my mistake. Thank you for re-adding the tag. Robert K S 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is a textbook coatrack article and the BLP violation was getting out of hand as you can see from the version I reverted from (which included a detailed description of every run-in with authority Gore III has ever been reported to have, included being suspended from school when he was 13). I put the article under protection for 24 hours so that editors attracted to the article by Gore's newest arrest would have a chance to review Misplaced Pages's policies before further contributing to article's negative bias. I have made similar edits to clean up the Bush daughter's articles in the past, but to no avail. This article, however, has been especially problematic. Kaldari 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reporting the facts is somehow construed as negative bias, which is the very definition of non-neutral point of view. The edits to this article that remove the relevant, sourced material constitute a whitewashing that I find troubling. The fact that administrators appear to be involved is also disturbing. Since the material continues to be reverted and I have now been threatened with being blocked for restoring it, I would like to ask the administrators involved to bring this matter to a higher council. Robert K S 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as a negative fact? Kaldari 15:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond to that two ways. The first thing I would say is that any determination of a fact's "negative"-ness or "positive"-ness is POV. Misplaced Pages exists to present factual material in a way that is enlightening to its readers. Wholesale removal of sourced factual material because someone deems it to be negative is just as POV as wholesale removal of factual material because someone deems it to be positive. The second way I can respond to that is as the philosophical/psychological question it really is, irrelevant to Misplaced Pages purposes: There is no such thing as a negative fact, and repression of the facts because they are deemed to be shameful is a symptom of psychic malady. Robert K S 15:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've returned the page to full protection in light of a further insertion of unsourced material. I'm also going to drop a note to ArbCom letting them know what's happening here. Nick 15:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaldari: I've lost where the indenting goes, so I'd like to point out that pre-emptive locks are still not really acceptable; until there's a lot of editing by a lot of people, it's best to leave an article unlocked as long as possible. Even the Benoit articles last week were left with no or semi-protection for several days. In addition, reacting to an arrest by removing all the negative things and the arrest, and then locking it, wasn't the best choice; in fact it puts Misplaced Pages in an odd place, because it would mean people who were looking here for info on him as a result of the arrest would find no mention of the reason they were looking him up. We don't break news, but one of our strengths is we can update reasonably quickly.

That said, you also didn't mark the page as fully protected (which it should not have been; frankly it looks like you had one troublemaker, and it should have been dealt with as an issue with an individual editor), meaning without attempting to edit it, or viewing the history, an editor wouldn't know that the page was protected. You should get in the habit of making that edit automatic when dealing with protection. Those were my main problems; it was obviously pre-emptive, it excluded information that should have been there (unlike the high school stories and daddy's intervention), and there were issues with clearly marking it as protected. This is why I posted what I did up there. --Thespian 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive locks are unacceptable. Violate Misplaced Pages policy.--Getaway 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything can go where there's a potential BLP violation, IMO. Will 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has established where or why there was a "potential" BLP violation. There was never an incidence of libel on this page. Robert K S 17:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP violation != libel. A BLP violation can be sourced, but it doesn't matter - Anything that paints the subject of the article in a very bad light can be a BLP violation. Will 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article, again, locked? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Because after the page was unlocked in good faith, Robert K S started to insist on an earlier section of the site that had issues with WP:BLP. He was getting perilously close to edit warring, and he was also reverting edits based on things like 'all the news articles mention the brand of car he was driving', regardless of the suitability of it for mention in an encyclopedia. After an hour or so of it being unlocked, he'd edited back enough that it could well have been cited for 3RR, and it got locked again. The lockdown you pointed me at was pre-emptive and shouldn't have happened, but this subsequent one came as a result of a pile of WP:OWN. --Thespian 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• That article is completely worthless. I have returned it to being a redirect. Politician's kid busted? Big deal. Next week it'll be Paris Hilton again, and it will be forgotten. Anyone else's kid and it would not have made the inside pages of the local papers. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry, it was news yesterday, and it's not totally unimportant.
2. Unless you're maybe planning on going on a bender and removing every politician's child maybe or something?

The page existed a while before yesterday, and this was way beyond bold. Please revert it. Or do a proper job of this; you've left the page you're rediring to incorrect, you left the page fully protected but removed all signs that it is, etc. Whether you like it or not, this guy gets arrested, it makes news, and he's notable. --Thespian 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Does that really mean that the article should be a locked redirect with discussion and outcome coming from one user? I'm sure we're all going to forget Blood II: The Chosen too. A relative of a notable individual can be notable just for being so, such as Euan Blair. An encyclopedia to help people forget, what a novel idea. A rubbish one mind. - hahnchen 19:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrative attention to this article has been high on hyperbole and low on temperance, patience, transparency, justifcation and legitimate reference to policy. Just what is going on here? I again call for this dispute to move to a higher level of dispute resolution. Robert K S 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has been through an AfD in February 2007 with a consensus of "Keep". It shouldn't just be redirected on a single person's say-so.--Elonka 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, everyone calm down. Since there isn't any strict BLP problem, but a question of whether a mildly notable person should have details discussed, I suggest you resolve it on the article talk page, not on ANI since this by and large a content issue. JoshuaZ 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you can about now stop edit warring on a protected page. The Evil Spartan 20:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sochi

Could some admins please keep an eye on Sochi, currently a high-profile article? There have been a few edit wars going on, revolving around whether Sochi is a Georgian or Russian city, and the addition of a biased and unsourced criticism section. After doing a little research, I can be reasonably certain that Sochi is in Russia, and I have removed the unsourced section. But I do not want to get involved in an edit war, nor do I want to protect a page that I have edited recently. Thanks all, Fang Aili 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (Also posted to Talk:Main Page.)

