Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive154

IP: 71.192.98.224 blockage

This person uses an anonymous IP to change all the articles' "Sister Cities" sections in order to add the state for all the U.S. cities even though the other countries don't include the state, the reason why they all follow the "City, Country" format of so it is be fair for all countries, but if this person keeps editing the articles to break that format in favour of the U.S. then it'd be disrespectful to all the other countries because he's putting it as if the United States was more important that all the others, this IP should be stopped, that's the only thing this IP does and he's done it in nearly 50 cities already and it seems like he'll continue if kept unblocked. Supaman89 (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is problematic, but I find it even more troubling that this hasn't been discussed with the user in question before blocks are called for. I've commented on their talk page, and on a Manual of Style thread linked from there. Let's see where discussion gets us, before we jump to conclusions. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While this may be a discussion for another forum, but owing to the influence of the European settlers there are place names that are repeated throughout the US - giving the relevant State can help. The other thing I find is that many (US based I presume) editors give only the placename and State, assuming that the rest of the world will know the nation... Which is often correct, but it isn't encyclopedic to treat one country different to the others - as mentioned above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

All countries should be treated equally, and if they all follow the "City, Country" format the U.S. has to do it too, implying that it is more important than all the others is disrespectful. Yesterday I was going send a warning to this IP but it was too late and I went to sleep, however I think it obvious that this IP is only being used for editing the Sister Cities sections in favour of the United States, even after this IP is blocked I'm gonna have to revert all this edits which are around 50. Supaman89 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to specify the state when naming a US city, because otherwise, you can't tell if Portland refers to Portland, Maine, Portland, Oregon, or one of the twelve other "Portland"s in the US. --Carnildo (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Or Portland, Dorset if it isn't clear you are referring to the US. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that maybe some cities in the U.S. need disambiguation but not all of them, for example Corpus Christi, Little Rock, Albuquerque, Mentor-on-the-Lake, etc. there is just one of them in the U.S. therefore it could simply be stated as "Albuquerque, United States" in any case disambiguation wouldn't be unique to the United States, other places within other countries also have repetitive names for example Torreón, Coahuila with Torreón, Chihuahua and Torreón, Sonora all within Mexico but respecting the "City, Country" format I would simply put "Torreón, Mexico" when listed as a Sister City, after all when people click on the link it would send them to the specific one; anyhow if we are going to add the state for the U.S. cities why don't we also do it with all the other countries, that would make things equal for everyone, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That disambiguation only makes sense when you have two cities with the same name on the same list of sister cities and, even then, if they are from the same country, since otherwise they would be displaying different flags and different country names anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed all the US state flags per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#flagcruft_on_sister_cities_lists. Notice that I didn't remove the links to the US states. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Spot Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – No major issues left to resolve that cannot be done at the user's talk page. Spot Image has been notified to change the username to something more approperiate; the images will (eventually) have the watermarks removed or new versions uploaded. Leaving this up to Guillom to discuss with Spot Image. seicer | talk | contribs 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've been emailed by User:Spot Image regarding the indefinite block of his account. A little background: this account belongs to a unique employee of SPOT Image who is sharing images from their database as an official initiative from this company (see his userpage on Commons). I have met the project manager a few months ago, as a representative of the French chapter Wikimedia France. They have released tons of images under a free license and they're adding some of them to articles on Wikipedia where they are relevant.

This user has been indefinitely blocked by pschemp some weeks ago because "Usernames that promote a commercial company are not allowed on WIkipedia." When the blocked user contacted me, I was quite puzzled that pschemp didn't even start a discussion with him; is it standard policy to block a user indefinitely without even discussing the issue that may exist? I have asked pschemp to review his block, given that "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited" (WP:U). I have explained that this user had chosen to create an account using the name of this company to ensure transparency; this user is obviously subject to the WP:COI policy, and this explicit username is the best way to have other Wikipedians aware of who this account belongs to and to help them check for WP:NPOV following his edits.

Pschemp has refused to reconsider the block, saying that "[this] choice of name is free advertising for his company" and "the result is massive spamming of one company's name". I fail to see how the behaviour of this user has anything to do with advertising or spamming:

• this is not a role account, only one person uses this account (and I know his name, FWIW) ;
• this user has neither created nor edited the article about his company (SPOT Image) ;
• this user hasn't added any external link to his company's website ;
• this user hasn't added any POV content ;
• this user hasn't even created a userpage to try to benefit from Wikipedia's googlerank ;
• all this user has tried to do is add these images to some articles, hence improving their quality.

I don't see what the problem with this username is; is it that the name of the company will show in the history? So what?

I'd like to ask for another review of this block. Accounts like this one don't need to get blocked indefinitely without discussion ot accused of spamming by trigger-happy people. We're working very hard to convince companies and institutions to release some of their content under a free license, and few of them accept. This kind of welcome is surely not the best way to encourage companies to free their content and to edit openly without trying to hide their COI. Accounts like this one should get help to ensure NPOV, they should not be blocked on sight.

Thanks for your comments. guillom 07:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"ensure" not "insure". I don't see any behaviour that could be considered advertising. I would unblock the user, apologise to them, and hope they continue to donate free images to Wikipedia. Neıl 龱 08:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

fixed spelling, thanks. guillom 09:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is trying to get obviously watermarked images onto the main page - a deleted POTD attempt and two (unsuccessful) FPCs, both of which were closed for not reading the instructions and WP:FP?. MER-C 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be minor issues that could easily be solved by explaining to this inexperienced user what is acceptable and what is not. I would be glad to help with that. guillom 13:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a problem a friendly warning would solve. MER-C 03:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh - bad block. I don't see any obviously spammy behavior, either. Kelly ^hi! 18:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody's objected, so I have unblocked User:Spot Image. Neıl 龱 09:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have objected had I been actually told about the discussion. Way to ignore my objections by not notifying me. Did any of you read what I wrote in his talk page? Seriously guys, we've never let anyone else post under a company name on wikipedia and this amounts to free advertising for this company. Now you've gone and set a rather crappy precedent - might as well just go tell everyone tehy can come here and spam their company name all over. It doesn't matter that he didn't try to do it maliciously, because the effect is that now thousands of google hits for that particular company will point to Wikipedia. It isn't fair to other companies, nor the people who want to deal with Wikipedia and not be constantly advertised to. Not involving me was disingenuous and unblocking without addressing my concerns was premature. How is it fair that this company gets to use WP as an advertising medium for their name and no one else can? pschemp | talk 11:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. Guillom said on your talk page that he had left a message on Spot Image's talk page. On there he mentions he'd opened a thread on WP:AN. It wasn't particularly disingenuous. Guillom, above, gives a convincing explanation and reasoning for this being a special case. Everyone else who participated in the discussion seemed to concur. If more people chip in and the consensus sways back towards blocking a good faith contributor, then fine. Neıl 龱 11:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not clam down, no notice was given to me about this discussion, which is the polite thing to do when you bring up a disagreement here. He asked me to comment there, and I did. He did not then tell me he was taking it to AN. This user was unblocked without addressing my concerns or getting my input. That is wrong and you know it. It's a crappy thing to do to a fellow admin. pschemp | talk 11:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Calm down, not clam down" AGF and give Guillom some leeway - he's a Wikimedia steward, and not a habitual editor of en.Wikipedia. It's not "really poor behaviour", it's at most an oversight - he did leave a message on an active discussion you were participating in, probably unaware this was a breach of en.Wikipedia etiquette. I also (wrongly) assumed that you would have seen the link he put on Shot Info's talk page, as you were one half of the discussion taking place there. I don't like not being informed either, so for that, I apologise. It was still a bad block, though, and rather than complain about the notification, I would love to see you explain in more detail your rationale for this block. Neıl 龱 11:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who unblocked, without giving me a chance to give input here. And if you read my note up there, I did explain. Let me repeat it for you. "It doesn't matter that he didn't try to do it maliciously, because the effect is that now thousands of google hits for that particular company will point to Wikipedia. It isn't fair to other companies, nor the people who want to deal with Wikipedia and not be constantly advertised to. How is it fair that this company gets to use WP as an advertising medium for their name and no one else can?" The result is spamming of ONE company's name - regardless of the intentions. We don't allow any other company to do this, and never have for a good reason. You can't allow one company to use their name all over WP just because you like the guy. This is why company names are blocked as a matter of routine and have been for years. - It has nothing to do with good intentions, but the unintentional result of what amounts to free advertising. To quote from the username policy "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." I see it as a problem. Note also it isn't recommended. It isn't difficult to get a different name and thus avoid the issue altogether. I noticed Guillom never once mentioned this part of the username policy.pschemp | talk 11:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to the important matter - whether or not a good faith user should be indef blocked. I didn't agree with your rationale, and neither did Guillom, MER-C, or Kelly. Nobody else bothered to respond, so that was all there was to make a judgement on. What do others think? Anyone? Neıl 龱 11:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The matter is not whether a good faith user should be blocked, but whether his username is appropriate. It clearly is not, and runs afoul of our username policy. I asked him politely to make a new name. Why is it that everyone is ignoring the policy here? pschemp | talk 11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if you read the username policy - WP:U - you will see that (quote, my emphasises) "use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited". Using the company's name as a usernam in itself is not automatically promotional. Neıl 龱 11:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand the rationale behind "the effect is that now thousands of google hits for that particular company will point to Wikipedia". As far as I know, histories of articles don't show in google results. AFAICT, the only Wikipedia entry in google is the article [1]. guillom 11:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I don't consider an indefinite block as a polite way to ask to make a new name. guillom 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked him politely to change it. What is wrong with that? [2] here is an example. As soon as google gets done indexing, WP will be the first or second hit for any username. The fact is that allowing someone to use a company name gives them free advertising, onwiki and off. (I'm much more concerned about onwiki - why should I have to see one company's name everywhere as I edit?) Username policy says - NOT RECOMMENDED. It used to say banned outright, and this change to allow it all is ridiculous. Again, why should we allow what is free onwiki advertising to any one company and not all of them? WP is add free, and should remain that way. THis username is not appropriate, goes against policy and is a terrible precedent. Since we also have an article called [Spot Image] this also gives the appearance of conflict of interest. pschemp | talk 11:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have hurt anyone's feelings. I left a message on pschemp's talk page to inform him that I had started a new discussion on User talk:Spot Image; he answered there, I answered back, and I thought we were having a centralized discussion. As he refused to reconsider the block, I asked for more input on WP:AN and I left a notice on the discussion page. There was absolutely no mischief there. guillom 11:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support the unblock on the basis that this user has actually contributed excellent content to Wikipedia in a manner that is not inconsistent with policies and guidelines, outside of a username that is the same as that of the company the user is contributing from. A username block should not be based solely on the username itself; the rationale must be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is fair to say that if the account had been spamming numerous pages with links promoting their company, or was doing sneaky POV edits to slant the opinion of their organization, then a block would be in order. Or if there was the slightest bit of trouble. But this is not the case here. Some images were watermarked, but that is a relatively minor issue that can be easily solved with discussion. I hope the user continues to contribute. seicer | talk | contribs 11:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh Seicer - the admin who ignores our protection policy and abuses his admin privileges to unprotect a page that he edit warred on, then turns up to complain about my interpretation of policy? Good to get your input. The usernameblock was based SOLEY ON THE USERNAME. It's the name of a company. The policy clearly says this is not recommended. Why is it that WP will suddenly allow ONE company to promote itself through a username and not others? pschemp | talk 11:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:U - Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited. Using a company name as your username is not automatically promotional, and is not grounds for a block. It only becomes grounds for a block and en enforced username change if it is being used in a promotional way. Pschemp, you seem to misunderstand the policy. Neıl 龱 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think pschemp may be recalling an earlier version of that page. It has undergone extensive modification in the last year or so. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Even so, the policy flat outs says it is NOT RECOMMENDED. That's not a blanket "allowed if we like the guy" it's a statement that says it isn't a good idea and for very good reasons. I don't seen any good reasons to make an exception here. And I think it's an issue here due to the fact that 1. we have an article of the same name about this company and 2. the number of contibutions. It just isn't a good idea to allow advertising for one company and not others. WHy everyone suddenly wants WP to be allowed to become a billboard for only those companys we *like* is beyond me.pschemp | talk 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

pschemp, there is no need to rail against every comment that is in any such way opposing that of yours -- and personal slanders against other editors or administrators is not needed. Note that I did not divulge down that path, and I would have expected that as a fellow administrator, you would have had the courtesy to do the same. Back on topic, per policy, the username is only blockable as a username block if the account was being used in a way to solely promote a certain service, product or company. That was not the case here at all. Time to move on and let the editor contribute -- if he returns at all. seicer | talk | contribs 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since guillom is handling this, it's probably an OTRS thingo, which (hopefully) means someone reliable is in touch with him and will be able to intice him back when (hopefully soon) someone unblocks (again). —Giggy 12:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am handling this because I've met the people involved in this project as a representative of Wikimedia France ; we work in the same city. It is not OTRS-related, but we are in touch by email. guillom 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock, because 1) I think blocking over username is stupid regardless, and 2) blocking a constructive contributor over username is madness (not in that way). It's recommended precisely for this sort of case - if other companies want google juice, they can contribute constructively. —Giggy 11:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You just recommended that WP be allowed to be a vehicle for advertising. That's absolutely against everything WP is about. pschemp | talk 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nooo, I recommended we unblock this guy (without wheel warring). And to respond to your claim that he can use this username for google advertising, I suggested that rather than block his valuable contributions out, we consider the bit of the username policy that recommends (not requires) blocking, ignore a few rules, and get a better encyclopedia as an end result. You blocked a good faith newbie because of a misreading of the username policy. That's against a heck of a lot of what WP is about. —Giggy 11:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked him politely to change his name. That is not a sin, nor is he a "newbie". I blocked because he was doing immediate damage. Did no one notice he didn't ever reply on his talk page? Didn't even contest the block or ask why? Had he done so I happily would have opened a dialog. But hey, if you want WP to be a vehicle for advertising, as everyone here seems to think then have fun with that. pschemp | talk 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What "immediate damage"? Neıl 龱 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't see this user as being problematic, and the policy is clearly and currently open to interpretation, I'd suggest he change his username to avoid further issues. — _Maggot^Syn 12:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowing company names is effectively turning WP into a vehicle for advertising for only those companies we "like". The net effect is free publicity and free advertising for a select group, and this is absolutely against the spirit of Wikipedia. I should be able to edit without being confronted with the spamming of company names in usernames. It doesn't encourage openness, only the use of Wikipedia for advertising. I'm shocked that the policy was changed to allow this at all. Allowing Wikipedia to be whored out to companies in the name of friendliness is wrong.pschemp | talk 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you honestly recognise "Spot Image" as a company name when you first saw it? Especially considering he wasn't actually spamming links to his company? I can't say I did. —Giggy 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did. pschemp | talk 12:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pschemp, if you dislike the policy, get the policy changed. At present, the policy, and consensus here, does not support your block. Neıl 龱 12:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the policy supports me specifically where is says company names are NOT RECOMMENDED. You must enjoy ignoring that part. pschemp | talk 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not recommended does not mean not allowed. Neıl 龱 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It does however mean you shouldn't do it without exceptional reasons. I see no exceptional reasons here. Just to be friendly is not a good reason to do something that isn't recommended. pschemp | talk 12:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy hell thats a bad block. While it may be the name of a company - it isn't really recognisably so, and doncha think we can bend the rules a little for someone who is doing so much good? Viridae^Talk 12:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, like I said, allowing WP to be whored out for advertising to just the companies we "like" is wrong and against the principle that WP should remain advertising free. It's a slippery slope that will end up with everyone clamoring to use us for free advertising. And where does it stop? Companies will take advantage of this, and the end result is that we're giving away the reputation of WP to some companies for their corporate gain and not others. It's a despicable thing that this project has decided to allow this. pschemp | talk 12:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hes not advertising anymore than the article is. The mere existence of the username is not explicitly advertising. — _Maggot^Syn 12:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, because when WP is indexed, usernames on WP pages become the first or second hit in searches. Example here [3] - the net effect is free advertising, regardless of the way the account is used. pschemp | talk 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence to the contrary. His username isn't appearing in the first three pages after a cursory examination. My advice: Let this go. — _Maggot^Syn 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment no. But it will be. And the fact is his image uploads are watermarked, link to his campany and every time he signs his name it promotes his company. Every time. That's onwiki advertising, pure and simple.pschemp | talk 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrible block, terrible reblock. The user isn't violating policy, the name is not obviously a company name, he's not having COI issues, he's made great constructive edits that have benefited the project. Did I say terrible? Horrible block. pschemp, if you don't like the policy, then work to change it, but biting constructive editors and then wheel warring over it, poor form. LaraLove|Talk 12:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A year ago this block would have been perfectly within policy so lay off the horrible block crap. It is obviously a company name, and it isn't biting to block and ask politely to change the username. It appeared on FPC with links to company and watermarked images - making if painfully obvious that this was a company and it was promoting itself. If you'd been involved, you would have known that. pschemp | talk 13:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Horrible block. It isn't biting to politely ask them to change their username. It's biting to indefinitely block them and inform them politely that they can change their name or move along. LaraLove|Talk 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowing advertising is immediate damage to WP - that calls for a block and a polite note. pschemp | talk 13:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lara, nearly every time this user edits Wikipedia it's to add an image with a "Spot Image" watermark and a "(Location X) seen from Spot Satellite" caption into articles. I think that combined with the name is a pretty blatant COI. Sarah 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: I don't see that a warning was given (although I may be wrong, it could be elsewhere, just not on his talk page). How can an editor take corrective action if he is blocked on sight? — _Maggot^Syn 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think he should have been blocked on sight; I just think he should be asked to change his username. As I said below, I don't want him to be blocked and I think Pschemp acted a bit hastily when she blocked on sight. I think she should have asked him to change his username and tried to open discussion before hitting the block button. But I'm also not surprised that this has happened because the username plus the nature of the edits - adding the company's name to image captions - and the image watermarking, it looks like blatant spamming. I'm really not sure that everyone who has commented here to chastise Pschemp has actually looked at the images and the edits this guy was making and if they have, I'm quite surprised people aren't a little more understanding. I appreciate the contributions are being done in good faith and I don't want to block him or stop him from contributing but I can also see how this happened and why Pschemp felt this was an inappropriate username. Sarah 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheel war

