Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If 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)

Start a new discussion

BJAODN Deleted

I have deleted most of the sub-pages from Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense as a violation of the GFDL. In nearly every case, the content in the subpages had been copy-and-pasted from elsewhere. In the case of existing articles, content was copied without crediting the author(s) of the revisions. In the case of deleted articles, without fail in the pages I deleted, the content was not properly moved to preserve the history. In every single case, there was no non-infringing content worth saving.

For those interested, the specific GFDL section relevant to the above is Section 4.B of the GNU Free Documentation License. The speedy deletion criteria is CSD G-12. See also Copyrights - Contributor's rights and obligations.

As can be seen, I have not deleted all of the BJAODN subpages - in the case of much of the April Fools pages, content was properly moved by conscientious editors over the years. Now I know that this will upset some folks, but that is not my intent. Nor were these deletions a liberal interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria - in every single case, the deletions were to keep Wikipedia in compliance with the GFDL, the license by which every single page in every single article in every single language in this great Project is based. If we cannot abide by our own license, how on Earth can we ensure that those who wish to use our content do the same?

These actions should not be interpreted as a fiat against the existence of BJAODN (although one must wonder if our collective creative energies could be used more effectively and whether or not such content is more appropriate for Uncyclopedia - but that is neither here nor there). As long as content is properly moved to preserve the history of "deleted" content, or proper linking to diffs and authors for specific edits on surviving pages, then it would be in compliance.

Again, this is not a rouge interpretation of policy, this is enforcement of the GFDL, period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a comment on the appropriateness of the deletions, but did you honestly think that people would not view this as a rouge interpretation of policy to do whatever you want if you explained it? -Amarkov moo! 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, to the admins reading this, PLEASE do NOT undelete all of these without discussing. Let's not get into a wheel war. No comment on the merits of this deletion. Sean William @ 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like something doesn't add up here: A unilateral deletion is acceptable, but a unilateral undeletion is not? It's bad enough that bold, revert, discuss isn't an option for editors when faced with administrator actions, but I never imagined that admins were similarly hamstrung. This is strictly an observation about the power imbalance between a deleting admin and practically anyone else. It should not be construed as an argument on either side of the bad jokes vs GFDL discussion. --Ssbohio 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Has this been discussed at all? It doesn't seem like something that should be or needs to be done hastily, given the length of time it's existed (and the lack of possibility the GFDL will ever be enforced against us in this manner). Also, as has just been discussed here, it's not clear the GFDL should be interpreted this way. The way, the truth, and the light 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We can't follow only parts of the GFDL. We have to follow all of it. Sean William @ 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL is fairly clear on attribution, as linked above, and in each case there has been an abject failure to attribute. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See the last MFD, and it was discussed on ANI at the time too. Also, every time you subst a template without following the conditions of the GFDL (there is even a whole section on this, 5) God kills a kitten. Kotepho 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, I'm pretty sure this shot the job queue to hell. It's currently fluctuating between a 30 and 60 second delay. -Amarkov moo! 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've slowed it down a bit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO, you might as well nuke the whole thing. It's unfortunate; some of it was quite funny and the Upper Penninsula war deserved to be archived somewhere (WP:DENY be damned), but if we are killing a good portion of the content it is probably worth just delete it outright... otherwise it will just get filled again.--Isotope23 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(moved my comment over from ANI)

Escanaba vs Marquette? Did Manistique seize the opportunity to occupy the Garden Peninsula? Did Wisconsin push its border up to the timezone boundary? Hell of a fight regardless....Mackensen (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, I'm glad I got to see it one more time before it got deleted... it still makes me chuckle.--Isotope23 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The history of that article, at least the good part of it, seems to reside here. In any case, the main contributor was apparently User:Tjproechel. Can we salvage this? Duja► 10:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

AHEM... I just looked at the article and it's a complete riff on Toledo War, an article I contributed a substantial amount to in order to get it to featured status. The Toledo War, involving Michigan's 22-year-old governor at the time, is quite amusing. It also has the benefit of being true. 67.149.103.119 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Restore what? Just put a link at BJAODN to User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and endorse zapping a gigantic GFDL violation and timesink besides. Mackensen (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Theres long been talk of doing this, off and on. Theres no record of authors, breaking GFDL requirements, it's unfunny, fails WP:DENY and in general is just all around stupid. -M^ask? 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The deed is done. The list of pages I have deleted is here: Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Deleted. Everything else at WP:BJAODN is compliant. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Jeff, for not deleting the talk pages and making me go through the list to delete them. —Kurykh 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on that now. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

>.< why did you change your username? I've been worried that you died or something. -Amarkov moo! 03:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? If so, a 17-year-old admin doesn't die easily. And I changed my username because my earlier one sounded stupid (at least to me...now). —Kurykh 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

File:Jumoing Wikipe-tan.svg

Wikipe-tan says "Copy and paste moves are evil. If you use the rename button to put daft pages into BJAODN, you won't violate the GFDL and I and my friend M. Gustafson won't have to thwack your page over the head with this administrator broom. Hello M. Gustafson. It is nice to meet you at last. Stand back a bit please. Aiiiie-ah!"

This had to be done. Its a good idea in theory, but there's some pretty nasty stuff about living people there. And Wikipedia is based on the GFDL - edits have to be attributable to the accounts that made them. Signed posts are alright to just be moved, but where chunks of text have had many editors we need to preserve the history. That just isn't possible with a lot of BJAODN. WjBscribe 03:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's nasty stuff about living people in there, change the names or change the characters to some fictional characters. No prob. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

When pages that have existed as long as this, and have been viewed (and presumably enjoyed) by so many people, get deleted suddenly and it supposedly is required by policy, then either policy (i.e. the GFDL itself) is broken or interpretation of it is. The way, the truth, and the light 03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe because no one interpreted the license like this before. —Kurykh 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be fun. Got it. In that spirit, I suggest we now delete other non-encyclopedic essays, like BEANS, HORSE, FISH, KETTLE, REICHSTAG, and any other essays which all clearly violate AGF? Thanks. ThuranX 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing humor within policy and licensing and humor that violates it. —Kurykh 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, these actions do not mean that future BJAODN, properly done, cannot exist. Quite the contrary, there is still a fair amount of material at BJAODN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that in most of these cases a solution couldn't have been found that would have satisfied the GFDL and preserved this page. But if not, fair enough. Phil Sandifer 03:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

while true in many cases it would have involved an awful lot of work.Geni 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No comment for now on the deletions—I've exceeded my quota for controversial deletion activity for one week—but I'll take a link to the Upper Peninsular War, please. Newyorkbrad 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[1] - Merzbow 06:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do hope we're going to follow this through by deleting all the articles that have been created by merging and/or splitting other articles, with consequent loss of history. And we'd better get onto the other language Wikipedias about their unattributed translations. We might start with the German Wikipedia's featured article de:Yagan, a translation of our Yagan article without any author attribution whatsoever.

Yes I know it sounds like I'm being sarcastic, but I really do think this issue needs to be tackled. I just hope that Jeffrey et al realise that this problem is really really big. It isn't going to be solved just by deleting BJAODN.