It also doesn't help many are coming to the article since the city recently was awarded the 2014 Winter Olympic games. Anyways, my eyes are watching this one. User:Zscout370 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You tube

Eternal Pink is advtising his youtube page on his user page block him indef plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanblood (talk • contribs)

Nope. LessHeard vanU 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He's just linking to his own videos. Your own action in requesting his block is far more suspicious. (For those who don't know, Pink is an almost-daily target of new account vandals.) --Masamage ♫ 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla and me and citations

I don't think very highly of Ghirlandajo's attitude, and I normally avoid him as much as possible. If another admin could state to him that citation requests are serious business, I'd appreciate. His comments about "the antics of the Citation-Hunters" are really annoying. The relevant discussions are at Talk:Suvorov's Italian and Swiss expedition, User talk:Clio the Muse#Suvorov.27s_Italian_and_Swiss_expedition and the main disputed edit is here. Circeus 23:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I think highly about your formalistic attitude to Misplaced Pages, as I have told you on more than one occasion. Misplaced Pages is not just a bunch of templates. It's not a set of formulaic requirements. Citations requests are serious business when they are not thrown about on whim which happens too often these days. I remove {{fact}} templates when I see nothing controversial about the statement. In such cases, I request the editor to explain what he disputes on talk. If the editor has enough interest to explain his position, I will either provide references (if the article is written by me) or just pass it by (if the article is not mine). This is what normally happens in such cases, and I'm not the only one who thinks it's the proper way to proceed. This is what happened in this particular case, and I fail to see why you should be so concerned about such a trivial matter. Could you refer me to your recentmost article so that I could learn the art of referencing, in your interpretation? --Ghirla 23:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation requests should be replaced with citations, not removed based on whether one thinks its a "serious" enough issue to demand citations. What is serious to one editor may not be to another. Bottom line is, per WP:CIT, WP:V and associated policies, that every fact should be referenced. It is perfectly understandable that due to still-imperfect method of implementing internal cites, most content does not have them. But when requests for citations arise, they should be kindly fulfilled, instead of accusing the requester of some bad faith.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I never doubted that you would be the first to chime in. Your pontification sounds fine in theory, but could you explain why you have the habit of removing references that don't buttress your POV (as examined in the ongoing arbitration)? --Ghirla 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, the ongoing arbitration is also looking at your actions, which include - as seen above - common incivility, misrepresenting of evidence and trying to change the discussed subjects by bringing unrelated issues related to other editors.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The same accusations have been levelled against youself. Let's stop bickering, OK? Now to the issue. I really find your approach to referencing objectionable. You went so far as to declare that referencing is more important than content. That's probably the greatest problem I have with your edits. Referencing is abused as a tool to ram through a certain agenda. Once a loony claim is referenced, it is perpetuated in mainspace. A stray example: "A belief that it is Poland's mission in the world to spread freedom to other countries and to liberate other nations from tyrannical regimes, persists to this day in the Polish psyche". This sample of Romantic Nationalism propaganda is referenced, ergo, it will always pollute the mainspace, although there is nothing encyclopaedic about it. Since, basically, every claim may be referenced, I maintain that the reference creep fails to address the challenges that Misplaced Pages faces these days. --Ghirla 07:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to seem dismissive, but this looks like a fairly minor disagreement that can be worked out on the talk page. I don't know what admin action would be useful. Tom Harrison 00:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never known Ghirla o be able to "work out" anything (and Piotrus', who has a far longer track record of conflicts with ghirla than me, inervention is admittedly not helping). If he can just not harp about something that really doesn't concern him in the end, things would be much simpler.Circeus 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting-in, but as a member of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check - if my credentials as concerned editor are not enough - I see nothing wrong with me commenting on an issue that is of interest to me (i.e. one that involves usage of {{fact}} template, which I commonly use (or address). As you'll note in my original comment, my post is concerned with policy and is not editor specific; I make no reference to Ghirla's person, unlike he in his reply, completely concerned with my person. I will leave it up to others to guess which policy states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" :> -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Tom's right. What does and doesn't need citing is a matter of opinion; I don't see anything HUGELY controversial being removed here, so every individual instance is just a variety of content dispute. Talk it out. If possible, find citations; not for every sentence, necessarily, but nothing should be in here that's not somewhere else already, so it should be possible to ppint someone toward a source even if it's tricky to work it into the text. Then everyone can help solve the problem. --Masamage ♫ 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like someone challenged some text, and someone else challenged someone's challenge. It's a content dispute, regardless of the users involved. Each one gets to say why {{fact}} stays or not. The talk page is the way to go here, IMO. Titoxd 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is a content dispute, as this is a dispute about verifiability not content. Misplaced Pages has an official policy on verifiability, and it is pretty clear. We might just as well delete that policy altogether if we are going to start letting people argue on a case-by-case basis which requests for citations deserve to be honoured. What I'd like to see here is administrator consensus that the verifiability policy must be upheld at all times. Hesperian 00:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The solar year in the Gregorian calendar is 365 days, except in leap years. Titoxd 00:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I was going to say that admins do not enforce policy anymore than anyone else, with a few exceptions of which this is not one. And while Misplaced Pages has lots of policies, we only enforce 3rr. But your point about the calendar expresses it about as well (most but not all leap years, I think). Tom Harrison 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. Many schoolchildren who now routinely access Wiki may not know the answer to that, and they should learn early on that no information on Misplaced Pages should be trusted unless it is easily verifiable. And I wouldn't take any bets that a random sample of 100 adults would have no errors (answering the question, as I know for a fact that many don't understand how our content is created and trust us not to have errors). In the end, Earth is round not 'because everyone knows it', but because we can cite academic studies with that fact.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, Titoxd, but even in that case the encyclopaedia could only be improved by providing a citation. And Circeus is not some silly citation troll wandering around tagging obvious statements with {{fact}} tags just to upset people. My position is that good faith requests for citations must be honoured, else there is no point having a verifiability policy. Hesperian 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Except you're jumping from A to B without logical proof that you can do so. I can make a citation request, and someone else can explain why the request is not needed in the talk page (e.g. the citation for a particular fact is the citation for the entire paragraph, so there's no need to double-cite), and there can be back-and-forth about that. Nowhere on WP:V there's a "Thou shall source every single word with a properly formatted reference" statement; the details of that policy are left to interpretation, and the discussion between parties is part of the interpretation. Hence, this is not a policy issue, but a content dispute. Titoxd 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds great, Titoxd, except that that is not what has happened here. In an alternative universe, Circeus has {{fact}}-tagged the article, Ghirla has gone to the talk page to engage with Circeus on why he thinks the article is insufficiently verifiable, and on how the article content may be revised to ensure it accords with the verifiability policy to the satisfaction of one and all, and a robust content dispute has ensued. In that universe, the citation request has been honoured, the subsequent dispute is a matter of content, and there is no need for administrator intervention.