Spot Image has been reblocked by Pschemp ([4]), despite every other participant in this discussion, and WP:U, all saying the block should not have been made. Could someone else unblock, please? Neıl 龱 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not every other participant, Syn maggot thinks the name should be changed too. Plus, you reversed my block before the disscussion was over (it is still going on) and before I had any input. It was wrong to reverse the block prematurely on your part Neil. pschemp | talk 12:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Neıl 龱 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Unblocked. pschemp, please do not block while the original block is in mid-discussion. Consensus is quite clearly leaning towards unblocking. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently leaning but not done. THe reversal was wrong. pschemp | talk

pschemp: Thats not even a half of the sentence: Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem. So you have to prove that under the circumstances this user's contributions are problematic with respect to his username. Whats best for the situation is indeed a rename to avoid further issues, the issues I mentioned were further blocks like the one you just made, which are counter productive. — _Maggot^Syn 12:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, you do not have a consensus either, and wheel warring will not help your case. — _Maggot^Syn 12:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, company names are normally blocked on sight. Making an exception for a company that helps us by providing free media seems at first like a reasonable thing to do, but if we do that, we are opening the floodgates - provide us an image and you can advertise here. Still, though, pschemp reblocking the user was obviously incorrect. --B (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course my action was wrong, however, the reversal of the my block without my input was wrong, period. I've never wheel warred before, but then I never dealt with something that has the potential to do so much damage to wikipedia before. pschemp | talk 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe so many people support allowing WP to be whored out to advertising, but since that is community consensus so be it. Enjoy. pschemp | talk 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a username violation. The user is free to use pretty much any other username on the face of this planet, but the current username:

1. Matches the name of a company ("Spot Image"), and
2. It is being used to promote it (see Image:Namib Desert SPOT 1347.jpg, which clearly links to a "give us money" shopping cart page. Moreover, it's watermarked).

Therefore, I feel that this username is promotional in nature and is therefore a violation of the username policy and I endorse pschemp's original block. --slakr^\ talk / 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not watermarked any more - made a derivative image without the watermark, put the watermark in the EXIF data, and uploaded it under the same name.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock, and I wonder what pschemp will insult me about :) --NE2 12:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but the fact that by supporting the unblock, you are supporting allowing WP to be used for advertising. Cheers. pschemp | talk 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So it's allowing now, not whoring out? Drop the dramatics. Consensus is against you. LaraLove|Talk 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And your snide comments are wonderful too. pschemp | talk 13:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

! - "cast ye not the first stone ..." Neıl 龱 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by guillom to not feed the wikidrama, when you are doing exactly that. What do you guys want? You may have to decide - no double standards, please! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm at a loss here - we have the part of policy for a reason, to stop spam. As Slakr has pointed out already, it's a clear violation because it matches a company name and has been self promoting. We shouldn't make exceptions for one user - if we don't like one part of policy, then remove it, or we're using double standards with the block button, and that's not good. Oppose unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: But why would it be from OTRS then? The image is what i'm referring to.— _Maggot^Syn 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS getting involved has nothing to do with whether this is a violation of WP:U or not. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't last year. pschemp correctly noted that a year ago, this was completely acceptable, but it's not cool anymore to block editors without discussing it with them first. How difficult is it to remove the block from this situation? Just as likely, if not more, to get a name change, and a significantly lower risk of running the user off permanently. LaraLove|Talk 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:U hasn't changed that much. If a username matches that of a company, and is being used to promote itself, then it is blocked on sight. No need to discuss anything with them before the block. If they then realise their mistakes, agree to change their username and not selfpromote, then they can be unblocked to get a name change. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Which I gladly would have done had messaged me, or asked on his userpage or given any indication that he wanted to communicate. He didn't though, not to me. I just got a message from Guillom requesting an unblock. (And not an ublock for a name change, an unblock to allow him to edit with the same one.)pschemp | talk 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock - it hasn't been shown how this username allows "WP to be whored out to advertising".

  On a very related note, I believe that if any commercial entity wished to support WP with a large grant of money, equipment, bandwidth, etc., there would be no reason it couldn't be accepted and acknowledged. Anyone who thinks this project can't happen without tangible resources in addition to the required volunteer effort is not rooted in reality. I have no special knowledge of the internal workings of WP, but I am certain beyond any doubt that the infrastructure demands are enormous, and I'm nearly certain they are growing at ever-increasing rates. Corporations and people make donations to many worthy non-profit organizations around the globe, and they are routinely acknowledged by the recipients. So - even if this username amounts to some sort of promotion which some would view as advertising - a claim which is dubious at best - how does that compromise the encyclopedia? All contributions are still subject to the same restrictions.  Frank  |  talk  13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock if this wasn't already apparent. — _Maggot^Syn 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ask user to change username and if they refuse, then reblock. Ask the user not to place any promotional items (links, logos, watermarks) on the media. The user can put a brief statement of who they are with a link to their site on their userpage. That is typically allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock - I'm with Jehochman. This could have been worked out without a block. LaraLove|Talk 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• I support unblocking the user but I think they should be asked to voluntarily change their username and if they don't then they should be reblocked. All the images I looked at have "Spot Images" watermarks which arguably puts promotion and advertising on the table and turning a blind eye would be a really bad precedent, in my opinion. I appreciate this person's work and I don't want them to be blocked but I don't think it's appropriate to use a company name as their username. Sarah 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  Guillom is aware that the watermarks are a no go, and a name change is recommended. He's been communicating with the user, and I'm sure he'll be able to pass this along. Neıl 龱 13:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'd like to see more evidence of that. pschemp | talk 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • See Commons:User talk:Spot Image. As an additional note, and an aside, note that while many of the user's images presently have watermarks, they are being uploaded under a CC-by-SA license, which permits derivations (so the watermarks could be legitimately removed or clipped). Neıl 龱 13:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    • There is NOTHING about asking this user to change his name there, nor has Guillom indicated that he would do that. All i see is the user refusing to remove the watermarks and talking as "we" as if he is the company. Pure and simple, this user is promoting his company, and that merits a name change on WP. (Commons can do what they like of course.) You can see from above I am not the only person who thinks the name is inappropriate. pschemp | talk 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

      Guillom has left a note on my talk page saying he is in communication with the user about the two chief issues (the user name change, and the presence of watermarks on the images). Neıl 龱 14:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let it be noted that all Guillom asked me to do was unblock the user and let him continue editing with his current username, not unblock to allow him to change it. (Which I did politely ask him to do). My argument is that the name itself inappropriate - how it gets changed and in what order of block or reblock, I do not care, just that it gets changed. pschemp | talk 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. Firstly, to stop the drama whose continuity is offputting, bitey and impolite to the user in question; secondly, it's not even apparent from the username as such that it is a company name, it's just two random common words juxtaposed, so the concern that the mere presence of it on Wikipedia would constitute improper advertisement seems far-fetched. And on procedural grounds, yes, I believe Neil acted correctly in assuming that a sufficient degree of consensus had previously been established. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock to allow for a username change, reblock if that does not happen. Usernames that match company names may be blocked as promotional, in my understanding of WP:U. It's not always necessary to do so immediately if the account is not actually advertising its company. Blocking it in this instance was a bad idea, and re-blocking it against clear consensus here exhibited poor judgment on the part of pschemp.  Sandstein  14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Admonish User:pschemp for her re-block to begin with, which just escalated the drama. Wizardman 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • cough cough "her" :) Neıl 龱 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There, fixed. Now, after re-reading everything I do believe User:Spot Image should change their username, though that doesn't mean you can wheel war. Wizardman 15:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

      Yes, I'm working on it. The account should be renamed in the next few days. guillom 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • How about admonishing the admin who failed to communicate about his intention to unblock, or starting this discussion? My understanding is that such communication is generally required, and certainly recommended as a courtesy. Not notifying people creates an incentive for stalking, which I believe is discouraged. On the other hand, I'm not sure what exactly gives you the power to adminish where others seem to express their views as "support unblock" or "endorse block" and the like. Is this because you are a member of the Orwellian Mediation Committee? It seems this discussion started on the premise that it's a bad idea to drive away users, but your behaviour does exactly that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    I left a note on the talk page where we were discussing the case, and I thought pschemp had noticed it. I have already said I was sorry about that. Neil also thought pschemp had seen the notice. guillom 16:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Images can be modified to remove watermarks. Image description pages can be edited to remove linkspam. (Though I don't see any harm in allowing a little link-love on image description page - not in image captions, though.) I don't see any point in forcing the user to change their name, it's not like user contributions show up in Google. Kelly ^hi! 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • Usernames show up in google though, linked to WP. Google my username for instance. pschemp | talk 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you volunteering to keep doing this every time this user uploads something? Otherwise, please see this discussion, in which it emerged that nobody actually wants to take on this role. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    Relax, PLW - someone will get to it eventually - there is no deadline. Is it better to have a watermarked image that needs to be fixed, or no image at all? Kelly ^hi! 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Considering how small and not that great the images are, I see no loss of not having them. pschemp | talk 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I think that's a terrible attitude. Kelly ^hi! 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
        • You should take a look at the discussion on that user's commons talk page. People are rather upset about the watermarked images, and nobody wants to keep fixing them for him. Someone suggested making a bot for it, an idea which was quickly buried when it transpired that nobody actually wanted to write a bot (but a bot capable of using Photoshop tools to remove watermarks would be cool</sarcasm>). Any way you look at this, basically encouraging a user to keep uploading watermarked images is a bad move. Remember that there is no deadline - we can just wait for somebody else to come along and upload unmarked images. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban the SpotImage guy indefinitely, we dont' need him, his watermarked garbage images, or any form of "advertising." I'll donate 7 bucks right now, that's a whole pack of smokes btw, if we do the right thing and indef ban FOREVER that name and promotion based users all the time forever and ever. :) Beam 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the problem is almost solved. Slow down, relax and read the last few posts. — _Maggot^Syn 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the smile meant Beam was joking. pschemp | talk 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But how is it appropriate? If SPOT Image remains a user (after a rename) it is because he has support based on his contributions. Retaining users who provide us with images is a little more important than just coming by for jokes. Joking about this now is not very constructive, and I've told this to Beam on his talk page. — _Maggot^Syn 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, didn't say it was appropriate. I'm not terribly offended at attempts to lighten the situation with humor though. meh. pschemp | talk 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For those of you still calling for my head, as Ryan P. pointed out, the standard action when an account is spamming or promoting under a company name is to block and ask that they change. That's all I did. This user writes as "we" - indicative of a role account, uploads watermarked and commercially linked images, and is clearly promoting one company. As I said before, I've never wheel warred before, not once - but the decision to unblock and allow him to continue with the name that clearly runs afoul of username policy, combined with his actions is so mistaken, premature and so detrimental to the long term goal of this project, that I felt that reversing it was the only thing I could do to protect this project.

I know it was wrong, and I knew it was wrong when I did it, but I felt I had to. Later consensus has developed that the name in not appropriate and that was my point all along. As for all the "endorse unblock" talk, continuing to argue it seems pointless. The important thing is that this user changes his name. Guillom has said he is working on this so I am satisfied. Sacrifice me on the altar of policy wonkism if you wish, the important thing is that in the end, we don't start a chain of events that leads to a "select few" advertisers being allowed to plaster their company name all of the project. pschemp | talk 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So can we conclude that this is resolved, with the user unblocked and any future action taking place off AN? seicer | talk | contribs 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The user in unblocked with the requirement of a name change - and we've left the rest to Guillom as he is dealing with him also at commons. No need for more drama that I see. pschemp | talk 17:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background on satellite image companies

Written while someone was busy closing the discussion above, which means no-one will now read what I wrote... :-( Could someone at least contact pschemp, guillom and others who might be interested. I have to go now. Carcharoth (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, SPOT Image is just one of many commercial companies that use data from satellites to create high-quality satellite images. Most use NASA satellites, but in this case, the company is using data from SPOT satellites instead. There are many examples of these sort of companies. See here and here for Planetary Visions (which doesn't seem to have an article). Digital Globe is another. See also satellite imagery, which says:

"Several other countries have satellite imaging programs, and a collaborative European effort launched the ERS and Envisat satellites carrying various sensors. There are also private companies that provide commercial satellite imagery. In the early 21st century satellite imagery became widely available when affordable, easy to use software with access to satellite imagery databases became offered by several companies and organizations."

The broader field is known as geographic information systems (GIS - an article well worth reading), and we have Category:GIS companies. Other satellite company examples in there are: GeoEye and GlobeXplorer. Then, of course, there is Google Earth and Google Maps, which also use such data, though that is more for maps. From what I know of SPOT Image, they produce a variety of products. Personally, I think that some sort of tie-up with a GIS company would be good for Wikimedia to pursue, but that should really be done at a higher level. I'm also surprised to see SPOT Image releasing some of their images under a free license - it will be interesting to see where GIS companies as a whole go with respect to the images they've produced using free (NASA satellites) and non-free (other satellites) data. Anyway, that should be enough background for now. Carcharoth (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be more appropriate at a different venue, but it is a relevant and good topic to discuss. I can see a future need for a future tie-in to a specific vendor or service, as I find the current free services to be a bit... outdated and clunky, to say the least. Perhaps pose this at the Village Pump or wherever appropriate. seicer | talk | contribs 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in discussing this topic. Please keep me posted if/when this thread is moved to somewhere else. guillom 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider was moved to its own article against the wishes of the coalition seeking proof of safety and validation of such proof by scientists not directly selected by the organization that wishes to conduct the experiments. The coalition seeking additional proof of safety opposed removing the safety content from the main Large Hadron Collider article because we believed it was an attempt to hide the safety concerns WP:NPOV. The argument for moving the safety content to a new article was so that the safety issues could be covered in more detail. But the safety argument is now covered in less detail and is less balanced, as most opposing view points that have been part of the main article for months have now been removed and attempts to restore these references are being blocked. Some physicists support the restoration of these credible references that represent the opposition, but others including Phenylalanine have repeatedly removed these references without prior discussion and without identifying the actions in edit summaries in the last few days, as reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. This issue has been reported to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard for violation of almost every listed means of information suppression and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard as editors include admitted employees of CERN who wish to conduct these experiments that some credible scientists believe have not been reasonably proven safe. --Jtankers (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page shows a week of discussion, not no prior... see this for a centralized location. Editor is Forum shopping here. ThuranX (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism (?) of Ayumi Hamasaki article

I'm not sure of this is the right place to put this, so sorry if I mis-categorized this. Anyways, there's a block of text on the Ayumi Hamasaki article that scrolls with the page. However, it is apparently not produced by an edit, so I can't undo it. Would an administrator or someone with the appropriate powers look into this? Thanks. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That article looks OK to me. What does the text say? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too... I think this is something in your browser Thanatous, try quitting and re-starting it perhaps? Maury (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The text says "Avril Lavigne rokz my sockz! Brought to you by the Avril Troll - on return from Wikibreak". Here is a screenshot. I believe there was a similar problem here. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's related to this ANI report. If you're still seeing the vandalism in the article, clear your cache first and then purge the page if that doesn't help. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Anderson