Hesperian 03:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Translated articles should have a link saying that they were translated and linking to the revision of the source article they were translated from (either on the article page or talkpage). Where merging happens, the source article must be redirected to the target article to ensure GFDL compliance. WjBscribe 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Tell Jimbo that; he thinks translated articles on Wikipedia are exempt from the GFDL.[2] Hesperian 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • He opines that the location of the link to the original is not required to be in the article itself, and can be on the talk page or in the edit summary. He does state that there is no GFDL reason to include such links. As an editor who has been through the GFDL requirements for copying things between wikis in meticulous detail, and has been transwikifying articles and fixing other people's transwikifications to be in accordance with the GFDL for several years now, I can tell you that he is wrong about that. The GFDL does require that. The relevant clause is 4(j). Uncle G 10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed. As much as this may shock some people, Jimbo can be wrong, and sometimes the community can be wrong, too. I knew there would be an emotional "oh noes" reaction, but the GFDL is the GFDL, period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• A thought as a random user and BJAODN fan -- it seems to me that there's more at stake here than just GFDL enforcement. Wikipedia has a wide perception of being a humorless and rule-obsessed place, despite policies such as WP:IAR and WP:OWN (the simple fact that one much of the time cannot type "articles for deletion" into the search box and be taken to WP:AFD because of restrictions on cross-namespace links is telling, since a usability issue has been sacrificed to protocol). Inasmuch as Jeffrey O. Gustafson's actions embody the letter of WP:IAR and the like, they also seem to trample over the spirit of it completely. It seems to me that the elimination of much of such a long-standing Wikipedia tradition as the BJAODN archives is a rather hamhanded way of dealing with the attribution problem, as well as contributing to the project's increasingly negative reputation. I propose that the deleted pages be put on ice somewhere pending a community discussion on the issue. Haikupoet 03:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of content is still at WP:BJAODN, so there's still plenty of humour. Its just the elements that are not attributable to the contributors who made them that have been deleted. WjBscribe 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How many of these could have been quickly attributed by checking the article histories and doing some digging? Phil Sandifer 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And if they're properly attributed, we'll chip them out of the ice, if I may continue your analogy. We can restore what we deleted. —Kurykh 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What do we do with this template? I sent it to TfD, unless one of you wants to delete this without going through that pretty-much unneeded process. —Kurykh 03:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. There's such a thing a leaving room in life for some freaken common sense. Taking away one of the little inside jokes rips at the heart of an organization, and we are not doing this for the money. Jeffery I sure wish I had your self-confidence, to be so sure I'm right as to undertake such a task without first consulting my colleagues. Herostratus 03:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is something that has been discussed on and off amongst admins for a fairly long time. And my "self confidence" in this only comes from supporting and upholding not just policy, but the basis of this whole Project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community isn't just the Admins, Mr. Shazaam. There are the editors and the anons, too. We have a say, too, and we help with policymaking, too. Just remember that. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If the page contained copyvio, it should not be here. A pity, I am sure we lost some good stuff, but hey, we were doing things right lately, and needed to do something controversial from an outsider's point of view to give them something to talk ;-) -- ReyBrujo 03:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(Note: not an admin) I grieve over this loss, and I would gladly help to look for diffs for mine and others' contributions to the pages if given a chance. I'm certain other editors would too with BJAODN at stake. --LuigiManiac 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as an interpretation/application of policy that should require discussion before action. Among many other examples that come to mind, mirror sites often lose granularity of attribution. They often permit an end-user to view only a complete version of an article, not the whole history with all authorship properties, just like BJAODN. Should we shut down/cut off mirror sites that fail to implement this interpretation of the license perfectly? Should we do it instantaneously, because "policy says so", regardless of consequences, agreements, or other policies? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GFDL-compliant mirrors should contain a link (or other reference) back to the Wikipedia article, from which the full edit history can be retrieved. This is rather different from cutting-and-pasting content from deleted pages into BJAODN. -- Visviva 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) We contact them to suggest changing their methods, many indeed break the GFDL by not linking back to provide a full history attribution. However, we must first and foremost care about Wikipedia "health". If we are deleting decorative fair use images from templates, why not decorative texts copied from another source? -- ReyBrujo 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• perhaps with the bar of keeping GFDL people will, in future, only bother with the genuinely funny ones. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused.. many people probably didn't know this was even an issue, and would have been glad to help correct the situation had they known. Why not do that now? It sounds like a painfully easy fix. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said "Rouge interpretation" anyway, but I would call the deletion a rouge action. WP:BOLD is meant to motivate editors to do things that have not yet been done and/or tried, but it is not meant to flout community consensus. If BJAODN had not been deleted yet, it seems obvious to me that no consensus has been reached. Why not start a process meant to determine consensus instead? -- Renesis (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the prior MfDs all failed. --tjstrf talk 07:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... but that only reinforces my feeling that this was not the correct action to take, no matter the interpretation. -- Renesis (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It reinforces my feeling that MFD's hinge on personal tastes rather than application of policy. — CharlotteWebb 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me for suggesting this, as I'm sure this manpower and resources needed to do this could probably used in a more productive manner, but: maybe we could start a task force of volunteers to go through each BJAODN item one-by-one, find the original diffs, and merge it into the edit history? Krimpet (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the minimum level of compliance is to list the names of the contributors and the year in which they contributed. A text dump of the history tab would be quite satisfactory, and that is what is usually used for pages transwikied to meta or wiktionary or wikibooks or whatever. In the most common case, a funny article that is quickly deleted, you're probably at about 5 edits by 1-3 distinct users, which really is trivial to document. Also common is a humorous paragraph or sentence or "funny vandalism" if you will, entirely created by one user, and added to an article that still exists (but quickly reverted). For this it is probably adequate to link to the diff of the edit and list the user name and timestamp (like this: Pigsonthewing 20:25, 28 June 2004) directly above the text excerpt. — CharlotteWebb 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The GFDL argument is pretty weak, many entries contained at least a link to the vandalized article. These actions seem like they were based on a selective enforcement of a legalistic interpretation of Wikipedia licensing to further the goal of getting rid of questionably humorous content. Not that these deletions were a horrible injustice, but I doubt that they will prevent editors from nominating a future, properly attributed and GFDL-compliant version of BJAODN for deletion. Oh how I wonder what excuses will appear then... >:) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should assume good faith rather than accusing a long-standing editor of malfeasance - If I wanted to make up some reason to delete BJAODN then there would be nothing there. I have no problem being rouge, but in this case my actions are very clearly spelled out not just in policy, but, again, in the license that forms the foundation of our Project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While I generally do assume good faith, this was a rash action on the part of an admin, and thus I put the pages up on deletion review - because this deletion shouldn't have occurred. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever accusation implied was not serious, I have no problem with you or your standing as an editor. As this deletion dealt with BJAODN, it seems only appropriate to bust your chops a little. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (To clarify: I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of how GFDL applies to Wikipedia, but I don't suspect any malfeasance and I don't think the deletions counted as a significant loss to Wikipedia. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Again if we lost anything that was actually funny, just do some research, figure out who actually wrote it, and include that information when adding it back it in the next volume. — CharlotteWebb 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Bringing the license problem to light was a good idea. But this was just the sort of response Wikipedia:Don't panic warns against - a drastic and inflammatory action without discussion to gain consensus. There were alternative solutions here that many of us would have been glad to support, such as tracking down sources and citing them properly, that were not given consideration. This isn't impractical; each segment noted the article it was copied from and the history revealed the rough time. I say, undelete these and give supporters a few weeks to find sources. Then kill whatever's left. Dcoetzee 07:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I support the idea of undeletion to make it so they are attributed, it only seems fair, although of course it's only sysops who will be able to use Special:Undelete to view deleted pages (which many of them are). --WikiSlasher 10:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • How many more years do we have to wait before the people who say that they support making the pages GFDL-compliant actually do that? This is not the first time that people have offered to do this. And nothing happened afterwards. Uncle G 10:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not true. There has been quite a lot of discussion, and the "few weeks" that have already been given are nearly reaching double figures. The issue of non-compliance with the GFDL was raised in March 2004 at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/BJODN, raised again in December 2006 at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Sam Blanning, and discussed at length in March 2007 at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Close Encounters of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Kind and then again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive79#BJAODN. The explanation that one cannot merge content from an article and then delete the original, because it violates the GFDL, was a whole section of the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion at one point (one that I think requires restoring at this point, because editors are making this mistake increasingly). Uncle G 10:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I would be happy to help out with the BJAODN attribution now and again. Give Wikipedians a certain period of time to get the job done, then delete anything not yet attributed. Then institute a rule in WP:BJAODN requiring attribution with each and every thing. --WikiSlasher 10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Better yet, institute a rule in BJAODN requiring the content to be actually funny. Randomness isn't funny.

>Radiant< 10:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Says who? Whether something is funny or not depends soley on the user, just because one person doesn't find a joke funny doesn't mean the next person in line won't. --IvanKnight69 15:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought--how about we focus on the content that we actually want to keep in the encyclopedia? (laughter ensues). Mackensen (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Good Articles and other Kept Sense? Or perhaps "Widely Informative Knowledge Implicitly Perusable Everywhere Downloable In Articleform"? >Radiant< 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say it is a shame it was deleted. BJAODN was an important part of wikipedian culture and history. And there was actually some funny stuff there. :(. It should be brought back, or at least undeleted, copied to a mirror site / user page / or somewhere else so it can preserved for those who DID enjoy it, and then re-deleted. --IvanKnight69 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia humor

For those that worry that Wikipedia has become devoid of mirth, I should point out that the above category is quite well populated, and unlike the rather aptly named bad jokes and nonsense, most of this category consists of "good jokes and kept witticisms". See also this policy. >Radiant< 09:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Attribution can be found

Forgive me if this has been mention previously. It would be relatively easy to get the attribution information. All you have to do is find when the content was added and from where (in most cases this is given on the BJAODN page) and then look in the history of the article around the time the content was added to BJAODN. It would be extremely easy for an admin to find the stuff from deleted pages. I could do it myself, but I am busy with other things both Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia related and do not have enough interest in BJAODN to give it priority. To transfer the attribution, I suppose that you could put the usernames in edit summaries, like we have done before in unusual situations. However, since these are BJAODN pages and not articles, it might be better to put them on the page itself, next to the content that each contributed. -- Kjkolb 12:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There's more useful work to be done than trying to find histories for the random junk on BJAODN. If we're going to keep using BJAODN, and I've no reason to believe we shouldn't, histories need to be preserved and BLP crap needs to be kept out. Nick 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's part of Wikipedia's history. Yeah a good chunk of it is crap but not all of Wikipedia has to be serious :) --WikiSlasher 12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it would be too much harder to provide attribution for the deleted content than it would be for new content, especially in the case of joke articles and bad articles that were deleted immediately. -- Kjkolb 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Issue is that for old stuff we don't have deleted histories.Geni 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, don't people have anything better to do? Like an encyclopedia to write? Wikipedia is not a joke shop, nor Myspace. It's an encyclopedia. Our job is to actually write the damn thing. Not to spend hours playing around with 60-odd hours of idiotic subpages of BJAODN. Moreschi ^Talk 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"60-odd hours of idiotic subpages of BJAODN"? Also, as I previously mentioned, I do have better things to do. -- Kjkolb 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is a case where the addition of humour sections are harming the encyclopedia and sidelining people from improving the article, nay violating Wikipedia policy and the GFDL, then the involvement of humour within Wikipedia needs to be discussed within the community, and if necessary, deleted. If the humour sections are harmful to Wikipedia in terms of contributions or legally, they will sadly need to go. --tgheretford (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize people were taking jobs here. Where can I put in my application? I now regret all the time I spent for free just because I thought this was fun. What a rube I am! William Pietri 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi just ran head-on onto my Third law of Wikipedia... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

G12?