But in this universe, the tag has been removed without the citation request being honoured. One party to the dispute has essentially repudiated the verifiability policy, and the subsequent "back-and-forth" has not been around how the article content may be revised to ensure it accords with the verifiability policy to the satisfaction of one and all, but rather whether Circeus had the right to place the tag, and whether Ghirla had the right to remove it. Therefore this dispute remains a matter of policy, not content.

What I'd like to see here is administrator consensus that the verifiability policy must be upheld at all times, and that that means that it is improper to remove a good-faith {{fact}} tag without first attaining consensus that the tag is not or is no longer needed. Hesperian 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair. Basically, things were just done out of order. --Masamage ♫ 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't seem fair to me at all. It gives too much inertia to the tag; if it can be placed without discussion, it can be removed without discussion. If discussion is required to remove it, then discussion should be required to place it. Otherwise, we'll end up with tags all over the place, even when a citation is not really needed--oh, wait. . . Chick Bowen 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good point. I have always been a big fan of WP:BRD. On the other hand, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." On the other other hand, it never says that evidence has to be supplied at the very moment the tag is removed. So I guess everybody involved just needs to be willing to actively involve themselves on the talk page and get things figured out. --Masamage ♫ 03:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say a word in public

A public congratulations to FT2 for possibly the wordiest, best thought through afd close in the history of the project. Viridae 00:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah... But I think one of my own comes close. Grandmasterka 01:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wowee. Viridae 02:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Even more amazing considering that the article itself is only ~300 words, while FT2's summary is ~1300! Λυδαcιτγ 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Woah FT2 is turning afd closing into a fulltime profession: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Silent_Hill_influences_and_trivia_(2nd_nomination). Viridae 02:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This one of Phaedriel's is quite thoughtful and long, but compared to that... wow. Will 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're commenting on AFDs, I find this one on Warcraft character articles by A Man In Black (talk · contribs) to be the most awesome close ever. hbdragon88 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

*giggles at it* --Masamage ♫ 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I like that one! Viridae 04:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. EVula // talk // ☯ //</sp04:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We're allowed humor? * grins * FT2 08:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering you were the proposer of the AFD which I denied, that's... quite a compliment. Thanks. And thank you too. I've put a more serious comment elsewhere. This was an article fought over by a number of heavily invested editors on both sides, who I felt would be helped by a clear understanding how the decision came about, why some comments carried little to no weight, and that it was utterly 'straight' and policy-based, rather than affected by bias. Most will also probably contribute to other AFDs in future - a clear view into the AFD decision might help reduce rhetoric and improve effectiveness and focus. FT2 08:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG

No clue if this is the right place for this... and I've been around for quite some time... (that is scary), but are we really sure this noticeboard is needed? The page was created during some heated discussion, to prevent that space being taken up on the main admin noticeboard. I don't think it was ever intended to be-a seperate "fair use" noticeboard, and I really don't see any clear need for it, its just yet another page to watchlist (tm). Ideas, comments? —— Eagle101 05:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Slap an archive tag on it and call it good, in my opinion. (By the way, this would seem to be the right spot to discuss it). Ral315 » 05:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree... not really needed. It's not even clear what it's supposed to be used for. Sancho 05:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest archiving it and asking people to post at WP:ANI for actions requiring admin assistance, at WP:VPP for general policy discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I slapped a historical tag on it. FunPika 13:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I will also slap an archive tag on that page. FunPika 13:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we just leave it be, just like we did Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Giano, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement, and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes. People are going to be reading it later, so it might as well be free of tags. Sean William @ 14:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving at talk:Creation science

I recently performed a cut-and-paste repair to the archive of this talk page, which was repeatedly reverted by a user whom I consequently blocked. I have received considerable flack since. I would appreciate other admins taking a careful look at my actions and giving me some feedback. I have placed an outline of my actions on my talk page, at User talk:Banno#The sequence of events.