There has been a suer who has been hijacking country singer, Lynn Anderson's article. He goes by two different user names, which I doubt is even allowed. Here are the user names; user:Anderspro and his current one user:Mikesmonkey. He has written a terrible article about her, having no references to back-up his statements. For example, he said, "the first to headline and sell out Madison Square Garden in 1974.", and also said she had "17 gold albums." I added my information, with references to back-up factual information I knew back in March, but he keeps reverting back to what he said. He also has a opinionated way of saying things. For example he said this, "During the 1970s, when Hollywood needed a country act for variety shows, benefits, talk shows and even television dramas, Anderson was usually the choice.", as well as "Lynn Anderson's success did not end with the song that made her a househould name and brought her international acclaim. " and when he described one of her hit singles he said, "proved to be a successful follow-up to her monster hit, "Rose Garden". "

He hates when people add references, he hates it, but about a week ago, I redid the page again with references, which is how it currently looks now. I explained to him to please not add anymore unreferenced data, but he said he wasn't going to and he was going to redo the page like it was before because he says, "he knows more about Lynn Anderson than I do." He says this because he actually is Lynn Anderson's official fan club president, and writes her article like he's writing for an official website. In fact, it turns out the article was meant as a rought draft for the way the biography as going to be on her official website, because they were making her a new website at the time he was writing her Wikipedia article. Look at the biography here, Lynn Anderson Show and compare it with the way the he had wrote it here, Link. Don't you find it odd they are nearly written exactly the same???? This guy is a complete idiot, and thinks just because he is Lynn Anderon's fan club president he knows everything he knows about her, but writes it like a fansite. It's disgraceful. I told him I would file a report here if he keeps it up, and he said if I do, he will be filing some of his own. What does that mean, it's getting bad. This guy overall is an idiot, who thinks he basically owns the Lynn Anderson page. Please do something about this before he writes a terrible article again. Maybe blocking him officially from Wikipedia might do some good, especially because he has two usernames, and that is definitley a case of sockpuppetry. Here is the link to his talk page on user:Mikesmonkey; Link and for Anderspro; Link If th links don't work go to the histroy part of Lynn Anderson's page, and you'll find their user names back there. Please do something!!! Let me know at my talk page what is going to happen. Thank you. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears the last edits from the above editors were a couple of weeks ago, and one of our best country music editors, TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), has been working on the article as well. I'll watchlist as well, and if anything stirs up again, I'll try and deal with the editor before it gets too edit-warry. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the editor's been leaving notes here and there. I'll try to explain a few things before he gets too overboard with things. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also got an e-mail from the user, apparently they're part of a Lynn Anderson fan site, and are threatening to "see that Lynn Anderson is properly treated" on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeBuyDirect.com inclusion - admin question

I recently added a page for EyeBuyDirect.com that was deleted. I was informed that if I placed a 'draft' in the sandbox an admin would be able to review and give thoughts. I have added the 'draft' and would like to have some feedback. I appreciate all help and thank you in advance.

User:Blainhowardjs2comm/Sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blainhowardjs2comm (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinked your sandbox (to wikilink a page, use double-square-brackets - [[]]). Not looking because websites and businesses aren't my bag and I wouldn't know what to look for, being unfamiliar with the situation. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 22:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I can say without question that your article is written too much like an advertisement. Think of what an encyclopedia would say about your website and try to write your article from a more neutral, disinterested perspective. To this end, try removing words like "affordable" and "consumers". Also, write more about the company and less about its products/services. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you might also be hovering somewhere below the threshold set in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

When admins attack

Rather than say she made a mistake and I'm right User talk:Kelly has accused me of things and is triying to ban me.

check her vandalization of Medea Benjamin kelly know she doesn't belong in that catigory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.4.221 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock tags and "possible" checkuser results

User:Laurenraz was tagged some time ago as a suspected sock puppet. The checkuser came back as "possible". The user requested that the suspected sock tag be removed from her userpage, and I did so. User:Matilda argues that, as she still suspects Laurenraz of sockpuppetry and since the checkuser indicated that it was possible, the tag should remain. I argue that Laurenraz is a user in good standing, and it's not reasonable to require users in good standing to be tagged against their will as suspected sock puppets in perpetuity. Others' thoughts would be appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just to add my view.
  • Laurenraz is a single purpose account as were those found definitely so by checkuser - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zeumic.
  • The issue has come up in a similar form previously on this noticeboard by one of the sockpuppets : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390#Serious and Continuous Wikipedia Policy Breach of BLP and Other Policy Amounting to Vandalism - that user Wikifactsright (talk · contribs) was found by checkuser to be a definite sockpuppet.
  • Zeumic is an Australian firm http://www.zeumic.com.au/ and is linked to the article Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as it hosts his website http://www.geoffedelsten.com.au/ (see bottom right hand corner).
    • Of some significance - A document published by Edelsten at http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/The-Life-and-Times-of-Prof-Dr-Geoffrey-Edelsten.pdf attacks Wikipedia and several wikipedians - myself included (see pages 19 and 20)
  • LaurenRaz claims to be Just a gal from oz who like[s] law and politics.. Let's "discussion" something nice. but seems to focus only on talking about the Edelsten article - Special:Contributions/Laurenraz. She was immediately experienced in annotating her edits and signing her posts and adding sub heads to discussion threads in talk pages. Within minutes of creating her user page and talk page she immediately sought to have the Edelsten article either deleted or corrected [5]. The language she used was reminiscent of the rhetoric used by Wikifactsright
    • Laurenraz in her first post to the Edelsten talk page called for Remove, Rewrite, Make the Wrong Right?
    • Wikifactsright on his user page called for Get the Facts Right. - Get the Policy Right. - No Bias
  • Wikifactsright's first four edits were to set up his talk page (2 edits), set up his user page, and next to join the discussion at Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten‎
  • I believe Laurenraz is a possible sockpuppet per WP:DUCK --Matilda ^talk 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Matilda. The style of editing is strikingly similar to previous single purpose sock puppets. All trying to discredit the current article and recommend removing any negative info on Edelsten and refer to Edelstens's personal website as the only reliable source. (which it is far from). Michellecrisp (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Laurenraz is probably a sock or meatpuppet. But I don't think WP:DUCK is met, and her edits aren't really disruptive at this point (they're confined to the article talk page), so I'd favour leaving her unblocked, and if we're leaving her unblocked we should let her remove the tag. The article in question is a pretty negative portrayal of a living person (though it appears to me to adhere to WP:NPOV), and I think having somebody editing the article talk page on behalf of the subject - if that is indeed what Laurenraz is doing - is unlikely to prove problematic, and could even be helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing to block her at present. I think the tag is merited as "possible" sockpuppet as both Sarcasticidealist and Michellecrisp agree she is possibly a sockpuppet. Her comments on the talk page are no longer helpful as they do not move the discussion on. The way to to deal with that though is to no longer to respond unless she raises a new point. WP:Duck merely states looks like, ... and therefore is - doesn't give rise to blocking necessarily. --Matilda ^talk 02:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we feel comfortable stating the "...and therefore is" part, then I think we should block. But if we don't think the threshold of certainty has been met - and I don't think it has - then I don't think it's reasonable to leave her tagged. We're essentially saying "Here, we think you're a sockpuppet, but we don't see any way of proving it, so we're just going to tar you as such without giving you the means to clear yourself". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I hadn't gone as far as possible => blocking - not because I am squeamish just hadn't thought it through. I am satisfied that she is on the basis of the logic above. Although the checkuser was merely "possible", her editing behaviour supports that she is indeed a sockpuppet - single purpose account with the same editing behaviour as confirmed socks. I will block --Matilda ^talk 05:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matilda here and she looks like a quite obvious sock to me. I also must say that I don't agree with telling her "as far as Wikipedia is concerned you're not a sockpuppet, since the checkuser on the question came back as "possible" but not definite (although it came back as definite on a whole bunch of other accounts)." First of all Wikipedia itself never takes such a position and saying that gives the impression that the Foundation makes official determinations of people's "sockiness" and even if the checkuser had come back as unrelated, it still doesn't mean the account is "not a sockpuppet". We have blocked many, many users with negative checkuser results based on behaviour and editing patterns. Telling her that Wikipedia considers her not a sock is just wrong, frankly, and it reinforces the idea that people just need to segregate their edits or user open proxies to get away with it. Given the CU came back as possible, I'm assuming the accounts are coming from the same geographical location but a different IP, which could simply be someone editing with one account from home and another from work. Sarah 09:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. And the similarities in editing with Wikifactsright and the clear promotion of the website as against factual, reliable sources convinces me that it may not be the same person but they're definitely working in concert. We don't need "beyond reasonable doubt" standard to block IMO. Orderinchaos 13:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:AndreaMimi

Could someone take another look at this editor's contributions please? As I said before, I think they've just descended into silliness but I'm too close to the articles to figure out whether they are a clever and subtle vandal or genuinely confused. DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They changed "Most Hon.", to "Most Honorable", a stylistic choice at most, and you have kept rolling it back using the rollback tool, which is intended for vandalism only. What's silly, confused, or clever and subtle vandalism about that? It seems to be the two of you edit-warring over something minor over a number of days, with a dash of you misusing rollback, and neither of you discussing it on the talk page of the article, or on each others' talk pages. Neıl 龱 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with neil's assessment, here. An alternative would be to step away from the article or articles for a while, then discuss matters. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the extensive prior attempts at talking. See User talk:DrKiernan#Dear "Dr.", User talk:DrKiernan#User talk:AndreaMimi#Comma, User_talk:AndreaMimi#Comma, User_talk:AndreaMimi#Spaces and User_talk:AndreaMimi#Can I suggest.... DrKiernan (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You also missed my prior attempts at compromise: such as [6]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did see the other prior attempts at talking, but they were about disputes other than the last one (your message wasn't particularly clear about what you wanted looking at). Does it really matter if it says "Most Hono(u)rable" rather than "Most Hon."? Neıl 龱 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Nor does the odd particular comma matter. I'm not interested in the content issue per se, but in the editor behaviour. All the edits are marked as minor, even when they are quite major, such as the deletion or insertion of sections. I and other editors have tried to explain how to use a comma or tried to engage in discussion and we just get a "Yes, thank you and good day." without any change in behaviour. DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, DrKiernan shouldn't have used the rollback tool, because it is not clearly a vandalism. But on the other side, we have a user admitting his knowledge of English not being so good, but still making weird edits on stylistic and prose issues. And when asked to explain his position, he/she wishes a "good day"! Something is going wrong here. And, hon. instead of honorable is indeed a minor issue, but having also worked an article to the slightest detail, I can understand DrKiernan's reaction, when he sees changes without rationale and explanation. On the other side, I do not know if there is ground for any adm action against AndreaMimi.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a communication issue, which I think may be the root cause of the problem - what is Andrea's first language? It may be worth asking an editor fluent in it to engage with him/her and try to explain things gently. Neıl 龱 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. She's Austrian, so presumably German. I can read German but if I try to write it, I'll probably make things worse! DrKiernan (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We have lots of native German admins on en.Wiki (eg User:DerHexer or User:Future Perfect at Sunrise), as well as non-native with excellent German. Try hunting for one in Category:User_de-N or Category:User de-5, or a note at Wikipedia_talk:German-speaking_Wikipedians'_notice_board. Neıl 龱 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on her talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's worked. DrKiernan (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to notify that the problem with AndreaMimi (Andrea1984 in German Wikipedia) isn't mainly a language problem but a problem of obstinacy and complete intrancigence. She's been blocked on the German Wikipedia therefore. Judith M-S (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IP 198.163.53.11 hate speech

I placed a request to move a page Talk:Gliese 581 c (edit talk links history). This was a simple request, pros and cons came into focus. But one comment by 198.163.53.11 (talk) was non supportive, but this user did not give a reason for his opposision, he gave a hate speech to the user giving the request (i.e. me). Though he did write some facts that I have currently fixed, he did state some pretty hateful things. [7] I request that you please do something about this, because I have no idea what to do for WP:HARASS and WP:HATE. Please talk to this IP user (or block them if it has to come to that). — NuclearVacuum 00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not removing the comment, I crossed it out (Talk:Gliese 581 c#Requested move). It was hateful and I do feel upset. — NuclearVacuum 00:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's rude, but it isn't harassment or hate speech. Looking at the talk page, it seems that you are upset not just because the IP was rude, but because he (and everyone else) disagreed with you. Neıl 龱 11:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat of self-harm

Resolved

Now being handled by the police, who are going out to the location. Thanks to all who assisted in bringing this to our attention. Orderinchaos 14:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, I want to notify the admins about these edits by an IP address that were automatically reverted by a bot. [8][9]. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As awful as it may seem, there doesn't appear to be that much we can do about it. Not really. We've had situations like this before reported to the Noticeboards, and people have told us to ring the police or things like that, which, understandably, given the whole situation, many are relucant to do. If you understand me? The most we could do really, is talk to him on his talkpage, if he is geniunely being serious about it, which again is hard to sepher over the internet. Anything you propose? (It may well just be a vandal at the end of the day) Lradrama 09:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The local police/emergency services in Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia should be contacted and given the user's IP address. Even if it is a hoax/vandal, they will still want the call. I don't have access to a telephone where I am right now, and none of the police stations in the area seem to have an e-mail address. Their telephone numbers are listed here. Wollongong may not be exactly right, but they'll at least be able to pass it on to the relevant area's force, should that be required. Edit: a comment has been left here with details, though it isn't an emergency line. I know there's only a 0.1% chance of anything coming of it, but 0.1% is still too much of a risk to ignore, when five minutes of someone's time is all it will take. Steve ^{T • C} 10:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, why do you think that is a NSW IP address? When I just whoised it, it came back as being from Westnet Internet Services in Western Australia, which is on the other side of the country and a heck of a long way from NSW. If it is WA, there are plenty of WA admins and editors here. Sarah 10:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean, better be safe than sorry I suppose. Lradrama 10:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

@Sarah, I used two separate IP tracing tools, both of which said the IP is indeed Westnet Internet Services, but that the location is Wollongong. Westnet's website indicates the company provides internet services "Australia-wide". All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 10:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Westnet is a WA ISP but they provide services in other states. Whois gives the registered address in WA, not that that means a great deal since my IP used to be registered to a town at the opposite end of the country. I think one of the WA admins should just call the police in Perth. That NSW website form says it can take up to 7 days for them to respond to so I don't think it's the most effective way of dealing with it. I am going to let the Perth people know and see if someone wants to follow it up directly. Sarah 11:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Threats of Violence I highly suggest this be reported to the local police or other emergency services, without delay. Bstone (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the ISP by phone/email and let them know, and a supervisor there is now looking into it. I did an nslookup and all it says is New South Wales, so it may be simply that their services in NSW are Wollongong-based, rather than that the user is in Wollongong. (Wollongong is about 80km south of Sydney and it may be cheaper to set up there, given they only went national a few years ago) Orderinchaos 12:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work people :) Lradrama 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Update, the police are now involved. Orderinchaos 12:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For future reference: Wollongong was way out. Shows you cannot rely on these tools with ISPs which do not geolocate IPs below state level. Orderinchaos 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this cause for concern?