How did you reckon G12 applied? Steve block Talk 15:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The contributions of users were being attributed only to whoever copy and pasted the material instead of the actual author in violation of the license under which the original author released the material, thus, Copyright violation twice over. But that is really ancillary to the true reason, which, as noted, is the utter GFDL violations (section 4.B of the license). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I get all that, but my reading of G12 doesn't allow that as a reason for speedy deletion under G12. Does the material have to meet all the parameters or just one of them? And I think this is important, because if it doesn't meet G12 then you're claiming WP:IAR. Steve block Talk 17:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So if you do not agree with the G12 interpretation (which I stand by), then just go by the GFDL. No matter what, the material cannot stay. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand how it violated the GFDL, I just can't see violating the GFDL as being a parameter listed under G12. It wasn't copied from a website with an incompatible license, therefore G12 cannot apply. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Steve block Talk 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has got to revert this idiocy. Copyright paranoia can only go so far, before it becomes an utter and complete farce. WP:IAR, undelete, and ban Jeffrey for being WP:LAME.  Grue  16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffrey, and the failure of MFD to discard this walled garden nuisance does not speak well to our community. Even keeping the current page is questionable, but the archives were without value. -- nae'blis 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's really too bad... but Jeffery is 100% right. It's form violated our own ethics. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I will resist the temptation to start a deletion review because I know that will only cause more trouble. However, my strong opinion is that Mr. Gustafson should not have deleted anything unilaterally. I really don't see how this is any different from when User:YankSox deleted Daniel Brandt by implicitly invoking WP:BLP, and started a deletion war with catastrophic results. In both cases, the pages were nearly perennial subjects of discussion, but nobody could muster community consensus to get them deleted. Then some admin goes ahead and deletes them unilaterally. Our community dynamics depend on trust, and it's hard to trust administrators who don't reciprocate that trust for those of us who have contributed to BJAODN.

I support the idea of trying to rescue citations to page history so that some of BJAODN can be recovered. This presents technical problems for non-admins like me because I don't have access to deleted articles. I'm referring to the sources for BJAODN items, not to BJAODN itself.

Going forward, I suggest the following:

1. Restore the titles of the BJAODN pages. I find them amusing, and they do not violate GFDL.
2. Recreate BJAODN as a category instead of a list. The category would have three subcategories:
   1. Deleted pages.
   2. Reverted diffs from existing articles.
   3. Special items such as April Fools jokes.

In appropriate situations, a newpage patroller could bypass CSD G1 by adding a template that says "This article is deleted and is viewable only for humorous purposes" and would automatically be categorized by the template. I'm not sure how it would work for diffs. I suppose special items could already go in Category:Wikipedia humor, but then, the entirety of BJAODN belongs there.

Let us not confuse GFDL issues with personal preferences. Just because BJAODN violates some rule that most of us honestly don't know about, it doesn't justify unilateral action, and it also doesn't mean that we should disparage any and all attempts at humor, as some of the folks above have been doing. YechielMan 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just because BJAODN violates some rule that most of us honestly don't know about — Any administrator — any administrator — who is not familiar with the requirements of the GFDL has been given access to administrator tools too early, before xe is actually ready to use them. Many of the tasks that we use our tools for from day to day, including history mergers, fixing bogus copy-and-paste moves, and renaming over existing articles, involve the requirements of the GFDL. We are required to delete content that is not licensed under the GFDL, and to preserve edit history and not delete when (GFDL-licensed) content has been merged. Our tools are here in part for us to ensure that the project's copyright policy is adhered to, and to repair the errors made by those who have not followed that policy. Not knowing what the requirements of the project's copyright licence actually are is a fundamental deficiency; it is something that one should have learned before becoming an administrator. Uncle G 23:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Realisticaly you are going to have to accept that most admins have not read the GFDL. Just as you have to accept that most admins have not read our full disclaimers.Geni 01:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but just because we should be willing to forgive ignorance of our copyright policy doesn't mean that after its consequences have been pointed out people should intentionally disregard them. >Radiant< 08:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. It is a sad day when BJAODN gets deleted. Amen. - Bagel7*Talk02:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've placed the BJAODN page itself for Mfd. Honestly there's nothing much left here now. - Mailer Diablo 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all do without that collection of unattributed libel. We can instead, oh I don't know, write an encyclopedia? ^(H) 13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just as a sidenote, can an admin please undelete and do a history merge on User:SunStar Net/Persian Panda and merge the history of Persian Panda (now deleted) into it to keep this within the GFDL?? - since the original author's work is not included, because I did a copy-and-paste job on it. The article is tagged with {{humor}} so people know it is a BJAODN article.

Also, I feel BJAODN should be kept, as long as pages are moved into it rather than deleted wholesale - e.g. Nonsense article that is very funny moved to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Nonsense article that is very funny - that way it might just keep the GFDL requirement. Same for all the other deleted articles that were cut-and-pasted into the BJAODN archives too. Hope this suggestion helps. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, say goodbye to my edit count... =( Dark Ermac 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting this up for WP:Deletion review. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Crikey. This makes me sad, as Wikipedia isn't a job to me, it's a pleasure. And even were this a job, I feel like a shared sense of humor is a vital part of a healthy workplace culture. This sudden action seems roughly as reasonable to me as tearing through the office one day and ripping down all the photocopied cartoons. If I grab the ultra-full dump and write something that rummages for attribution, would people accept the attributable BJAODN fragments back? Or is there some unexpressed issue that's driven this? William Pietri 04:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would accept it if:
    • It was properly attributed (which may lead to "you did this to make fun of me" wikidrama), and
    • It is actually funny (which is subjective, because one person's funny and hilarious joke is another's stupid and lame one)
  • Otherwise, it's better to keep them deleted. I was about to flush out the archives because most of the content was just plain stupid, and they were funny to the point where I did not laugh at the subject of the joke, but at the joke itself. —Kurykh 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read this thread exhaustively but I've done a quick text search and this doesn't seem to have been raised. Doesn't the exact same interpretation of the GFDL also result in practically every talk archive subpage on Wikipedia being a violation in need of immediate deletion? Help:Archiving a talk page gives detailed directions on how to do a copy-and-paste move of material from talk pages to archive subpages, and I know this has been the method I've always used myself. Bryan Derksen 07:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages and pages like these are actively signed by their participants. That is the attribution.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but some users don't sign their names, and anon users often don't, and those who are identified by IPs are pretty much worthless, as if their IP is dymanic it means pretty much nothing. --IvanKnight69 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but if they do that the anons don't want attribution, that's why they're anonymous so there's no issue there. --WikiSlasher 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm very happy this was done. If we don't take the GFDL seriously, there's no reason anyone on earth will, and the license will become unenforceable. Derksen: talk pages should be fine because the edits can be found on the main talk page. Time stamps make this easy. Cool Hand Luke 20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Other pages in BJAODN need checking for GFDL violations

Just looking through the links from the main BJAODN page, I have a niggling worry that the links for the Other Pages as well as Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create also fail CSD G12 as per the concerns made by Jeffrey O. Gustafson in his original decision to speedy delete the main BJAODN pages. All of the pages have the same problems of material being copied and pasted to the page, without crediting the subsequent authors in the revision(s), again as required by section 4B of the GFDL as per: Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#4. MODIFICATIONS. Rather than cause more trouble by nominating for MfD, I'm bringing this concern to the attention of the community. --tgheretford (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If I am looking at that page right, it is just a list of article links (instead of the content themselves) or I am missing something completely different. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing as my main account, I tried to address this issue at User:YechielMan/Other stuff/GFDL compliance for BJAODN. I might not have gotten them all right, but it should still be helpful. Placeholder account 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia-screenshot}}

So, what is the current status of images tagged with this template? Is it considered a free image, fair use, or what? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Must be free within the caveats of the GFDL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Except for the Wikipedia logo, everything is under one free license or another. As I understand it the logo can be used more or less freely within Wikipedia, but reuse and derivative works of it are limited. Images that don't contain the logo are free. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly the reason why I was asking. The text is GFDL'd and Monobook (and all other MediaWiki skins) are GPL'd, so the only non-free element is the logo. So, what do we do with all the pages in Category:Screenshots of Wikipedia? There are literally hundreds of images with the Wikipedia globe, and the licensing template makes it appear that it is a valid free content licensing tag. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Images that have the globe should probably also be tagged with {{{Copyright by Wikimedia}}. (It might be simpler just to put the {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} inside {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}.) Whatever it is, the template used for Wikipedia screenshots should make clearer that the logo, if it appears, cannot be used freely; for now I have tried to do that simply by bolding the relevant text. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the text and the logo these screenshots also frequently contain the user's browser and a variaty of embedded images that are not nessesarily GFDL licensed. Even if only free licensed elements are shown you would have to actualy include proper attribution for the authors of all of them in order to fully comply with the licese for most of them. So IMHO most of these are anything but straight forward... --Sherool (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But those that removed the browser GUI elements should be fine? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably. But what about nonfree fonts like arial and tahoma? You wouldn't have this problem on a Linux box since they use Deja Vu fonts, but Windows and Mac computers display non-free fonts by default. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

False license declaration

J.puckett (talk · contribs · count) uploaded Image:HabboUKGuestRoom.PNG and tagged with {{PD-self}}, but I have seen that image elsewhere and I know that he did not create it. It's almost exactly identical to Image:HabboAUGuestRoom.png. –Sebi ~ 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC) My apologies if this is not in the correct place.

I would be suspicious. The user blanked his/her userpage ([3]) but in this diff, one of the images that a bot left it was Image:SoraSafe.jpg, and now Image:SoraSafe.PNG exists. There's also this bizarre edit [4] that tried to put an unrelated image (at least I think it is unrelated - it is an entirely different name!) - and the image was uploaded by this user as well. The only thing I can think of is possible vanity, because this user appears to have added their own Habbo (or at least added their own creation to Image:HabboUKGuestRoom.PNG - see Image:SoraSafe.PNG). I can't seem to find any of this user's uploads on Google, so they could well be public domain - but some are possibly unencyclopedic. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the image. It is obviously not in the public domain.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the TOS for Habbo Hotel [5] makes it clear that derivative works (such as screenshots) can never be free content, let alone public domain. Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: GNU Free Documentation License

See my user talk page, towards the bottom. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Secretlondon 14:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

People actually care this much about BJAODN? Jesus. Moreschi ^Talk 14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

hey if it finaly gets them to read the GFDL I'm not going to complain.Geni 15:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I second Moreschi. Sr13 10:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I second Geni. — CharlotteWebb 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology To Wikipedia

I would like to apologize to the Wikipedian community for my recent disruptive actions. Now that I am aware of the polices that I was violating, I can further better the future of Wikipedia. The actions that I have made were entirely out of good faith and with the intention to better Wikipedia. That is my goal, like many others here at Wikipedia. I will study the polices here at Wikipedia to try and better understand them. My recent rejected nomination had opened my eyes to my actions and hopefully, in the future, these will be ultimately minimized. Redsox04 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to. (Perhaps you should copy this message to the individuals who pointed out your mistakes.) I am willing to forgive vandalism or test edits if you resolve not to repeat the mistake, and especially if (as your userpage indicates) you continue to prevent others from causing harm. If you have edit-warred or committed personal attacks against other users, you need to apologize to those individuals.

I personally have found that some members of the community are not willing to forgive me for indiscretions I committed when I was a newcomer. I may have more to say about this on another occasion. However, as I relate to others, I am willing to forgive the past and look forward to a promising future. YechielMan 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to rephrase my initial statement. I did not intend for this message to be directed towards the entire Wikipedian community, just the users that my recent disruptive behavior offended or effected in some way. Many users held strong beliefs that I was a vandal (which I am not) due to my recent behavior. I think that many users feel that I am a distraction, disruption, and one of great immaturity and I feel that I should address the issue at hand. My contributions are only made out of good faith for Wikipedia, not harm. I do not intend to cause such disruption but further better the operation of Wikipedia. My recent behavior in which it appeared that I was impersonating an administrator may have been misconstrued. I was not fully aware of the blocking policies at Wikipedia and may have made many mistakes as far as that is concerned. I imposed punishments that were outside of my jurisdiction and authority with the intention of blocking users who I deemed unable to follow rules that are brought forth by Wikipedia. If you look at the userpages that I have blocked, you will find proof of long term detrimental behavior and many "to-be-blocked" threats. I felt it would be in the best interest of the Wikipedian community and Wikipedia itself if I blocked them from editing Wikipedia. I think that maybe adminship would be just what I need. Then I would be able to have my opinion taken more seriously and considered longer and harder rather than posting my opinions here as an ordinary user. Redsox04 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Redsox, you realize that you didn't actually block anyone right? You only put {{blocked}} templates on pages, which was inappropriate, but does nothing to actually restrict user access to editing privileges. You learned, you know it was wrong, now rest easier and don't do it again. Leebo ^T/C 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be more apropos to suggest that his comments don't belong here. He's claimed to block people as an admin at least twice, has not a clue about much of anything (such as applying for MedCom with something like 150 actual article edits since February and the aforementioned "blocking" nonsense), and has been starting threads about his actions on AN and ANI for no real apparent reason other then to maybe gain attention. It almost seems like he came to WP because he thought he could be an admin right away or something, and the continued behavior he has exhibited shows that he keeps making mistakes and ignoring policy even when he claims to have "learned better", not to mention that he apparently has some recurrent issues about being just a "regular user". I know plenty of regular users whose opinions are taken seriously, but theyt aren't of a self-aggrandizing nature. Might I suggest that someone mentor Redsox04? MSJapan 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

All I am trying to do is make a good gesture by apologizing for my mistakes. Take it easy. I am NOT trying to gain attention but just commit a good gesture (as mentioned earlier). And if my apology doesn't belong here, than where exactly does it belong? Redsox04 19:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here although the gesture is appreciated. Apologize to the users whose pages that you "vandalized" and then put the above apology on your user page or User talk:Redsox04|your talk page]]. It wasn't that great a sin and, despite what Yechielman says, Wikipedians do forgive. Just don't submit an RFA anytime in the next 30 years (heh, heh, just kidding, 3 months and 3000 edits is a good minimum).

In the meantime, if you would like to be mentored as MSJapan suggests, I am willing to serve as your mentor. Just let me know on my Talk Page.

--Richard 20:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of RefBot

SEWilco (talk · contribs) left a rude and demanding message for David Gerard (talk · contribs) regarding the block on RefBot (talk · contribs). David Gerard asked that someone look into it. I found that SEWilco is prohibited by ArbCom sanction from converting citations manually or through a bot. I reset the block to clearly reflect the ArbCom sanction.[6] SEWilco thanked me at first, but then later left an insulting message about "mindreading".[7][8] I endorsed the indefinite block as appropriate to the sanction, because SEWilco clearly lays out the purpose of the bot in converting citations. What does everyone else think of this situation? Vassyana 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:CITE also prohibits arbitrarily messing with cites. You did the right thing. -N 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A program following instructions is less arbitrary than a human, but my message was about Vassyana's speculation, as the problem with Gerard's block was that it was based on imagination rather than fact. (SEWilco 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

This goes back quite a way, so what the intent of the bot is at this point is unclear. The original block seems fine, if there is a new purpose for the bot it should go through the approval process --pgk 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right. The information above about the bot is obsolete and is only relevant for people running the original version, which is about five versions older than mine. (SEWilco 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

FCYTravis

Resolved on User Talk:Jimbo Wales#Administrator Abuse

User:Alexsautographs and non-free images

Does anyone want to help go through and tag the image contribs of User:Alexsautographs as replaceable fair use images? User has uploaded a large number of baseball card scans which fail WP:NFCC. I also think a warning is in order as the user has already been asked not to upload baseball card images. Rhobite 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Calton

I have asked User:Calton now 5 times to leave me alone and to not post on my talk page. He continues to do so. I have asked nicely, he continues to do so. I have threatened to report him for WikiStalking, he continues to do so. So, could an admin please help User:Calton off my talk page and tell him to leave me alone. I didn't ask for his assistance, I don't need his assistance, and I don't want his assistance. I just want him to leave me alone. Your help is appericated. Thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer has ownership issues -- just ask A Man In Black -- which his change of name from Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs) aka SVRTVDude haven't alleviated. Considering one of the problems that got him rebuked was actual Wikistalking -- following my edits and making pointless changes -- I can see why he thinks invoking that term will help him here. --Calton | Talk 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Calton, I had to switch usernames cause you could leave me alone, like you can't now. Leave me alone, stop bothering me, means just that. It doesn't mean troll around Wikipedia trying to find my posts, harrassing people on their talk page after they have asked you to stop. It means to leave them alone. You don't get that, you didn't when I was SVRTVDude and you don't now...and you won't until you are gone and banned.

User:A Man In Black and I have a difference of opinions on the TV stations here on Wikipedia. We don't see eye to eye, but we don't fight like cats and dogs like we once did. There are sometimes when we actually can have a civil conversation without getting to snippy at each other. You can be civil and not see eye to eye...and it isn't WP:OWN either. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Calton went slightly over the line here. Neutralhomer, it is JUST FINE for someone who has a problem with your edits to discuss them with you. Your request to be "left alone" cannot mean that you accept no input about your edits. On the other hand, Calton, after one reply to his message about leaving him alone, the rest was pretty much unnecessary, and seems to have been done as the perpetuation of some kind of flame war or something. What worries me more is the edit dispute, because the way you two are communicating, that is not going to resolve anything. Mangojuice^talk 23:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If Calton wants to have civil conversation with me, not berate me, then that's great, I won't mind talking to him. But when he goes on and on and on and on and has to berate you every six words, it's to the point I want to put my head through my desk. But if Calton wants to help, wants to give input without being rude, crude, etc, then I don't mind talking to him. But if he can't...then there is nothing we have to discuss. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If Neutralhomer aka Orangemonster2k1 aka SVRTVDude aka whatever-he's-calling-himself-this week wants to start having conversations, he ought to try NOT replying with utter nonsense, outright falsehoods, paranoia, psychological projection, and insults to my intelligence. Like this bit: It doesn't mean troll around Wikipedia trying to find my posts -- has anyone ever explained the concept of a Watchlist to you? Making changes to an article on my Watchlist, which I've edited before, regarding the same issue I edited on before is about as far away from "troll[ing] around Wikipedia" as you can get -- unlike, say, edit warring over someone else's vanity edits immediately after I've removed them. The only reason I know it's him is because he's simply repeating the same behavior in the same places -- and because he said it was him, outright. And "communication" with Neutralhomer aka Orangemonster2k1 aka SVRTVDude aka whatever-he's-calling-himself-this week consists of him making ownershipdemands untethered from policy, guidelines, practices, and (occasionally) reality, having a hissy fit when challenged, stalking my edits/inserting nonsense until called upon it by an admin, issuing a non-apology apology ("Calton made me do it!"), and swearing he won't do it again, rinse, lather, repeat. The person on the platform waiting for the fast train to Banville? Not me. --Calton | Talk 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh Calton, give it up! Let's go through these, shall we?

"utter nonsense, outright falsehoods, paranoia" - ya, what now? I don't think the truth any of those.

"psychological projection" - You just love going for that one, don't ya? Leave my Aspergers out of this, OK?

"insults to my intelligence" - Please, if you were as intelligent as you claim to be, you would have gotten the point long ago.

"...I've edited before" - You have edited KXGN before? Really? Are ya sure? Don't think so.

"edit warring" - lets see you are big time guilty there...even after an AFD you started was decided as "Keep".

"having a hissy fit when challenged" - I can't even go there without laughing.

Now...anything else you would like to accuse me of? "Hissy Fits"? Get the point, leave me alone and drop it or you will be on that train to Banville. I hear the cabin cars are nice. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I saved this page in html. What User:Calton is doing here may constitute practicing psychology without a license. It is reportable to the Internet Crime Commission and the APA. I must urge him to check himself very carefully, for his own protection. 76.166.123.129 07:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? "Get the point, leave me alone and drop it or you will be on that train to Banville. I hear the cabin cars are nice."? Um, I think you've made Calton's point for him rather nicely. Calton is a respected and trusted member of the community and part of Calton's role as an admin a responsible member of the community is correcting those who are out of step with the community's rules and conventions. And you've just demonstrated by your own actions you are such a person. So I suggest that you take take Calton's warnings to heart or you'll likely find that you have more than just Calton to complain about. FeloniousMonk 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Calton is not an admin. In any case, it is not just an admin's duty to enforce community conventions, it is everyone's. I think Calton could try to be a bit less rigid - not with regards to enforcing policy, but his manner of enforcing it. Riana ⁂ 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought he was one already... That he's not is an obvious oversight on our part. He's been doing the work of one for a very long time. FeloniousMonk 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, as I see it Neutralhomer has amply demonstrated that it's not Calton who's got the problem here. This, [9]. this and this from Neutralhomer indicate a pattern of abusing Wikipedia processes such as WP:WQA and WP:AN to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute. I've cautioned him such disruption violates WP:HAR and WP:DE and will likely result in a block if it continues and that I suggest that he finds a corner of the project away from Calton and edit quietly there for a while. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can demonstrate that Calton is not the great guy you make him out to be. He puts on his little act for the admins to stay out of trouble and then slams the editors. The admins not calling him on it, just makes him worse. Gimme an hour and I will get you proof of his behaviour. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked you on your talk page to drop this and move along and contribute to the project quietly. FeloniousMonk 05:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And Calton has not been at the very best of his behaviour either. Picking one user and warning him of abuse of process and asking him to "quietly edit in another corner" is completely inappropriate on your part. Please consider removing your warnings from NH's talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My contributions were erased completely. User Calton has ongoing and persistent WP:CIVIL problems. These comments should be re-instated for the record. 76.166.123.129 07:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What User:Calton is doing here may constitute practicing psychology without a license. It is reportable to the Internet Crime Commission and the APA. Internet Crime Commission? Are those the people fighting the World Crime League? Or maybe it's the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants? Is BJAODN still active? I may have a candidate.

I assure you, your childish remarks aside, that this user's comments, and his conduct, are reportable. 76.166.123.129 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the "Internet Crime Commission" is as imaginary as the "World Crime League", I'm not concerned with your "reporting" anything. And I'd call threats to tattle to an imaginary authority figure pretty childish, myself, not to mention calling it a legal threat -- a particularly nonsensical and easily dismissed legal threat, but a legal threat nonetheless. --Calton | Talk 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In any case, folks, say hello to abusive sockpuppeteer User:76.166.123.129 aka User:Telogen aka User:The Nervous Mermaid, most of whose contributions have indeed been erased, for very good reasons. --Calton | Talk 13:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for very poor reasons. User: Calton misuses his position on Wikipedia for personal vengence, ongoing WP: CIVIL, and to deflect his transgressions, as is apparent here. 76.166.123.129 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Very poor reasons"? Perhaps you ought to take that up with the admins who did the actual deleting, and the people here who supported it. So what "position" am I misusing, other than as a spotlighter of your attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion? --Calton | Talk 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I see Calton Being Un-civil. He is a massive troller, he is always looking to fight. His personal attacks are very many, he needs to stop. I do not know why lots of people defend him, if he was someone else he'd been blocked weeks ago. He left 2 nasty comments on my talk page (one is on the archive). He was obviously looking for some mad response back. He is severely disrupting the project.--T. Wiki 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear example: "Could you please buy a dictionary so you can use words properly?" of his trolling. I must have used the wrong variant of (their)(there)(they're) when nicely asking him to stop attacking users on his talk page. --T. Wiki 20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you misused the words "trolling" and "harassing" in your message Could you please stop trolling and harassing users on their talk pages. Hint: those words don't mean what you think they mean. --Calton | Talk 06:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

... I understand that Calton can be abrasive at times, but I don't think very many people would accuse him of acting in bad faith, of trolling, of disruption, or of looking to fight. He has been around a lot longer than many of us here, has done a lot of work to improve the encyclopedia, and we should at least assume good faith on his part. He is uncivil at times; aren't we all? --Iamunknown 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a few observations without giving Calton an opportunity to retaliate against me. First, Iamunkown, we all snap at people occasionally. But, the frequency and tone of Calton's language clearly shows a level of premeditation (i.e., bad faith). Trey Wiki mentioned being blocked "weeks" ago, but Calton has been insulting users on Wikipedia for years. It's very obvious to me that no one could maintain this sort of intensity without actually trying to be rude. He's literally had too many arguments to count. I'm talking about dozens of serious disputes that have involved multiple users and discussions. These have wasted countless hours of time and chased away many contributors. (You mentioned his value as a contributor, even though I think he's derailed Wikipedia more than anyone else.) I strongly encourage all participants in this thread to look through his talk archives. His tone doesn't seem angry, just insulting. These are long, drawn out arguments over very petty issues and with all types of people. When I get into a shouting match or a flame war, it's because I've lost control. I don't make well-thought out arguments with evidence and I don't continue shouting (or flaming if I'm online) for weeks. Some people actually do troll on purpose. Some think it's funny; others think it's entertaining; others think they're so superior to others that insulting them will teach them a "lesson."

But, ironically, that doesn't matter. We have policies against talking in an uncivil manner to anyone, and for any reason. It doesn't matter who started it first, who the participants are, and who is acting in bad faith. If there's more than one offender, block them both. But, if Calton isn't punished for violating this essential rule, he will continue his heinous actions indefinitely. He won't even admit what he is doing is wrong. I strongly believe he is planning his personal attacks, so if he realizes that his behavior will no longer be tolerated, he will adjust his planning accordingly. Any action would do, even a 48-hour ban.--Honesty 64 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just plain artless. Here's this guy Honesty 64 claiming that Calton "has been insulting users on Wikipedia for years" -- and he joined Wikipedia one hour ago! He also claims that Calton has "wasted countless hours of time and chased away many contributors." I'm reminded of the Zen koan: How many heads can a sockpuppet have? Folks, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an axe-grinding association. Griot 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good answer. So, because my account is new, everything I am saying is untrue? We're talking about Calton--not me. Facts are facts. It doesn't matter who says them, and these are obvious and easily verifiable. You can start a new thread about my account if you are really upset about it. You're supposed to comment on the content--not the contributor. I made six arguments above, and you didn't disagree with any of them. Does that mean you don't think they're wrong? Anyone who defends Calton is defending incivility. Is incivility OK with you?--Honesty 64 06:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So, because my account is new, everything I am saying is untrue? Yes: either you really are new and therefore can't logically have the knowledge you claim, or you're an experienced user posting under an assumed name. Neither really speaks well of your honesty. Though if you're who I think you are -- the overblown username gives me a hint -- truthfully, I'm not surprised you'd pop back up on your crusade, since your previous attempts (if you're who I think you are) to put the blocks to me were pretty much laughed off.

I just wanted to make a few observations without giving Calton an opportunity to retaliate against me And what form would this "retaliation" take? "Halt! Or else I'll say 'halt' again!"

I know how I'll retaliate against you, in my evil, viscious way: I'll ask you for the slightest bit of evidence to back up your hyperbole! Man, am I evil, or what? --Calton | Talk 06:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My contributions

Please add new comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User contributions not appearing to prevent having many threads about the same problem around. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 00:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Database lagging?

Please add new comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User contributions not appearing to prevent having many threads about the same problem around. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is where having a 20,000+ watchlist really comes through. El_C 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, my contribs never messed up....me looking at others did though, but never me looking at mine. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Combating vandalism, but RFCU declined. Now what?

Over the weekend there was constant vandalism at Skyline High School (Oakland, California). An editor would come in, vandalize the page repeatedly, and get blocked. Moments later another editor would arrive, make the identical vandal edit repeatedly, and then that editor would be blocked. Repeat a few more times through the weekend. Most of the vandals I reverted myself have been blocked and the page has been semi-protected for a week. I asked for a checkuser on the editors doing the vandalism, but the request was declined. The identical nature of the edits make me believe something more than vandalism is going on. How should I proceed further in the absence of checkuser evidence? DarkAudit 01:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection will take care on anon edits. If there is further disruption, place a notice at WP:AIV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The vandals have all come from user accounts, not IPs, which was why I went the checkuser route. I also ask if I would be out of line to dispense with warnings and go straight to reporting if I see this same edit again, based on the established pattern of behavior. DarkAudit 03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'd do. If you see identical vandalism, put it up on WP:AIV straightway and give a link to some of the previous incidents. If an admin removes without action, have a polite chat on their talk page about it. --pgk 06:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. If someone came in with something like 'Glit Glort Bleeble Durp' instead, a warning would be necessary (until *that* became the pattern :)), but I would show that the one reported without a warning fit the established pattern. DarkAudit 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citation needed tags -- vandalism?

Two days ago I added some citation tags to this list, because one of the main concerns at the recent afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar themes and release dates was that every film comparison should cite a reliable source comparing each film, if there are no sources cited for a particular film then it's original reseach. I even provided a detailed explanation why I was adding the tags in my edit summary, including a link to the afd that said sources were required, but now somene has removed the tags with no explanation. There's an original research template at the top of the article but people aren't going to look at that when they read the list, or when they add more titles to the list that are unsouced. Is removing these tags classed as vandalism? 172.143.108.248 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In a word, yes - the removal of maintenance tags without resolving the issue they point to is vandalism. Please use {{Uw-maintenance1}} to warn the user(s) in question, escalating to {{Uw-maintenance2}}, {{uw-delete3}} and {{uw-delete4}} if they persist. Waggers 09:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you try to engage in a discussion with the user first. --soum (0_o) 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

IP troll

Resolved

63.113.199.109 (talk • contribs • Info • WHOIS) is having lots of fun trolling the help desk, and intentionally or not a lot of users are taking the bait. Given that I'm having trouble finding useful contributions in the IP's recent history despite their argument of a shared work connection, is a soft block an option? (I'm having trouble finding a decent warning template to use first, but there may well be one.) Confusing Manifestation 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne and category creation

See: User talk:Pastorwayne#It's time for more information and User talk:Pastorwayne#Indefinitely banned from category creation for the subsequent results.

I welcome comments regarding this.

Also, User:BrownHairedGirl has expressed that she would like to see this expanded to include all category editing. I don't oppose that, but I think I would like another admin "outside view" (or consensus thereof) for that, at this time. - jc37 06:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think I'll respond anyway. To the best of my understanding, a single user (except for Jimbo Wales) isn't autherized to ban a user from such edits. However, if Pastorwayne created categories in some way against the rules of Wikipedia, after such warnings and blocks, he can be blocked each time for longer periods. Od Mishehu 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response : )

To clarify, this isn't just a "single user" doing this, per se. I'm merely finally acting in response to what many others have been asking now for over 5 months. It's been slow going simply because I've strongly felt we should assume good faith and give every opportunity to allow the user to learn so that he may become an even more knowledgable/competent editor, and not be one who is (as he is now) currently disruptive. For the "reasons", just re-read the whole User talk:Pastorwayne#It's time section on his talk page. Also, this is considered a "partial ban", and should not be considered to be banning the editor completely from editing Wikipedia. - jc37 09:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support blocking Pastorwayne from making edits in category space. At this point, I think Pastorwayne has severe difficulties editing Wikipedia's category system. It would be better for everyone if he worked on something else. I also strongly suggest that Pastorwayne should not be allowed to add red-linked categories to articles. In Dec 2006 and Jan 2007, he was doing this extensively. At the time, he claimed that he did not understand that he was, in effect, creating categories (see WP:CAT#How to create categories). It is unclear if he will try it again. Dr. Submillimeter 08:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• This would seem like a good idea, including Submilli's additions. In response to the opinion that "a single user can't do this", it could also be worded like "PW has been repeatedly disruptive in editing cat space, and we'll block him if he does that again, everyone cool with that?" >Radiant< 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Per the discussion at User talk:Pastorwayne#Indefinitely_banned_from_category_creation, I support extending the ban to any edits in category space and to creating redlinked category entries in articles (see also discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Pastorwayne_indefinitely_banned_from_category_creation).
  Note that yesterday I imposed a further 24 hour block on PW for another poor edit in categ space (see User talk:Pastorwayne#Another_block). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing SVGs

Just a heads up, Commons appears to be losing heavily used SVGs. I'd be on the watch out for any more affected files. -N 06:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the images affected was the state flag of Kentucky. I have no idea what it is going on, but as a Commons admin, I know about it. Just keep us posted here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete {{NowCommons}} images or CSD I2 description pages until this bug is fixed. MaxSem 09:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

is gone too, by looking at WP:GAC. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a Commons problem, it's an enwiki problem. See this post from Brion to wikitech-l. --bainer (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New policy proposal

I have started up an initial draft of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site as these days we seem to need to renumerate what is currently WP:NOT#MYSPACE or simply enforce it more.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a social networking site to keep discussion central. >Radiant< 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Despite numerous warnings and blocks, TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs) has continued to troll and disrupt RFCN so I have blocked him indefinately. He's been upset ever since he was made to change his username a couple of months back. Can someone give it a quick review? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support this block. This editor has a grudge against RFCN since he was force to change his username from MoeLarryandJesus(if I remeber correctly). Since he changed his name, he has continously trolled RFCN and overall engaged in tendittious editting. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, another thing to take into account. In his 4 months here, he has made a total of 653 edits where 221 have been to RFCN often very controversially and only has a total of 79 mainspace edits. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's ample evidence as to the lack of positive contributions or improvement from this editor, and I wouldn't lose any sleep over the indef-block. Good call. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That editor has been uncivil as well, especially towards H and R. I see no reason to unblock this user. Acalamari 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No amount of communication was able to change this user from being a general disruption. The user made it very clear that he intended to continue as he was. The block is preventative, and useful to Wikipedia. ^(H) 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil towards H and R, so block. *giggle* EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. :) Acalamari 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't say as I'm too upset about this; his overall attitude on RFCN has been very, very sour, and it seems like he always takes an extreme position just for the sake of doing so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall a situation where TIW contributed collaboratively in an RFCN discussion -- even when he agrees with the consensus of the discussion he is rude or belligerent. Leebo ^T/C 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. I endorse block for icivility and general disruption. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree: a chronic troll, he adds nothing but confllict and stress to the encyclopedia. Coemgenus 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll be honest, at first I really thought that indef was too much — it just didn't feel right. I then looked more objectively at the situation by reviewing the user's contribs and I was rather unimpressed. Certainly not constructive and a fair amount of disruptiveness - there is maybe a slight chance of reform but don't ask me to lead it! Indef? Perhaps, then again maybe not, it's borderline if you ask me, GDonato (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • They tried reform already, it didn't work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Was recently going to ask why he wasn't blocked, as he seemed to me a RFCN troll (as EVula says, always taking an extreme position for shits and giggles), or perhaps a sock of an established user used to troll RFCN. Very little useful collaboration. I'd support an unblock with the provision he not comment on people's names or sigs, though. Just a thought. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I could get behind a provisional unblock as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I could support that as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering page full of warnings at his old account (link) and a couple of blocks (link), his inappropriate behavior has been consistent since he got here. A provisional block may just turn his inappropriate editing elsewhere. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support an indefinite block. It's been one big WP:POINT violation from the beginning. Re a conditional unblock, nothing stops him from getting another username and doing something else (provided he's not doing so already, as seems likely.) As long as he stays away from RFCN and related issues, I can't see how he would be identified.Proabivouac 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as he stays away from RFCN and related issues, and isn't a dick elsewhere, what's the problem? A clean slate could very well be what he needs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears here that objections to his behavior largely stem from his activities at RFCN; thus I support overturning the indef block and indefinitely banning from RFCN. --Iamunknown 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

... and commenting on names elsewhere as well. You can take the troll out of Requests for comments/Username, but can you take commenting on usernames out of the troll? Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point; I would still support overturning the indef block; I like to believe (perhaps naively) that editors can reform. --Iamunknown 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support an indef ban from WP:RFCN only, not the related talkpage at first. --GDonato (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm having second thoughts about whether he could stop being a dipshit long enough to become productive, given some of his comments at User talk:TortureIsWrong#Blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here guys? This user is the definition of a troll - look at his contribs, look at his talk page. To top all off, he's fairly good at making personal attacks (look at his talk page post block for a start). I really don't believe that a simple ban from RFCN is enough for this guy. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with this user is a bitterness over the username policy, by removing that temptation the constructive mainspace contribs may appear, there are some useful contribs if you look quite carefully. GDonato (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem in my eye is that the user has already shown he is unable to respect other editors that he is in discussion with. I doubt very much that he is able to work in a collaberative environment like wikipedia, he had his final chance, and abused it by continuing his trolling. He's not really here to edit the encyclopedia, he's now here to troll over usernames. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt this use will act in good faith if unblocked. ^(H) 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree; this is a user who chose to spend much of his time, unconstructively, at WP:RFCN to settle a score. If he's banned from RFCN, what happens the next time something on Wikipedia doesn't go his way? I don't see constructive contributions that offset the negative, and I suspect that banning him from RFCN will refocus the negativity elsewhere, not make it disappear. As above, I agree with the indef block. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think an indefinite block may be too much. The problem with this user is he has spend nearly all of his time at WP:RFCN. I support some sort of block, but indefinitely blocking this user is too much. Maybe a week while do? I think TIW is right in stating that some of the admins dislike him, and have it out for him, as they have disagreed with him in the past. I think posting this here was the right thing to do, as it allows more users to voice their opinion. Clearly this user is opinionated, but they can be so without being disruptive. I still think an indefinite block is too much for a "contributing" user. I would support a week, and increasing the time he is blocked for incivility. ^Wikihermit_(Speak) £ 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

if you call contributing making personal attacks and trolling then fair enough. He's been blocked twice before for exactly the same thing - short blocks do not help this user. He is basically an SPA with the odd edit scattered here and there. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call his personal attacks and trolling contributing. I think this user would be better to spend his time on WT:U, as WP:RFCN isn't the place for disagreeing with the username policy. I wouldn't call a week a short block either; the previous block was only three hours long. I think this user has the ability to contribute in a useful manner, and for only being blocked once for three hours, an indefinite block seems unreasonable. ^Wikihermit_(Speak) £ 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

you wouldn't be saying that if you had been contributing to RFCN, which is basically all he does. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I use to contribute to WP:RFCN. I guess I would have to agree with you. I still think indefinitely blocking is a little extreme for a user who has only been blocked once for 3 hours, but seeing as your an admin, I would have to agree with your decision. ^Wikihermit_(Speak) £ 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2, how could you Ryan and Wikihermit!) First, I'll say, yes I'm very much involved, so my opinion may be a little weighted :) (or maybe not). Well, anyway, I fully support the block. If you look at his contributions, you'll see nothing but trolling RFCN (except for his talk page incivility and 4 mainspace edits). This includes making things like questioning a trusted user's name, and allowing blatant violation for silly reasons. He continually denies doing anything, though many people who have been involved all clearly agree about what he's been doing (just look at the 26 sections of his talk page. Last time I checked, they were all about his trolling except one. And, when someone brings it up, almost every time he responds in a completely uncivil manner. Thanks Ryan. (And to Wikihermit, incivilty and trolling is usually something that people get long blocks for, and they usually don't even get a second chance.) --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch for sockpuppets of TiW. ^Wikihermit_(Speak) £ 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

They wouldn't exactly be difficult to spot (assuming they continued to go to RFCN). Acalamari 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Having observed this user's actions at RFCN and reviewed contribs, I feel (as I have felt for some time) that the account exists solely to disrupt RFCN and adds nothing to the encyclopedia. I feel this block is justified. Deiz talk 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I felt it was justified 2 months ago. We're just too nice here on Wikipedia :) --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Acalamari 00:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Per R, let this go. He could have been blocked months ago when he decided to vandalize this Dick Cheney article with that nonsense (see his old talk page). The Evil Spartan 00:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• I often agree with the user, and I think he got some leeway because of the way he got dragged into RFCN to begin with. And rightly so. But at some point, the statute of limitations on petty injustices kicks in. If not now, then not long from now. Wikipedia isn't a bloody drama site. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

STOP DELETING CSD#I2 IMAGES

See #Disappearing SVGs and commons:COM:VP#Missing_images; somehow deleting local image description pages is resulting in loss of data at Commons, but w/o a log event. Thanks, Iamunknown 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you speak up? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, it's kind of a big deal. There's already a big red banner at the top of the template and I guess someone with the bit could modify it to link back here but, as I see it, that's pretty much it. -- Seed 2.0 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the scary red banner to Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons. If someone could remove them when this is fixed, that would be great. Chick Bowen 03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this is related to the Special:Contributions lag a few days ago? It was caused by a bit of code confusing the English Wikipedia and Commons database servers. That was fixed, but if the error is still hapenning the devs need to be told if they haven't been already. --ais523 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The devs know already: bugzilla:10128. I wonder if the comments there mean the bug is fixed? --ais523 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Issue is resolved (and I got confirmation on Commons); I'm removing all relevant warnings from templates and categories. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse

Have fun folks, these are the stragglers that still are using excessive fair use images per our fair use policy. It would be nice if some folks could help with the removal of these images. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing them isn't the problem (copy+paste into gvim, :%s/|.\{-}|\s*\(<!--.\{-}\)\?\[\[Image:.\{-}\]\]\s*\(-->\)\?\s*\(||\|!!\)\?/|/i and such, copy+paste), it is getting it to stick. I did every page from 300 down to 40ish (except a few character articles, and from my list which is slightly different) over the weekend and someone with a bunch of sockpuppets and IPs reverted all of my edits for the previous two days. Kotepho 07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kotepho, I noticed that actually, my contributions were mostly going through the work of one of those socks and reverting about 50 articles back to your version. -M^ask? 08:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through a few. How completely Wikipedia that the discography with the most images wasn't Elvis, or the Beatles, or even Britney Spears, but The Melvins... EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots

I'm really debating as to whether to we should be violating our fair use policy for the existence of this page. The MFD apparently closed as no consensus, which was correct, but the multiple violations of the fair use policy haven't been fixed. There are Images on this page such as Image:MainPage-Mozilla-RedWolf.png, a fair use Image, that exist soley to be on this page. — Moe ε 04:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues make me want to cry sometimes... can we really not use pictures of our own website on our own website? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So why not do as was suggested at the MfD-take the photos, crop out the toolbars and scrollbars put there by the browser itself. I don't see that we'd really need to remove the Wikipedia logo even, though we probably should ask the Foundation. However, the Wikipedia logo can be removed too, if they say using it like that is not acceptable, and then all the screenshot contains is GFDL content. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I wasn't involved in the MFD, all I know is I was going to nominate it for MFD an hour ago and saw the recently concluded one. Geez, guess if you want something done you got to do it yourself *frowns* I'll get to it later.. — Moe ε 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are we sure that these screenshots even need to be considered copyrighted? The incidental inclusion of a copyrighted logo in an image doesn't render that entire picture nonfree, if it isn't the focus of the picture. For instance, we have a panorama photo of Times Square on Commons, which unavoidably has a bunch of advertising logos in the background... but the photo itself is GFDL. Likewise, it's impossible to take a screenshot of Windows software without incidentally including the toolbar and buttons. But do these trivial elements really render the entire screenshot unfree, if the vast majority of it (and its purpose and focus) is free content? *** Crotalus *** 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For instance, Image:MainPage-Mozilla-RedWolf.png (mentioned above) is comprised almost entirely of free content. The only non-free elements are the Wikipedia logo (and let's face it, the Foundation ain't gonna sue itself), and the tiny toolbar at the top. The toolbar is mostly empty, and the only potentially copyrightable elements consist of three Aqua spheres and a small button on the left. (Titles are not copyrightable.) *** Crotalus *** 07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I would say its fine if the browser crap is cropped out, wikipedia logo non-withstanding, the only concern would be to make sure that the images on the main page really are free. Most of the time they are, but not all the time. (I really think the main page should have only free stuff, its fitting for the free encyclopedia thats in the upper left hand corner of every webpage). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • And if the images are not free licensed? And what about attribution for the free licensed ones? I did a little research on the revision pictured in Image:MainPage-Mozilla-RedWolf.png and the photo of the Irish house of parlament is GFDL licensed, but using it witout any attribution is technicaly a violation of it's license terms. The photo of Eqbal Ahmad was a unsourced, non-free image with no fair use rationale has have since been deleted (main page standards where not always as strict as now) and I can't find that particular image of the Israeli wall anywhere (we have lots of others though) so presumably it's been deleted too. The pope image is presumably PD so no issue there. Bottom line: You need a very steady hand in order to ensure that what you get from hitting print screen while viewing a Wikipedia page is actualy all free licensed and otherwise in compliance with the license of the various included content. --Sherool (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ancient History

Somewhat inspired by the BJAODN fiasco, I took a look at some of the oldest Wikipedia pages, like George Washington. The edit history of that article seems to start on 23 November 2001. If I go to the nostalgia wikipedia, it shows 4 earlier edits... and the article seems to have existed before the earliest edit on that site.

Now, I don't think anyone would advocate deleting the article on George Washington. But I'm wondering: in order to comply with the GFDL, shouldn't such pages have a link to the edit history on nostalgia (and any older edit history that exists)? — PyTom 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on GFDL; I haven't read the document nor do I intend to. But I think there are a couple of answers to your question. First, it would have been the responsibility of whoever transwikied the article from elsewhere into Wikipedia to look after GFDL issues. If they failed to do so, for whatever reason, it's not our job to clean up the mess six years later. (Heaven knows we have enough other problems to worry about.)

Second, the article has changed so much since then that probably the only two words from the original that are still there now are "George" and "Washington." In other words, BJAODN was deleted because it contained current copyright violations, i.e. text which had been copied without attribution and had not been edited since then. The George Washington article has been edited thousands of times.

Third, there is no precedent for the action you suggest. Wikipedia is very strict about attributing content to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and other public domain sources. However, there is no similar precedent to attribute material to a pre-Wikipedia wiki. If it's never been done, there's probably a reason.

That being said, you are free to leave your history link on the article's talk page. It can't hurt. Cheers. Placeholder account 07:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read User:Conversion script and Wikipedia:Usemod article histories. The wiki was not always as it is now. Uncle G 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Is it possible for an admin to remove my user name or anything from the databases or whatnot? If not... just... do something about. I've pretty much decided I don't want to be a part of Wikipedia anymore. I'm just tired of putting up with all the people, all the people wanting everyone to "follow the rules", the rules of Wikipedia being forced on others, ect, ect... it's getting too stressful for me, and with my life being so complicated these days it's getting harder and harder for me to keep my mind friendly to the place and it's people.

So I want to erase ever being here.

If it's not possible, like I said, just do somethin' to have me removed or something. I probably deserve whatever anyway. XD

Thanks in advance. --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 11:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia accounts can't be deleted. Od Mishehu 12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much. Well, I tried anyway.

I was hoping my history of existence could be removed from here. Oh well.

I'm convinced I'm not needed here. Heck, one guy claimed I hate him and that every game information must come from a manual, and I don't think he's gonna listen to me... wait, that's irrelevant... and leaving my account existent makes me feel I might end up coming back and causing more damage.

I know I'm asking a dumb question, but what other options are there? Besides just "leaving", of course. =/ --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 12:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it might be possible, to delete your userpage and its editing history if it qualifies for speedy deletion and any subpages, provided they meet U1. If you're using your realname to edit Wikipedia, you may also want to read WP:CHU. Please note that there will be a record of any name change performed.

Personally, I would recommend reading WP:COOL and m:Wikistress before you do anything drastic though. Consider taking a wikibreak. Go outside and relax. You might feel differently about things in a few weeks. --Seed 2.0 12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to take a wikibreak. But... if I do, I wanna start over from a clean slate... then again, due to the people here and what I mentioned, I don't know if I ever want to return to Wikipedia again. You can only take so much stress from a community before you just don't ever want to come back to it again, you know?

I'll look those over though, and hopefully if I do put myself up for speedy deletion, they'll understand it's a request. I'm just tired of all the trouble this place gives me... :( --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 12:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do really want to quit, you do have the m:Right to vanish. WilyD 12:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks. :) --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 12:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You can also change your username. This will not change talk pages you have signed but will cause all your contributions to appear to be from "Formeruser 14" or whatever. Thatcher131 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Even the signatures could be changed if you ask someone who runs a bot that is approved for that particular task nicely. With the way your current username looks I would in particular recommend that after you have changed your username to something non-descript. Agathoclea 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Special:BrokenRedirects

If someone wants to cheers themselves up by deleting lots of dead redirects (or, even better, finding a good new place for them to redirect to), special redirects is pretty backed up. I've cleared half of it or so (254 of 524) but am starting to flag. Neil ╦ 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Category -- R Template mappings

xpost frm Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages#Category -- R Template mappings

Just doing some routine housekeeping, found Category:Redirects_from_portmanteaus doesn't seem to have a template associated with it (presumably {{R from portmanteau}}, nor a listing in the two reference pages: Wikipedia:Redirects and Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. Hence it's no wonder the contents are skimpy to say the least.

• I was tempted to tag it with a {{cfm|Redirects from alternative names}}, but the larger issue came to mind so I raise it here; how many 'other' such "orphaned" categories might also exist? Or is there a historic discussion and someone never carried out an implementation, or is this a "busted" CFD loose end. Hence the 'yelp' for "collective memory and skills assists"!

• I don't really have the skills with special pages searching to run this down, but suggest that someone should run this kind of thing down that can and update the redirects reference pages accordingly. Basic documentation and editor help like this is rather important to keep up to date, IMHO. Best regards // FrankB 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Standards for Anonymous Users

Are blocking standards much higher for anonymous users? It seems to me, the offense of 71.142.212.115 deserves only a {{subst:uw-vand2}} warning instead of a block, considering it was a first offense, and the vandalism only amounted to adding "(Big Deal!)" on the Craig L. Thomas page. What makes this offense so egregious that it merits a block without warning? Is it because the subject of the article is recently deceased, or was one of the admins just a little trigger happy? It just doesn't make sense to me. Talmage 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with the blocking admin? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While I might not have blocked it right off the bat, the blocking admin was well within his judgment to make that block. There is a lot of editing going on at that page because of the death of the senator so often it's easier to just block users right away to prevent further disruption and vandalism to a highly visible and very active page. Metros 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the fact Thomas recently died is what warranted the instant block. I've given out instant blocks myself to anon users, but usually they're just for three hours (long enough to make the kiddies lose interest, but not to hopefully effect a good-faith editor who happens to get a rapidly changing IP). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Warriors (book series)

I'd like to get some more editors (and admins) to keep an eye on Warriors (book series) and all the related pages (books in the series, characters in the series, etc.). The majority of editors there are younger, inexperienced editors who do not know the proper ways of Wikipedia. This means there's a lot of original research going on (see the recently AFDed List of mistakes in Warriors (Book Series) for example) and using talk pages as fan forums. Over the last few days I've had to deleted dozens of threads on Talk:Warriors (book series) which were just gossip about the books.

So if a few more editors could please watchlist some of these articles, I'd appreciate it greatly. Metros 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlisted a number. Some of the plot summaries are phrased in a - promotional? - way. My copyvio sensor in the corner is bleeping like nuts. Would someone like to check? I'll tag 'em for tone, at any rate. Moreschi ^Talk 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had the same thought but can't find anywhere they might be coming from online. My other thought is that it could be off a jacket cover or the back of the book. Metros 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And what do you know, by a strange coincidence some of my siblings are really into these books. I'll go and check. Be back in 5 minutes. Moreschi ^Talk 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the first few sentences of a number of the plot summaries on the articles on the books are copied off the back cover, which I assume isn't allowed. These are the ones that sound promotional and employ more complex syntax than your average ten-year-old would use. Easy to spot. Moreschi ^Talk 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Earl Douglas (radio)

Resolved

Serious vandalism is ongoing on the page Earl Douglas (radio), by a variety of users. Could someone please find a way of stopping it. Thanks. Drc79 17:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi'd, expiry 15 days. I saw some of this going on earlier, didn't realise it was so bad. Moreschi ^Talk 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Moreschi for protecting the page. 69.201.182.76 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Drc79 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In future try WP:RFPP rather than here, responses there are usually pretty quick. Moreschi ^Talk 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected this article to Ron and Fez (the show he's the producer of). For an explanation and to discuss this further, see Talk:Earl Douglas (radio). Metros 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion summaries for attack pages

Now that the deletion log is shown directly on deleted pages, we should probably start being more careful about our deletion summaries, especially with attack pages and with regard to the prefilled deletion summaries automatically offered by MediaWiki in certain cases. Otherwise we may end up with cases like this.

It's not quite as bad as it might seem, since deleted pages are marked with <meta> tags that keep them from being indexed by Google and other search engines. Still, it's worth keeping in mind that, at least for now, there's absolutely no way, short of direct database manipulation by a developer, of deleting a deletion summary.

Do you think it might be a good idea to add a note about this to WP:CSD#G10? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is already a great big bold warning to this effect at CAT:ASD. Pastordavid 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There should probably be big bold warnings at WP:CSD, Template:Db-attack and Wikipedia:Attack page as well. I've now added them to the former two. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

...and to the last one as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This would be a good time to plug WP:CSDAR. Using that program will ensure that this problem with deletion summaries isn't a problem. --Alabamaboy 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A wonderful program - it fixed me dinner and washed all the dishes. It also made working on CSD a much easier. Pastordavid 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we request a feature to get rid of certain blocking and deletion summaries? I've heard of proposals for something like this in the past. Maybe something similar to oversight (or even a new add-on to the oversight tool?) Grandmasterka 21:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request Deletion of "Arbutus Volunteer Fire Department"

Resolved

. Article was redirected.

I request the speedy deletion of the page Arbutus Volunteer Fire Department for lack of evidence proving that the page is of any significance to deserve it's own individual page. Please review this page. Redsox04 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:AFD, or WP:PROD it. Waggers 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)