In addition, the archiving of the page is now a mess. Some independent advice to the present editors might be appreciated. Banno 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the problem of the history of the talk page being removed, which caused considerable concern. Hopefully, the archiving is now getting back on track by agreement all round. .. dave souza, talk 22:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, despite the repetition of the same error by two people, one an Admin. Oh, forget it, this is a conversation that will go absolutely nowhere, and it's a shame. I think Banno was acting in AGF as far as the archiving (the block of ornis was bullshit and probably definitely an abuse of Admin powers), but he seems incapable of admitting that his rearchiving helped nothing, and only exacerbated a bad situation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, if you have a problem with my use of admin powers, you are welcome to take it to Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges. Please either do so, or move on. Banno 23:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I have just blocked Asgardian (talk · contribs) for 31 hours, for what I feel is violation of WP:DISRUPT, WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. User:Jc37 organised an rfc, found at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian. The user has a long pattern of marking reverts as minor edits, as well as blindly reverting without engaging in discussion. A couple of articles have been protected on account of this user's actions in this respect, Galactus and Vision (Marvel Comics), and I'm concerned at the most recent edits to Wonder Man and Wrecking Crew (comics). I believe blanket reversions like these need to be followed by discussions on the talk page, and such reversions should not be marked as minor. I issued a 24 hour block for similar reasons in late June, mainly for this edit and edit summary at Blood Brothers (comics). I presented that block here for review, but no feedback was forthcoming. I therefore assume that block was acceptable and thus base this block, and the longer length, upon that block. Steve block Talk 13:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User demands removal of photo

editor blocked--Isotope23 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:NotebookSevereConditions demanded that a photo be removed which he said showed him without his permission. the photo was in the article Takumi Nakayama and is here. The help page diff is here. The image does not have a proper fair use rationale so I did not revert. I responded on his talk page but thought I should seek further guidance from you guys. JodyB _talk 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If the image is a television screenshot, as the boiler plate license tag says, it really shouldn't be used to identify living people appearing on the television program. In that sense, it should probably be removed from the article anyway. Leebo /C 15:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

He was the guy on the right... who's face you can't see. Right. NotebookSevereConditions (talk · contribs) just got blocked by Rklawton and I'd have to agree, the troll droppings were the first clue.--Isotope23 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that Patrick Stewart on the left? :Þ-Andrew c  18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange watchlist entries

I sometimes scan my watchlist for redlinks to see if articles have been deleted. I understand what is happening when I see redlinks for non-existent pages with talk pages that I've edited (eg. subpages of a talk page), but sometimes there are strange entries that I don't remember having edited. Does anyone know what is going on there? Examples are Economic Theorism, Dirty drummer, Dirty Batard, and Anirudh Dirty. Why are these showing up on my watchlist? I'm asking here because it may need an admin to check the deleted page logs and edits to find out what has happened. I suspect page moves may be involved somewhere and I edited where these pages originally came from, and something got mixed up when they were moved back? Carcharoth 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have your prefs set to automatically add pages you edit to your watchlist? Then a vandalism reversion (with scripts or by hand) could have had watchlisted them. --soum 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

They are all the result of page move vandalism. -- zzuuzz 17:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Jamdonut for more background on apparently deliberate page move vandalism by a user who is now indefinitely blocked, including a move of Evil to Economic theorism. EdJohnston 17:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it (and the other examples). And checking the history of evil, I see that I made an edit here and yes, I do have every page I edit watchlisted. I need to move to the "make lists and use Related Changes" method soon, before I hit the limit after which editing your watchlist gets difficult... Carcharoth 00:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of Infobox criminal

Use of Infobox criminal in the upper right corner of an article generally is reserved for serial killers, gangsters, mass murders, old west outlaws, convicted murders, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 most wanted, serial rapist, and mobsters. Infobox criminal also is use as a secondary Infobox in the middle of articles, such as Winona Ryder, Martha Stewart, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay corruption investigation. I went through all the current uses of Infobox criminal and believe that it's use violates WP:NPOV and to some extend WP:BLP in the following 12 articles:

• Andrzej Lepper -
• Bernard Ebbers -
• E. Howard Hunt -
• G. Gordon Liddy -
• Jack Abramoff -
• Jeffrey Skilling -
• Kenneth Lay -
• Lewis Libby -
• Mark Whitacre -
• Michael P. Fay -
• Samuel D. Waksal -
• Webster Hubbell -

By positioning Infobox criminal as the main infobox in the article, it singles out a relatively small aspect in comparison to the overall lives of these people to give undue weight to that criminal aspect of his/her life. This seems inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Some of these individuals have significant fame, so WP:BLP might be a secondary concern rather than a primary concern. Also, there may be a political motivation for such Infobox criminal use. I think the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would be resolved if Infobox criminal for these 12 articles reduced to a secondary use, as in Winona Ryder, Martha Stewart, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay corruption investigation. If you agree with my assessment for any of the above 12 articles, please consider tackling the issue at that article and the entrenched political motivations that may come with it. Please comment next to the name above if the matter is resolved. -- Jreferee 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the articles are properly referenced, I see no WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues with the use of {{Infobox Criminal}} on individuals convicted of felony charges (Bernard Ebbers, Jack Abramoff, etc.) --Kralizec! (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer, Theodore Kaczynski, Charles Manson, and ... Jack Abramoff? -- Jreferee 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a separate infobox for specific types of criminals (white collar, racketeering, serial criminals)?--Mantanmoreland 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) --Mantanmoreland 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jreferee's view that if the person is notable on there own the criminal infobox should just be used in a later section. That being said, it may be difficult to determine if certain people were notable before they committed a criminal act or really only because of it (e.g. Scotter Libby would probably not have been heard of by 99% of the public but for the charge and conviction although he was probably notable before conviction). Remember 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the US criminal code does not differentiate between "kinda bad felons" and "really bad felons" (which are ultimately just value judgments). However it strikes me as being a bit over the top that someone like Winona Ryder would warrant a {{Infobox Criminal}} since her felony convictions were reduced to misdemeanors. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that if a person is convicted of a felony (not a misdemeanor), the info box is appropriate. Note my suggestion above about creating separate types of criminal infoboxes.--Mantanmoreland 19:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Having different infoboxes for different criminal convictions really is the best idea, as any attempt to screen out "white collar" crimes (such as those of Martha Stewart, Lewis Libby, etc.) will also remove the infobox from people like Al Capone (who was ultimately only convicted of tax evasion). --Kralizec! (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not just use the definition of the word criminal: "A person convicted of a crime" with the added wikipedia stipulation that it was a notable crime. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Urgent request to block BetacommandBot, remove or modify non-free image dispute tags, and suspend deletions under CSD-I6

Please forgive me if this is not the right place to post this. I've read quite a few policy pages today and I'm trying my best to figure out how to handle an urgent situation.