Hello.
I'm not sure whether this is worth any concern or not, so I'll just say what I've observed, and you can either have a discussion with another editor if it's important, or just ignore this if it isn't.
(I'd originally tried to take it up with the other editor in question, but as I think about it more and more, it actually has me somewhat concerned)
(background information, for those interested)
So, there was some time-filler on the news about Obama, and I got curious as to whether or not there was an article on 'Hussein'. I checked it out, and saw that there, indeed, was (well, it's closer to a disambiguation page, but that's beside the point). However, I noticed that it was laid out in a way that almost made Barack Obama look like an item or a place, and found that odd, so went to the talk page to see if anyone had commented on it.
Though it hadn't been mentioned there, there was a discussion about Obama (which I suppose isn't surprising).
And, like a typical talk page, some people behaved better than others, yadda yadda yadda.
(actual content starts here)
But, one editor really caught my attention. Some remarks were unfortunate, but not terribly unusual.
However, one line really stuck out: All anonymous IPs are nothing better than vandals, and need to be banned immediately. There's no point to hiding behind your pathetic IP address..
That struck me as being grossly inappropriate. I followed a little farther down, and noticed a further inappropriate edit summary from the same user: please sign your posts; failure to sign posts is an indication that you're too much of a pussy to own up to your own comments..
Now, here, I was in a bit of a difficult position. On the one hand, I found it abhorrent behaviour. On the other hand, it was halfway through March. To decide whether or not to say anything, I tried going through his talk page archives to see if anyone else had already mentioned it (heck, for all I knew, it was brought up already and he might've agreed that it was a little much). When I saw that it hadn't been addressed, I decided to say something.
It was only after doing this that I noticed that he'd left a comment on the anonymous IP's talk page. And that is actually the primary source of my concern. Here's what he said: I don't respond to anonymous vandals. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, then get an account and logging in like a normal user. If you think you can hide by being "anonymous", think again. I know where you live.(emphasis mine)
I don't know how to interpret "If you think you can hide by being "anonymous", think again. I know where you live." as anything but a threat. Still, I preferred to assume good faith, and had already left him a note, so it didn't seem appropriate to leave another message yet based on something else equally old.
But then, his reply gave me even greater cause for concern. It wasn't the 'get a life' crack, or the accusation that I was somehow looking for 'dirt' on him. It wasn't even his, once again, trying to push me into registering an account (so much for the 'free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'). It was this line: Nothing pisses me off more than an editor that doesn't have the balls to stand up for what they write so they have to hide behind their IP address, Mr. Primus Telecommunications Canada User.
Once again, he presses on how much he hates anonymous editors, and then reveals that he's tried looking for personal 'real-life' information about me.

The previous occurrence ("If you think you can hide... I know where you live") might've just been an isolated incident. However, the moment he was confronted by another anonymous editor (me), his first instinct was to try to look up personal information about me to use against me. This is very disturbing.
Frankly, the personal attacks, the refusal to assume good faith, the compulsion to berate people just for editing anonymously... they're all bad, certainly. But the idea that his idea of 'dispute resolution' is to look up information on people to bully or intimidate them... well... Even though anyone editing anonymously can have personal details searched for online, that doesn't excuse an editor doing it to 'win' in a dispute.
In any event, it won't be long before I have another IP address, and my own ties to him will be gone. But his conduct really gave me pause. So, I mention it here in case anyone else finds it disconcerting. And, if not, just ignore this. 209.90.135.5 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"I know where you live" and "you're too much of a pussy to own up to your own comments"? What the hell is wrong with this guy? "Anonymous" are actually less anonymous than people with usernames. I'll drop a note at his talk page. John Reaves 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Though he does have a point about the age of the diffs in question, let's see what he says here. John Reaves 05:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The initial diffs: Yes, somewhat old. And repeating the action by trying to look up my personal information? It may not be as bad as "I know where you live", but it certainly looks like 'same old, same old'. At least he's gone from calling people pussies, to now simply implying that they lack 'balls'. In any event, I've been known to make mountains out of molehills, hence my letting you people deal with it from here (or decide that I'm nuts and not doing a thing). 209.90.135.5 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather disturbing incident. This user appears to have been making personal attacks and looking up information on anonymous users to do so. This is not a "mountain out of a molehill", despite your modesty, this was a mountain already. I may not be an administrator, but you've done the right thing, and you can trust my support.

By the way, if you really want to be anonymous, you can not leave your signature :). I'm User:Gnorthup if you really need to know. I'd like to see how much this would peeve this person.

Allowing anonymity is one of the pillars that makes Wikipedia so great. I recently posted a comment to User:Jimbo Wales by snapshotting an image of the WP:User access levels permission table (the edit permission part) and stated that "If the green block was one square to the right, Wikipedia wold be no better than any other forum" ^{not an exact quote}. Unfortunately, the use of the snapshot violated fair use, so I removed the section before anyone put attention to it. That aside, my point stands, and I'll shortly find evidence.

Found it! The third of the five pillars offers the following quote: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit." And of course, "anyone" can mean any anonymous person. No one is allowed to treat any (helpful or not) anonymous user with such prejudice.

Like many editors, I regularly review anonymous edits, and see a huge percentage of constructive, valuable edits. Not just maintenance, tweaks, and copy-editing either; many specialized articles would still be stubs if it weren't for them. Some of the most helpful contributors at the reference desk don't have a registered account. Not only are they allowed to edit unregistered, they should feel welcome too. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am watching current contributions to make sure there is no repeat of such utterly unacceptable behavior. (I see the ed. has been notified of this discussion,and I take that as a sufficient warning that another comment like that will lead to a block.) DGG (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mascot Guy

I remember commenting about this a month ago and I believe I need to bring this up again because I can see the slackness at which admins try to deal with this problem, in other word, they are doing nothing, MascotGuy is doing exactly what we class as trolling, I'm saddened at the replies I got to my question last time by 2 of the admins who blatantly said that since he is an autistic, he is allowed to do whatever he likes and one of the admins who actually thinks that MascotGuy updating his own sock list is a good thing...Its just sad to know that Wikipedia which was once filled with smart intelligent admins has now been left with monkeys running around with scissors in their hand, who instead of trying to control the problem, allow it to continue, I didn't comment that time because I had a Bigger problem to deal with, but its this attitude of admins is the reason why wikipedia is the only wikimedia wiki where vandals are ranked above the admins since they are easily able to outsmart them....--Cometstyles 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The accounts are all blocked. Unless you know of others, in which case, please feel free to actually post their names and/or diffs. Also, do you think the best way of asking for assistance is to be a jerk about it? Neıl 龱 10:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they said he was autistic so he could do what he wanted or that him updating his sock list was a good thing; they were simply explaining that he has a developmental disorder and isn't the run of the mill vandal. I also don't agree that nothing has been done. We block his socks and I think Lucky was going to contact his mother again. If you have some ideas for dealing with him or you're aware of some unblocked accounts then please tell us but telling us we're all idiots because you disagree with the responses of three people isn't really the best way to go about it. Sarah 10:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

heh misquoted again, I never said any of you were idiots, its just last time I came with the idea of denying MG and instead of following through on that idea, they laughed it off, which is a shame since admins are appointed to deal with "trolls" and not allow them to continue giving non-reasonable reasons as to why, I'm happy to say that we are slowly getting rid of grawp, who is probably the biggest threat we had to wikimedia and I have been following and reverting and blocking Grawp on over 40 projects for over a year now and one thing I realised while doing that was that he only did it because most admins on all wikimedia projects didn't try hard enough to stop him from trolling and what I meant regarding admins being outsmarted was because I don't think MascotGuy is an autist because an autistic person will not be able to use proxies that wisely and create multiple accounts and get banned doing so, and if a person looks hard enough or an editor who has been around enwiki for a long time, this is the same pattern Grawp followed over an year ago and slowly by slowly he going in the same direction as Grawp, so if he isn't stopped now so all I'm saying is why not do what we did here and deny him and I know its not easy but atleast this way we can atleast stop him from socking and updating his socklist because thats why he wants, to show people that he has over 500+ accounts and the admins can't do anything to stop him, if he isn't outsmarting the admins than I really don't know what else to call it...--Cometstyles 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think that might be an appropriate way to deal with him then why not MFD the pages? I disagree strongly with your suggestion that you don't think he is autistic because of his use of open proxies and multiple accounts etc. There are some highly intelligent and highly skilled people who are on the autism spectrum and in fact the nature of MascotGuy's editing - the compulsive and repetitive editing and creation of so many accounts could easily be a manifestation of autism. Sarah 12:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've bumped to MascotGuy often enough and yes, from what I've seen this user could easily be both autistic and intelligent. As I recall, I've seen him create wholly formed, cleanly written, referenced, infoboxed and categorized hoax pages in a single edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did - --Cometstyles 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert war brewing concerning the order of The Beatles' lineup

User talk:Koavf is insisting on listing The Beatles' members in alphabetical order: George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr instead of the traditional order they are listed which is John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. How should we handle this issue? This is with Template:The Beatles and is also listed with George Harrison mentioned first in Portal:The Beatles/Intro. What is the proper order to list The Beatles? Since Ringo joined the group, they have always been John, Paul, George and Ringo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There appear to be some at [10]. --NE2 12:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

John, Paul, George, Ringo is the traditional order, yes. If it can be cited, then go for it. If not, I can't see any harm in putting them alphabetically. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or list them chronologically as they joined up, which would be John, Paul, George and Ringo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

<dumb joke>I believe that would be John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete, Ringo.</dumb joke> :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Poor Pete Shotton (and the rest of Liverpool who played guitar in 1957)... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When I worked in Liverpool in the 1970s there was a story going round that every morning Pete's wife used to bring him his morning cuppa and say "Here's your tea, Pete... you TOSSER!"; but I don't believe that. --Rodhullandemu 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"By George," said Paul, sitting on the John. "Where'd my Ringo?" --MZMcBride (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah 'n 'e canny stu'd over it too, then took his best shotton the dark 'n wound up on Parlophone. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pun Krock rules... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Stu somehow made me think of Sid, maybe cuz neither could play but both looked fit enough on stage (hm, both died young too) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is pretty lame. The order of their names isn't that important. James086^{Talk | Email} 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now listed there. Been a while since I've seen one that qualified so well for there. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template problem

Resolved

Whether it's the same for everyone as well as me I'm not sure, but every Rugby player article that I've looked at (i.e. Matt Dawson, George Gregan) has a series of "Unexpected Operator" errors in the infobox where their metric measurements are being converted to imperial. I presume it's something to do with Template:Infobox Rugby biography or Template:convert but as far as I can see neither has been changed for ages (and convert is limited to admins). Anyone? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Matt Dawson had non-functioning conversion parameters - instead of "ftin" and "stlb", "ft" and "in" seem to work. However, I don't know if "ftin" and "stlb" used to work as parameters and whether a change to a sub-template of {{convert}} has caused a knock-on problem. Bencherlite^Talk 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well its not {{convert}} as you might already know. I'm lending my eyes for a brief minute, taking a deeper look, as I'm not familiar with the code. Trying nonetheless. :) — _Maggot^Syn 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the article and see if that is what you needed. If not, revert me. — _Maggot^Syn 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that works - just need to find all the others that used that syntax (presumably it used to work, which suggests that they've been like that for a while....) Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say its either {{Convert/kg stlb}} or {{Convert/stlb}} but I know next to nothing about how these work (also consider: Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert, I'm not browsing that!). For now, I'm marking this thread as resolved. If you have anymore trouble I'd recommend bringing all this up on one of the related templates talk pages, as you'll find more knowledge out of them. :) Regards and happy editing from — _Maggot^Syn 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP backlog

There is quite a backlog here. Please help out if you can. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Need to update ITN.

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates (candidates for July 9) has 2 new candidates already endorsed. Indo US nuke deal and Grenada elections. Can someone please update the Main page? ITN was not updated today. I know this might the wrong place to ask but I was suggested considering no activity from admins. --gppande «talk» 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky

Resolved

 – unprotected - should have been removed months ago Viridae^Talk 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky has been semi-protected since March. Is there any plan to unprotect it any time soon? Corvus cornix_talk 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on WP:RPP?  Sandstein  22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, You're probably right.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it worked. Article has had protection removed. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

USer GHcool page deleted unexpectedly

User page for GHcool has just been deleted without any warning or discussion. Please advise. The admin who made this deletion is a good-faith admin who has made many positive and notable contributions to Wikipedia. however, i disagree with this deletion. Especially since GHCool has made no edits since July 1.

Below is a prior thread posted at this page regarding GHcool. It was posted as of july 1, at this location (This is the most recent version of that discussion which i could find. i will try to post a link if subsequent comments had been posted there as well. )

It is quoted again below:

Heading: Need help with interpetation of WP:UP

I have some questions about interpreting and applying Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?, specifically point #9. This is in regards to the User page of GHcool (talk · contribs), which has been the subject of controversy in the past, including a no-consensus MfD (though I think the page has been substantially expanded since then) as well as an ANI thread from about a year ago that I cannot seem to locate (and in fact, the user who raised it appears to have had their identity erased entirely from Wikipedia... user page deleted on user's request, no contribs, nada). I was hoping to look to the past discussions for precedent, but unfortunately the past discussions are either missing or else have an ambiguous conclusion.

There is currently on ongoing Wikiquette Alert from Imad marie (talk · contribs), where he/she contends that using a quote from him/her on the user page, along with the text "even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood", constitutes the naming of a "perceived flaw," as prohibited by point #9 in the User Page guidelines I linked to above.

I do not feel great about the user page in question, but I also do not feel comfortable proclaiming that it is in violation of policy. It is treading a very fine line, IMO. Myself and Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) attempted to mediate -- our compromise suggestion was to remove specific user names from the page to avoid the appearance of personal attacks, but to retain the diffs so that there was still proof these were actual user comments, and interested parties could still verify all of the info -- but GHcool was not amenable to this compromise, and as I said, I do not feel comfortable trying to force the compromise because I am unsure if the page really runs afoul of WP:UP or not.

Imad marie has asked about his/her next step in the dispute resolution process. I suppose I could say "Take it to ANI" or "Try an RfC" or whatever, but I do not think GHcool is likely to change his mind, and I am uncertain about which way enforcement would come down. So I'd like to hear some input from admins and other experienced users on what they think. Is the page User:GHcool a violation of WP:UP? Does it just skirt the edge? Is it reasonable to ask GHcool to make some accommodations to those who might be offended? Should we tell those who feel offended to just piss off? What do people think? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some relevant discussion here. Also, the original AN thread is archived here. At that original thread, three admins (plus myself) all expressed misgivings about the page, with nobody other than GHcool defending it. The thread was then archived.

Note that Gwen Gale has deleted the page for now without prejudice to possible reinstatement should consensus develop that the page is acceptable. All four of us feel it violates WP:SOAP and probably WP:UP, and have not yet heard a serious dissenting opinion, so action was taken. I, for one, would love to hear reasoned commentary from more people for what I realize will be a controversial action. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, now there's no way to view the page, is there? Since deletion appears to erase all prior versions of the page, and all mention of it in any logs. is it possible to view the most recent version of the page? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins can see it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. could anyone perhaps open it, just for the sake of this discussion? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear from GHcool, it's his page. Meanwhile, could you tell me what your worries are about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, my interest is simply that he is my colleague. however, are you asking my specific worry with this, or simply asking why i am interested in the first place? if you are asking my specific ojections, it is simply that I feel a user should be given a timely warning before an action is specifically taken. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

At least four admins Three admins and (I think) at least three other editors think GHcool's user page is worrisome (although GHcool likely didn't mean it that way). To stem any harm to the project while GHcool is away, I deleted the page pending further discussion when he gets back. I think GHcool did have forewarning there were worries about his page but he wanted to let things stand as they were while he was gone (and that diff from a week ago is his latest contrib). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

well, I think his request that no actions occur here until he returns is pretty reasonable. (I appreciate your openness in posting a link to it here.) while there may have been consensus that his user page was problematic, I didn't see any consensus here that it should be deleted while he was away, when he did let others know in advance that he would be away for a certain set specific amount of time. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, along with your take on this. Meanwhile (and I don't mean to be snippy), three admins think otherwise. It's true I'm not happy with the notion GHcool's gonna come back and find his userpage is redlinked. I'm hoping he'll be back soon so we can talk about it and get his user page back up, fast. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. thanks for your reply. you have replied to my initial query, although of course I still disagree basically. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and restored the portion of GHcool's userpage that was uncontroversial and not soapboxy. Neıl 龱 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but you may want to consider protecting the current version until we can communicate with GHcool. Dollars to doughnuts, as soon as he comes back he'll restore the old version... Which is fine if people are on top of it, but I am just concerned about this debate disappearing yet again. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, and a note left to contact an admin when he comes back. Neıl 龱 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm wholly neutral on this since on one hand, we've now edited his page but on the other, it's no longer redlinked. I support the protection though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it was quite out of process, frankly, considering you all knew he was going to be away for a while, and MFD was obviously an option. I'm going to restore the rest of his work to a user sub-page for him, so that he has it handy when he returns, and doesn't have to go begging for it. Meanwhile, now that you're deleting polemical user pages, you might want to take a look at this one. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The dirsuption was heightened because he left knowing the page was a worry. As for Nishidani's, I'd seen it, I don't think it's as disruptive since no editors are being quoted out of context. However, it does stray from WP:UP. Here's yet another, which many of us have known about for months. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