User:BetacommandBot has in the past week indiscriminately tagged thousands of image files and user talk pages with Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion tags that, in turn, encourage users to delete the images for various reasons. It is hard to tell how many images were affected but at least 15,000 tags were applied.

In the process, the bot tagged many thousands of images that are simply not in dispute. Some images tagged as having no fair use rationales actually do have rationales that the bot did not notice. Another broad class of inappropriate tags is corporate logos. Most of these were uploaded a while ago and were fine at the time. They lack rationales because the rationale policy used to be different. There is no legitimate question that the images are inappropriate, only a technical matter that somebody needs to take the time to go back and apply fair use rationales. This is a simple process because the justifications for all of these logos is virtually identical. Yet the bot mindlessly tagged them all and invited anyone who comes upon them to delete at will. The seven day waiting period for the tags begins to expire on Sunday, July 8. After that the mayhem will truly begin.

A couple other examples of the bot running amok. One image was tagged four times by the bot and this probably happened elsewhere. Each time editors ascertained there was a fair use rationale and removed the tag. The bot kept coming back to add the tag back without explanation. The image history, here. The out of control bot also mindlessly tagged thousands of pages where an image used in a stub template had incorrectly been labeled as non-free use rather than wikimedia commons.

Last time the bot ran thousands of images were inappropriately deleted by users who jumped the gun by not waiting or not reading through the image file carefully, deleting thousands of images that are now lost: those images have still not been restored. Other images were deleted even after fair use rationales were added. All of this caused a tremendous amount of anger, not to mention wasted time, for thousands of editors. The bot was blocked, and people agreed not to delete images. An archive of the incident here. There was bitter argument about the bot on many other pages.

Despite all this User:Betacommand simply restarted the bot after it was unblocked. It is at least as buggy this time as last time, plus it has some new bad features. Betacommand has unilaterally decided that any rationale contained in a template is improper, and without actually inspecting the individual rationales he had his bot tag all of them for speedy deletion as well claiming that the image "has a fair use rationale that is disputed" without actually reading the reason or explaining the reason for his dispute. He has no consensus for this position, and he should know that from his own talk page User_talk:Betacommand/20070701#Disputing_fair-use_rationales_when_rationales_have_already_been_provided here. He hasn't learned form his mistakes; he is going against the will of most Wikipedians and deliberately flaunting the consensus process. The first time, you could attribute it to being a little too bold. This time there is no excuse. Whatever his motivations, resuming his disruptive editing by bot as soon as he is unblocked goes completely against Misplaced Pages policy requiring consensus building and exercise of discretion on matters of reasonable dispute.

There is no reason to think we're not going to have massive disruption again, intensifying as soon as the seven day waiting period is up. As noted there are tags on images that are clearly appropriate, including many incorrectly identified as lacking fair use rationales. There has been no fair warning on the images that are about to be deleted. Many warnings went out to users who are now inactive or gone because the images were uploaded years ago. Wikipedians as a whole who want to solve the problem have no easy way to know what to do. If these were just manual challenges to isolated images we could deal with them. But we cannot deal with several thousand image controversies in the next several days. That simply overwhelms the Wikipdia process.

This is the latest in a long string of inappropriate actions. Betacommand has been censured before with blocking and loss of his administrative status for inappropriate deletion bots, inappropriate use of bots, blocking users for disagreeing with him, blocking users by bot, and exercising poor judgment in use of bots that resulted in large-scale disruptions. An extensive list of his transgressions here . This has happened so many times in a one-year period that it's safe to say he is incorrigible.

I am proposing the following:

• Immediately block BetacommandBot
• Consider blocking Betacommand and/or permanently rescinding his bot permissionsNot clear whether this is appropriate
• Remove all image deletion tags applied by BetacommandBot to the image pages, so that pages are not indiscriminately deleted
• If that cannot be done, identify which tags were used and modify them to warn users that the tag was placed by a bot, potentially in error, and that they should not delete based on the tag unless and until a consensus is reached on the matter. Failing that, address the issue on the fair use policy page.

Thanks,

- Wikidemo 19:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikidemo, read Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG. This has been hashed out before, as I tried to explain to you. The fair use policies have existed for a LONG time. It's nothing new. Fair use rationales must exist for each use of a fair use image. This is part of our fair use policy at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria item #10(c). Further, it's also noted in our image upload page . Complaining about a policy being enforced seems very odd to me. Should we suspend all activities related to policy enforcement? It was requested that this bot stop it's actions until July. Betacommand complied with this. It then resumed its actions, per the earlier request. Of course, this is raising a fuss. Yet, this has been hashed out before, and despite Wikidemo's claims otherwise, Betacommandbot is most emphatically not acting against consensus nor is it acting unilaterally. --Durin 19:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to defend the indefensible. I am not asking for intervention or change of any other policy or enforcement action, simply to stop this out-of-control bot. Obviously I have read that page. I cite it here because it shows the mess that happened last time this bot ran and the resolution that was reached to block the bot. The guy waited a few weeks then ran it again to the same result. The question isn't whether the bot is appropriate or running properly; it is clearly making a huge mess again as I explain in detail. The question is how to clean up the mess and make sure it doesn't happen again. Deleting several thousand more perfectly appropriate images is not the answer to the fair use question. Adding fair use rationales to the images is the answer but that's simply not possible when rogue users are running unauthorized bots on this scale. If he has a consensus to do this, where is it? - Wikidemo 20:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it's totally indefensible that I should ask users to adhere to policy. Would you please explain, in detail, how this bot is out of control? It was approved for the actions it is taking. It has responded to multiple requests for features enhancements and bug fixed. It responded to request to temporarily stand down until this month. How is this out of control? I'm confused. The last time this bot ran was in June. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with that case. Again, I reference you to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG. Perhaps you've not read that yet? The mess was created not by the bot, but by people ignoring our fair use rationale requirement policy. The bot is simply assisting in cleaning up this mess, doing so with approval, and doing so with a willingness to respond to requests for features and bug fixes. Despite your claims otherwise, this bot is not unauthorized. I'm sorry you feel that way, but your assertion is false. --Durin 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps entering meaningful dialogue with Betacommand would earn you some more credibility instead of just turning up and asking, nay, demanding he be banned. I have to reiterate what has been said above. Users have had ample opportunity to provide a rationale on images they have uploaded. If they or other users have chosen not to do this, then the images will likely be deleted. Nick 20:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• An additional note, the user is not running "rogue", and your attempt on his talk page to suggest that he was desysopped because of this bot is reckless and serves only to discredit you, Wikidemo. His desysopping was absolutely proper, but the work he's doing now is vital and correct, and the same people who argued for his admin bit to be removed are cheering the specific method with which he's refocused his efforts on cleaning up the morass of failed licensing tagging. Misplaced Pages is in danger, and your efforts to prevent this absolutely endorsed and correct work are misplaced. I see that you've received a handful of these warnings on your talk page, so it seems as if you're lashing out at BC because he exposed an error you made with regards to licensing. Your credibility on this issue is currently missing from the conversation, and I strongly urge you to read the applicable policies before launching into any more uninformed attacks against a user who has taken on a thankless, difficult, and 100% endorsed by the foundation job. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• • A little more careful reading from all of you please, before trying to attack my credibility. As I remind Durin immediately above, "I explain in detail" the problems with the bot and "I have read that page" you keep pointing me to. To Nick I don't ask "nay" demand that Betacommand be blocked; I am "proposing" that administrators "consider blocking" the user. I don't force anyone's hand here. Chairboy's attempts to discredit me aren't even worth a response. Along with many other people I asked Betacommand to stop the bot and he has refused. He is clearly not going to agree, so with thousands of images in the balance over the next few days the proper course is escalation. The constituent who will be hurt if they are deleted rather than fixed is not merely the thousands of people who uploaded them but the hundreds of thousands of editors and tens of millions of readers who use Misplaced Pages and its content. Again, there is no debate here over the necessity for fair use rationales. The problem is ifteen thousand tags in one week, without consensus, with lots of sloppiness and errors, after a year-long pattern of similar acts. As much as I enjoy debating the issue with people attack me rather than the issue and who aren't paying attention to what I write, I believe we've stated our positions and should hear what other people have to say. - Wikidemo 21:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sloppiness and errors? Cites please. If the bot is buggy, Betacommand will fix it. --Durin 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, as one of the admins who has been performing the deletions of the images that were tagged in early June, let me say that every single image that I have deleted from that time period had absolutely no text in them that could be misconstrued as a fair-use rationale. For any image which I felt had at least a weak rationale attached to it, I removed the tag so as to not delete the image and I will follow up on those images later to dispute the fair use. The implication that these images are being deleted willy-nilly, without proper review by the admin, is not correct. --After Midnight 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks. I'm trying to stay focused rather than keep chasing down links from the record, but there were quite a few images that were deleted after people put fair use rationales on. Some users responded and got the deletions reversed; others did not. One administrator in particular deleted several thousand images and then for some reason didn't or wouldn't help restore them. It's somewhere in the record I link to from June. Even where there is no rationale whatsoever, in simple cases like album covers and corporate logos those rationales should be added rather than the image being deleted, or at least the community should have a reasonable chance. The seven day notice works when a user uploads a new image and it gets flagged; then he or she has a chance to fix it. It doesn't work when a robot tags several thousand images over the course of a week, as I'm going to propose to BigTex in a moment - Wikidemo 21:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot was blocked for 24 hours on June 6. Betacommand did not immediately start tagging images again, he agreed to wait until July 1. Administrators suspended deleting the images until July 1. Betacommand posted to this page at least twice between the agreement and July 1 what his plans were for proceeding after July 1. I don't remember you objecting to those posts. How long do you suggest that we ask him to suspend for now? How do you suggest that we get our images into compliance? Please also provide diffs for the various bugs that you mention, so that we can judge if it needs to be stopped and so that Betacommand can fix any genuine bugs. ~ BigrTex 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean, besides which, following U.S. copyright law (because the main Wikimedia server is located in the U.S.) is non-negotiable, under any circumstances, Misplaced Pages policy aside. This bot has been doing its job for a while now, and we already suspended deletion of these images that pose a direct threat to the project once. Grandmasterka 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that our requirements are much stricter then most interpretations of fair-use. Also, we have many requirements that are not expressly required by law. But... either way, we have a system of rules for dealing with fair use and BetaCommand's bot is an important step on the path to full compliance with out own standards. ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