History from User:Wikifox20 to Doppelmayr Cable Car

This article was created in User space (directly on User:Wikifox20 itself) over a period of a week. The article was then copied and pasted to Doppelmayr Cable Car. It would be good to preserve the history of this article if possible. So far I've only altered it to add {{advert|article}} but the material does have the basis of making a good article (the technology replaced the World's first commercial Mag-Lev at Birmingham International Airport (United Kingdom) after fell into disrepair). Possibly this history transfer they could be done with some combination of Move, but I'd prefer to have an admin do this as it's cross-namespace and there is one change originally at the very start of the userpage. —Sladen (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Please check to make sure I didn't screw something up. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yesnomaybe. Is it possible to have the previous ~20 revisions of the page content displayed in the history (before/replacing the inital creation)—those would be much useful than my single edit of "edited {{advert}}". My hope with the move from to preserve the history; but now [AFAIK] it's not visible in either location. If that's possible? Thank you for your efforts thus far. —Sladen (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this was a draft article, which the user then copied over to the articlespace - and which was later deleted. So the draft edits and the article edits are mixed together, a bit. Shouldn't be an issue, hopefully maybe? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if I'd done a Delete: Doppelmayr Cable Car, followed by a Move: User:Wikifox20→Doppelmayr Cable Car, then that would have produced (almost) the result I'm after. I agree that it "won't be a issue". As the article already has/had some history to it, I was keen to preserve that history record; particularly if it comes to investigating copyvio issues. With a directly-imported large article, it's easier to prove what has happened when you can see the built-up of the article verses just a straight import of the large article. If the User: page hadn't been deleted in the process of the above, I could do the Delete/Move myself; unfortunately it's too late for me to do anything with my own limited powers... which is why I was after an admin to strong-arm and do the above. I can sort out re-adding nicety like tags if the history can be refound/restore/reimported. —Sladen (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the timestamps will help with that, but I've screwed it up enough, I fear. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was hinting that it might be useful for another admin(s) to jump in and provide some input/direction, particularly now that the issue has got a little deeper: since going to bed and waking up, the article appears to have been speedy-deleted (User_talk:Wikifox20#Speedy deletion of .22Doppelmayr Cable Car.22) and recreated (repasted) at DCC Doppelmayr Cable Car. Please; can the original version of the draft (as was at User:Wikifox20 yesterday) be fetched and moved to one of those locations with its history intact, (or a better suggestion made). —Sladen (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: undelete request left at User_talk:Oxymoron83#Restore of Doppelmayr Cable Car. It maybe that because of a failed history import, this lead to the article being tagged for speedy deletion (as it now showed an earlier reversion of the article and not the final version. See thread at User_talk:BigHairRef#Doppelmayr Cable Car). —Sladen (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cleaned-up by User:Oxymoron83 (see User_talk:Oxymoron83#Restore of Doppelmayr Cable Car). Thank you to all involved. —Sladen (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

Resolved

What the header says. Eight requests un-attended too. D.M.N. (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please use the {{adminbacklog}} tag in future to flag issues like this. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

HLP

HLP. I have been through two renames. I was previously Nardman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). For some reason not all of my edits with these accounts got fixed in my renames. I know it takes someone high up like a steward to fix this, but does someone wanna? Please? :) -Nard 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bureaucrat you need to change names, actually, and I don't think they can reattribute edits. Drop by WP:BN or WP:CHU. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This I cannot believe

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An image was deleted per Images for Deletion, after which a Deletion review was opened which resulted in a huge consensus to overturn, but was closed as Endorse anyway? In both cases, the closing admin keeps citing Foundation Policy as their guideline, forgetting however it is up to the community to interpret these policies. In both cases, the community deemed the image in complience with NFCC, yet the closer ingnored that consensus, and chose to apply his/her own interpretation, which is a very bad trend, and is not what an admin is supposed to do. I ask that another admin give a second opinion and recloses that review. Since there is no 'Deletion review-review', it's the only way I know of to have this decidion overturned. — Edokter • Talk • 12:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, deletion reviews (as well as initial deletion discussions) do NOT have to rely on consensus. It is the responsibility of the Admin to weigh the arguments of the various parties against the current rules and guidelines. With images, rules essentially handed down by the foundation always trump community consensus, that's the way it is. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is up to the community how to handle the foundation rules, and that must be done on a case-by-case basis. If the community feels an image meets those rules, admins have no choice but to abide by that consensus. Again, it is not up to the admins to interpret these rules in their own way; that task is left explicitly to the community. — Edokter • Talk • 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Shocking bad manners bringing this to AN without discussing with me or trying to resolve the issue on my talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I did notify you, did I not? Anyway, I'm not seeking admonishment here, just second opinions. — Edokter • Talk • 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As the DRV nominator, I think it was closed incorrectly. There's an overwhelming consensus with carefully argued points on both sides that the closure was incorrect, so endorsing it is against WP:CON. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Foundation rules have sway over consensus (put simply, it's their website), more so when it comes to WP:NFCC where there's not much leeway. There are lots of articles here I very much "wish" could carry fair use images (and could if the WF had no cares about allowing its content to be freely copied). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that the foundation only asked for a EDP, not the NFCC in its current form. Some projects have stricter rules (enquote, dewiki), some projects have more lenient rules than our NFCC. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My take on that would be, the community could (should) then more helpfully talk about the NFCC and let the foundation weigh in if they didn't like where it was headed. WF clearly, if tacitly, endorses the current policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking in on this from the outside, Spartaz's closing comments at the DRV seem to address Edokter's concerns. Since this is apparently a straight disagreement about whether Foundation policy trumps consensus, and since "the same argument" has applied to different images, it seems that it would be better to centralise discussion - the Village Pump, perhaps - with a view to soliciting input from others (including the Foundation?). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Edokter, "If the community feels an image meets those rules, admins have no choice but to abide by that consensus." Well, I'm sorry to say, that is just plain wrong. When community consensus violates certain specific rules (generally applying to image rules and WP:BLP. It is a common and correct practice in deletions to treat multiple users expressing the same argument singularly. Deletions and reviews are not consensus driven and the number of people is not nearly as important as the strength of their arguments. I ran into this situation in the past back when I didn't fully understant the system, I thought consensus took precedent, I was pissed when the deletion stood, but in truth the article probably did not really belong and I learned that over time.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ; Consensus is one of the five pillars Wikipedia is built on. What I am concerned about is admins citing "Foundation rules" that aren't there. The Foundation put down the rule that the community make it's own rules, and the community has done so. If that same community opposes a deletion, admins are required to adhere to the same sonsensus that have created the NFCC rules. Citing "Foundation rules" is a misnomner; there are none, there are only community rules build on community conesnsus, and that is the same consensus the admins have to base their decisions on. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As I hinted above, the thing to do here would be to try and shift the NFCC rules to your liking. I can't think of any/many experienced admins who would take the dodgy leap of restoring an image which strays from NFCC. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is true. But AFAICS, the argument being made in the IfD, and then to some extent in the DRV, is that properly interpreted, this image did not stray from the NFCC -- it did "significantly improve the reader's understanding" Jheald (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Takes on NFCC 8 have tended to be very tight in the last year or so. I too could easily argue process wasn't closely followed on a few steps here but when all's said, happily or unhappily, the deletion was in line with current practice, which hasn't grown by happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if IfDs are consistently being closed in a way which is much more hardline than consensus at WT:NFC, then something is evidently not right. All I can say is that in this case, the original close seems to have been based on a bizarre misunderstanding of the scope of WP:NOR. Jheald (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and moreover, there is a wide swath of grey here which very likely needs tending through a healthy re-wording of NFCC (one way or another) but meanwhile, the image was borderline fair use and its deletion was in line with current practice. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To get some clarity on the specific point, I've started a thread at WT:NFC for the question of WP:NOR and NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There actually is one rule that we have been told to follow by the Foundation, the Licensing policy, which WP:NFC is built on. Yes, it doesn't state that a screenshot from a TV show must meet certain requirements, it's not that specific, and NFC is a consensus-built set of rules that adhere to the licensing policy; that itself can change, but it needs to be will within the bounds set by the policy. --MASEM 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And as a matter of interest, WP:EDP redirects to WP:NFC. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Gwen Gale somewhere above) Strictly speaking, images that fail WP:NFCC#10 can be restored as long as they are fixed immediately. NFCC#10 is really only paperwork. Vital paperwork, but paperwork nonetheless. The interpretation of rationales should really fall under other criteria. Some of the other criteria are similarly simple to interpret. There was a useful debate about NFCC#8 a while ago, and there is always the mouldering page I wrote at WP:NFCC-C - see the talk page for someone's note that they are considering writing a machine-readable template to record what bits of NFCC have been reviewed for each and every non-free image. It should probably work like the {{articlehistory}} template. Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I have yet to read that anyone has asserted something lacking on the image page had been tidied up. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about this image, but in general, responding to your comment: "I can't think of any/many experienced admins who would take the dodgy leap of restoring an image which strays from NFCC." - I would agree if you had said "NFCC#8", but as you said "NFCC" I felt compelled to point out that not all the NFCC are equal in terms of complexity of interpretation. I've restored NFCC#10-deleted images before, corrected the rationale, the link, the source, or whatever, and had nary a squeak of protest. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. I was only wondering if I'd missed something, it can happen! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"I beg to differ; Consensus is one of the five pillars Wikipedia is built on" — you are correct. However, remember for a moment, that without the Foundation, there will be no five pillars. That's why the fact that it's one of the pillars is secondary here. Daniel (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I took the time as an experienced DRV closer to read through this one in response to this thread, even though I normally avoid image related issues. I'll note first that there was poor discussion beginning in the IFD and continuing to the DRV. (For a non-contentious example unrelated to the final decision, nobody ever bothered to mention or link the article in which the image was supposedly critical; I had to go to the deleted image page, read the rationale, and then check the edit history of the article referred to there just to confirm that I had found the right article.) It is foundation level policy that we have an EDP. That EDP is the WP:NFCC, which is thus foundation policy that the community can change only within the foundation required spirit of the policy. The NFCC is thus one of the policies that can override contrary consensus - in fact the canonical example of a policy that would override a unanimous contrary consensus is the copyright policy; one sound opinion on this front overrides an unlimited number of opinions that material should be kept. So those arguing to keep an image challenged under the NFCC need to demonstrate a consensus that the image satisfies the NFCC, not just a consensus that the image would be good to keep if we weren't constrained. As for the DRV, a large fraction of the overturn opinions were expressing concern that the IFD closer introduced a new argument and/or was too biased to be a good reviewer, so I'd probably have myself closed it as relist then in the new IFD explicitly argued to delete the image - none of the arguments that it satisfies the NFCC are in any way persuasive to me. A lot of other admins and editors (including one of the IFD/DRV supporters of keeping the image) would see that as pointless bureaucracy and at least think of chastising me for doing it. So I have to consider the DRV close reasonable, if not the exact one I would have made. GRBerry 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The original close seems to have been based on the bizarre argument, that unless there is an external reference to the significance of the image, it cannot be considered to pass NFCC #8. But that's not the test, and never has been. WP:NOR applies to article text -- not talk pages, policy discussions, and editorial judgments.

There is a near-unanimous 9-2 consensus on this DRV to overturn, based on policy and process arguments, and NFCC #8. It's out of order to reject that out of hand. Relist. Jheald (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One point I have to make here is that the primary function of a DRV is not to measure the image against NFCC, but wether the closure is done within policy; in fact, NFCC was, and should have, deliberately been kept out of the discussion. A relist would probably have been the best available option here. — Edokter • Talk • 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Arcayne below, but better to put this in a level further and above since his concerns are more substantive) Actually, Edockter, are just plain wrong in describing the primary function of DRV. The primary function of DRV is to correct deletion errors. Errors means that either 1) we clearly reached the wrong outcome or 2) it is not clear whether we reached the right outcome. Doing the paperwork improperly can, but does not necessarily put an issue into case #2, but fixing the paperwork is not a primary concern of DRV. Similarly, new information presented in DRV can put something into cases 1 or 2 with no procedural errors at all. Error type 3) we had a procedural error but reached the right decision are not supposed to be changed by DRV; we merely educate the admin involved so they don't repeat them. So NFCC is relevant and had to be a major element of the discussion and the close. If something should have gone out in the garbage disposal instead of the dumpster, but it is clear that it should have gone out of the kitchen, DRV usually won't dive into the dumpster just to feed it down the garbage disposal. For more on this, read Xoloz's post of 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC) in Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 10#What is the role of deletion review, trialsanderrors's post of 10:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC) in the same section and heck, that entire long discussion. (Xoloz and T&E were the two primary DRV closers for at least all of 2006 and January 2007, before I became the primary DRV closer.) As far as I know there is no better discussion of DRV's purpose in the year before that one or at any time since. 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)

Well, I was about to post to AN/I, as I hadn't heard back from Spartaz regarding my asking the appropriate next step to take, but someone let me know that it was already in square-dance mode here. Yay. This is not a content dispute, but a behavioral one on the part of two dovetailing admins. They aren't jerks or anything, just stubborn, and rather unwilling to acknowledge that they don't have a monopoly on accuracy when it comes to our image policy.

The DRV that prompted this AN/I was extraordinarily similar to that of a previous DRV, Image:FotD 007x.jpg. The nominator was a contributor blocked for nominating images disruptively (I would say willy-nilly, but that would imply a lack of intent), who freely admitted that episodic images are all violations of NFC#8. The closing admin looked at consensus in both IfD discussions, and decided that they did not measure up to his admittedly biased and minority interpretation of the same policy. When both DRV indicated a consensus to keep, Spartaz weighed in about how the image didn't meet NFCC. The same folk nominating, deleting and reinforcing that deletion, despite DGfA's advice to the contrary. Now I am not suggesting a conspiracy, but that sort of continual reinforcement does raise an eyebrow.

DRV is to look at whether IfD's were closed inappropriately. The proper venue for evaluating the value of these images is in IfD. In both of these instances, Nv8200p acted inappropriately by applying his personal view of NFC#8 to side with a minority opinion. That problem was compounded when Spartaz misinterpreted the purpose of DRV, evaluating the image yet again.

(warning: ironic sarcasm ahead) I guess one of the main questions I have is whether we need to bother with IfD discussions at all, since an admin seemingly has carte blanche to dismiss any substantial arguments that happen to oppose theirs. In point of fact, the arguments raised in both IfD and DRV did not contradict the notoriously vague NFC#8. If we are going to simply dismiss informed consensus in favor of a minority opinion, then let's just kick out a pillar, and concentrate all the decisions in the hands of the admins. Better yet, let's let them write all the articles themselves, since we simple editors cannot seem to interpret policy well enough on our own. I mean, that would be so much neater.

The fact of the matter is, NFC#8 is disastrously vague, and every attempt to modify it to be less opaque (in NFCC, FU and the Pump) has met with considerable resistance by the same admins and editors. Therefore, suggestions to take the issue to The Pump or elsewhere aren't really helpful It allows for admins to interpret the policy far off the true intent (at least "true" as far as the community at large is concerned) and then claim they are following policy.

Secondly, admins make mistakes, and the closing admin in IfD made whoppers. Spartaz closing the resulting DRV's based on his interpretation image value utterly missed the point of DRV. We have protocols. They weren't followed. Therefore, the best move is to either fix/undo the failure in protocol or re-educate the person causing that failure, so as to not repeat the mistake. In these instances, both actions seems called for.

Thirdly, we had best determine what value IfD and DRV disucssions are going to have. If a small group of admins can dictate how those discussions are going to end in spite of solid arguments, then consensus is rendered a disastrous sham. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not really intersted in engaging in a bad faith discussion where users unhappy with a deletion close prefer to bad mouth me and shout admin abuse instead of doing do what a good faith user would do which would be to engage me on my talk page to discuss the issues in a constructive and open minded way. Only waiting a short while for me to respond to the inevitable complaints is far from ideal and I'm sorry that I wasn't able to respond to the complaints instantly. I do have a job you know and when the wheels fall off like they did this afternoon I'm not going to choose Wikipedia over dealing with the stuff that pays the mortgage and puts food on my family's dinner table. That you lot have chosen to continue to insult and assume bad faith on a public forum rather then engage in a reasonable and thoughtful discussion about what is a really difficult issue really reflects badly on you. No doubt you will all just sniff and make more immature and thoughtless comments without thinking about the fact that there is a human being at the other end of the screen and start screaming admin abuse again. Sod the lot of you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see Spartaz treated in this way. I hope those who (like me) disagreed with the deletion and appealed the close, but (unlike me) did not accept the good faith close with good grace, will reconsider their conduct. Is an admittedly non-free picture, over which we have absolutely no intrinsic rights of use, worth arguing over? --Jenny 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the DRV was closed in error. The closing admin made a decision on the merits of the deletion, even though DRV is for the review of procedural errors only. He also made the wrong decision on the merits, invoking WP:NFC as a consensus-overriding core policy (à la WP:V) when it is not in fact recognised as such. I have no opinion about what outcome should result from the application of WP:NFC to the image at issue, but I concur that the level of the discussion was poor, and support a relisting at IfD.  Sandstein  17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you are not aware of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy from which WP:NFCC is descended. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am. That resolution states that projects may use non-free content only subject to an Exemption Doctrine Policy that meets certain conditions. The resolution is not relevant here, because nobody argued in the discussion that the image must be deleted in application of the resolution. The resolution may not be overruled by consensus, but WP:NFC (which is not labeled as policy) (edit: and WP:NFCC, which is) may, insofar as the consensus outcome does not conflict with the requirements of the resolution.  Sandstein  20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like what Doczilla said a year ago: "The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Wikipedia's project goals and guidelines." [11] Endorse the close. --Kbdank71 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it, too. However, the small handful of people in this instance included a nominator who was blocked for his disruptive, razor-thin interpretation of NFCC, and admin who admitted a dislike of images in episodic content, and another admin who viewed the DRV as another bite at the apple of image discussion. The greater consensus - represented by the people (giving freely of their time as well) in the discussion - expressed their views and noted precedent in line with WP's goals and ideals.