• Wikimedia's stance on fair use, copyrighted imagery is deliberately a superset of the law. This is in large part due to our mission to create a free content encyclopedia. This is the rock upon which the fair use arguments continue to fail; the inclusion of these images are generally against our mission. Including them comes with a cost, and must be strongly justified. --Durin 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if you disagree, but the proposal that got consensus back in June was that BCbot should be limited to 300-500 taggings a day. For most of these images the problem is not U.S. law. Most of these images are genuinely okay fair use (and okay even by WP's stricter standards). The problem is that they haven't got a rationale (and may have been uploaded at a time when they didn't need a rationale, or the rationale was generally agreed to be bloody obvious). But now they need an explicit rationale, per use. But it damages the project more than we need to, to tag images faster than volunteers can humanly write rationales. That's why a sensible compromise was suggested to be 300-500 images per day. But the bot is going beyond that limit, and at this rate we'll just have to suspend CSD-I6 all over again, for exactly the same reason as last time. Remember, our aim here is not deletion for deletion's sake. Our aim is to achieve compliance, by the Foundation's target deadline of April 2008. Jheald 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair use law does have as a requirement a reasonable justification for their use. You can't just use the images period. Providing the rationales provides a pre-emptive response to demands for removal of images from Misplaced Pages on copyright grounds. As for the bot being limited to 300-500 taggings a day (that's quite a range) can you cite where that was agreed upon? I recall there being discussion, and some notes about how many images there were (something like 170,000 non-compliant images) and resulting discussion that 500 was too slow. But, consensus that it should be limited? cite please? I know it was proposed, but where's the consensus citation? --Durin 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, fair use doesn't require a justification. A justification provided along with the image makes no difference at all as to whether the image infringes or not. Rather, any legal claim made against you needs a defense or else you lose in court. Big difference. But that's not the battle. We're all in agreement that images should have rationales. Regarding the numbers, why don't we say that all new images should be tagged as fast as they're uploaded. Anyone who uploads a noncompliant image should have instant feedback and there's no reason but ignorance to let that slide. But we should work on the backlog at a reasonable pace. 500 a day means the whole project takes a year. 1000 means six months. Also on some schedule or program that's posted somewhere. We've been talking about this on the fair use policy page, which is the logical place for anyone who wants to pay attention to the issue, and I haven't seen any notice that BetacommandBot was about to be unleashed again. The notices only go out to people who uploaded the image or have the image or article on their watch list. The people trying to fix the problem, like me, would be happy to go to wherever we're needed. Wikidemo 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive91#BetacommandBot and Fair use, this phase should get us through all of the images with "images with less than 20 characters, excluding templates, and skipping pages that have the non-free rationale template", I've checked some of the images it's tagged recently and that seems to be the case. This phase was estimated to be less than 6,000 images and take less than 5 days, but according to Wikidemo, it has ended up being more than 15,000. Betacommand is then going to pause and wait for rationales to catch up. Are there any estimates on how fast rationales are being added to these images? Personally, I'd rather get all of the images tagged for this phase and then see if we need to suspend CSD-I6 again. In software development, this philosophy is known as YAGNI.

The 15,000 figure is based on a count of contributions from BetacommandBot, which includes tags on the image pages and notices on the various user pages. So the 6,000 figure sounds about right. Wikidemo 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If folks think this is bad, I'm going on vacation when Phase 2 starts, tagging an estimated 140,000+ images (not counting ineffective rationales that may have been added in the last three weeks and the next week or more before it starts). ~ BigrTex 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not extend the time period of I6 to 14 days? It relieves pressure on the human volunteers tagging the images, and also allows the bot to do its job. Will 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikidemo believes, despite all the comments above stating otherwise, that Betacommand is acting unilaterally . I'm at a loss as to understand how he could feel this is the case. Since I've tried showing him how this is not a unilateral action, and have failed, would other editors please take a swipe at informing him he is in error? Thank you. --Durin 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Where is the consensus for the bot to undertake, or resume, its tagging activity? Wikidemo 21:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Would you please take the time to read the things that have been cited repeatedly to you? Please? --Durin 21:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You are quite the mimetic today, and now you're playing hide the ball too. You have not cited or shown consensus once to me today, you have simply argued it exists by making hand-waving arguments about wikipedia policy. Are you being deliberately obstinate about this? Where, exactly, if anywhere, did Betacommand get authority to crank up BetacommandBot to start mass-tagging images? I've read dozens and dozens of policy, talk, and notice pages and have not found that. Does it exist? Wikidemo 22:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I finally found the consensus

Finally. Durin, if you could have just said something simple like "This bot was discussed and approved at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_rationale_template_for_corporate_logos instead of the grand statements about Misplaced Pages policy and leaving it for BigrTex to leave me a clue in his discussion of the number of characters. But I won't quibble, I owe BetacommandBot a big apology on questioning his motives and authority on this one. I'll give you my thoughts on what we can do in just a moment. Wikidemo 22:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like you shook me and my critical ways by carrying on the discussion over at a now-archived page, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive91#BetacommandBot_and_Fair_use instad of the page Durin keeps telling me to read again and where it looked like the discussion was taking place. All without any mention on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG, which seems to be the place to discuss fair use issues. I know I'm incorrect in saying Betacommand did this without support, but if you're going to tag half the images on all of Misplaced Pages for deletion you really need a better consensus than five administrators chatting. It took me five hours to drag it out of you guys, so how he heck is the overall Misplaced Pages community supposed to know this kind of discussion is going on? Okay, back to a comment on where to go from here. Wikidemo 22:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If the policy is clear, and clearly being violated (which you don't seem to be disputing), there is no reasonable objection to having a bot tag such violations, if that is technically feasible. -Amarkov moo! 22:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have an objection and it's reasonable, as I've explained. Accepting the numbers there are about 170,000 violations now that we have to deal with by April , 2008, and more coming every day, so it's obvious we will need some bot assistance. The main issues are:

• The goal - is it to delete images or is it to bring them into compliance? The current scheme is stacked in favor of deletion.
• The process - how will a robot function, what notice will people have of pending image deletions, how will it be monitored, etc? The current four-phase proposal is extremely skeletal and has some serious problems.
• Consensus, approval, and input - I pay fairly close attention to fair use issues here and it was a complete surprise to me. There was no notice for most people. That's not a way to deal with an important topic like this. When we approve and adopt a bot there should be notice and an opportunity to participate in all the places where fair use is regularly discussed, as well as all the major wikiprojects.