And we aren't really voting anymore. That's actually what brought us here to AN/I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Arcayne, for me this whole sad tale is a hint that wording and pith in NFCC may be lacking. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there, Gwen. Were NFCC not so devilishly vague, there would be little variety in how it is interpreted. No one wants to upload media that is likely to be deleted (at least, I don't), and I am sure that both Nv8200p and Spartaz were just thinking that their interpretations were better than ours, and we had all gone bonkers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• You have gone bonkers :) Seriously, it is vague and making it less vague is (a) exceedingly difficult for a variety of reasons and (b) very likely to lead to serious complications. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz retired

Spartaz (talk · contribs) as a result of the above, has invoked the Right to Vanish. This appears to be the second admin today that has retired, along with Shem (talk · contribs) (see seperate discussion on ANI). I'm sorry to see discussions go long this, and I think some should consider what effects their comments may have before they click the "Save page" button as we have lost in the space of 24 hours, two very good-faith administrators. D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. We all need to reflect on this. Wikipedia will work best if the environment is one of respect, understanding and forgiveness rather than one of he-said-she-said and an eye for an eye. If we're all going to survive here, we must create and continue a friendly environment. That means using Wikiquette, Assuming good faith, assuming the presence of a belly-button, being civil, staying cool, avoiding personal attacks, and abiding by an ethic of reciprocity. The Dude abides and so should we. Make others feel welcome, give praise (especially to those you don't know) and forgive. Remember: people grow. Remember: you're not always right - and sometimes you're even wrong. Kingturtle (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agreed. Wanted to add that I believe Spartaz has "retired" in the past as well, and considering what retirement usually means on Wikipedia, I imagine we will see him back shortly. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz has just thrown a hissy fit and gone off in a huff. He'll be back, probably within 48hrs. RMHED (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, let them go. If their emotions got the best of them, we shouldn't stand in their way, and they shouldn't stand in the way of the project either. I, for one, care not for administrators who can't handle criticism, whether it be just or even uncivil. Beam 18:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I take as pulling down the blinds and not answering the door. We're all volunteers here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yet another advocate of limiting non-free content chased off the project. I know it's not a concerted group effort, but there's been so many that have been harassed off the project it's unbelievable. A year from now, maybe less maybe more, the local policies will be changed to liberally allow fair use. There won't be anyone opposing it anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

@RMHED and Beam: Yeah, uh, let's not be unkind to the guy while he's away, alright? If he wants to come back, he will, and that's great. We can't judge him, we can't know what else is going on in his life... he didn't do anything wrong by closing the IFD, his frustration is understandable, and while I think it's clear that he overreacted here, it doesn't cause any harm to anybody else, so leave it be, okay? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make any specific comment towards him or this specific situation. So please don't insinuate I did, okay? Beam 18:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure Spartaz is following this AN thread and probably mightily enjoying all the drama.

People who stalk off huffily usually want attention, those who don't just quietly retire with hardly a murmur. RMHED (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's not clear he over-reacted. In fact, quite the opposite. He could have blown his stack here, and instead he chose not to engage and walk away. That's a *restrained* reaction. The abuse heaped upon people around here is routinely treated as something we're just supposed to take and never have any reaction about. That sort of community culture ignores the fact we're humans. Kudos to Spartaz for recognizing the nature of the people against him and refusing to engage. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So the comment about hindering the project was just placed in this section by coincidence? --Kbdank71 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Any Admin who can't keep their emotions in check, or as they say here have a cup of WP:TEA if need be, have the potential to hinder the project. Want me to put this down in the section below too? Beam 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No need. I was just questioning your statement that you didn't make any specific comment towards him or this specific situation. --Kbdank71 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What a damn shame. Spartz was a great administrator and contributor to the project, and all of the heat above was mostly hot air -- generated as a result of too much drama and a few editors who were wanting someone's head for an issue that could have been handled much better (like, informing Spartz of the issue at hand). Good job guys. seicer | talk | contribs 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope Spartaz comes back. At no time did I question his integrety; I questioned his action. I hope everyone can see that. — Edokter • Talk • 18:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, most admins I know are pushovers for a friendly nudge on the talk page and Spartaz spot on hinted likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I am sad to see him/her go, but as Edokter pointed out, the point of the discussion was to point out an unfortunate, repeated mistake made by two different admins, and their notable reticence to consider the possibility that they were wrong. They both had plenty of opportunity to admit/address/correct those mistakes, but they pointedly chose to not do so. If the choice for this admin was to admit the possibility that they were wrong or retire. I am not sure we are not better off without that particularly inflexible temperament. I know that sounds harsh, but we (meaning the other folk contributing to IfD and DRV) are not potted plants; the points expressed in both reviews were well-founded and polite in pointing out administrative errors in closure. That the mistakes were compounded by precisely the same sort of mistake in shutting down the deletion review is doubly dismissive of both an informed, knowledgeable consensus and the very idea of consensus. None of the arguments - I repeat, none of the arguments in IfD - contradicted NFCC. As well, it was uniformly agreed by a majority of folk (admin and editor with a collective edit count of almost 100k) involved in the DRVs that the closures were performed inappropriately.

Am I disappointed tat Spartaz disappeared. Yes. Yes I am. Do I think that the drama created by that departure should serve to derail the point of the AN/I? I do not. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the wiki didn't stop for Shankbone, and it doesn't stop for Spartaz. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another case of someone attempting to follow the Wikimedia licensing resolution being thrown under the bus. Nice. Kelly ^hi! 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• The machine's gotta be fed. Until every last one of the Foundation's supporters are flattened, the hunger will remain. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh. A bunch of drama whores. If we can't have civil discourse without someone taking the ball and going home, then fuck it all. MessedRocker (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh... My... Goodness...

First, let me note that I voted to "overturn and relist".

But that aside, I will have to support all above who said that the treatment of Spartaz was just this side of a travesty.

Was the closure "wrong"? Shrugs. It was based upon NFCC criteria #1 and #8, both of which would seem to be rather subjective criteria (#8, in particular). And the "subjectivity" of the interpretation was something that was of primary discussion. It would seem to me (though IANAL), that the point of the discussion was indeed to determine whether the image failed #8. And I'll hesitatingly suggest that the "consensus" appeared to be no, it didn't.

That said, it's a question of interpretation. Something every admin does when they close a discussion. We may disagree with the interpretation, we may even start a discussion of some type, somewhere regarding the interpretation. But we should not, must not attack the one making the interpretation.

Note my own comments in the discussion regarding the closer of the IfD. No attack, merely a critique of the interpretation, and a suggestion that I felt that the interpretation was probably biased based on my reading/reasearch of the editor's previous contributions.

That's a far cry from name calling and attacking the editor.

Sigh @ the lack of Wiki-love.

We're here to build an encyclopedia. Not to attack our fellow editors of the encyclopedia needlessly, in which case the enecyclopedia suffers, and thus we all suffer for it.

I'll be happy to join in a discussion concerning the interpretations, should someone wish to point me to an appropriate discussion page (such as the proposal below).

I'd also be interested in what the next plan of action (process/procedure) should be if enough editors disagree with the interpretation. Another DRV? - jc37 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas HTH Mike R (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The harassment of editors on Wikipedia disgusts me. If you want a healthy environment then you have to exemplify a healthy environment. If you want a two-way street, then you have to offer the first step, offer the first hand. There's a pack mentality that's been perpetuated in this community; feels like the Reign of Terror sometimes. Words like hissy fit and huff are only feeding the fire. Call off the dogs. You wonder why it is difficult for people to admit mistakes around here? Well, look at the environment. If you want drama, go be a regular in a Yahoo chatroom. We need Wikipedia to be a place of cooperation, support, understanding and forgiveness. Kingturtle (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would point out that admitting an error early on is what largely reduces the number of pitchforks and flaming torches. Refusing to do so, or failing to admit the possibility of error is what allows it to escalate. Please note that this incident filing didn't happen after the first or even third IfD, or the two subsequent DRV's. It was after both that the matter was finally brought here. I am not saying that the resulting atmosphere is not relatively harsh, but let's not pretend that Nv8200p and Spartaz weren't given loads of opportunity to correct their mistakes early on. They clearly don't think they made any mistakes,a nd aren't bound by what the rest of us feel. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. I opened discussion about this at Spartaz's talk page, and before he had a chance to reply it has escalated to this? This is crazy. What on earth is wrong with people. Hiding T 12:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As did I, but he hadn't responded to me before I was advised of the discussion here. Spartaz instead chose to post his outrage here and stomp out of the room because we questioned his decision. He must have been aware that there would be repercussions after he closed the second far less ambiguous DRV conversation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to address this issue

There is a proposal to move questions of non-free content away from IfD to its own board to facilitate community discussion and consensus - the idea is to keep this war from being fought by individuals on a case-by-case basis, and to attempt to bring some consistency to this extremely hazy issue, and to hopefully prevent retirements of people who attempt to enforce this policy (there have been many). Comments there would be welcome. Kelly ^hi! 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, yes, hazy is putting it mildly. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As I say above, maybe it's good that these people "retire." I don't want to seem callus, but if a person is that emotional they could be hindering the project to begin with. Beam 18:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So it's hindering the project if admins act human? —Kurykh 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• We are Wikipedia. Resistance is futile. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but it's displaying a certain assymetry in the different attitudes towards administrators and non-administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, it is inappropriate for them to pretend their opinion supersedes the rest of us. Humanity and fallibility is okay; ego and inflexibility is not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Foundation policy most emphatically trumps consensus. It's not *his* opinion that trumped consensus. If you think the policy is inflexible and egotistical, take it up with the Foundation. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Assymmetry on what is expected from admins and non-admins, or assymmetry on what is tolerated from admins and non-admins? —Kurykh 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Both. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think Spartaz's close was pulled from "ego" if that's what one had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a counter-proposal: Wikipedia stops using non-free content. (It's a pipe dream, I know.) shoy (reactions) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

An excellent proposal. We could just fight this fight one single time instead of once per non-free image. Kusma (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd support it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That would be splendid, were we to have excellent editors who could go out and take pictures of celebrities. However, editors like Shankbone (talk · contribs) retired as well. We are left with material that is mostly part of the film, artwork, comic book, television episode, documentary, etc. - all copyrighted information. We couldn't even include the Superman logo, as it is a registered trademark. I am not sure how we would o'ercome such a hurdle, but I think the better path is for folk to recognize that such images, used sparingly, benefits everyone - the subject of the copyright, the article content itself and, most importantly, the readers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Hard core (I only said I'd support it, not throw a fit if consensus is elsewhere :) But then, although what I get through my eyes has lots of sway, I'm very much a reader (come to think of it, that comes through my eyes too). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the bye, the film Hollywoodland (film) couldn't show the Superman logo in their plugs, either. Dunno how much it cost them in boxoffice though. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If users' input isn't followed, I think it would seem a mistake to waste people's time by seeking it. Having a situation where people regularly give input and that input is regularly ignored is likely to lead only to conflict and frustration. If the community can't be trusted to make decisions, another process, open only to people who are trusted, would be the better course. I would recommend against a course in which consensus is sought but ends up having only a superficial actual effect. If there are areas in which, due to legal or other external pressures, WP:CONSENSUS has to be merely a tail of Wikipedia rather than a leg on which it stands, better to call a spade a spade and take the bull by the horns. Calling a tail a leg won't make it so, and will only lead to conflict. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CON under Exceptions: Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. Too many people think that consensus in any form supersedes everything else, and that is simply not true. --Kbdank71 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to apply here. Beam 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Counter-counter proposal: "the en-WP guideline for non-free content is that it should be minimized, but only to the extent made necessary by copyright law, in whatever English-speaking country the servers are located in." The foundation policy is the policy, and the project defines the interpretation. Personally, I have always advocated the strict observance of copyright, which I consider to be the full observance of the law, and the full use of the accepted legal exceptions. DGG (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. What we need to do is allow freedom to have fair use, but create an incentive to replace it when possible. I've mentioned before that we could have replaceable fair use in our biographies, but the cost would be to have a notification template at the top of the page to alert and encourage finding a free replacement. The incentive to get rid of the template remains while the punishment to our readers for not having an image is negated. This is what compromise is all about, not screaming foundation resolution and then refusing to budge. We should do what's right for the project, that is maintaining NPOV (by giving all BLPs pictures) and creating high-quality content. As for the decorations argument, I think that is just silliness and should be thrown out all together. If they are truly decorative, then what difference does it make downstream? Those that don't want to redisribute fairuse will just chuck the images and not be worse for the wear. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• "What's right for the project" also encompasses the fact that we're supposed to be a free content encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No chance, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation resolution is stricter than US/Florida copyright laws (it's their playground, it's their rules we are to follow). Plus, "the extent made necessary by copyright law" is extremely vague for US law, because the law itself does not define any numbers, and gives no better advice than what we have now.

The key solution is education - explaining that non-free isn't taboo, but that the goal should be to strive to remove it and keep it at a minimum as much as possible, recognizing that not every page on copyrighted works or elements needs an image. It should not be a hard lesson (beta's complete blanking of images) but it needs to be repeated over and over, constantly asking editors to evaluate their fair use additions. --MASEM 12:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Focal fix (proposed immediate solution)

Per this discsussion, I would humbly propose the following:

1. that both of the DRV images (Image:FotD 007x.jpg, Last of the Time Lords) be overturned and relisted at IfD. This doesn't fix the larger issue, but at least addresses the core effect of the problem.
2. Secondly, I would suggest that we ask Nv8200p to avoid using NFC#8 to close IfD discussions, as it appears to be creating ongoing ongoing concerns (a), at least until we can find a way to deal with this interpretational issue in regards to NFCC. I am not attempting to single out him in this matter (though it was his decisions of preferential interpretation that brought us here); I think that admins should take a lot more care when closing IfD based on NFC#8, up to and possibly including finding a second for such closures/deletions. This redundancy might seem tedious, but it might serve to catch potential problem decisions before they occur.
3. Lastly, the aforementioned issues surrounding NFC#8 need fixing pronto. Admins cannot and should not be compelled to administrate in an vacuum of consensus, and its unfair to expect this of them. This often leads them to make decisions that aren't necessarily in keeping with the best interests of - or reflective of - the community at worst and at best, cause unnecessary time and drama when those decisions (admitted to be based upon a personal interpretation) are questioned at DRV and here. Let's make their difficult and often thanksless jobs a little bit easier and find a single venue for addressing this issue, be it at NFCC, Fair Use or wherever and find a way to avoid these problems for a while. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible. Probably the closest we could hope to get to a mutually agreeable outcome, at least. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how relisting the images and going through the same process yet again will help to solve anything. Obviously, it will just be a repetition of the same arguments and a clash of the same opinions (including those who, like DGG and Dragon695 in the section just above, openly say they are simply against the policy as it currently stands.) I also don't see how shifting the process from IfD to yet another forum would achieve anything, the problems will remain the same. – By the way, it may be worth keeping in mind that, as the policies are currently worded, NFCC#8 actually feeds into WP:CSD #I7b ("fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except criterion 1)"), i.e. admins are formally entitled to delete on #8 grounds even without any community discussion at all. Not saying that this is necessarily a good thing, but that's very clearly what the policies say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel I must point out that thought I think the enWP policy should be changed, I do not argue for keeping individual images on the basis of what I think the policy ought to be;. There would be no point in doing so, since the current policy does at this time have consensus. I never or almost never take admin action involving images at all, but if I did, I would do it according to what is the current accepted policy. DGG (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think (agree?) that I7 is problematic in that it often places the discretion of individual administrators above broader consensus in interpreting the NFCC. Technically it doesn't apply in this context, though, so needn't worry about it -- besides the fact that it wasn't used a reason for deletion (and if it was, DRV could challenge it), the uploader was not notified as I7 requires.

I really see where you're coming from regarding relisting, but what are the other options? We could let the decision stand despite the strong, unambiguous consensus against it, or someone could take it upon themselves to completely reverse the decision of an admin who just departed in very heated circumstances. Perhaps in a utilitarian sense it would be a false compromise, or arguably a show trial -- but it would probably stir the least feelings. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• For me I will now change my opinion and argue that they both be deleted. For me the means must always justify the ends, and in this instance, there is no justification in the manner of this debate for those wishing undeletion to have their way. People cannot scream as loud as they want and be rewarded. It did not work when we were children, it will not work now we are mature adults. Hiding T 12:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the content or context of a decision, those who oppose the decision as it stands will always tend to argue more loudly and be more prone to getting overly emotionally involved. The above approach will at best tend to favour the status quo, and at worst be vulnerable to simple reverse psychology. I think if would be more productive if we concentrate on making the correct decision regardless of who is "screaming" for what. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering all the comments above, understand that a relisting doesn't guarantee the survival of the images at IfD; it simply addresses that the deletion (and deletion review) process was improperly followed. My proposal addresses the idea that we prefer to do things the right way. Not arguing about the value of the images here (as that is a content matter), by relisting, it is a do-over; it allows informed folk from both sides of the discussion to actually weigh in this time (there were only four votes in the first IfD and less than a dozen in the second - I imagine that number would be higher this time around). The resulting decision would actually represent a better view of from the community and more reflective of a proper interpretation of policy. In all fairness, it might serve as the focal point of the discussion needing to take place. Histrionics aside, i think we can make the right decisions without the ambiguity of a single admin making a personal call. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by former user Spartaz

I wasn't planning to make any further comment on this or any other matter but given the speculation and assumptions made for my reason for quitting I feel further explanation is in order. Interesting that those most guilty of making false assumptions without any evidential basis for them are those most responsible for my quitting. There has been a suggestion that I quit in a huff because some users had the temerity to take me to an admin noticeboard and I was going to get over-ruled. What crap. Anyone who can be bothered to go through my contribs knows that I have been reversed, admonished and trout-slapped on more occasions then I can remember but that I have rarely taken umbrage or offence from the process. I hold the record for the quickest admin RFC after promotion - 1 week because users objected to my unblocking D.M.N. - ironically the best admin decision I have ever made. I have long held the view that a good admin must learn from mistakes and take criticism on the chin.

The truth is that the hysterical and immature behaviour of many participants in this flash mob acted as a catalyst to make me realise that I no longer wanted to be associated with a project that allows participants to be vilified and tarred and feathered for the thoughtcrime of not agreeing with other users. If I want a childish temper tantrum I'll ask my 7 year old. The sad thing is that he is capable of a less hysterical and more emotionally mature responses to disappointment then many of the much older participants here - yes that is you I'm talking to Sceptre and Arcayne - and I'm really too old to put up with this any more. I didn't resign because I was brought here. I didn't quit because many users disagreed with my close (I refer everyone to GRBerry's masterful analysis of my close - i,e. I may have got it wrong against a mean of decision making but the close was within a reasonable range of decisions). I didn't quit for any reason that has been suggested above. I quit because too many users of this project behave worse then my 7 year old and I can't be bothered to put up with it any more. A private reason that surely is enough that users can respect and perhaps leave me in peace and not drag my name further in the mud to achieve their own aims. I was going to post this at Wikipedia Review in response to Sceptre's stupid post there but they wouldn't let me register with a gmail account and no way am I giving those reprobates my real e-mail address that links to my RL identity. Can some shut down the discussion and let this die? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dante and Galante

Resolved

I would really like an admin to resolve the speedy deletion requested for Dante and Galante, it's a source for different users and IPs to spam, without any real content added. It makes it harder to fight vandalism as every 5th edit or so in Huggle is one on this page. If deleted, please add create protection. But first, please someone decide about the request... --SoWhy ^Talk 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted under WP:CSD#G12. Page temporarily semi-protected while deleted due to the levels of WP:BLP violations by new editors while it existed. My research didn't make it clear that an article on them could survive AFD, but there is enough out there for an experienced editor to write a new article surviving speedy deletion. GRBerry 21:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GA appears to be out of control

After using GA successfully in the distant past I pretty much gave up on it about a year ago due to growing concern about the cliquish nature of the project and the ever-reducing delta between GAC and FAC. Combined with a process that was growing increasingly bureaucratic and frustrating to use, I decided that my time was better spent going straight to FA, which required about the same workload but almost always resulted in a better article in the end. It's not like I use either process very much, but my recent FA seemed downright fun, and the same could not be said of my previous GA's.

Last night I was following links around articles I had worked on long ago, when I noticed that one former GA was delisted. That doesn't bother me, of itself, but what did bother me was that there was absolutely no trace of any sort of review. As I studied the edits, it became clear that there was no review, and the article had been delisted without any effort to either address the problems or try to get someone else to do so. Given the time it takes to be listed, it's simply not acceptable, IMHO, that a delist can take zero time and effort. There are mechanisms in place to prevent this sort of asymmetry, things like GAR. However, it appears that these mechanisms were being ignored.

Following one of the links I ended up on this page, which quickly revealed what was going on; a small group of editors have proclaimed themselves the "Project Quality Task Force", and went around delisting articles based on their own personal opinion, only notifying the article talk page after the fact. They called this "the sweeps". I cannot find any discussion on any of the mainstream notice boards, like this one, that this process was going to start, nor any hint of efforts on the part of the PQTF to bring in anyone that wasn't already part of the seemingly tight-knit group. When I complained, heatedly, about what I saw as an abuse of the system and an anathema of the entire "wiki way", I received non-answers, statements to the effect that "that's the way it is, so tough". This message is particularly amusing. Nor was I the only one complaining about this, and the complaints are pretty much all about the same thing.

I find it worrying that the same group of people are both making the rules, enforcing them, and dismissing any dissenting views. To my eyes it looks like a clique that has been allowed to log-rolling themselves into this position. I am curious to know if this bothers other administrators, or am I the only one?

Maury (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It does sound concerning, but this is really the wrong place to raise it. A request for comment tag and/or Village Pump notice to attract people to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles would be a better idea. Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: Sweeps essentially function as slow-moving second opinion and quality control. Ideally, reviewers should note why they are delisting, but they are under no impetus to wait for improvements if they are serious problems (half the articles I waitlisted never recieved any attention.) I suggest you bring this up at the Sweeps page as a reminder to those participating to be more thorough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, and the group of people in question all told me I was being unreasonable to expect them to draw in editors to improve the articles rather than just delist them. I don't think it's unreasonable. And I don't think I'm being unreasonable to expect some sort of basic level of effort. Maury (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What administrator-specific action are you requesting? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

While playing around...

Resolved

 – Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

...I came across this. Why it didn't come up with

The action you have requested is limited to the group Administrators.

Return to the Main Page.

(The external link is a screenshot of what I see on that page. I used a screenshot because any admins clicking on Special:BlockIP/J.delanoy would not (likely) see the same thing that I see). J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh. I see the same thing. I think a thread at the Village Pump may be necessary... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can block you. Shall I? Viridae^Talk 02:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's only when Mediawiki:Badaccess-group1 shows up (only does for non-admins)--> apparently a dev changed the way Mediawiki: messages were parsed without testing it, and that completely messed up that particular message. MZMcBride fixed it, I think. See the Village Pump for details. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Threatening edit

Resolved

 – RBI, Tiptoety ^talk 03:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just rolled back [12] this edit. I blocked the IP for 31 hours. Not sure if there's anything else we typically do in cases like that. Joyous! | Talk 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I say RBI. Standard empty rhetoric. —Kurykh 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I undersand this user tends to be the center of attacks like this, WP:RBI is the best way to go. Tiptoety ^talk 03:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Death_threats_made_against_user_by_IPs_in_the_Sandbox. Since they are changing their IP every 5 minutes, I protected the sandbox for 3 hours, if someone can remember to set the move protection back to sysop when it expires, that would be great. –xenocidic (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just for the future, it is better to set the the length to indef and have someone come back in 3 hours or so to change the protection back down. Tiptoety ^talk 02:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point - I'll keep that in mind (especially because the sandbox got haggered????). They should add the ability to "fall back" to a prior, lesser protection level when a higher protection level expires. –xenocidic (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
      • That has been discussed for a while now, yet it never happens. Tiptoety ^talk 02:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fix proposal -the sequel

Before Spartaz took his parting shot and MzMcBride quickly archived it less than five minutes later, I had made a request for a surgical fix of the problem that had yet to be addressed and perhaps implemented. I am fine with letting Spartaz retire in anonymity; we can do that while still fixing the problem posed by the errors created at IfD and DRV. I had proposed the following:

1. that both of the DRV images (Image:FotD 007x.jpg, Last of the Time Lords) be overturned and relisted at IfD. This doesn't fix the larger issue, but at least addresses the core effect of the problem.
2. Secondly, I would suggest that we ask Nv8200p to avoid using NFC#8 to close IfD discussions, as it appears to be creating ongoing ongoing concerns (a), at least until we can find a way to deal with this interpretational issue in regards to NFCC. I am not attempting to single out him in this matter (though it was his decisions of preferential interpretation that brought us here); I think that admins should take a lot more care when closing IfD based on NFC#8, up to and possibly including finding a second for such closures/deletions. This redundancy might seem tedious, but it might serve to catch potential problem decisions before they occur.
3. Lastly, the aforementioned issues surrounding NFC#8 need fixing pronto. Admins cannot and should not be compelled to administrate in an vacuum of consensus, and its unfair to expect this of them. This often leads them to make decisions that aren't necessarily in keeping with the best interests of - or reflective of - the community at worst and at best, cause unnecessary time and drama when those decisions (admitted to be based upon a personal interpretation) are questioned at DRV and here. Let's make their difficult and often thanksless jobs a little bit easier and find a single venue for addressing this issue, be it at NFCC, Fair Use or wherever and find a way to avoid these problems for a while.

Relisting these images allows for a normal closure to occur, one way or the other (and believe me, I don't care how it ends up, so long as it is done correctly), and corrects the problem that cost us an admin and lots of time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nocover.jpg

WIth Image:Nocover.jpg, it's marked as a "non-free" image (although I'm not even sure about that). It has no non-free use rationale and seems to have never had one. It is used in dozens of articles. I'd fix it myself, but the page can only be edited by administrators. Thanks, Cavenba (talk • contribs) 03:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Its actually a free image. The nonfree bt refers to a different image that used that name. Viridae^Talk 04:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Now it lacks a licence. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the license, both the original uploader and the subsequent uploader tagged it as a non-free image they were uploading, without substantial authority that it is indeed a free image, their assertion that it is non-free should control (one of them could own the copyright for instance), might be worth taking it to IFD or uploading an entirely new image under a free license. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That image has been on WP for years under another name. The licensing that exists atm is useless as it refers to an actual album cover - which that is not. Viridae^Talk 05:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the current image has an invalid fair use tag, I've deleted it per WP:CSD#I7. It was not a "cover of an audio recording" which {{Non-free album cover}} covers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Where the hell is the original though? Viridae^Talk 05:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Did we have an image prior to September 30, 2007?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Namely this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats the one I was thinking of. Viridae^Talk 06:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a vandal

User:CalendarWatcher is picking on me. He is calling me a vandal for absolutely no reason at all. All I did was go to the page 2007 and insert an event. That's it. The event I put in was that an anonymous user on Wikipedia edited the page Sinbad (actor) and made it say that he died of a heart attack. I even stated that the claim was not true. I don't see anything wrong with what I did. Footballfan190 (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this counts as a notable event, but it's not completely unthinkable. It generated a fair amount of press at the time, and it has its own section in the Sinbad article. Definitely not vandalism. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What it was, was so ludicrously trivial--not to mention navel-gazing--that whether to call it 'vandalism' was a judgement call. That judgement was helped by the message just above mine on his user-talk page, a vandalism warning for this edit.

You'll also note that I'm not the editor who immediately reversed that 2007 edit [13]. And thank you for the notification--oh wait, you didn't, User:Bongwarrior did. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, this is really nothing big. Footballfan, in the future you should cite sources whenever you add any content that has anything to do with a living person. Because personally, I'd have reverted it as well. In the future, simply talking to the person who warned you and remaining patient and civil and calm usually clears this stuff up. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

my article was going to be deleted?

Resolved

 – blocked indef as vandalism-only account since he now thinks he's Grawp --Rodhullandemu 11:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

i took the notice off the article, Omar Williams. thanks and make sure this doesn't happen again.--Omarwilliams (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, do you have any reliable sources with which to assert your notability? Please also see our conflict of interest guideline. —Giggy 11:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

excuse me but how is the internet movie database not reliable? this is the problem with wikipedia.--Omarwilliams (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Because IMDb is updated by volunteers, in a similar way to WP, it is not considered reliable. Do you have any reliable, secondary sources to verify your notability? Newspapers, books, etc. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not reliable because anyone can add information to it. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - IMDB lacks this in general. Newspapers and reputable websites in the industry are a good place to start. —Giggy 11:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a record for AFD followed directly by DB-BIO application?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted per WP:CSD#A7 & Wikipedia:BIO#Pornographic_actors --Rodhullandemu 11:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And now he's grawping it up (and blocked - good work Rod). Meh, I tried. —Giggy 11:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Official Myspace Links on Wiki

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to beg you to take an official stance and decision concerning linking Official Myspace in Wikipedia. Various artists like Coldplay, Korn, Gackt etc. have an Official Site link and one or multiple Official Myspace links here. What I personally absolutely agree to. Because it enriches the article by giving people the chance to listen for free to this artist's songs.

But we are having a heavy dispute here on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeyto artist's wikipedia and we don't seem to agree on the Myspace linking.

Please allow me to copy and paste here few of other editors arguments to this linking:

__________
Wikipedia has Template:MySpace for adding links to MySpace, suggesting to me that links to MySpace have their place.

"WP:LINKSTOAVOID" tells us that:

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: [...] # Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace) [...]

WP:EL has been invoked. The page has at least three things to say that seem directly relevant. These are (in my numbering):

1. What should be linked / 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
2. Links to be considered / 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
3. Links normally to be avoided / Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: / 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

The first says nothing about additional "official" sites. The second seems to me to invite inclusion of a link to this Myspace page. The third seems to me to invite it: the disqualification of Myspace pages has an exception for "an official page of the article subject" (my emphasis).

Have I overlooked something here? -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1. 1 is intended to be the sole exception to our general restriction against linking to non-reliable sources, since the subject's own official site is bound to be a nest of POV and COI violations. It permits linking to "the" official site. That to me does not constitute license to link to a raft of additional "official sites". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed the first clause talks of the official site, singular; but it does not go further and explicitly say that the official site should be limited to one. The second one seems to allow a site such as this. The third rules out Myspace except for a site such as this. There's been no suggestion that I recall of linking to any "raft" of additional "official sites"; the question is of whether to link to a single additional page. I'm about equally puzzled by the determination of one user to add this and by that of the other party to remove it. The more I think about it, the more I think it should stay: even if it's short on factual information, its idiosyncratic design esthetic says a lot about its subject. (Still, as it is after all linked from the official official site, its deletion hardly matters.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

_____________

I would like to inform you that I am still a newbie so please don't blame me if this discussion doesn't belong here or if i am not suposed to copy and paste dispute fragments here.

I just want you the ones that have more authority and power of decision to clarify the WP:EL issue, to write a better text that describes what is allowed and what not and if indeed linking Official Myspace is forbidden, then please proceed to take it down from ALL sites of the likes of Coldplay, Korn, Gackt and hundreds more, you can maybe create a BOT that does it automatically.

On the other hand, if you all agree that linking Official Myspace is OK, then I would like to ask you to re-add the link at this artist's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeyto and to prevent such wars in future. Thank you so much, Tsurugaoka (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see my comments regurgitated above. I don't mind this, but I do think that my (and others') comments are easier to understand in their original formatting, so urge anyone who's interested to head over to Talk:Adeyto. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll have a hard time getting administrators to make a proclamation on your dispute, since that's not really their thing. You're looking for dispute resolution down the hall. HiDrNick! 11:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your suggestion and I understand what you say. I was pondering to go down the dispute resolution road but on the other hand, it's not my personal dispute but I request a clarification of Wikipedia rules what could benefit to a large amount of sites out there and avoid future wars.Tsurugaoka (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you bring this up at WT:EL; you have a very good point and it is something worth discussing, but it does not require the attention of administrators specifically. Skomorokh 14:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for large-scale edit

This is a request for large-scale edit that require administrative abilities. The article Van Resistance has been in a very poor condition. The poor condition of the article was accepted, including an injection of fork of Persian massacres [to this article] by User:Meowy and also by user user:Hakob with [this remark]. The article is WP:OWN by couple editors, who work coordinated edits to keep the article as it is. One of them is a user Special:Contributions/67.49.46.213 which administrator confirmed that [is a banned user] who also creates temporary accounts (User:Artaxiadisaloser) to inject his position. Since the page protection, I have been working on the article at my own user space to bring the presentation to an encyclopedic quality and remove clearly objectionable from Neutral point of view and Verifiability issues. I included the argued perspectives that were [stated at the talk page]. The most active objection regarding the two issues Talk:Van_Resistance#Wikipedia:Third_opinion:_The_infobox_is_inaccurate and Talk:Van_Resistance#Wikipedia:Third_opinion:_The_LEAD_section_is_inaccurate presented to the third person. I applied to Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance and finally a week ago asked for Talk:Van_Resistance#Protected_edit_request at the articles talk page. For the last seven days, there is no objection regarding the my proposal to replace the article with User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance. The current version is clearly objectionable by many users. There will be continuous editorial interest even to the version User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance. I 'm asking the replacement of the current text with User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance and as the "clear" objections voiced (stated as this paragraph is missing or this paragraph should be rewrite in this form) by the interested editors, we can continue to perform editorial improvements step by step. The version User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance has improved encyclopedic quality with clearly formatted citations to improve verifiability than the current version. Thanks for your help. --Seemsclose (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No admin assistance is needed here. The page is protected due to edit warring. You must wait until consensus about the article's content is reached on the article talk page, and then you may make an {{editprotected}} request on that talk page. Alternatively, you may request unprotection at WP:RPP if you think the protection is not necessary any longer.  Sandstein  17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked the admin that protected the page to change it to semi-protection. For the "if you think the protection is not necessary," there is no opposition pointed for the request stated at the thread Talk:Van_Resistance#Protected_edit_request for the last seven days, which should be enough time to prove that the page protection should not be necessary. Thanks for your help. --Seemsclose (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One clarification, it has not been accepted that the current article is "in a very poor condition", and I actually think the article will be in a poorer condition if the Seemsclose version were to replace entirely the current version. There are continued objections to the Seemsclose version - though I have grown tired of actively opposing it, all my objections remain. Moreover, I never went as far as detailing my objections to the body of the article he has been working on in his talk page. I had restricted my remarks to the lead section because only the lead section had been changed in the actual article. Meowy 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

86.134.54.54

Resolved

 – block expired

• 86.134.54.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Relevant discussion at their talk page; I'll avoid reproducing that here, in favor of directing users to review the situation at their own discretion. In short, relations with a new user got off on the wrong foot when they were accused of vandalism, they felt bitten and became combative, and now they're blocked. While they were quite upset, at first, they've calmed down after some discussion and I think and unblock should be considered. Trouble is, the blocking admin seems to have been offline for several hours, and I'd prefer to avoid a unilateral action, here. Bringing it here for review and hopefully consensus. Thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits at Begging the question doesn't seem to be vandalism although I'm not sure if it was really necessary to change the content since it basically means the same. I agree though there shouldn't have been warned that many times for vandalism. However, the block is set to be expired just over 30 minutes, so basically an action will not really make a difference now.

A question also:are Huggle users using other warning message types then just for vandalism/non constructive edits (i.e is there some less tough warning like for test edits, accidental blanking or unsourced content additions? I have not used that software yet although I've noticed some issues with this. JForget 23:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure as far as Huggle. Block is now expired, so will mark the thread resolved for the time being. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Huggle can give other warnings but the default warning is the {{uw-huggle1}} --Chris 04:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Huggle can do warnings for tests, spam, BLP, unsourced, etc., but most people don't use them, unfortunately. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I have attempted to install Huggle (given many admins and other users added it) but for some reason it did not work, an error box popped out. Although I have enough tools (Twinkle, popups and the standard rollback) for now even though they are slower then Huggle. --JForget 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential copyright issue for /all/ images on Trafalgar Square

I choose to post here, as this could potentially prohibit any licensing which allows commercial use of an image which was taken in Trafalgar Square, London. Obviously, this could ruin the article a little.

A Greater London Authority byelaw publication explicitly states:

Acts within the Squares for which written permission is required

5. / [...] /

(11) take photographs or any other recordings of visual images for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body or persons, whether corporate or unincorporate;

Now, there's obviously no problem in licensing any image such that it can't be used commercially (but this is prohibited in Wikipedia). But I wonder if a commercial licence is used, is it valid (or legal)? Or, is the licensing legal despite the explicit (or implicit) allowance of commercial use, but it only illegal to actually use it commercially. If the latter is the case, then no need to panic, but it might be worth noting it on image descriptions. Ian¹³/t 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The person isn't really connected with a business so shouldn't be a problem.Geni 23:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a copyright issue, as far as I can tell. Just a local regulation requiring a permit to produce a photograph, but imposing no restriction on the use or licencing of photos. (I don't think the city of London would even be authorised to legislate restrictions on copyright, at any rate.) If someone shoots a photo in violation of that regulation, he may be subject to a fine or whatever, but not Wikipedia - the copyright status of the image is unaffected.  Sandstein  23:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not restricting photographs of the square, but rather photography within the square. The purpose of these ordinances is almost invariably to prevent the traffic disruption that comes from someone setting up their rig for a professional photo shoot. --Carnildo (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not a copyvio; all these photos show permanent structures so are exempt from copyright under Section 62 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 ("it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public"). – iridescent 23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The best place to raise these issues is at media copyright questions, actually. While I normally feel that restrictions on image licensing within a particular property are problematic for our free image policy, this is different as a) we're not talking private property here and b) if you read carefully, this is directed at any photographs whose original purpose is commercial use, not a subsequent reuse. As noted the GLA cannot impose restrictions on an author's copyright. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, byelaws are legally binding, and it is a criminal offence to break them (i.e. street drinking zones). Ian¹³/t 16:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Trafalgar Square images do not pose a usage problem for Wikipedia. (1) It's a conduct regulation, not a copyright regulation. The resulting image is not "tainted" for copyright or usage reasons; (2) In media usage, Wikipedia generally follows U.S. law, and some international agreements and conventions, but not the specific law of local jurisdictions outside the U.S. (If we did the latter, hundreds or thousands of images would be "illegal", since many jurisdictions have broad regulations prohibiting photography of airports, rail stations, military bases, government buildings, and "sensitive" sites, not to mention nude persons, genitals, etc.) --MCB (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur - not a copyright issue. Copyright refers to ownership of the intellectual property, not the conduct of the person who took the photo. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Other thoughts on User talk:74.13.44.75 please

I'd blocked 74.13.44.75 earlier for racially-based harassment at User talk:Avruch; it's a recurrent problem for Avruch, starting with a named account and continuing on now through several IPs. After blocking this account, he returned under 74.13.31.228 and continued the harassment on my user page and that of another editor, and I blocked this one. The original IP now has taken to adding the inappropriate content on its talk page, and has an unblock message up. Would someone be so kind as to review the unblock request and carry out whatever activity is appropriate? I am very hesitant to suggest a range block here, as this ISP is notoriously dynamic and we have a lot of editors who use it. Risker (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Reverted bad faith personal-attack unblock request, talk page protected for duration of block. –xenocidic (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review request: User:Ilhanli

Resolved

 – Indef Block endorsed. Beam 00:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This morning, the oversight list received a request to remove the "outing" of an an editor's IP (and geolocation). Upon investigation, it turned out that an anonymous editor had put a link to an external site set up for the purpose of capturing the user's IP; the anonymous editor then posted those results on the user's talk page. After oversighting both the nasty link and the information, and blocking the IP, and then oversighting the IP's talk page and protecting it for the same offense, I investigated a bit further, and discovered that it was Ilhanli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) operating under cloak of anonymity. I consider this sort of invasion of privacy intolerable, and have indefinitely blocked User:Ilhanli. Comments are welcomed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse That sort of behavior is unequivocally wrong, and using a sock to do it is even worse, good block. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• It certainly seems appropriate. Just as an fyi, Ilhanli has requested to be unblocked. -- Natalya 20:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Very inappropriate. I turned down his unblock request. He claims it was a friend playing a joke. I'm not convinced and said he'd have to provide more info. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Good detective work. _{1 != 2} 21:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• That is extremely problematic behavior, block seems good in this case. The "it wasn't me, it was a friend" excuse is a common unblock request reason for vandalism, but seems entirely implausible in this case. Mr.Z-man 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the block: very good work Jpgordon. seicer | talk | contribs 21:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Plausibility of the "my friend did it" excuse could probably be assessed by checking if the attack was directed specifically against a fellow editor who Ilhanli was in a dispute with. I suppose that was the case? In that case, it would be hard to believe that this should have been a spontaneous action of some random "friend"; it takes considerable effort, time and determination to set up such a trap. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess I found the context. Yeah, seems a clear-cut case. Obviously acted on the basis of a political agenda. Good block, especially under those circumstandes, needless to say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block. It should not matter whether a friend did it or not; you take responsibility for your account and everything that happens with the account. —Kurykh 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Block was appropriate Gary King (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - good call. His actions were grossly inappropriate. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse such behaviour does indeed warrant a block like this. I see the block as certainly appropriate. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Inappropriate conduct, resonant and effective block. Good. Rudget (logs) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Beam 00:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mott (live oak)

There was an AfD to transwiki Mott (live oak) to Wiktionary. The AfD apparently led to the transwiki, but a prod to remove the article now that the tranwsiki has been done was removed. Could somebody check that the transwiki was done, then please remove the article? Corvus cornix_talk 04:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There's something on the English Wictionary but not much. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any sign that it went through transwiki at Wiktionary's transwiki log (or the completed log. I'm not familiar enough with the process to guarantee that it didn't, though, just because I don't see it there. Transwiki to wiktionary is not the simple process it was when the transwiki bot worked. And now that I'm looking at that process, I'm thinking my next project may be to take care of some of that backlog at Category:Copy to Wiktionary manually. Not today, though! I got chores! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is simply a regional synonym for "grove of trees", it should be merged/redirected to Grove (nature). — CharlotteWebb 16:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User threatening off-wiki attacks

Resolved

 – No attack threatened, anon blocked for open proxy by User:Ryulong. Beam 01:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Fyslee has threatened another user with off wiki attacks here. [14] He warned him that editing here "can also have unfortunate consequences for yourself in real life." 62.193.196.219 (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I see. You seem to be taking things out of context.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Ryulong, it seems as though Fyslee was simply raising the same points made at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. Vassyana (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How absurd and cowardly, anonymous IP. You have failed to AGF, a fundamental policy here. You could have asked, or at least have read my reply and at the least quoted me correctly. The other comments on the page will make it clear what the situation was. Enric Naval understood perfectly because he AGF. Oh what a tangle web we weave when we fail to AGF. -- Fyslee / talk 22:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone advises me to be careful when walking home because people have been known to be attacked, I can take that either as advice or as a threat. If I know the person has a history of violent assault then I might veer towards the latter. I note from the page where you posted your comments that others have viewed them in the same way I did. 62.193.196.219 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't free you from the obligation to AGF. Colonel Warden wasn't doing that, and even then, there was nothing in his comment that could lead any reasonable person to jump to the conclusions you have. Another piece of good advice for you - don't get involved in other people's squabbles, especially when you don't even know them. -- Fyslee / talk 22:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This IP belongs to a French web hosting company. I've blocked it as an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It is probably the same person as the other IP who attacked myself and Phil Knight on Dr Polich's user page. -- Fyslee / talk 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Something strange: User-page impersonation

Resolved

 – gone

User:Lawinformationhelper has, for some unknown reason, created an account as of 13 July 2008 and copied my user page word-for-word. I am very unhappy about this, as I suspect this user is attempting to impersonate me. I am a longtime registered user on here with no record of blocks or other misconduct, and I would greatly appreciate your efforts in remedying this situation. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted per a broad interpretation of Wikipedia:UP#What may I not have on my user page?, Section 5. Advice left on user's talk page. --Rodhullandemu 01:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:IndexPiece

When a brand new user's first edits are to nominate an established article on a notable subject for deletion, said user tends to set off alarm bells in my head. It concerned me enough to make me want to bring attention to it here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems relatively benign to me, a bit suspicious but, there is no evidence of any sockpuppetry, the users seems to be ignorant of the deletion policy and is the only one arguing for deletion. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 08:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say "benign", but there are only 3 edits to this account - all regarding the (failed) AfD - and it remains to be seen if there is going to be any further contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. As a consequence of editor conduct and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground, Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Drive-by" tagging

For some time now an anon user has been adding unnecessary maintenance tags to numerous articles. The IP address always starts 88.105. and the tags added are typically {{worldwide}} (even if the article is about an obscure station in Wales, for example) and {{refimprove}} (even if the article has lots of references, for example), though sometimes other tags have been introduced as well. Lately, tags have been added to article talk pages as well requesting photographs for articles on cryptography algorithms, for example. For a recent example of the kind of editing activity, see the contribution for 88.105.18.21. On rare occasions, the anon has something worthwhile to say, but seems to spend much of his editing effort simply wasting the time of other editors. I also believe the anon is closely linked to (or maybe is the same person) as registered user Shin-chan01 (talk · contribs), though that user name has not edited for several months now. Is there an easy way to review the edits by all 88.105.*.* or can the Admins do something about this disruptive editing? Astronaut (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

See WikiImp. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of those taggings seem a bit over the top, but others seem perfectly legitimate. There is one gadget to allow contribs searches by IP range, though it's unfortunately not sorted by date. I'm aware of at least one project on Toolserver which searches contribs by IP range, but it's currently disabled for this wiki. Given it's a dynamic IP, there's not any easy avenue, here. Discussion with the user is likely to happen only if they frequent the same pages repeatedly, or if you can catch them while they're active. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the weird thing - sometimes it seems legitimate. But most of the time it appears to be "let's just add my current standard set of tags because they're not there" whether or not the tagging is necessary - a policy which seems to demolish my faith that the anon knows or even cares what they are doing, or that he's even read the article/talk page. Luckily, since he only seems to visit every few days, I'll try to keep an eye on it and revert where if feel he's going overboard and if I catch him in the act, I'll drop a message on his IP talk page). Astronaut (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ip block exempt

Please tell me if im in the wrong place.
I created a alternative Public account. Can you give it IPblock exempt. it is User:Electrical Experiment Public
Thankyou,ElectricalExperiment 01:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This one Electrical ExperimentPublic 01:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular problem with IP blocks you are having right now? The IP-block-exempt userright has historically been given out rather conservatively and the admins are unlikely to grant this request just because you might run into future trouble. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK ElectricalGone Public 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please give a reason for needing IPblock-exempt, and please tone down your sig. —Giggy 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The IPblock-exempt policy states that it should only be granted when your normal editing is disrupted by several blocks. Unless you can show that this is the case, (and since your account is brand new, you're going to have a very difficult time doing so), the flag will not be granted. Even to those users who are given the flag, it is supposed to be removed as soon as it is no longer needed, for example, when a problematic range block expires. For reference, there are currently only 51 users with IP exemption, at least 6 of which are bots, and one an administrator (who carries the permission by default, not sure why it's on there). Once you run into difficulty, come back and we'll consider. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 04:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the administrator have the IP-exempt on his/her main account or the alternative account? If it's on the main account then that's really weird. But if it's on the alternative account then that's fine. Maybe the admin does not want to use his account (with administrative rights) on a public computer yet that computer is in an IP range block. This explanation is justifiable OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tawker, on his main account. —Giggy 08:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very probably just testing. Lots of admins also granted themselves rollback or account-creator when that was activated, mainly to have a play with the interface. Neıl ☄ 11:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no stipulation at WP:WIAFA that an article can't be featured without an image. Raul ran the TFA without an image;[15] the image was later added by User:Lid.[16] Arcayne, did you alert Lid (talk · contribs) to this topic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Is this fair use image thing in the MainSpace something that should be discussed? I've started discussions on the subject at TFA/R([17]) and Talk:TFA([18]) There was no intent to forum shop, as Xeno suggested in Alison's talk page; I have never encountered this sort of problem, and I am aware that some folk simply don't like my way of doing things, so I figured I'd get a lot of input and not waste everyone's time once I found the right venue. Sorry for any confusion or Machiavellian suspicions my requests might have engendered. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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