Where to go from here

As I note above we have 170,000 images to sort through and nine months to do it, so some automation is necessary. That's half the images on Misplaced Pages and most of them meet the substantive non-free use guidelines, they're just missing rationale tags. Phase 1 went out half-cocked again but it went out. We've identified 5,500 images without fair use tags (including 1,000 that actually do have fair use rationales but were considered too short). Let's clean up this mess first, take stock, and float phase 2 for consensus before doing it on a bigger scale.

To clean up this mess the first thing we should do is to give enough time for volunteers to look at all 5,500 tagged images from Phase 1 and not delete them until someone has taken a look. They need to be categorized in a way that people can sort through them. For example, which Wikiproject California images were tagged? Which logo images were tagged? I want a chance to add rationales to all the logos. Any simple way to do that?

There are categories of images that can be rapidly fixed using template-assists, and would be even better if they can be robot-assisted with manual approval. As Durin knows I've floated a template that helps people write good rationales for corporate logos. That's over here. Can we agree that the rationale it helps generate is adequate to a corporate logo? Is that one going to get a pass from the bot or is it going to keep re-applying the tag as fast as I can remove it because it's looking for 20 characters and all my user-inputted rationale fields go within the template? Similar forms could be used for other classes of images.

Phase 2 is farther off and bigger so I can't say everything we're going to need. Certainly some more templates and bots to assist the process of adding fair use rationales where they don't exist. It's not Misplaced Pages versus the image uploaders here. It's the whole Misplaced Pages community that needs to know the images are going to be deleted and have a chance to fix them. We should have a schedule for the 140,000 images and perhaps break them into phases. The first month could be all the album covers, for example. Or all the images with titles from A to C. Or all the images in a list of wikiprojects or categories. Something so we can break it up into pieces and let volunteers know, in advance, when they will be needed.

It has to be real consensus next time. Approved one step at a time. A specific proposal made here, with notices that we're about to tag half of the images on wikipedia and are conducting a discussion of how to do it. IThose notices belong on the policy talk page, any other important fair use or image pages, and the pages where people who use images are likely to find them -- for example, the wikiprojects and even the image upload pages. Leave the proposal up for a week and then see what the consensus is. t's fine to say that whatever the consensus is the non-negotiable issue is that it will be a bot, that all images must have valid fair uses that meet policies, and that at the end point all images that don't meet policy will be deleted. Those are givens. What we need consensus on is how to do it. Wikidemo 23:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As you've noted, these discussions have already happened. With the utmost of due respect, failure to research or be aware of a highly public, widespread consensus gathering effort (such as has already happened w/ BCbot a number of times in the past two months) on your part does not constitute an emergency on ours. Now that you are aware of the scale of the problem, have reviewed the salient discussions, and understand that your initial assumptions that you're complaints represented the project, groups, and Wikimedia Foundation is incorrect, I hope to see you assisting, either by helping editors catch up on their fair-use rationale homework or working to find free replacements. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not just delete all the fair-use images without rationales, and then anyone who notices that a picture is missing, can reupload a copy (shouldn't be difficult to find a copy) and add a fair-use rationale? That would bring instant compliance. One of the points about fair-use pictures is that they should, in theory, be easy to replace if deleted, and should only be in use on a limited number of articles, so re-adding the links is similarly not difficult. Effectively starting from scratch, but it would only take a few years to regain the lost ground, and hopefully the community will end up better informed about image rights and licences. Carcharoth 00:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Checking Image:Juba_II.jpg's author

I hope I'm in the right place. This is about Image:Juba_II.jpg, currently hosted on Commons. The description field does not mention any author but points to en: as a source. Could a sysop check for me if a photographer was mentioned in the original description? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:ChrisO was the original uploader at 12:30, June 4, 2004, the description page did not mention a source. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ChrisO is the author and just forgot to mention it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

I get:

Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 1113 seconds might not be shown in this list.

lol, those are lots of seconds... Any ideas why? NikoSilver 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably just some minor server issues... happens whenever they need to sync servers or something? Sasquatch t|c 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got 1899. I'm not seeing anything on my watchlist older than 30 minutes. Probably want to watch AIV manually... The Evil Spartan 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm up to over 2600 at last check. I think this is going beyond a minor problem - my last watchlist edit is 19:37, and my talk clock says it is 19:51. MSJapan 20:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Query about a multiple move request

• In Misplaced Pages:Requested moves I found this set of move requests:

I obeyed them, but pages of the type Misplaced Pages:Peer review/''month and year'' point to particular of them, which made me feel doubtful, so I moved the pages back to where they were before. Did "J.L.W.S. The Special One" (actually User:Hildanknight) ask for something which is allowed? Or what should he have done or asked for? Anthony Appleyard 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request Avb to be a new administrator

He has exclellent knowlege of policy esp. . I think he will make an great administrator. He is fair and listens to both sides and tells policy about why he feels in certain ways. He will be a good, fair amd excellent administrator. He has gone out of his way to help me learn even though I am disabled along with taking the time to help others in disputes. I really think that he is the type of administrator you all want and need, I hope you will take his contribution he had done into consideration. Thank you for your time, --CrohnieGal 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, WP:RFA is that way. Directions to nominate are at WP:RFA/N. —Kurykh 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. This is all new to me so I didn't know I was in the wrong place. Feel free to delete this. Thanks again,--CrohnieGal 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards