THC Science

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

(Initiated 112 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 86 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 67 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard~~/Archive 439~~. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 60 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 50 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—S Marshall T/C 12:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 46 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—S Marshall T/C 10:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 37 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 33 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

(Initiated 32 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	8	17	5	30
TfD	0	14	1	15
MfD	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	2	0	2
RfD	1	20	3	24
AfD	0	0	5	5

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

(Initiated 69 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 67 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 64 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 62 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

(Initiated 62 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 58 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 57 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

(Initiated 56 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Thryduulf. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 55 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

(Initiated 53 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 52 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 46 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

(Initiated 46 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 44 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 44 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

(Initiated 43 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 42 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 40 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 34 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 82 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 54 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Merge proposal

(Initiated 10 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, discussion is still ongoing for both discussions on that page, and clearly not appropriate for a speedy close at this time. There isn't a clear consensus for either discussion, so no harm letting the RM run for a bit and revisiting both discussions in light of that. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Brian Kendig. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

(Initiated 6 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Please see the recent history and the article's talk page, over this pot issue. I have extended full protection of the article for three days) because I think this pot thing is not OK, and this needs to be hammered out instead of being warred over. One editor claims (I think) that I'm way too involved to do this--well, my involvement is more with WP:BDP than with anything else, I think. I'll leave that for wiser editors than I; feel free to scrutinize my involvement and my decision to protect. I'm off for a little while: I don't mind being overruled, so if you think I'm totally in the wrong (or three days is too long), you don't have to ask me for my opinion--but I hope you'll overrule with some kind of consensus (the subject matter is important enough). Happy days, Drmies (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support Drmies's bold use of the admin tools with respect to WP:BLP. Taking corrective action like this and then highlighting the actions for community review are precisely the right things to do in this case IMHO. I think the protection should be removed as soon as the edit warring is clearly over (whether through discussion at BLPN or the article talk page) which given the swiftly changing nature of the subject hopefully will be in less than 3 days. VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor drmies mentioned above. I think he is not uninvolved, as he edited the article to remove the information, and was discussing the removal on the talk page. His change was reverted, then he locked the page. I _do not_ think his action raise to any level requiring any kind of penalty/punishment/wrist-slap etc. I do think that his changes should be reverted and if needed acted on by an uninvolved editor (sigh, IAR). BLP does not apply, the subject is dead, and the information was released by his parents, so BDP also does not apply. INformation is EXCEPTIONALLY well sourced (12k-40k gnews hits depending on how you search). ongoing posts and BLP and RPP. Significant kudos to drmies for reporting himself, an example of good honest conduct for us all to follow. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree - there's been a lot of edit warring regarding whether we view this as a biography or an article about a news event and subsequent editing that supports one view or the other. I generally don't favor it, but in this case short-term full protection will give some breathing room, and one hopes the subsequent admin oversight will help to adjudicate the differences in opinions about what goes in and what does not. This is a high profile article, and needs some help. Tvoz/talk 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement about the way the article is focused has nothing to do with the reason it was protected. Further, while there was some minor edit warring going on, it was dwarfed by the amount of productive edits happening, which the protection prevents. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin, on your last point, the prevention of productive edits, I couldn't agree more with you, and I hate full protection. Who knows, maybe in the next couple of hours, when all the admins come back from cocktail hour, you'll get your wish. In the meantime: cheers. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This case centers on the actions taken the night Trayvon was shot, but it has morphed into a larger 'event', if you will, than just an isolated case of someone being shot. This has a national dimension now, with implications for how we proceed as a society with discussions of race and how we deal with others. Such a discussion naturally brings up more about the background of the various players, and as such it becomes hard to decide how to deal with that content. As is often the case with these high profile articles, these things will get sorted as time goes on, but we need to be aware how our coverage of things affects people's perceptions of the two primary faces in this story. The media, as usual, is not being cautious, often showing a very youthful Trayvon photo alongside a booking photo of George. And as a result of this, we see people wanting to take the law into their own hand. How do you counter bias once it has a foothold? I'm not entirely sure. But if we have reliable sources for the good and the bad, we need to try and write as unbiased an article as we can. This is a terrible situation where we really have no positive outcomes, and the best we can hope for is just a little less bad. -- Avanu (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Avanu, I agree - and that is one of the reasons I have been urging that we abandon the "infobox person"s and switch back to the "infobox news event" or one of the other event infoboxes, which would not include the possibly POV pictures. Same reason I changed the first sentence - the article is about an event, not about the individuals. I'd like some backup on this. Tvoz/talk 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point to share with User:Gaijin42, without commenting on this specific case. We don't drop BLP concerns about a person 1 second after their last breath. They still have a family and community, and immediately after their death they have generally been provided the same protection as we would a BLP from improperly weighted, negative material. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin used powers in content dispute (Comments from WP:ANI)

I moved the following content from the "Admin used powers in content dispute" section of WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Shooting of Trayvon Martin, it seems that Drmies used admin tools to advance his/her position in a content dispute by first protecting the page and then changing to his/her preferred version.[1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I do think drmies qualifies as "involved" for the purpose of this discussion, I do not think his action rise to the level of needing ANI. There are several discussions ongoing of this issue in different venues. I think it was inappropriate of him to fully protect, and it should be unprotected, but no further action should be taken against drmies. He self reported himself to the AN post as well, which is further show of good faith on his part.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss these matters here, since they were brought up here before the other thread got started. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin, Please note that after Drmies protected the page, Drmies changed the page to his/her preferred version using admin powers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest his edit be reverted and the full protection be left on. After all, them's the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant if the changes he made were in accordance with WP:BDP (BLP), imo. BDP and BLP are far more important, and I don't see that as admin abuse. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call by Drmies. In this context it is necessary to be conservative in what we include in the article. We cannot at this moment verify that everything appearing in the media is factually correct (we have to wait in effect for the media to get a consensus on this), and we cannot yet tell what will turn out to be undue weight. Wikipedia is not the nine o'clock news - we can wait for the overall picture to emerge. Removing undue material, and material that is still in some question as well is protecting the article is quite reasonable as a policy enforcement - different to using tools in a content dispute, and I don't believe WP:WRONG VERSION applies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies's changes were not in accordance with WP:BDP and this was discussed on the article talk page. No one has disputed the validity of the info that Drmies deleted after page protection, not even Drmies AFAIK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, presumably he *did*, or he wouldn't have deleted it for that reason. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, laudable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content dispute involves an admission by a spokesman for Trayvon Martin's family that he was suspended for having trace amounts of marijuana in his book bag. No one has disputed this. Drmies felt that it was irrelevant and shouldn't be in the article. This is a matter that should have been settled on the talk page, not by using admin powers to essentially win an edit war by making a change after protecting the page.

It's shameful that so many admins/editors here are supporting Drmies's action and more aren't stepping forward to do the right thing. I consider this to be at least as significant an issue as the actions of Drmie that caused this discussion. It appears that neither has much chance of being corrected. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this was a good call. With current events of this sort you will get muck-raking of only minor relevance; usually tangential material attacking one or more of the subjects. I expect the other guy will get some at some point also. To a certain extent we extend the BLP policy to individuals recently deceased - particularly in controversial circumstances such as these, with a larger family closely involved. There are a number of soapboxy phrases in the article as well that may need to be looked at, and individuals politely reminded of policy. This is exactly the reason we should have some sort of moratorium on news events for at least a short time. Tsk. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the consensus on the talk page is that the information is relevant and should be included, then it should. Silverseren^C 23:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad call. There wasn't even much of an edit war here, since two of the three removals are attributable to Drmies himself (including the one where he edited through protection). Yes this is a controversial issue, and yes the topic needs to be addressed with care, but I don't think Drmies handled this well. The facts surrounding this particular issue are clearly verifiable and well-sourced (i.e. reported in many major news outlets and confirmed by the family spokesman). At this point, the decision of what to say about Trayvon's suspension is mostly an editorial issue to hashed out through discussion rather than one that needs the blunt hand of an admin to decide. Personally, I'm not sure this information serves any good purpose (and there do seem to be some people who want to use this information to paint Trayvon in an unfair way), but having a single participant use tools to enforce their viewpoint is not good either. Drmies was aware of and had participated in the talk page discussion about this issue. At the time of his protection, it seems like the majority of the talk page participants favored including this information. It would have been much better for him to request help at one of the noticeboards, such as BLPN, RFPP, ANI, etc., rather than for him to simply exercise the tools to enforce his preferred version. Obviously, there needs to be discussion and consensus about what do with this content, but I don't think a three day protection is necessary here. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved with editing this article in any way, and it was only brought to my attention after a post at the WP:BLPN.[2] As an outside observer, it appears that Drmies is abusing their admin tools[3] to win a dispute they're involved in.[4][5][6][7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also uninvolved here. In my view, Drmies made a tough but good call here. Upon first viewing the situation, I was ambivalent, though leaning towards my current position. Reading this thread has led me to firmly support his actions. Drmies made it clear when he created this thread that he protected the page so that discussion could go towards determining whether or not to include the material without having a contentious revert-war occurring on the page: "I have extended full protection of the article for three days) because I think this pot thing is not OK, and this needs to be hammered out instead of being warred over." I see absolutely no indication that he was intending to "win" the dispute, as AQFN alleges; rather, he desired that it be productively resolved. It's not like he locked down the article indefinitely—the protection expires on Friday. In light of the fact that this is a highly-sensitive and high-profile article, it is in the best interests of the project that we follow policies like WP:BDP strictly. Contentious material should be thoroughly discussed before adding. Drmies was acting in good faith, and I support his decision here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A pause is a good thing - these articles get written too fast, and usually end up a mess for some lengthy time (usually until the SPA's with a strong view on the matter lose interest). --Errant ^(chat!) 01:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Admins can't make everyone happy. This is a tense issue that's grabbing the attention of the nation. We need to be very careful moving along with this. Again, WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia; it isn't going to be written overnight, so why ruch? 131.62.10.20 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this comment. Why do we even have articles on topics that are only covered by news sources and haven't been noticed by stabler media? If something doesn't get sustained coverage and sustained interest over a period of time, it's really not encyclopedic, and we shouldn't attempt to force an article like this to carry the latest rumors. Good job on making the tough but solid decision, Drmies. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call? It wasn't even his call to make. He was clearly WP:INVOLVED in the dispute. Admins are not allowed to use their tools in content disputes they're involved in. How anyone could defend such blatent misconduct is beyond me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies made two major admin mistakes in this dispute.
- First he was clearly an involved editor in this discussion. Whether he felt that his involvement was minor, is irrelevant. He had already taken a side in the discussion and eventual edit war. When he decided to fully protect the page, he violated the sacred trust we give administrators by violating WP:INVOLVED. He took it upon himself to use the tools that he has been granted to him and and protected a page in which he had recently been involved in a dispute.
- Secondly he clearly violated the terms of WP:FULL by continuing to edit the page, supposedly to the preferred version that agreed with his side of the argument. In my book, that type of display sickens me. What gives him the right the continue editing a page after it had already been fully protected. This type of behavior breeds distrust and animosity.
Just because some have chimed in here in agreement with Drmies actions, do not confuse the fact that you may agree with the points made by his side of the argument, and the fact that he twice violated his duty as an admin, by abusing his position to gain a foothold on the article. I am a very mush 'uninvolved editor on that page. I have in no way made any edits to the page or to the talk page. Even after taking a quick look at what the discussion is about, I probably would have taken the side of Drmies. But this does not excuse the blatant violations of admin tools, and in no way should be allowed to go unpunished. Without some form of retribution, these type of "violations" could grow into more serious and offensive abuses. We have these rules written for a reason, we should honor them.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you really just issue a call for "retribution"? 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did I stutter?--JOJ ^Hutton 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll take that as a "yes", in which case, no, your request for "retribution" is declined. 28bytes (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you consider yourself the personal judge and jury in this case? Does the opinion of anyone else on this page, have any bearing? Guess not.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You are the only one here demanding retribution and punishment. Everyone else here is cognizant of the fact that Drmies brought the matter here himself for review, explicitly turning the decision whether to keep the article protected over to the community. That's what good admins do, when there are objections to an admin action they've taken. It would be extremely stupid to "punish" him for his obviously well-intended page protection, especially given that he put it here himself for review. 28bytes (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Drmies remains defiant and based on his latest post,[8] there is significant concern that they are likely to abuse their admin tools in the future. Let's give them some time to reflect on their actions, but if their attitude doesn't change, a desysop may be in order. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh please. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a sound argument. You really got me there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I have made my argument all over this thread. The question at the heart of this dispute is whether we should care about WP:INVOLVED over WP:BLP in this specific case; i.e., whether our own social rules that have virtually no impact outside of wikipedia should trump the broader social and legal implications of a biography of a living/recently-deceased person in this very controversial and high-profile case. Was Drmies involved? Yes. Should another admin have made the protection? Probably. Is anything lost by holding our horses until the end of the week—or sooner if consensus for a removal of the protection is achieved—to re-add the material? No. Was the protection done in self-interest or bad faith? No. The only self-interested people here are the ones calling for his head on a pike for one single protection that expires on Friday. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- "to gain a foothold on the article": Sorry, I call BS. Drmies made it clear in starting this thread that the protection was put in place to allow for more productive discussion. That is a blatant assumption of bad faith. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good Faith was lost, the moment he edited the article just after fully protecting it. If this was a case where he "only" protected the article, then came here to ask for assistance, then I can see a case for assumption of Good Faith. But he continued to edit the article, without any thought to what damage that would do to the trust we give admins. No I'm sorry, he lost the ability to claim Good Faith when he twice violated our trust in his ability to handle the tools we gave him.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - - (edit conflict)Step off your soapbox, sweetheart. Nobody's impressed. More telling than any of your tediously self-righteous vitriol is that Drmies recognised that his action might be viewed as problematic by some and started this thread in the first place. How is that a bad-faith action? Re: "these type of "violations" could grow into more serious and offensive abuses". No they won't. Go play with your slip'n'slide somewhere else. (Edit-conflict addendum: DGG below sums it up perfectly) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Are we standing up for a buddy? Facts are that he twice violated the trust he was given. How can he ever be trusted again?--JOJ ^Hutton 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have evidence to support that loaded question? Or are you automatically assuming that since I find your comments to be nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd, I must be 'in cahoots with the enemy'? That's a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and I suggest you drop it. Drmies has by and large shown himself to be a reasonable contributor and administrator, and I see no reason why erring on the side of caution on a highly sensitive topic should mean any loss of trust. I find it especially telling that Gaijin42, the user who first brought this to the community's wider attention, does not advocate for anything other than the protection being lifted, whereas you—an individual with precisely zero ponies in that parade—advocate for the most laughably draconian solutions based on nothing but irritating self-righteousness. "Retribution"? Really? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        First you ask if I have evidence. Nope, just did a simple duck test on that one. You confirm it with your quick knowledge of Drmies editing history and admin uses. Second, I'm not sure why you are turning this into some sort of personal disagreement between the two of us. The fact that you disagree with me is evident, the fact that you find me nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd is fascinating. How my opinion that another admin who twice abused his tools should be punished, would somehow give you this much hatred toward me is beyond compelling. Third, you ask why we should not error on the side of caution. Who's caution? Yours or mine? Who gives one person the right to dictate what is right or wrong? What needs protection from bias, when the very definition of bias in this case is in dispute. Vey bad form form very bad form indeed. Finally you mention that Gaijin42 does not advocate anything more than the protection being lifted. Has this protection been lifted? Has the edit that was made by an involved admin on a fully protected page in violation of two separate and distinct guidelines on admin tool use, been reverted? I have no "pony", as you put it, in the parade. Nor will I in this case. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that these violations occurred. Whats next then? Admins blocking other editors with whom they are in dispute with? Admins deleting pages because they don't like what they say? All in the name of "erring on the side of caution". Its clear that you feel that he was justified. Do you also agree with him in the content dispute as well? Guess what, So Do I. That still doesn't give him the right to take matters into his own hands. Now that he has violated these admin guidelines, its fair to say that his judgement as an admin, in the eyes of others, will always be in question. He not only violated the guidelines, he violated our trust in him. For that, no amount of words can express just how damaging his actions were. Not only to himself, but to other admins and users as well. How will he ever be taken seriously as an editor and an admin again, when there will always be doubt in the minds of those who disagree with him? He blew it, plain and simple.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I have had little to no personal interaction with Drmies. I have only seen him around the AN and AN/I boards, and I have a positive impression from my observations. You, on the other hand, see one single action and mount your high horse to charge into battle as a righteous crusader for WikiJustice. No no no no no. This I take issue with. Anyone who demands "retribution" for such a matter is behaving in a "nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd" manner. Do we care more about our own little world here, or the actual world which we describe in our articles? That is the central question with regard to "bias" and "caution" in this matter. Generalising this incident to other situations is inappropriate given the nature of the article. The hotly-debated and polarising nature of this case in other places online and in real life makes this different than a simple editor dispute on-wiki. Should another admin have placed the protection? Probably. Has it been established that the material should be re-added? I think so. But those are not reasons for the desysopping of or the commission of other acts of nameless "retribution" on an admin who made a quick call in a sticky situation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I think Drmies did reasonably, especially by bringing it here. I am not sure I agree with his position, but this is the sort of topic where caution is needed. That an admin shouldn't protect their own view is basic, but even it has exceptions. If one;s own view is that possible bias should not be introduced into a particularly sensitive article , there's something to be said for taking direct action. (He should , of course, have asked someone else to do either the block or the edit, but I do not think this in the situation a great crime. Protecting articles from potential bias until the matter can be discussed is a good thing to do, even if done less than ideally). DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a distinction needs to be made between the protection and editing by drmies, and the overall BLP issue. the ends do not justify the means, IAR aside. And further, there is considerable debate as to if drmies is in the right regarding the blp issue (see the ongoing BLPN discussion). as this was NOT a clear cut violation of any policy, but merely drmies opinion of such, the action to protect and break rules via IAR should carry less weight. However, I do fall back to my opinion below, saying it does not require any sort of administrative punishment etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) Well said. But the potential "bias" was still in dispute. The fact that he considered it "bias", and others did not, creates a big problem. He took the position that it "was" bias and took what he considered "appropriate" actions. The fact that he "thought" he was right is irrelevant. The fact that he made these actions in violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:FULL is undisputable. An admin should never take these type of actions when they are clearly involved. I'm not sure what Drmies was thinking, but what I am hopefully sure about, is that he will think twice before ever doing something so blatant again.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no admin, but I do believe you raise very good points. The edit summary after protection gives the reason; "sorry, but WP:BDP does, and I protected fully precisely for those reasons. i hate using my admin tool here, but i feel i have to" Rather then handling it with dispute resolution he instead used his admin tools to protect and revert the very edit which had an ongoing discussion on the talk page by various editors over the course of two hours prior to the page locking. He protected the page and made commented about bringing it to the attention of the boards. [9] He should have done that first before taking such drastic action and even then he should have passed it onto a third party as he was involved. Instead he used admin tools to protect and remove the material to his side when no further edits could be made, telling them to 'hammer it out'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted the page to the WP:STATUSQUO pre-dispute so that the contentious material could be thoroughly discussed before being added. WP:INVOLVED is a policy which ultimately only matters to us lot of internet-warriors, whereas WP:BLP/WP:BDP has much broader social and even legal ramifications for the project. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He removed the entire matter of the terms of the suspension along with the 'contentious' material which came from the family, some of which was already present and would seem fair under WP:STATUSQUO that those remain. Only the marjuana issue was added at 18:25, which came from the family itself and did not seem to be a BLP issue due to its confirmation from the family. [10] His first comment on the talk page was 19:50. [11] He removed the material at 19:51. [12] Which was re-added 'Status-quo' applicable at 20:06 by Richard-of-earth. [13] Then it was removed at 20:08 by Ledrush. [14] Discussion continued and it was re-added at 20:30 by Truthsort. [15] 10 minutes later, Drmies protected the page and reverted the edit again. [16] As two other pieces unrelated to the discussion why were those removed if it was status quo? Seems that a discussion was taking place, created an edit war and when other issues were brought up protected the page and reverted additional material that was not contentious. Going by that policy those two sentences should not have been removed and that since consensus was formed against his and Ledrush's view the best thing to do was bring it to dispute resolution rather then take action to end the edit war which his action started in the first place. I'm all for policy, but the situation warranted a different course of action then the one taken. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who initially brought up possible conflict/involved admin editing, I think its clear he did break the letter of the rules, by participating in the discussion, taking action, and when reverted protecting, but based on drmies reuptation and long history, i do not feel any action such as block/desysop etc are needed, although his action should be reversed. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a single editor here who examines the evidence[17][18][19][20] and thinks that Drmies wasn't involved in this content dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
but, but... zOMG, BLP!!!1!1!!1! (just sayin'...)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor who brought Drmies action to WP:ANI and is watching this spectacle, I don't think that Drmies or the editors supporting him should have administrator tools because they do not appear to be trustworthy. . --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Drmies's actions warrant a desysop. Merely agreeing with those actions even less. I think your suggestion is an overreaction. Reyk _YO! 03:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to clean house here. Their actions show contempt for Wikipedia and demean the project. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree. I haven't decided whether I agree with Drmies's actions themselves, but it is obvious that he was acting out of a desire to protect Wikipedia's integrity. You seem unable to tolerate differing views. You call for extreme punishments for not only the "perpetrator" but anyone you deem guilty by association, as the first resort. This attitude is unhelpful. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's an awful lot of ABF in the comments here, and some ridiculously over-the-top calls for blood. This'll get sorted out sooner or later, and the encyclopedia (which is not a newspaper) will not suffer from not having every last little bit of breaking news in it before it's clear whether it means anything or not, or even if it's actually true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe that the page should be reverted to semi-protection, other material is awaiting removal under other concerns raised during its protection and while Drmies actions were not the best course of action, they do not warrant 'retribution'. People make mistakes. If the editors concerned (myself included) harbor no desire to see action taken then who is to condemn him? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies made the right decision. On what planet is it essential to immediately record some minor and very recent claims regarding traces of marijuana? Removing such over-egging per WP:BDP shows good adminship, as does protecting the article and bringing the issue here. Rather than having the issue resolved by an edit war, community consensus can readily determine what happens—no puppies have been injured in this incident. If consensus agrees, the edit can be re-instated and the protection removed. Yes, the admin action is unusual, but the article relates an extremely unusual case (the shooting is regrettaby not so unusual, but the associated interest is). Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, the negative marijuana information was leaked from the police department, most likely to malign the dead victim and to support the case made by the police. Considering that somewhere around 50% of teenagers in the U.S. have cannabis in their bloodstream, this is unimportant information. Keep also in mind that the victim was suspended because cannabis residue (which I think amounted to smell only) was found in his belongings. It should be remembered that this is not evidence of usage, as cannabis residue is sticky enough to find itself on just about every conceivable surface. All one has to do is come into contact with someone who uses it, and bingo, you're a potential user just by touching the person or something that they have used like a book or a DVD. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is entirely incorrect. Editors held off during the leak and waited until it was confirmed from the family out of BLP concerns. It was not residue, it was a plastic bag of pot. And I really would contend that you can get a positive pot id from someone who merely comes in contact with any object or person who used it, specifically a book or dvd. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm afraid you are entirely wrong. The leak was negative, and as every reliable source on the subject states, it concerned "an empty baggie containing marijuana residue".[21] Do you understand the difference between "residue" and "empty bag" containing residue? There was no "plastic bag of pot" as you claim. Further, you are evidently completely and totally ignorant about the concept of cannabis trichomes, so I suggest you do the research before you "contend" anything factual ever again. If you need any further assistance or corrections on any other misinformation you wish to share, please let me know. I'm here to help. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good call Drmies. By locking the article and bringing the discussion here he seems to have done the right thing. Calls for desysop over this are frankly ridiculous. --John (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to pile on, this seems a sensible decision. Admins are expected to make tough calls at times, and Drmies' protection was reasonable, especially given that he or she then asked for a review of their action (admins hoping to use their admin tools to 'win' disputes don't advertise the fact that they've done this here!). Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to ask again; but why is the page still protected when the discussion has moved on, concensus has been formed and major corrections need to be addressed. Over 10 specific pieces of the article need to be addressed now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies made a call, and then promptly asked for community input here. That warrants desysopping of him and anyone who agrees with him? Sheesh. LadyofShalott 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter whether it was a good call or not? It's done. The question is how to now proceed. Support your colleague. Improve the article. Why waste energy with crucifixion? Span (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't his call to make, and what's to stop them from abusing their tools the next time? What to do next? RfC/U or ArbCom?A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can assure you that you will be rightly laughed out of both venues by everyone except for Jojhutton and Bob K31416. Re "what's to stop them from abusing their tools the next time?": I shall tell you the same thing I told Joj: go play with your slip'n'slide somewhere else. Nobody else thinks it's fun; you're just getting the front lawn all muddy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lothar, that's the third time you've used rhetorical flourishes to respond dismissively to other people's comments. Given that some people are tense and some are likely to overreact, I would suggest that there are probably better ways to convey your points. After all, you yourself said we need to avoid fostering a battleground mentality. Dragons flight (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lothar likes language. I admit my tone has been less-than-cordial here, to say the very least. However, I really see nothing deserving of respect in this fallacious squawking for desysopping and/or "retribution". Others have phrased it more pleasantly, but the general consensus seems to be that boarding the M/S Hysteria to RfC/U- or ArbCom-land is not even a remotely reasonable way forward. I just translate that into more "zesty" terms. Whoops, looks like I already did.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GRAPEVINE, an explicit part of the WP:BLP policy, includes an exception to WP:INVOLVED. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GRAPEVINE did not apply because the material was well sourced and did not violate WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin powers in content dispute — Poll: What would you do in a similar situation in the future?

There is tremendous support for Drmies here. I'm interested in the attitudes of only the administrators here regarding what you would do if you were in a similar situation in the future as Drmies was in at the article. Drmies situation was that he was working on the article, then protected it, and then made an edit after it was protected.[22] Please indicate whether you would or wouldn't do the same thing if you were in a similar situation in the future. Thanks.--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I were working on an article and became concerned that there was a serious BLP/BDP issue, I wouldn't hesitate to use my administrative tools to address it, and (depending on the seriousness of the issue) I might also edit the article to address the violation after I had protected it. I would then present the situation in a suitable venue for outside input, and abide by the result.
The community, the Foundation, and ArbCom have all repeatedly endorsed this sort of aggressive and proactive approach to BLP issues. There is no deadline, and no administrative action that can't be undone; if a short period of protection leads to a more thoughtful discussion of the issue in question, then that's a clear win, regardless of who placed the protection. Admins are expected to be responsive and accountable, and Drmies fulfilled that responsibility here. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think in a true case of BLP/BDP, Drmies would have been justified. It is my contention that the information added did not violate BLP/BDP, and if it did was not such an egregious violation to warrant full protection without prior discusson on BLPN etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are we to determine a "true case"? By discussion? But a discussion necessarily takes place after the fact. Drmies made the assessment that there was a significant risk of a such a BDP violation, and installed the protection so that a discussion could be thoroughly conducted to determine whether or not to include the material without having the potential BDP violation waving around in articlespace. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This exact point, in reverse, is the exact problem with this topic. Are we simply to trust that any administrator, at any time, can make a judgement that any edit to an article who's topic is a "living person" (which is a moving target in itself) is "bad" and therefore the article needs to be protected and edits need to be reverted through protection?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an administrator is, well, an administrator does mean that thereY is a significant level of trust involved. Without the community's affirmation of trust, a user will not gain access to the tools. Thus, an admin may make a bold action in an outstanding case, based on the fact that their very status indicates trust. In such a contentious case, the acceptable follow-up to the protection would be to have the action reviewed in a public place—that we trust administrators to make the right call does not mean that they always will; they are humans like us, after all, and will make some mistakes. Submitting the action for review shows that the administrator recognises the trust given them and their desire to maintain it by keeping open dialogue with the community. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bull. Administrators are not moderators. Never have been, and the recent attempts by a (not insignificant) subset of them to become moderators is... undesirable. The trust that administrators have is the trust that they will not abuse their tools in order to impose their personal views on Wikipedia. These content issues absolutely should not be resolved through the use of sysadmin tools. If you're an admin and you feel that anything that you're about to do requires review (which is a commendable thing, by the way), then stop and ask first. Nothing that happens here on Wikipedia is important enough that it can't wait the minutes (hours, at most, for important thing) required to bring the subject up for debate.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that the dispute was deemed "resolved" when the protection was put in place, or that Drmies's view was at all "imposed" on the article, other than that it was the WP:STATUSQUO pre-dispute. The full protect was put in place not to keep the material permanently off (i.e., enforce Drmies's view), but to discuss whether or not it was acceptable to include it without having potentially problematic material waving around in the wind on an article where "contentious" and "hot-button" don't even come close to describing it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, What do you think of asking for protection instead of doing it yourself? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly be inclined to do the same; I'm probably the least likely person on earth to invoke BLP for anything, and even I saw the really obvious problem there. It wouldn't have hurt to ask, but RfPP gets backed up fairly frequently (and when you try it from the admin side, it's much more understandable) and this seemed like a pretty urgent issue. Bob K31416, I suggest you drop your crusade here because it's clear you're not getting anywhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the material was supported by reliable sources, what was urgent about it? I'm interested in your opinion on this. Thanks. Heres the deleted material for reference.[23]

"Initially Kypriss stated "He was suspended because he was late too many times."^[1] His father originally said the suspension was because he was in an unauthorized area on school property, but he declined to offer more details.^[2] Later a family spokesman said that Martin was suspended after traces of marijuana were found in his bookbag.^[3] Trayvon Martin had no criminal record.^[4]"

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I changed to the full cites for <ref name='MiamiHerald'/> and <ref name=SCHOOL/> after noticing that someone put up a {{reflist}} in the section "Admin powers reference" where they wouldn't otherwise show up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, if I believe that an article I'm involved with needs protection I'll generally go about it in one of two ways. The first would be to request another admin the review the situation and if justified protect the article. The other would be to protect the article and then request another admin to review my actions and revert as needed. Having said that, there will be cases where I'm convinced that protection is needed and there should be no question so I'll protect and leave it at that. There is no cookbook that we can create that is going to spell this out for every case. And no, while I have been looking at this discussion occasionally, I have not looked at the article being discussed here or the edits. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just butting in for a moment: RPP does have a tendency to back up--just look how often Jasper Deng and others drop a note on ANI, and I help to clear up that backlog often enough. But I probably would have gone straight to AN or ANI with my request (it's much faster) if I felt that this was not a matter of some urgency. And if I had protected five seconds earlier I wouldn't have committed by second mortal sin, reverting the re-addition of that information (and let it be clear that there was no talk page consensus for adding it either!)--but that's beside the point. Yes, there are other venues, but sometimes they are slow. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies did fine. He probably made an editorial misjudgment in removing the info, but the error was on the side of caution, which is precisely what one is supposed to do in this situation. It's easy to make mistakes in the heat of the moment, so "remove first, discuss afterwards" is fine per NOTNEWS. The edit-through-protection is not a big deal as long as it can be sorted out afterwards, which it was. Trouts to those going overboard calling for escalation. A more strictly neutral approach could be to blank the whole article (that is guaranteed to not be anyone's preferred version) and ask uninvolved editors to decide what to restore. That might be preferable in a more intense dispute with heavier involvement, but would probably have been overboard for this. 69.111.193.46 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya, he made a major editorial misjudgment. An Admin should never put themselves in a position like this one. Even if the article should have been protected, it should not have been him. Then doing the unthinkable by actually editing the article after the full protection was in place, to the version that he was currently advocating for on the talk page. End of argument as far as he was concerned. --JOJ ^Hutton 13:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unthinkable? Hardly. Reversion to the pre-edit war (or "most stable") version is the norm. See e.g. last year at Holodomor in which a full protect was called in to defuse a heated edit war, and the protecting admin reverted to the pre-disputed content version. In this case being discussed here, the version that Drmies reinstated was the "most stable" version. It also happened to be his preferred version, but he was only following the norm of reverting the disputed content until consensus could be established for its reinstatement. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar, Here's the first revert of Drmies.[24] It appears that he reverted to an unstable version which started an edit war. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Most stable" only means "lacking recently-added contentious material"; in the Holodomor case above, the "most stable" version was very contentious—the article was full-protected to that version nevertheless because clear consensus had not been established for inclusion of the new material. At any rate, this discussion here is pretty much a WP:DEADHORSE that should be lain to rest. The full-protect has been gone from the article for days now. I do not see any lasting harm done that would warrant further ruckus-raising here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh Lothar ...... the source of the contention was Drmies. That section that he edit warred in was evolving in a productive way before he came on the scene and made multiple reverts of the same reliably sourced material. This reminds me of a scene in Casablanca. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And—if you'll excuse the brusqueness—so what? Contention is contention, and just because something is spat out by a news agency does not make it sacred and unremovable. The full-protect was put in place, discussion happened, the full-protect was removed, material was added back consensually. Nobody got a mark-o-shame on their block log or anything. Drmies put the action up for review. And given the shitstorm here, I don't think that this is a situation likely to repeat itself. Abuse of tools implies actions that are demonstrably malicious and bad-faith—nothing anyone has said here has convinced me that that was the case here. And nothing convinces me that this is a matter still worth beating to death here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy of the reliably sourced material was not contentious. Drmies removed the material about Martin's school suspensions because he thought it wasn't relevant,[25] while leaving in pro-Martin material about his school record, such as "His English teacher, Michelle Kypriss, reported him as being "an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness." " --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kk. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request lift of full protection

Protection changed to semiprotected by MBisanz, 1RR restriction put in place. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Trayvon's family has confirmed that he was suspended for having traces of cannabis in his possession [26]. Drmies declined to unlock the article when I brought this up to him, suggesting I come here instead. So, here I am. The issue that caused him to lock the article is no longer an issue, so someone please downgrade it to semi-protected. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 is correct that I referred them to this forum: this is not just up to me, considering the dramahz. I still feel that there is no reason to include the information: I did not remove it (just) because I doubted the veracity, but because it is undue and excessive and all those things. That the family confirmed the story, well, they had little choice, did they. The problem is, in my opinion, the suggestion that this had something to do with that.
Anyway, I've already abused my sacred powers and all that, so I can't in good conscience revert, because then I'd be a pussy on top of an abuser. I welcome any admin to undo the protection, either by reducing its length or its status--but that should be an admin who has managed to read the discussions on the talk page (I just did) and has decided that there is a kind of editorial consensus which will ensure some modicum of stability. Whatever the 24/7 news cycle reported the last three seconds, whatever the family was forced to acknowledge, that really shouldn't be the only decisive factor. Anyway, I am going to leave this to you all, but I take some courage from the fact that some admins I really respect have weighed in here and have not overruled me. You know who you are; thank you. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue, however, is not a reason for full protection of an article, but for a talk page discussion. Undue is not a BLP violation. Silverseren^C 04:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without reference to this particular case, undue can be a BLP violation, per "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". FormerIP (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then undue my protection. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re "this is not just up to me" — Since it hasn't been unprotected, apparently it is.

Re "I've already abused my sacred powers and all that, so I can't in good conscience revert, because then I'd be a pussy on top of an abuser." — Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers?

Why don't you folks start by reverting the edit Drmies made for his own interest after full protection? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers?" Please slow yourself down and read the the thread, champ. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers?". Yes. Yes, I do. Reyk _YO! 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly straightforward case from one side of "Waaaah! He protected a version I don't like! Everyone agreeing with him isn't fit to be an admin!" in my opinion... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no emergency. How would an edit war help? Just wait for the discussion above to reach some outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why assume there would be a fresh edit war? The article has generated several hundred edits, mostly productively. In the current episode, Drmeis was the only one to remove or add content more than once. There is discussion of this issue on both the talk page and BLPN, and I doubt any of the participants are eager to start a fight. There is no emergency, so why cut out all editing and stop the article from being improved? Dragons flight (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there would be an edit war, because currently the consensus at the BLPN discussion on this is that the information is ok for the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I've had to point out to others recently, Noticeboards do not make decisions, they only offer advice. I'm not weighing in on this debate, but you can't say "BLPN says it's okay" as if it carried authority. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - There would be an edit war if some editors repeatedly tried to add the material and others deleted it. There's no clear consensus either way on whether it should be there. Deleting it while under protection is an expansive interpretation of BLP, but for heavens sake people, please don't agitate for desysopping admins every time you disagree with an action. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sides to this issue. On one hand the material at the time would seemingly insinuate the family was covering up a criminal past that somehow would have made it a "good shoot" and thus be defamatory and offensive. On the other hand, it has clearly emerged as a major narrative in the story. Drmies made some comments that were a bit too spirited on the other side, but this would seem to be a case where there is an obvious BLP violation and there needs to be discussion about how to handle it before proceeding. I think Drmies should approach these things in a calmer manner, but beyond that I see no ill action. Honestly, I would be opposed to reinserting that material without some balance added. A recent statement I saw on the news showed the mother accusing the police of trying to slander her son's reputation with these revelations, so that's a starting point for approaching it in a more balanced manner.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a simple way around this. I'm going to reduce it to semi-protection ~~in a couple hours~~ at 18:00UTC AND apply 1RR to it, blocking anyone who reverts more than once until such time as the full protection would have expired. That should end any edit wars very very quickly. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, the full protection that was added - much as I tend to viscerally not like full protection ever - resulted in the editors coming together on talk and actually talking, and reaching a reasonable conclusion. Exactly what full protection is supposed to do. Now we're back to semi - that's fine. But I would strongly urge the semi to be of considerably longer duration as it had been prior to this kerfuffle - this article is a high profile POV magnet and the semi-protection allowed us to edit with some kind of sanity. Also, could a note be added to the Talk page to let editors know about the 1RR? It's on the edit screen, but I think it's a pretty big restriction that it's only fair to let people know before they go to edit and many editors don't read AN. Thanks Tvoz/talk 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you MBisanz, and all other contributors. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else?

At this point, the page protection has been changed to semiprotect, a 1RR is in place, and there's no consensus for censuring Drmies (beyond perhaps a WP:TROUTing for protecting & reverting it himself instead of asking another admin to step in). Is there anything else to be done here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? My reading of the above is that Drmies receives a commendation. Yes, those who believe Wikipedia must immediately record every detail of a recent event think a trout is warranted, but many others have supported the admin action. Nothing further is needed, other than to thank Drmies. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good lock, but his apparently involved status threw a wrench into things, as this report demonstrates. Appearance of impropriety and all that. Trouting isn't exactly a punishment. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:01, 28 March 2012 (

I agree with Drimies on the substantive issue. But I strongly protest his/her use of admin powers, when involved, and find that it brings the admin corp into disrepute, as do the other admins who would condone such abuse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Alanscottwalker. Drmies due to his strong opinions on the Martin case should not have made that call, and bringing it to AN after his actions had been strongly questioned does him little credit. His thanking, individually on their talk pages and collectively here, of those who have supported him, is unseemly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To expound upon this matter in a slightly less scatological way, administrators are called upon to exclude clear BLP violations from Wikipedia, using every tool at their disposal. That articles go live immediately make problems of this nature quite pressing. When seconds count, administrators who make good faith and reasonable efforts in this respect, then present the issue for review at this noticeboard, are to be commended, even if they are ultimately found to have erred on the side of caution. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are called upon to act as administrators, when they are uninvolved. Not otherwise. Administrators who make mistakes are not commended for their mistakes, generally, or specifically when involved. It's not an error on the side of caution, it is an error on the side they are involved in, and thus dis-caution. If a user cannot find an uninvolved administrator, it is not pressing (or the admin corp has failed in general but that does not make the involved administrator error not error). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no urgency. It was POV pushing by Drmies. See discussion in above section. (E.g. Bob K31416 02:21, 31 March 2012 ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, your ~~immediate~~ call for de-adminship appears over-reaction, and although such is not an excuse for the over-reaction of other admins, it does provide context. Condemnation not sanction, is in order. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. That's not the case at all. I didn't immediately call for de-adminship. I originally didn't suggest any action against Drmies or anyone else. I was trusting that the admins here would see Drmies' inappropriate behavior as an involved admin in the article and correct it. It was only after most of this long discussion occurred, that I briefly mentioned that Drmies shouldn't have administrator tools because he didn't appear trustworthy.

Alan, I can see that you're trying to get a consensus for some kind of statement against Drmies' actions, but I don't think you should do that by trying to blame me for the bad comments of some of the editors and admins here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When it comes to action, of all the admins who participated in the discussion here, there was only one that proposed a useful solution and used his admin powers to get the article back on track, and that was MBisanz. Many of the others were concerned with protecting Drmies.--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are given specific license under Wikipedia policy to protect articles that they have edited, etc when "clear BLP issues" are in play. WP:GRAPEVINE, part of the WP:BLP policy, is clear that it includes an exception to WP:INVOLVED. This is an important policy point and one that should be reemphasized as a result of this discussion, since apparently (from this discussion) it's both little-known and contentious. In any case, it's policy. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GRAPEVINE did not apply because the material was well sourced and did not violate WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough rationale. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Specific" is the key and they should get it right. Which was not the case here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this was not a BLP issue, but rather a case of IDONTLIKEIT with a BDP, there's no justification for the full protection and certainly no reasonable way that an administrators should be commended for taking INVOLVED action to revert IDONTLIKEIT material and to install full protection. Sanctions? No. Trout? Yes. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin powers references

^ Prieto, Bianca (March 17, 2012). "Tensions still simmer in Trayvon Martin shooting case". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved March 23, 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Burch, Audra D.S. (March 22, 2012). "Trayvon Martin: a typical teen who loved video games, looked forward to prom". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 2012-03-23. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Anderson, Curt (2012-03-26). "Family: pot linked to Trayvon Martin suspension". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2012-03-26.
^ Alvarez, Lizette (March 17, 2012). "911 Calls Add Detail to Debate Over Florida Killing". The New York Times. Retrieved March 20, 2012.

Expewikiwriter

I'm a little worried that the user's contributions are a little advertisingish at times. [27]

Consider Joseph Lani, David_Jerome_(author,_adventurer), Stone_Bridge_Homes_NW, and others, possibly. 86.** IP (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What's up?Expewikiwriter (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stonebridge Homes is pure puff/advert. Non-notable awards as a show of notability? 6th place in a non-notable "competition" is somehow notable? The President is non-notable by any means. I'd swear the person is being paid to write adverts on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I'm familiar with the company through a friend's son, who is employed there. My friend knows I've written Wikipedia articles (a passion of mine, for no pay - I'm a retired school teacher) and asked me to consider writing one for this company. I probably tried a little too hard to make it fit Wikipedia's standard for notability. I will take this as a reminder to be more vigilant in the future. For that, I thank you. Expewikiwriter (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to understand the problem with David_Jerome_(author,_adventurer); does the article not make clear his notability? Thanks.Expewikiwriter (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little hard to separate out te threads in it, as it's covering two sides of the person, but a lot of it's sourced to his website, and it's not clear how notable some of the mentions are. Maybe I just don't understand what counts as notable for a humour writer, as notability is relative. Can someone else look? 86.** IP (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 86. In the meantime, do you really think the article warrants a proposed deletion tag? Expewikiwriter (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think you're right on that one. Could do with discussion first. However, note that just because you worked on an article doesn't mean you can't remove a tag, so, you know, do feel free. Also note that, if something is mistakenly deleted that way, the decision may be reversed simply by contesting the deletion. The procedure is meant as a sort of testing of the waters, to see if anyone has other views. 86.** IP (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was willing to give Expewikiwriter the benefit of the doubt until this happened. Not sure if this is trolling or socking or meatpuppeting, but it's weird. I'd be curious to hear an explanation for that edit. Valfontis (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expewikiwriter also uploaded a logo that goes with this other user's draft. An SPI might be in order. Valfontis (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter. The choice of username is lighting up my spam radar in a big way. MER-C 02:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How unfortunate. 86.** IP (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Expewikiwriter - Looks like it's been confirmed. How incredibly unfortunate. 86.** IP (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked and tagged the socks but not the main account. I've got a list of over 40 articles that appear to have been created for promotion. What a mess. Regarding: "I'm familiar with the company through a friend's son, who is employed there. My friend knows I've written Wikipedia articles (a passion of mine, for no pay - I'm a retired school teacher)" it seems to me like a strange selection of articles for a retired teacher to write. I wonder how they got permission to use the photos. Valfontis (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the main account. I have little doubt that this is a professional spammer, but in any case it is a user who has gone to some efforts to be deceptive, and has abused several accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked socks are now asking for help, one, right after, another. Can someone more patient than me explain things to "them"(?)? Valfontis (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think they understand perfectly well, and are just playing their game beyond to the end. it's not even worth blocking talk p. access, though I wouldn't oppose it. All we need do is watch for whatever new socks there will be. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's all about the future socks. It's interesting that the socks are claiming to be students and the puppetmaster is a former schoolteacher. Hm. tedder (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, a NY-based IP has protested the deletion of 2tor, Inc. created by Expewikiwriter. It was nice of "them" to reveal their location. Valfontis (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it's not possible for you to know the intent of any author. TheExpewikiwriter account has been deemed in violation of one or more Wikipedia policies and has been cancelled as punishment. But the articles written by the account holders (several authors contributed Wikipedia articles through this one account) should be judged on their own merits (is the article spam? is the article objectively written? is the article sufficiently supported by legitimate secondary sources?). It appears that a few expewikiwriter articles have been indiscriminately deleted or tagged for the purpose of rendering punishment on the account holder(s). Consider the following:

Harold J. Morowitz - The subject is a leading, and internationally known, scientist. The author of this article is a published researcher and professional associate of a colleague of Dr. Morowitz. Judge for yourselves, but it would appear that the article meets all standards for a Wikipedia article on a living person, and should not be tagged.
2tor, Inc. - Covered extensively in the national press, this company is one of the most important players in online education. No less than 4 experienced Wikipedia authors collaborated on this article. Because it had been posted and removed once before (please see the record), all due care was taken to make sure that this article would meet Wikipedia standards. In particular, care was taken to write it OBJECTIVELY and NEUTRALLY, and to support EVERY fact and detail with a legitimate reference source. Review and decide whether this article should have been summarily removed - and consider re-establishing it in Wikipedia.
Joseph Lani - After hearing Lani on national late night talk radio for the third or fourth time (he is a familiar radio guest to late night talk radio fans), the author of this article decided that Lani deserved a presence on Wikipedia. The author did research, found articles, and wrote the article.Whatsongisit4578 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...You know, it's fairly obvious you're the same user. You aren't allowed to violate your block by creating a new account. 86.** IP (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Role accounts aren't allowed of course. Also please read WP:BOOMERANG, you just keep digging yourself in deeper, "Expewikiwriter". Valfontis (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for another sockpuppet check. Probably obvious, but keep getting new ones, so... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Expewikiwriter 86.** IP (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing along at home, three new IPs have contested proposed deletions of four articles created by Expewikiwriter. 38.96.37.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.116.123.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 50.9.6.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Valfontis (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other new users voicing an opinion on the works of Expewikiwriter include Phage434 (talk · contribs) Peace2012now (talk · contribs), Davidlomax (talk · contribs), 209.177.103.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 98.207.154.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Valfontis (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it kind of pointless to delete prods while people are clearly paying attention? I mean, prods are at least reversible; AfDs aren't. 86.** IP (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the system worked the way it was supposed to, and people weren't !voting "delete" as a means of doling out punishment, at AfD at least an article has a chance of being kept if people actually !vote based on valid deletion criteria and look for sources before !voting. P.S. Here's a new IP also 173.73.144.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Note IP 209* is from clarkhuotcocoon and IP 38* is from budovideos. Valfontis (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. Special:Contributions/TechnicsSL1200 (though he may have a point in that case) 86.** IP (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel

Anarchangel (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this user's admission here: [28], specifically,

So I will break with my tradition of taking articles off-site without mention. It is transcribed to http://hippie.wikia.com/wiki/Mundane_astrology and should be reintroduced at a later time.

That's problematic, because Creative Commons requires the authors to be credited. If Anarchangel is taking articles offsite, claiming them as his or her own, then putting them back on Wikipedia later, without crediting the original authors, that's basically a massive copyfraud, and it needs dealt with. 86.** IP (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to complain to the relevant people at Wikia, then, who can actually deal with it. 87.114.248.222 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's apparently bringing them back here, after some time, but without the names of the people who made the original, it's copyvio. 86.** IP (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, any articles which he brings back should be examined by an admin to see if the article is a copyvio - if such is the case, the user should likely be barred from such acts. Collect (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the {{WPN}} template did you fail to understand?

“

This article contains content from Wikipedia. An article on this subject has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mundane astrology. Current versions of the GNU FDL article on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article.

”

If someone else wishes to reintroduce material that was previously on Wikipedia, on my recommendation, then that is their business. I certainly never have personally, and I have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. However, if there is a policy that restricts that, then I should like to know right now, because it would be wrong and I should like to have my say about it. Anarchangel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just policy, it's a legal issue. If the article is deleted on Wikipedia, the history of edits is gone. By pating that work back into Wikipedia, you are re-introducing that material without the required attribution for all those edits. Thus, it violates the license. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the rationale. However, this is also the same as reintroducing an article from Userpace, or reintroducing an article that was previously deleted. In both those cases, the edit history is available to administrators, yes? So since the edit history is still available, there is no licence violation, no? Anarchangel (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late to reply, had family matters to take care of. In the case of an article moved to Userspace, or deleted on Wikipedia, if it is moved back to article space and/or undeleted, the page history is there for all to see. However, if you just copy & paste the contents to a new article, none of that history is attached and, therefore, it has no attributions. And that's a license violation.

If you really want to recreate a deleted/userfied article, ask an admin to move it or go through WP:DRV to have it undeleted. However, if you republish the article's contents anywhere else (including a different Wikipedia article or new version of the previous article) you must include attribution for all the edits with the republished article. Otherwise, it's a violation of the license. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the "What part of WPN" questions leads me to a serious concern that there may be a deep misunderstanding here. :/ "Wikipedia" does not own the copyright to that content; the individual contributors who contribute the material do. It is *they* who must be attributed. Providing a link to the article (not the AFD), so long as it is still alive, is regarded as sufficient attribution. If it is not still alive, you need a full list of authors. This is the reason why the content cannot be reintroduced to Wikipedia; without the history of the article, which includes the full list of authors, or a complete list using that content is a violation of the license granted by the contributors and hence of their copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my query, above. The edit history exists, somewhere, surely? Anarchangel (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for noting the distinction. If the answer is no, the edit history does not exist, then I will take care to note the names of the individual contributors, probably on the destination talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history existing somewhere, only for administrators, doesn't help I'm afraid. :) Attribution must be accessible to comply with the license. When material is introduced form userspace, there's no licensing issue as long as the user who is introducing is the author - you retain rights over your own material and don't have to attribute it. Articles should not be reintroduced after prior deletion; their history is supposed to be restored at the same time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you've copied content from articles that have now been deleted, I'd be happy to help you get a list of authors that can be put on the talk pages of the Wikia page. That would satisfy attribution requirements just as well as the link. I'm afraid I'd just need a list and - if the list is long- time. :)

--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 44 articles, all attributed as containing Wikipedia content, most have been redirected at AfD or kept, and thus have an edit history which not only exists, but is easily accessible. Some are originals. And then there are this seven, which were actually deleted after AfD. I gladly take you up on your kind offer of contributor lists. If you would prefer, just go ahead and ctrl-c; I'll do the parsing:

Puget Trough prairie butterfly (moved to -flies, it says on the AfD), Nude & Breast Freedom Parade, Energy Art, High fibre composting, Northern California Solar Regatta, Virginia Good. Anarchangel (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, are you saying that it's illegal to copy content from Wikipedia?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. It is not only legal, but encouraged. :) However, the content has licensing requirements that must be met. wmf:Terms of Use explains these requirements; where possible, a hyperlink or URL to the article or a stable version of the article, with history, is sufficient attribution. Where this is not available, a list of all authors will do it. It may be illegal to copy content without meeting the terms of the license, considering all factors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that this is about deleted content though (...right?), so... if content has been deleted from here, then how can there still be licensing issues at all?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright doesn't disappear when content goes out of publication; if it did, there'd be a whole lot more material we could reproduce. : ) Under the US laws that govern Wikipedia, the term of copyright is 70 years after the death of the author or, where the author is unknown (as will often be the case with Wikipedia content), 95 years after publication/120 years after creation (on Wikipedia, it would be the 95, since this constitutes publication). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, agreed, but if the content has been deleted from here then how does anyone know who the author(s) was(were)? Does the WMF hold the copyright on the content of deleted articles, since it's not possible to determine who the contributors were? I somehow doubt that we're talking about content that is "out of publication" (how would that even be determined?), if it's been "destroyed".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content never actually goes away - it and its history are still visible to admins, and if it is ever to be used again its whole history can be restored. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but how does that address the original issue here? As User:Moonriddengirl said above: "The edit history existing somewhere, only for administrators, doesn't help I'm afraid."
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have much idea where you're going with this. :) So I'll just try to explain the way this works. John creates an article on Wikipedia. He doesn't give it to the WMF or even to Wikipedia; he owns the copyright. He licenses it liberally for modification and reuse, provided the terms of the licenses are met. The licenses require, among other things, that John receive attribution. Anyone - whether another Wikipedia contributor or a book publisher or a website owner - is free to reuse John's content, so long as they honor the license agreement. If they do not honor the license agreement, they may be infringing John's copyright (a matter for a court to determine, based on weighing a number of factors). The fact that some contributor or contributors on Wikipedia delete the article in which John originally placed the content doesn't change anything; there's nothing in our Terms of Use terminating licensing requirements upon article deletion. (WMF does not hold copyright on the content of deleted articles; the original contributors do...and always will, until copyright expires under the terms of US law.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is no copyright on Wikipedia. When we release anything we've created on Wikipedia, it's released as Creative Commons which isn't copyright, we're allowing free use of the material , it says so at the bottom of the page,

so copyright doesn't even figure into this discussion.

Creative Commons , simply put means :
We are free to:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and to Remix—to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.) Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Further, we can't copyright our own work here, nor can we waive Creative Commons or revoke it. There's no copyright on Wikipedia, just creative commons, so the usual "life of the author...." doesn't apply. Just my two cents. @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 19:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is, because American copyright law holds that copyright automatically exists when copyrightable material is created or published. Here that material has specifically not been released into the public domain, but has been licensed for use under the terms listed above, which does not change the status of the copyright -- which is, precisely, the right to determine how your material will be used. You can't license something if you don't own it, and each contributor owns the copyright on whatever they've created on Wikipedia, but has agreed to the licensing scheme by uploading it. The licensing terms exist only because the copyright exists, you can't have the one without the other. Once the copyright has run out, there's no longer anything to license, and the material falls into the public domain. (That will be interesting, 70 - 95 years from now, trying to unravel which words and punctuation date from when to determine which is p.d. and which is still copyrighted and licensed under CC.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I agree with User:Beyond My Ken. So, I'll note, does Wikipedia:Copyrights: "The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses." Much if not most of the content on Wikipedia is under copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reusing Wikipedia content

The relevant policy is WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. Reusing content at Wikia is particularly easy, as it has compatible CC-BY-SA licensing (for most of its wikis) and compatible MediaWiki software. Full page histories can be transferred using Special:Export/Special:Import. Histories of deleted articles can be requested at WP:Requests for undeletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless creation of "suspected sockpuppet" categories from years old, with resulting problems

The matter has been taken to Arbcom. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Rich Farmbrough has created hundreds of categories yesterday, despite having Wikipedia:Editing restrictions: "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented."

The problem is that this is done in a mindless, bot-like fashion, ignoring all potential problems this may cause. Among the creations are many categories from the "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ..." group, from years ago, linking e.g. an IP address to an editor for some edits done years ago (e.g. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grimkn1ght), even though that IP is probably no longer linked to the same person, making the catgeory essntially useless. Other cats like Category:User rue-0 and Category:Wikipedians who like The Wedding Date are already up for deletion. Many more "Category:Wikipedians who like ..." have been created, from the categories only used by User:Lady Aleena/Media franchises. Considering the number of redlinks still remaining there, stopping these creations now may be useful.

A clear example of the problem with these creations is e.g. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ghirlandajo, based on a tag from 2007, and where the discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ghirlandajo concluded that there wasn't enough evidence at all to link the two. However, thanks to this creation now, five years after the fact, this has been "officialized" and the editor smeared for no good reason at all.

The editing restriction was installed because of earlier instances of mass creations, including category creations, with poor or clearly unwanted results. Apparently Rich Farmbrough won't head the restriction without some firmer action though. The categories need to be chekced and deleted if needed, and the creator encouraged by some means to stop this. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that after this report, Rich Farmbrough has deleted some problems I noted, and hidden some others (the "Lady Aleena" redlinks). Any indication that he will change his approach and/or look for remaining problems himself instead of relying on others to check all his edits is so far missing. Fram (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again? How many times is Rich going to violate these restrictions? This is going to turn into a Betacommand case again unless something is done soon. Personally I suggest a short sharp block to remind of the restrictions, and maybe if it continues in the long-term a desysopping. I don't want it to come to this, but you can't always ignore all rules, like Rich Farmbrough is. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 14:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "IAR", he has just (again) edited a fully protected template to add a rule that adds some pages using the template to a certain category created by Rich Farmbrough in 2010. Sadly, that category has just been deleted one week ago after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 15#Category:Empty categories. So not only is he ignoring the rotection, he is also ignoring the community consensus at CfD after only a week. And it seems furthermore that his edit isn't having the intended effect, since it is listing on-empty categories into the "cat:Empty categories", e.g. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of "The Template Vandal" had one subcategory, 33 entries and the "empty categories" cat at the time of writing... Fram (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is especially concerning given that I had to threaten to block both him and his bot (and did block the bot) just a few days ago in order to get him to stop another series of violations of his other editing restriction. I recommend he be blocked for at least a month, as he's been blocked for 1 week and 2 weeks previously for violation of these same restrictions. However, I also have serious concerns that an administrator is unwilling to work with community-placed restrictions; that sort of conduct seems incompatible with the trust needed to hold the tools. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Therefore, let's not do what happens every time RF is brought here. Instead, let's do one or more of the following:

Archive this thread immediately, as nothing is ever actually done about RF, so why waste the time?
Block RF now, for at least a month or two.
Take RF to ArbCom and have him desysopped

→ ROUX ₪ 19:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say 3 should be done immediately. He is clearly misusing the tools at this point. Silverseren^C 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2 and 3. Rcsprinter (deliver) 21:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Rich's positive contributions far outweigh these occasional "trips off the reservation." – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. How to oppose this argument? It like a mirrored WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let me try:

A: the edits. Say, RF operates a bot that, in multiple tasks, does 10,000 edits with "only 0.5%" errors. That is 50 erroneous edits. Now (apart from how to find those 50 edits and how to repair, in a stack of 10,000 edits!), who of us could do 50 such edits manually without going free? Already after ten such edits I'd be caught and send home. Now RF can do so because "these other edits are so useful"?. Please.

B: the behaviour: If RF knows so well how to do a good edit, and by bot at that, why does RF still does not know to differentiate between these ever-discussed edits and those presumed good ones? Has any editor who says "mostly great", like User:Lionel does, ever had a discussion with RF?

My background in this: I am no admin, nor bot-oriented. I have met RF many months ago (in this same subject), but met RF here through another route (template bot request). I am one of those people that the blocking editor Elen of the Roads describes, below, as been pissed off by RF.

Final note: I get a smell that RF is being protected from above. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Rich. Like Hersfold I have previously threatened to block him for editing outside of restrictions, making volume mistakes and pissing people off. During the Betacommand case we had discussions about the necessity for UAT (testing the final outcome is acceptable to end users for those unfamiliar with the term). Since this UAT f*** up has affected real editors badly, I felt I finally had to block him to get through to him (I tried cussing last time. Didn't work). If someone opens an RfAR, he can be unblocked to contribute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) (NB It's not an Arbcom block, it's just a plain old admin block, so if for some reason the rest of the community decides I'm wrong in the next eight hours while I'm in the land of Nod, please just undo the block Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Good block. Rich is not a bad guy but he seems absolutely incapable of respecting consensus when it comes to his own actions. I would encourage him to take the high road at this point, meaning: hand in his admin bits and voluntarily recuse himself from using AWB or any other automated tool for content creation. Or he can take the low road and wait for arbcom to do it after a lot of bad noise that doesn't improve the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sad truth. See him in a month then. Rcsprinter (orate) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

RPP backlog

There is a massive backlog at WP:RPP.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Secretlondon (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dantherocker1

Resolved

–

User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can stop him. He is very annoying, he has been at it for more than a year now, its getting very old. Somebody needs to stop him. MassFavonia (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any specific problem? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Could you provide some diffs and a brief explanation that tells us what needs to be stopped?--Jayron32 00:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He made a anew account, called User talk:Pooping In Reverse and has used it against Wikipedia's policies. Although it is blocked, someone needs to shut him down and make sure he can't create any more accounts. MassFavonia (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So says you. Do you have any evidence? --Jayron32 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just what we need - a basket of socks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS

Could someone please move User:Don't stuff beans up your nose back to Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose (along with the associated discussion page). Someone moved this into their user space, and I tried to move it back, but forgot to change the namespace back to Wikipedia, and now I can't undo it. Also, this frequently-cited essay is up for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fixed by Salvio giuliano. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And move protected too. Cheers.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we fricking remind people that a game or two may be funny, but ridiculous nominations for deletion are still disruption, and will be dealt with accordingly. April Fool's does not mean IAR for a few hours (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing it on one day does not hurt, especially for non-mainspace pages. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then create WP:Don't stuff Lima beans up your friend's nose, use pinto beans instead; make it humourous. Then nominate it for MFD - you then draw people's attention to your humour. Mindless MFD's are not positive, and are truly a disruption in all cases. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

↑ Truly Awesome. benzband (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools nominations getting out of hand

Summary: Don't disrupt the work of others maintaining or improving the encyclopaedia. Proposals like the one below belong at the the village pump or the talk page of a proposal. Please read this thread before acting next year. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are currently over 40 joke AfD nominations, 15 joke MfD's, and 6 joke RfA's. A couple here or there is funny, but this is beyond disruptive. I run a bot that corrects malformed AfD nominations, and it was blocked because it was adding AfD templates to articles like Jimmy Wales, Earth, and Sexual intercourse, because technically they are nominated for deletion and therefore should have an AfD template on them (bots don't understand jokes). The block was done in good faith by an editor who was just doing his best to minimize the damage being done, but when we get to a point where real work is being disrupted in favor of jokes, then I think we've gone too far. At the risk of being a curmudgeon, I feel that next year the "celebrations" need to have limits imposed on them. It's just not even funny anymore. —SW— ^prattle 14:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Among the 'funny' jokes today was proposed deletion of Adolf Hitler and Moon - when it comes to mainspace articles having deletion templates on them it isn't funny, not that many of them were funny anyway. If one or two people get in first with some clever April fool jokes that don't affect the encyclopedia, fair enough, but dozens of people piling on with lame copycat attempts at humour isn't something we should have every year. --Michig (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; I did mine really early on, but with the number of jokes now I wouldn't start a new one. Besides, messing with MediaWiki is so much more fun. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea for next year. If you make a joke nomination and it's not funny, then you get blocked for the rest of the day. It's funny, right?! Look! You're blocked! It's FUNNY hahahahaha! :P —SW— ^soliloquize 14:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apply that to the joke RfAs too; there are a couple really good ones, but most of them are just terrible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very tempting to bring that forward a year. I feel sorry for the people going through real RfAs at the moment.--Michig (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would make for interesting reading anyway, endless discussions of whether a joke was funny, and of the subsequent blocks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates an important distinction between Wikipedia and other websites (such as Google). The comparison invariably arises, with editors citing Google's April Fools' Day jokes as justification for April foolery at Wikipedia. The key difference is that when Google creates an April Fools' Day joke, it doesn't spawn dozens more throughout the site, added arbitrarily by random visitors. But that's exactly what happens here. If we permit a type of joke, it's extremely difficult to limit the extent to which it's committed. The combination of April Fools' Day's "join in the fun" tone and a wiki's "anyone can edit" nature ensure this. Without clear boundaries, we descend into chaos. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are "only" 15 joke MfDs because I deleted like 14 in the morning. This is just ridiculous...and I agree that most of these silly nominations are just lame. T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What can we do now to stop this from happening next year? Doing this in article space is not a service to our readers, it's disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be difficult to tromp on, and the attempt would publicize things and well, you know what would happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Mom said, "First time, funny. Second time, not funny. Third time, spanking." If you can't bother to be creative and original with your April Fools disruption, you can take the day off. Kilopi (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that works for me, and Wehwalt is probably right. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to delete three of those "joke" pages now because of BLP concerns. This is getting way out of hand. T. Canens (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing some of the remaining joke nominations now. They are disruptive. Wikipedia is not a playground, and the people who think this is a worthwhile use of anyone's time should be editing Uncyclopedia or something else more in line with their degree of maturity. I suggest that we make it clear beforehand next year that the joke is no longer funny, and that misusing Wikipedia processes (such as making frivolous RfA or XfD nominations) for an attempt at humor may result in a block for the rest of the day. Sandstein 17:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ↑ this. —SW— ^express 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I undid some of that type of stuff on a policy page a few times today. I think that a good rule of thumb is that anything that would be considered vandalism during the rest of the year and does not involve some creative humor is still vandalism on April 1st. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The highlight was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hung (2nd nomination), now deleted by me as an attack page, in which an article about a living person was nominated for deletion for a defamatory reason - and three experienced editors actually left joke comments. Sandstein 18:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I somehow missed that. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory? There are many, many, many references for that claim, and a personal opinion about one's taste in music can't be defamatory. That's how the guy got famous, after all; he was kicked from American Idol. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, BLP doesn't necessarily have to have defamatory material. Notice that most of the RfAs were for non-human beings - we don't have a BLA nor a BEO policy, after all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about someone who became famous specifically because people thought his voice was horrible. That's basically the sum of the deleted content. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - When longtime experienced editors just want to have a little fun on a day designed for having fun and pulling pranks, what's wrong with that? As long as it's done tastefully, I don't see a concern with letting some of it go ahead. It's interesting to note that this has been going on for nine years or so and only this year it became a problem for people; yes, it went a bit far this year after I went to bed, but a little fun should still be encouraged and probably agreed upon (in case of mainspace stuff) in advance. CycloneGU (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you are setting a bad example. Yes, I know this is a phrase you may not have heard since school, but it applies. If experience editors say it's ok to mess with Wikipedia today, what's wrong with passing vandals joining in the "fun" any other day? Frankly, I don't see the difference. A large percentage of vandals are only "having a little fun". Besides that, it does nothing for Wikipedia's reputation. We may as well put a big disclaimer up on the Main page for the day; "Warning! Everything you read on Wikipedia today may be a lame attempt at humour, but that's how we roll here. But it's fine for the rest of the year, promise." --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Only this year it became a problem for people"? What on Earth gave you that idea? We have discussions like this one every year, with "You guys have no sense of humor. Lighten up and have some fun, you killjoys!" as the standard response to users complaining about vandalism to the encyclopedia. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire Wikipedia should be deleted and everyone permanently blocked. Night Ranger (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already did that, sort of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was going out of hand, sort of. I request that all joke pages made by me for this year's April 1st be deleted as G7.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know I played a large part in the April Fools stuff this year, and I know I'm probably going to sound like a hypocrite saying this, but I agree with you. I'm actually a bit disappointed in myself for nominating my alternate account for adminship; I now realize that, while we should at least have a little fun here, it shouldn't be done in that way. On the other hand, you're not going to be able to convince everybody who participated that these were disruptive; you've convinced me, so it's entirely possible to convince some people, but I'm pretty sure you won't be able to convince everybody. I've seen a few people say that it's just "harmless April Fools' tomfoolery", but it has gotten a bit out of hand this year (the worst part being the blocking of SnotBot). Next year, we need to make sure that everybody knows that, while a little tomfoolery here and there is fine, it shouldn't escalate to the scale that it did this year. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 18:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned the blocking of Snotblock as "the worst part". I hope that you realize that I did this to minimize the harm caused by the jokes (the insertion of fake AfD tags and issuance of warnings to editors who removed them), not to enable the foolery to continue.

It's highly unfortunate when a productive bot has to be stopped, but that's what happens when users are permitted to sabotage its task for the sake of "fun". —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I personally try to limit myself to one, maybe two jokes each year. Last year, I went to Meta Wiki and proposed to move the servers to Canada, probably one of the better received jokes of the day. This year, I got in an early joke AfD of Irony (nominated out of coincidence, and someone else then ironically nominated Coincidence), and also marked my own user page as "historical" (not using the actual template, causing the page to be tagged, but just the notice userbox contained within the template copied to my user page). The reason the bot is adding the templates is just as discussed above; people are not following the AfD procedure properly even for joke nominations. I do not argue against limits being imposed, but going so far as to completely disallow it because some people are not following proper procedures even for joke nominations is excessive. I personally look forward to the little pranks each year, but I wonder if it might be best to have a place where a few of us get together and coordinate certain pranks that are known in advance, funny, and thus not likely to be reversed before the end of the day. Anything else can be done in userspace by whoever wants to vandalize their own pages, and other little things like project pages being nominated for deletion are still funny if never done before (if it has, it's not really funny). To summarize, don't try to remove it, but rather try to contain it within a selected area every year. I personally am done for the year ~~and will be closing the Irony AfD myself later today~~ (never mind, someone already did so, good way to spoil controlled fun in this case), as well as the historical box on my userpage. CycloneGU (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that we can use things like joke MfDs, but only in something like "WP:April Fools' Day 2012/Jokes/MfDs". At least, no jokes should be transcluded to main pages at all (like joke RfAs not being transcluded onto the main RfA page).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC−)

Agreed. While it was a bit out of hand this year, I don't think we should completely do away with things, just those things that interfere with the mainspace aspect of Wikipedia. As for consequences for next year's out-of-line pranks, I think enforcing a day-long block should not be done unless the user is sufficiently warned first. So, for instance, if someone creates a joke RfA, they should be warned to not do it again rather than be blocked. If they do it (or things like it) repeatedly despite being warned, then a block for the rest of the day will suffice. But only if they ignore sufficient warnings. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joke RfAs should not be in the RfA section at all, I would argue, though joke AfDs I don't see an issue with being in the AfD space (note I did not follow step 3 by adding my joke to the list; because it was a joke, I did not list or categorize it) because people would see that a joke is being done based on the article in question. If it were to be deemed that such joke nominations for AfDs should NOT go in the AfD space, then we need to know where to put such joke nominations next year. For instance, someone next year will probably nominate 2012 phenomenon with a rationale of "It isn't real, it never happened". Of course, I might be stuffing beans into my ears here. CycloneGU (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of y'all are cranky bleepity bleeps who need to lighten up once in a while. :-P Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that. CycloneGU (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If any of them were funny you might have a point. Secretlondon (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny is a personal taste. What you might think funny I don't, and vice versa. CycloneGU (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And whether a joke is "funny" or not, it doesn't belong in the article namespace (which TenPoundHammer vandalised repeatedly, even after being politely asked to stop). —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not you or any of us think it's fun, it's being considered disruptive by a pretty substantial group of editors. While we do deserve a break from the hodgepodge of everyday Wikipedia life, we shouldn't be doing things that'll upset such a group of editors. If it were one or two dissatisfied people, then it wouldn't be as big a deal, but we're talking about a good-sized group. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We only do these as a community. If the whole community isn't at it, we have no excuse for it. How simple!--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. I said that some April Fools' Day things are acceptable, but there are some things that can be considered a bit out-of-line. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 18:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This I can agree with. In limited quantities, it's good; excessively, it's bad and not encouraged. CycloneGU (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what's happened this year, we may need to write a guideline outlining what is and what is not acceptable on April Fools' Day. It'd be a bit tedious to create, but we might just have to do this. I'd be willing to help work on it before I have to return to my real life responsibilities in a couple days. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 19:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. If a bot is blocked because it can't understand humor, couldn't detect that there was a humor template on the AfD nomination, perhaps the bot needs to be turned off for this day. In addition POST FACTO discussions should not have a binding consensus on processes that are taken in (albeit humorous) good faith. It's not like the date was sprung on us last night, we knew it was coming for almost 365 days now. Now if a binding consensus about April Fools Day Jokes on WP is to take place, let's have it outright. Also realize that if we outlaw Article space for April Fools Day, we're going to need many new essays/pages in WP, User, and Talk space for the purpose of having fun for this day. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something to consider. CycloneGU (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are users getting the idea that article vandalism is permitted now? I see no "1 April" exception mentioned at Wikipedia:Vandalism.
When TenPoundHammer continued inserting jokes in articles (after being politely asked to stop), he expressed a belief that such behavior is considered "harmless", encouraged, and even glorified at Wikipedia. If an experienced editor can somehow arrive at that impression, we're in trouble.
This matter is discussed every year, with longstanding consensus that while there's room for some humor on editor-facing pages (i.e. stuff that typical readers will never see), the encyclopedia proper is off-limits. Why is this unclear to some? —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that all this got way out of hand. One or two joke noms may be mildly amusing, but this year at least two editors made over half-a-dozen AFD noms each (and most of them were very unfunny). I support a clampdown on this nonsense next year, with a day's block for anyone who does this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to be complaining about my addition to the top of RfA, so fun can be had without angering too many people; I suggest we have less total jokes that are better thought out (Ron Ritzman's proposal at WP:VPR was another gem). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally liked Ron's "leaving in a hissyfit" on his userpage. CycloneGU (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, him and TPH both. I also made it a point to "AfD" an article with a historical joke rationale, not just some fart joke; those are the kinds of jokes we need. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point Of Order: SW, your bot appeared to never edit the article I nominated for today. Please your list of example edits and consider only complaining on ones that your bot did edit. Hasteur (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily no one was blocked this year (apart from the bot). If you're being reverted please take the hint and step away from the computer. I think the closest we have to policy in this area is this from a few years ago: Wikipedia_talk:Pranking#Some_thoughts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true that no one was blocked apart from the bot. User:Timotheus Canens blocked User:TenPoundHammer. —Lowellian (reply) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That occurred after the above message was written. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking to that zzuuzz! Best thing I've read all day tbh. ~dee^(talk?) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one of the most disheartening things to see is the reversion of joke removals. It's one thing to have a bit of fun, but when someone considers a prank disruptive enough to remove, edit warring to restore it is unacceptable. It's sad that this even needs to be said, but if we must place it in an official 1 April policy or guideline (along with such elusive concepts as "don't vandalise the encyclopedia" and "don't set fire to the WMF servers"), so be it. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a few joke nominations are fine. However, we got to a point where MFD and RFA were completely taken over by joke nominations (MFD had a string of 10-12), and I think that's over the line. (Full disclosure: one of those was mine). --Rs chen7754 20:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree... No one even notices the good jokes anymore. — Edokter (talk) — 20:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

That link by Zzuzz gave me an idea. I think it would be perfectly reasonable if we adopt that policy, for April Fools' Day (only). Perhaps add weight to it by including things related to blocks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking we could do: create a policy (or at least a guideline) outlining what is and what is not considered as an acceptable April Fools' prank. As I said in an earlier comment, I'd be willing to help work on this before I have to return to my real life responsibilities in two or three days. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...using Wikipedia:Pranking (forgot to link in previous cmt) as a template.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've got to run a few places, but I'll be able to help out later this evening (between 00:00 and 01:00 UTC). The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 19:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to have a good read of that talk page before proposing, and especially NYB's words. There's actually a surprising amount on consensus on it for a failed proposal. There's even an underlying assumption, as well as the odd mention, that article space is out of bounds. That would probably be a proposal I could support. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that randomly tagging good articles with AfDs is out of taste. My plan merely involved one article, and I was going to twist it and nominate Coincidence as my single joke next year, but someone already did that as part of this year's. Now I need a new idea for next year. We've had several repetitive nominations this time around, however, and some not so funny ones that took it too far. I like it, but I don't like not being able to keep track of it. If that makes sense without sounding foolish. CycloneGU (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect to see an April Fool article somewhere on the main page on April Fool's Day, hopefully not too obvious. Wouldn't it be better for those editors who want to play April Fool's jokes to actually play one via an article, and work together to make it, well, funny and clever? A lot of what has gone on today is what we would ordinarily call vandalism, and at best is repetitive and lame. Joke AfD's could be made to look like AfDs without causing problems, but let's limit it to a handful of funny ones, not dozens of lame ones.--Michig (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we wanted to be really bureaucratic, we could go through everything listed at the April Fools Day page and see what was and wasn't funny. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this will ever get accepted as a proper policy... But good point, they are getting out of hand. Rcsprinter (chatter) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's only a start, and it requires work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: Seriously, dudes, you're a bunch of buzzkills. Turn off Snotbot for the day and let us have our fun —PBP89 (Chat)(WP Edits: 999,999,999) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You're a bunch of buzzkills." "Let us have our fun." Vandals commonly write such things. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that Purplebackpack89 is not a vandal, however. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point; the similarity is jarring precisely for this reason. —David Levy 21:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you stole my old signature that I got hammered on. :P—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat ironic that you call me a "buzzkill" when I was one of the ones who participated in the "fun" of today. Regardless of the "stupidity" or "hilarity" of all of the jokes and pranks that have gone on today, some of them are causing an uproar in the community. Something has to be done about that uproar; and a guideline (probably not a policy) outlining acceptable and unacceptable April Fools jokes and pranks will probably calm the uproar. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 22:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: See above, the purpose is to take unexpected pieces of the community and have a little fun with them. For example, I nominated the above mentioned sexual intercourse on what would have been reasonable grounds on most other nominations for the past few months. I tagged the AfD nomination with humor, so it was blatantly obvious what it was about, reverted the notification to the original author of the page, and let the reasoned keep/delete votes roll in. Now someone claims that their bot was blocked because (in part) of this when I see that the bot never edited the article, I have to question if the bot itself is faulty. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of hearing whiny comments along the lines of "don't spoil our little bit of fun". This project is a serious reference work read by millions of people each and every day, not an entertainment venue. If readers open our article about, say, physics, they expect it to contain useful content rather than a big red box linking to a lame attempt at a joke. Remember that the kind of people who go around inserting penis images into articles are also only here to have what they think constitutes fun. Policy defines a name for people who "insert obvious nonsense into a page"; they're vandals, and people who intentionally make joke AfD nominations may need to be treated as such, no matter how funny they think they are. Sandstein 21:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of your argument bears no merit. You say, "This project is a serious reference work read by millions of people each and every day, not an entertainment venue. If readers open our article about, say, physics, they expect it to contain useful content rather than a big red box linking to a lame attempt at a joke." In that vein, Google is a serious tool that is the what, number one site visited on the Internet? Meanwhile, they periodically do little doodles changing around how their logo looks for a day. Every year, they do something tasteful for April Fool's Day. This year, they took Google Maps and added a "Quest" feature, making the entire world look like a Dragon Warrior map. It's an optional click right there on the map types. Do we see them any less seriously than before? No, this is how they have a little fun to prank us for April Fool's Day. So if someone creates a tasteful joke on Wikipedia, what is the difference between that and what happens on Google? I marked my page historical and jokingly suggested that Irony is the same as Coincidence (obviously they are regarded as different things). And now you are saying, "Oh look, this guy is a vandal and a detriment to the project." Maybe before you go around making such baseless accusations, you should look at the contribution history of users that you are about to tag as "idiots". Some of these users may have contributed more to the encyclopedia than you yourself have. And I'm not trying to boast about myself when I say that; at this time, I can't be as active as I would like to be. But the statement still stands regarding some of our valued contributors who just want to joke around on the one day of the year that people are encouraged to joke around. Ever watch The Price is Right on April Fool's Day? Last year, they destroyed the set as a joke. People still came back the next day and watched the next episode. Have a laugh once in a while, you might actually live longer! CycloneGU (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting my message from above:

The comparison invariably arises, with editors citing Google's April Fools' Day jokes as justification for April foolery at Wikipedia. The key difference is that when Google creates an April Fools' Day joke, it doesn't spawn dozens more throughout the site, added arbitrarily by random visitors. But that's exactly what happens here. If we permit a type of joke, it's extremely difficult to limit the extent to which it's committed. The combination of April Fools' Day's "join in the fun" tone and a wiki's "anyone can edit" nature ensure this. Without clear boundaries, we descend into chaos.

A handful of jokes, created in a manner that doesn't affect the encyclopedia proper, is mostly harmless. Unfortunately, that isn't what we've had today. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a quick add to this - my purpose for coming to Wikipedia is often for entertainment purposes. I see a song I like, I come here looking for information on the album; I see a movie trailer I like, I look it up here. That isn't a serious school project type of thing (speaking of, Wikipedia was not a permitted source when I was in school); I use it as an entertainment venue myself. CycloneGU (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article about an entertainment-related subject is still a serious part of the encyclopedia. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wrong place for this discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's only one day out of an entire year and the ones who know better know where to place their jokes. RfA's are definitely not one of those places everyday readers go to for information.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it...this wasn't just silly RFA's. It was idiotic AFDing of key articles, major BLP violations ... all in the name of "fun". It's not "fun", it's disruption. I was inches from blocking Jesper earlier because of it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did think of that when SPAs were made for this, though I didn't realize that they were SPAs until the last moment. It'll be over in 81 more minutes. However, I do agree that going to the degree of BLP violations was definitely not OK; my idea is that you stay out of the mainspace, period.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do get it Bwilkins which is why I kept my jokes out of article space. I am perfectly willing to support 24 hour blocks for any joke or prank that disrupts article space but nothing more.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose When its April fools let people have their fun, placing articles up for AfD on April fool's day is just going to lead to them being closed anyways, in the end there is no harm done as long as a joke template is used in the AfD or edit summary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the "fun" spreads to the article namespace, harm is done. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Here's best reason why. Let people have their fun. Relax, it will all be over tomorrow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may work for the time being, but what about next year? Unless something's done, I don't doubt that this will happen again. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 22:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps better planning for such an event, like saying what SPIs, AfDs, etc. are going to be filed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I can't believe you just did that to me (the video link)! CycloneGU (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "Let people vandalise the encyclopedia. Relax, it will all be over tomorrow." —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem really is that bots messed up the joke AfDs. Some people used twinkle to start joke AfDs (see Ritzman), then immediately went back to the article and removed the "big red box" which Wilkins so loathes. But the bots put it back, not realizing it was a joke and didn't belong. So turn off the bots for April 1; turn them back on on April 2. p b p 05:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Idea How about this, no pranks on living people with articles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets to the point where I get blocked two hours after my latest attempt at an April Fools' edit — during a time when I was sleeping and not editing at all — then clearly something has gone too far. Just sayin'. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotta agree with Hammy on that p b p 05:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every year, someone nominates Earth or Human for deletion so this year I decided to something I thought was original. I looked for a notable subject that was invented in a "school" so I could nominate it with the rationale "wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day". I eventually settled on rugby and I was careful not to touch anything in article space. (but snotbot did, I think that this was the first year that we had a bot adding/re-adding AFD tags to articles) The AFD in question was deleted as "vandalism" which I did not find funny. If I had known how out of hand it was going to get this year I might have thought twice before making my joke nom. The joke RFAs got so out of hand that I was half expecting someone to nominate their penis for adminship. One idea for joke AFDs next year, assuming that they are allowed, is to prefix the AFD page name with the date ie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AF2013Earth but use just plain Earth when filling out the afd2 template. It will look normal when transcluded on the log but snotbot won't auto-tag Earth with the AFD tag. Also, joke AFDs on living people should be prohibited. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me, joke AFDs on living people just crosses the line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joke AfDs on living people is overkill. Actual AfDs on non-notable people is regular business. I saw the Rugby Football AfD; it seemed harmless like others. Like Ron, I tried to pick something tasteful, but I always thought the policy was to make it look like part of the business even as a joke. I'd never seen any policy saying otherwise, and I'd like the annual joking to continue, so we need a policy in place for next year. Perhaps as a rule every page in the April Fool's Day 2013 set should have the directory name include that, then a regularly-named name like otherwise? I do not think a bot would try to auto-tag articles inside that directory. Changing the name as Ron suggests fails as the title would be "AF2013Earth", not "Articles for Deletion: Earth (nth nomination)". I will say this, however, and you can agree or disagree all you want: the bot ruined APD2012. Now time to remove the historical box from my userpage. CycloneGU (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I just un-diva-retired. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Intercourse. Plz. Night Ranger (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've thought April Fool's Date was rather stupid for a long time and, often, it goes into the realm of being disruptive. Several sites I frequent decided that for April Fool's, they're going to make everything be upside down. Well, great thanks, now I can't read the site, that's so helpful. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Celebrate April Fool's day in your off-line life or somewhere else on the internet that isn't trying to actually be professional. Silverseren^C 01:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I participated in some of the joke AfDs, I agree most of them lacked quality humor. So the proposal below seems to be good. Each year, only one article could be nominated for deletion, but should be high quality humor clearly distinguishable from petty disruption. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

Editors should be able to have fun once a year. However, some pranks are disruptive. I seek to strike a balance between those two aspects. I propose the following:

There should be one April Fool's prank in article space. This should not involve a living person or an article about a living person. It should be clever, well-designed and funny, like Google's pranks. It should not be immediately obvious as a joke, but neither should it be so plausible that it lasts until after April 1 is over.
Other pranks are OK so long as they stay within the community namespaces (project, user, and talk namespaces), do not affect article space and do not involve living people or articles about living people. For example, joke AfDs would be fine, as long as the joke-nominated articles weren't about living people and didn't have deletion templates on them.
Ruining of (legitimate) jokes by exposing them can result in a block after a warning (but only until April 1 is over, as blocks are not supposed to be punitive).
The best April Fool's pranks should be commemorated in an April Fool's Hall of Fame, the worst in an April Fool's Hall of Infamy.
Editors should try to come up with original pranks, rather than repeating the same ones year after year.
Standard vandalism remedies will be applied to violators of item 1 or the BLP clause of item 2.

Your thoughts? ChromaNebula (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My response:

1. I agree with just one prank in article space but who is going to be the judge or judges on what is clever and well designed? The jokes yes must be made obvious.

2. Agreed with.

3. I dont think this should be the case, rather a person who takes a joke too far should just have one warning then a block. IPs should not make jokes it should only be for people with established accounts here on wikipedia, not to be elite or anything its just those people should know the rules on what is allowed or what is not.

4. We already have that somewhat: Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2012

5. This should be a guideline not a rule.

6. See #3

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It's over now and back to being serious.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The admin do have a point while its only one day there is always next year, the fact that people would make a joke about a living person and go too far on it to me just says that something needs to be done. IM not saying no more pranks but there has to be something in place so something like that doesnt happen again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support blocking any involved user for 24 hours for executing any prank or joke the alters, changes, misleads, or is any form of disruption to articlespace only.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page (on which we feature numerous pranks of the "strange but true" variety) is in the article namespace. Apart from that, no, absolutely not. Wikipedia has enough credibility issues without permitting fake articles. (And as discussed above, because anyone can edit a wiki, if we condone the existence of one, we'll end up with many more.)

I'm okay with #2, provided that article talk pages are off-limits.

The idea of blocking editors for "exposing" jokes is ludicrous.

The rest seems fine, provided that it's worded in the context of what April foolery is tolerated (not encouraged). —David Levy 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Really, we go through this every year. It's always the same arguments, and largely the same editors. There's always a hell of a lot of discussion, and no results whatsoever. April fools' day is over. The credibility of Wikipedia hasn't been compromised, the project hasn't collapsed into chaos, and, amazingly, the world hasn't ended. For the love of God, let's move on with our lives. Swarm ^X 03:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the tone of this approach. Swarm is right but then again this does come up every year. A guideline and a single organized joke might take away a lot of the desire for editors to roll their own. While funny by committee is not funny, it's possible to make this work. And it goes without saying that a single editor should know better than to make multiple similarly uncreative jokes on the same April fools day. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good proposal. We need high quality culture for celebrating April Fools. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3

Next year, change the main page from saying "anyone can edit" to "no one can edit, ever," full protect the whole project, and get back to work April 2. Nobody Ent 02:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 4

Create an adminbot/cratbot that desysops and blocks everyone on Wikipedia, hard blocks all IPs and fully protects all articles. Then forget all about Wikipedia. Night Ranger (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(half-serious) Proposal 5

Back up the database on March 31, then restore the backup on April 2. Show a banner at the top of every page stating that any edits on April 1 will be overwritten the next day. Yes, this might be inviting abuse on April 1, but consider it as food for thought. Kcowolf (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is my only response to this thread. — Andrew Garrett • talk 10:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sian O'Callaghan vs WP:NOTCENSORED

At AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Sian O'Callaghan (2nd nomination), allegedly as "Law enforcement in the UK has requested deletion of this page in order to mitigate pre-trial publicity and ensure a fair trial for the defendant. The page can be restored later if the event remains notable.", per User:Fred Bauder

There is an obvious censorship issue here. Today an article about an alleged murder (and who could want to see a murderer escape justice?), but tomorrow do we see the UK government trying to cover up Jean Charles de Menezes? Also the obvious issue of UK jurisdiction over a US project.

Secondly there's an internal question of procedure. Consensus is clearly to keep this, yet Fred has blanked the article as a de facto censorship of it anyway. So if there's a legal requirement on WMF to do this anyway, why even bother having the AfD? This looks far too much as if AfD was given the opportunity to give the right answer, but when they failed to, they were over-ruled anyway.

On the whole, I'm surprised I haven't seen this here already - it's not just the usual run of AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not know how to spell 'alleged'? Evidently not - I have taken the liberty of adding it where you clearly intended it to go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already raised this at ANI... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is our encyclopedic content which is not censored, we do not, as a matter of policy, include news reports of criminal investigations, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators. We are a reference work not a news outlet. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP of crime perpetrators can still be followed without the deletion or significant redaction of the article. All you have to do is remove the portions of the article that mention a perpetrator and leave the rest that has reliable sources. There's a reason the U.K.-based websites that were reporting on it disappeared in the references, because U.K. law enforcement can ask U.K. websites like The Guardian, BBC and the Daily Mail to take it down. Wikipedia is subject to U.S. law, not U.K., so it would be no different than the People's Republic of China requesting deletion of the article about their firewall. All they can do is request it be taken down, and that's what happened. There's really no reason to remove any content outside of the BLP perpetrators content (specifically naming a non-public individual who had not been convicted, it's entirely fine to say there was an arrest and if there is a trial, they are rightfully named). — Moe ε 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Russian nor the Chinese case is before us. They would represent difficult questions, although not in obviously political cases; in that case we can stiff them; the problem comes in alleged criminal cases which are actually political in a situation where we have no way of determining the matter and are forced to assume general corruption which is not in fact the case. I would like to be able to respond in good faith to requests from either country.

U.K. law enforcement can ask us too and we can respond responsibly. We can do the right thing because it is right, not because we are ordered to. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"not because we are ordered to."

Would I be correct to read that as "In this case at least, we weren't ordered to"? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective in the United States, yes. I'm not sure what our obligations are under English law. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had this been (exactly) a year ago, I might agree, because that's when the event had a majority of it's press as it was unfolding. A year ago, the article was 15 times as long as it is now in its current state. While I think you redacting the article and the U.K. government are doing so in good faith, that doesn't necessarily mean that it ensures the defendant in this case that he receives a fair trial. In fact, having been a year removed from it being a highly notable event, you're not likely to receive an entirely fair trail whether the material stays or goes. Information such as details in the case and the defendant's name are still all over the internet that anyone with Google or an internet archive can find. All the U.K. government did is request the news articles we were linking to be removed hoping this article be removed. This is unquestionably notable so the AFD needs to be closed, because there is undeniably a support for keeping the article and keeping it hostage with a protection and AFD is inappropriate. My recommendation is semi-protection with a discussion to re-add specific content so that it doesn't interfere with the impending trial. The article needs a good amount of its content restored while respecting the defendant's character, because without it, censoring the content like you have gives a false pretense that it isn't notable when it is. As for doing the "right thing", the right thing isn't to give a false impression of the article not being notable or to aid or give any government the authority to dictate notability. Orders from any government authority should be taken with a grain of salt in determining their true intentions. With that being said, we don't know their intentions, good or bad, which leads me to believe that unless there is a lawsuit where an office action occurs we shouldn't be ordered or comply to do anything unless it violates a law. — Moe ε 18:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News reports of a criminal investigation are not a reliable source for our purposes with or without a request. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since that is a plainly false statement in view of standard practice per WP:RS, I can only imagine you intended it as a proposal for a policy change -- in which case it belongs at a relevant policy talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of goes against standards at WP:RS like Nomoskedasticity said. In addition to that, when a source is a news article and a government starts pulling them down from the internet censoring it, it alters its notability by Wikipedia's own standards. Notability is defined by how many reliable sources cover the topic, so you can see the problem when news agencies start having to censor their publications. I hope you can see the problem with a haphazard compliance with a government request to remove such things. — Moe ε 21:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be way too much conspirary theory stuff going on here. The removal of information and restrictions on publishing information in local sources on ongoing trials (sub judice) when that information, true or not, is consider likely to be unduly prejudicial, is a matter of routine in a number of commonwealth countries and is held to be important to ensure a fair trial not only by lawmakers and the police, but also by judges. This doesn't apply once all relevent trials are over and the information can be published barring restrictions for other reasons, but those aren't under consideration here. I haven't seen anyone suggesting we permanently remove information just because of requests by authorities, or remove information for reasons other then sub judice, so talking about government coverups of Jean Charles de Menezes or the Chinese firewall are missing the point. As I said elsewhere, and I'm pretty sure I've said before, I see no reason not to comply with a similar request from the Chinese, or anyone else. But the request has to be similar. Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember now there was the case of Peter Tobin, see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 20#Current legal cases & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177#Admin deletes article per Scottish police (probably more discussion in other areas) Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations are not encyclopediac - and we should actually extend this to all such implicit violations of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need beyond oversighting to community consensus on defamatory material of that nature. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say about this situation is. End the censoring of information on the article now.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this was (apparently) a request from UK law enforcement agencies (and not a private individual asking for information to be removed from their article), it should have been handed to the WMF. The WMF have access to legal counsel, who can advise whether or not the request should be complied with. If it should be, the article should be deleted as an office action. I am going to close the AfD - as "the UK police asked us to delete it" is not a valid reason within Wikipedia policy to propose deletion of an article. I am going to refer it to the WMF. I am not going to unlock the article, but I will take over the protection from Fred. The reason I am not unlocking it is that I want to see what the legal advice from the WMF counsel is, and I do not think the world will end if the article remains a stub for the next 24 hours. I apologise for not picking up on this sooner, would probably have saved some hard words. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The need to lift full protection is not an emergency, so fine -- but if it is not deleted then it must be unprotected. What we've had here is an admin using admin powers to dictate content according to an idiosyncratic view of BLP policy -- ostensibly to remove information about a crime suspect but in fact removing a great deal of material that was not about the suspect. The issue here is not the article but rather the role of admins. (Since the ANI thread along these lines was closed, I'll pursue that issue here.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there was a parallel discussion going on here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Improper use of full protection? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to restore article in full

As nom. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No: this was an office action and thus isn't allowed to be undeleted by community consensus. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you assert, Nyttend, that this was an office action? There is no office template on the page and there is no indication that User:Fred Bauder was acting, or was authorized to act, on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, or indeed anyone but himself. If I've overlooked some place where this was claimed to be an office action, please let me know. If this were indeed an office action, it should certainly have been noted as such in the edit summaries and on the appropriate talk pages, and marked by the appropriate templates. We're not expected to read minds. - Nunh-huh 04:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder did not act for WMF, but on an OTRS ticket he probably should have referred to the office. As I understand it, Elen of the Roads did refer the matter and said it would only be 24 hours however she's doesn't control WMF. Although an individual arb is entitled to no special deference, I'd be inclined to give the office time to work, though updates should be posted even if they are only "no news yet".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put an update on the talkpage in the small hours, and had a discussion with whoever was about. I am about to cautiously unlock the article down to semi protection. For various reasons, I'm not prepared to fully unlock it yet, but the input from IP editors at the talkpage is welcome. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, sorry, didn't look there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose If this is an office action, then the question is moot. If it isn't an office action, then we hide the article until it becomes clear it won't turn into one, and it returns a day or two later. That's reasonable compromise.

I'm not concerned here whether this article is blanked or deleted by an office action. I accept that some things are enforced by the WMF, for the best of reasons. If that's the case, then fine. I'm not screaming about government censorship - or at least not here at WP:AN, directed at the WMF.

What I am still concerned about though is two-fold. Firstly, why is this about deletion at all? Surely the existence of the case, and its notability is beyond doubt, and there can be no reasonable case for pretending the case isn't taking place - jurors will know this much at least. The real question, and the scope of an office action, is the extent of a sub judice blanking notice upon that page, stating that the case exists, is at trial, and that anything else is suppressed for the duration. If we have to act in that way because it's either a legal requirement by applicable law, or considered to be legally prudent to act so by WMF's counsel, then let's do that and be open about it.

Secondly, I'm still concerned over the AfD. If this was happening because of an office action, then an AfD is moot - so let's not pretend that there was ever anything up for the editor community to have any influence over! If this wasn't an office action, then the AfD was firstly unnecessary and secondly should not have been closed on the basis that it was.

I don't much like the WMF. Funny that, they've built this place - there's a lot to be grateful for. Yet of the few times I've encountered their actions (and WP:IEP still rankles), I find them to be needlessly secretive and worst of all, disrespectful of the editor community. Editors built this content, yet the WMF behave as if the editor community must not only be dictated to (perhaps it must, if that was counsel's advice here - I'm OK with that) but also the editors can't even be trusted with the information as to whether they're in control or being listened to. The worst sort of censorship is when it's no longer even permitted to discuss that censorship is taking place. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Andy, in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original lock and proposal for deletion were not done at the behest of the WMF but by an OTRS volunteer. WMF are of the view that absent a legally binding order, the community should decide how to tackle this issue, given all the aspects. See more below and at the article talkpage.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely pitiful

It's sad that for all the claims of user-based governance and so forth, and for that matter, being hosted in a country where the UK's law enforcement has no authority, does nothing to prevent Wikipedia from hopping when some UK cop says frog. If the office folks have such a lack of spine, then perhaps they should be removed and replaced with someone more in tune with the community. Jtrainor (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what happened to the whole "we are not censored, even when governments don't like it" thingie? Or do we have the backbone of jello?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final update

Matter is now resolved - article has not been deleted, is semi-protected. Please read the article talkpage, where discussion is even now taking place as to the best way to present content in line with Wikipedia policies - which are what matter here.

On the "what to do if this happens again" question, the advice given to OTRS volunteers probably wants reviewing. The Foundation is clear that it will only take down content on receipt of a notice from a court of competent jurisdiction (I think the phrase is), so OTRS volunteers should not be deleting articles or starting deletion discussions on the basis of a request of this kind. However, Wikipedia editors are expected to edit in line with policy for one thing, and for another, editors in the country where the trial is taking place may be subject to local laws relating to sub judice, and should be made aware of this. It is therefore reasonable to (for example) hat note the article, or put the English jurisdiction sub judice tempate on the talkpage, or edit the article to remove information sourced to less than impeccable WP:RS, preferably current ones. WMF are clear that it is the community's decision as to what it does in these situations. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the AFD be resumed? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I closed it (if only to stop the bloody bot readding the template). "The rozzers asked us to delete it" was never a sound policy reason, so I kept it (although without prejudice to the person who started, who I honestly believe thought he was doing the right thing). If the community wants to start another one on Wikipedia policy grounds, that option is fully available. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer needed

To act as a single-issue mentor/advisor for DegenFarang (talk · contribs). I'm trying to work with this user to get them unblocked, they have agreed to a topic ban and have agreed that if/when they get into any sort of conflict they will consult with a third party for advice on how to proceed. That's the whole job, no elaborate mentoring program or anything, just the occasional bit of procedural advice on how to proceed in a disagreement since Degen has had repeated problems in that area. It would be best if it was an admin or other experienced user who has no previous dealings with this user. Any takers? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure of RfC at Talk:Libyan civil war#Counterproposal RfC: Move moratorium

Two weeks ago, I initiated an RfC at Talk:Libyan civil war to propose a 6-month moratorium on all requested moves at the page. The proposed allotted discussion time was two weeks, so as to have the closure conveniently line up with the new month. During that time, unanimous consensus was established for the moratorium. Now that two weeks have come and gone, I ask that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion, if the consensus gained is deemed sufficient. Thanks, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIV backlog

WP:AIV has a backlog. Not an April Fools' joke.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already cleared. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atrocious treatment of April Fools celebrants

As everyone knows I like to keep a very, very low profile, so I'm sure my appearance here will come as a surprise to everyone. But I had to speak out. Just had to. I am a brand new member of the WP:Department of Fun and was really looking forward to our big annual event: April Fools. Being my first April Fools I wanted to celebrate with gusto. I "updated" Obama's picture on the Obama portal, and gave equal time to the right wingers by adding a caricature to the Timeline of modern American conservatism, and I created a really cool bot too. What did I get for my efforts? Barnstar? Awesome Wikipedian day? {{Filet-O-Fish}}? No, no and NO! Quick reverts and vandalism warnings on my talk page. Vandalism?!? That edit to the Obama portal was hilarious! What is the matter with you people? Can't you take the plugs out of your asses for just one day out of the year? My goodness another celebrant got blocked! We need to make some changes around here. April Fools is an important holiday and we can't abuse and screw over people who are trying to make things fun around here. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Awesome Wikipedian: to my knowledge the last one was awarded on 21 February 2011 by User:Neutralhomer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes too much is too much, as the other thread above pretty much proves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fun is important, but even on April 1st, people need access to accurate information to get stuff done. We can have find ways to have fun without disrupting reliability, but it takes care. Dcoetzee 05:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two observations:

Barack Obama is a living person.
Your other edits were made on 2 April. →Σ τc. 05:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs to be merged into this and then deleted. We don't want to confuse the bots in 50 years' time. Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize:

You committed several acts of vandalism, which you believe were justified because of a date that already had passed (according to UTC, on which Wikipedia is based) by the time of your second edit.
Your vandalism was reverted and you were warned against perpetrating any more. You find this outrageous because you consider your vandalism "hilarious" and had fun committing it.
In addition to complaining (and demanding that the community embrace vandalism) here, you've proposed a method of delaying future vandalism's detection, thereby ensuring that it remains in place longer (instead of being quickly removed by "humorless bores" who believe that the encyclopedia shouldn't be vandalised).

Did I miss anything? —David Levy 10:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a standing gentleman's agreement that shenanigans will be accepted, so long as they do not disrupt the main space. This year much disruption of the main space was undertaken - to the extent that instead of ranging from "mildly amusing to peurile and idiotic" (seriously; the lack of creativity in the jokes was depressing to the extreme) they ranged from "idiotic to disruptive". I'd have blocked you on BLP grounds for re-inserting that image for a second time, so I suspect you were lucky. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joke in the article mainspace, like this, is inappropriate. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest going to back to keeping a low profile. The treatment you got was deserved. —SW— ^yak 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with pretty much all the above comments. Lionelt, you were lucky not to have gotten yourself blocked and if you try this shenanigans again you won't be so lucky a second time around. Raul654 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, abouut 95% of the April fools stuff discussed here and elsewhere has been just irritating and disruptive, with no real humor about it. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The April Fool's Day "celebrations" are disruptive, annoying and almost universally unfunny. I would rather see Wikipedia shut down for one day out of the year than deal with the days of unneeded cleanup that we suffer through every year. Even the "gentlemen's agreement" to keep the disruption out of the mainspace failed. This year, for example, someone created a fake deletion nomination for Rugby football. They never tagged the page, thinking that would make it okay, but ignored the fact that we have maintenance bots that spent all day trying to "fix" the omitted template. It's past time we outgrew this annual farce. We have enough trouble cleaning up the existing vandalism. We don't need to inflict even more on ourselves. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel, to help you celebrate, I tagged all the articles in WP:Conservatism with the {{AfD}} April Fools Day template. I hope this helps cheer you up. Mojoworker (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also gave him a Fillet-O-Fish. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the OP's past partisanship has partially spoiled his present pursuit of playfulness. El duderino (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing standards

Why the changing standards? We've always accepted this kind of fun — for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination) isn't mentioned anywhere in the nominator's relevant talk archive. When you do something that's been accepted in the past and are threatened for it, it's quite absurd. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lazy, but did that involve a notice placed on Earth? Otherwise, it happened entirely out of article space, and thus is considered okay. The problem with the above is that he made the changes to mainspace articles on April 2, then complained when they were called out as vandalism. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted here this morning, I think we've evolved past the point where such things are feasible. The tent is too big. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nyttend, having organized the 2006 and 2007 April Fool's activities, it's a shame that April Fools day was achieved with such negativity this year. Lionel actions was unacceptable as it disrupted a few namespace articles, but in good faith. Most April Fools jokes are in Wikipedia mainspace, in which only the most experienced editors usually participate and it supposed to be a good laugh for an hour or two, and removed with no harm, and almost every other major website participates as well. ~~I'm beyond shocked.~~ Secret ^account 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the posting above, comparing it from 2006 to 2012, April Fools went way beyond overboard this year, and kinda disruptive, over 40 XFD nominations!!, so I'm striking above. Back in 2006/2007 there was like two or three. Secret ^account 23:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be closed now There is already ongoing discussions over at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ban April Fools pranks and down from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail Tap

I want to redirect Gmail Tap to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google%27s_hoaxes_and_easter_eggs#Gmail_tap but the page is locked to only administrators. Could one of you do this for me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngril (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As an FYI, you could have done this yourself (I'm not an admin either), but I assume the problem was that you used the full url, when you should have just used #REDIRECT [[List of Google's hoaxes and easter eggs#Gmail Tap]]. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the whole URL, I'm pretty sure... But thanks anyways! Youngril (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was something to do with the title blacklist? Graham87 01:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JMU student accounts

It looks like we have a batch new users with accounts starting with JMU*. I'm guessing that is "James Madison University" (based on some of the edits they've done). It would be nice if we could find whomever is heading up this group, determine what they are attempting to do & get proper welcomes distributed before we scare them all off ;-) . --Versa geek 18:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{welcome student}} and {{welcome teacher}} if you find the teacher. Usually assignments involve posting to the teacher's page at some point. Valfontis (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to usernames starting w/ JMU. (keep an eye on the create dates). Valfontis (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD backlog

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure

Month old backlog. Any uninvolved admins like to come help out? - jc37 19:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban of Pigsonthewing

I propose that this editor be topic banned indefinitely from pages relating to Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). There was a similar proposal at AN which can be seen here but this was never agreed upon. Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) responded to the topic ban proposal by saying that "I have already indicated that I refrain from making contentious edits to the article, discussing them first, and as it is the community's wish, I am prepared to undertake not to mention the actual DoB at all. My other, undisputed, edits to the article have helped to improve the encyclopedia. "

On March 30th, Jimbo asked Andy not to further edit the article or interact on the talk page. Andy's reply on April 2nd was in the negative. Later on the same day Andy posted this addition to the article which appears to be true, verifiable, and well-sourced. Nevertheless it has provoked an unncessary, but entirely predictable, round of edit warring culminating in the article being fully protected for the duration of the current deletion review.

Andy has defended his article edits on the article's talk page and subsequent to the full protection has made an edit request ~~to reinstate the removed material.~~ to add further new material. (Assertion refactored after my mistake was pointed out. Apologies all round.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy asserts that he never makes contentious edits to the article, and I agree that from his own point of view they are entirely defensible; he can call on policy and precedent to do so. Nevertheless the fact that his edits are strictly correct does not mean they are not, in practice, disruptive to the activity of the encyclopaedia. I have asked Andy to consider a self-imposed withdrawal from the article and its talk page, but he is unwilling to do so and from his perspective cannot see that he has any responsibility for the disruption that has ensued. I don't think Andy is persuadable that he should leave this page alone. I reiterate that I make no criticism of the content of any recent edits he has made. It is the fact that he, Andy, has made them and the way he has done so that is disruptive and which the community now needs to put a stop to. I will inform him of this post now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this even still necessary? There already was consensus for this topic ban in the discussion the other day. I don't know why it slipped into the archive without being formally enacted. It clearly should have been. I blocked him the other day for continuing his activities on the article, and only unblocked him on the understanding that he would heed what was by then a clearly emergent consensus. I'm quite prepared to block him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Andy needs to leave Jim Hawkins the hell alone. For him to continue editing Hawkins' bio after so many editors have raised concerns about him doing this (not to mention the fact that Hawkins himself feels harassed by Andy's continued focus on him) shows extremely poor judgment. It's disappointing he's chosen not to step away from this BLP on his own volition; I don't see any choice but to make it an official ban. 28bytes (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This cannot be allowed to continue, there is a certain amount of WP:GAME going on here, if it was not the date of birth or where he lives, it would be something else. Game over.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 28bytes. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I refer my fellow editors to my full response to the previous suggestion, where contrary to above assertions there was no consensus for such a ban, and which is not quoted in full by Kim. I have not been involved in what Kim calls "unncessary, but entirely predictable, round of edit warring"; and Kim has said of the edits in question that "You have facts, precedent and logic on your side". Kim's allegation that I have tried "to reinstate the removed material" is untrue. FP withdrew his wholly unwarranted and out-of-process block after criticism of it from other editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you had reinstated the material Andy, I said you had made an edit request. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said "made an edit request to reinstate the removed material". That is a lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I'm not going to wikilawyer this one. I'll leave it to others to judge whether what I said was a fair representation of the situation. I realise that you believe you are in the right on this but I implore you to count the numbers of people supporting my proposal. Either we are all under a kind of mass hysteria, or you are the one who is isolated. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)#[reply]

I'm not asking you to "wikilawyer this one"; I'm pointing out that your claim is a lie. Unequivocally so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kim has now admitted that the quoted claim was false, and since it was nonetheless supported by a number of editors, his explanation of "a kind of mass hysteria" presumably applies? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The substance of this Kafkaesque proposal appears to be that I have breached a non-existent topic ban. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per everything that was said at the previous AN discussion. This looks to me like a deliberate attempt to cause trouble. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. I always think it's a good idea that people take a step back from editing when they become to heavily involved or emotionally invested in this issue. But I think this topic ban should also be extended to at least half a dozen other editors on both sides of the issue and should not just single one person out. There's a lot of hysteria and everyone needs to calm the fuck down. Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I didn't comment during the last topic ban discussion, because I assumed Pigsonthewing would voluntarily withdraw. But it seems he's determined to continue -- to the point of making edit requests even after page protection, and even though the subject has said he feels harassed by him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sorry Andy, but even though I do not believe you intend it to be this way, your presence at this article is clearly disruptive. Since you won't voluntarily remove yourself from the topic area, it behooves us to force it. Reso lute 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone above. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 23:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...sorta. I basically agree with Gamaliel above. I've never seen this before just now, but this whole thing is weird (not least of all because I think that I actually agree with Malleus!). what I see is that some IP user has trolled a BLP article and several of the "usual suspects" on both "sides" have descended on the article to start sniping at each other with snarky comments. If Andy is "topic banned" here, then what about everyone else?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. V = IR may feel slightly uneasy about agreeing with me, but he points out an ineluctable truth. An IP who may or may not be Jim Hawkins has been trolling that subject's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if IPs can talk here. I don't understand this: Pigsonthewing adds the place where the guy lives, ostensibly. What's the problem? Lots of articles have it. Whether it's necessary or not is another matter (but he does that radio show, so I think there is some relevance to it), and next you know everyone is at war. If Pigsonthewing is to be topic-banned for this little edit, then Silver seren and Malleus Fatuorum should be banned also. Bunch of trolls! But the funnest thing here is that Pigsonthewing makes an edit request, which is answered by Tarc--whose only response is "weren't you topic-banned?" Reminds me of a joke. Guy goes to a bakery. "Can I have a loaf of bread?" "Wheat or white?" "Yes." "Yes WHAT?" "Yes Mr. Baker." There was no reason given on the talk page. As for that edit war, I don't know what got up John lilburne's butt, but I think it needs forceful removal. And the reported harassment on the talk page, that's laughable. A radio jock feels stalked because someone puts his verified county of residence in the article? Come on. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are allowed to talk here, IP. However, it appears that you are not making your decision on the full information, and that you are judging things on what you see on the talkpage. You'd have to look in the archives of the article, and click several of the links noted by Kim above to get a fuller picture, but suffice to say, for literally years, POTW has been poking the article's subject (by an adversarial approach, inflammatory talkpage headings[29], repeatedly trying to include information which has been determined inappropriate [30][31][32].) Other links to more recent edits that have since been deleted so you can't see them. Every single time, Hawkins has reacted and drama has ensued. Multiple, very experienced editors (including Jimbo[33], and Fae [34]who has supported POTW in the past, and others[35][36]) have asked POTW, for the good of the encyclopedia, to voluntarily agree to stop editing the article and the talkpage, and let other editors deal it. But he has refused. He is simply not helping the encyclopedia at this point and since he cannot apparently accept this at present, a topic ban is needed. --Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You need to open your eyes as well. This ban has been called for because the article included material published by the subject himself in a nationally available magazine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is being called for because after been asked very nicely by several people to stop editing the article and talkpage because it is causing more disruption than it is worth, he has refused to do so. As Kim says above, this has nothing to do with the content of these particular edits. Slp1 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That position is quite simply absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that if any other editor had added that publicly available information then it would have been retained? Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slp, I am familiar with the history, including the last thread. It doesn't clarify anything, and Malleus's remark is quite pertinent. We're not talking about someone opening up a vault of family secrets. It's the county he inserted--not an address, not even the name of a town. Now how is that unacceptable? I conclude that it can only be because it came from Pigsonthewing. You gave some nice diffs--but they relate to this birthday issue, which isn't what was happening in the edit war that led to full protection. I can't disagree with Jimbo Wales asking Pigsonthewing to stop editing, but to enforce that goes too far. Not that I understand his fascination with the subject, mind you, which I think is a little OTT. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to know, yes, I suspect that if an uninvolved editor had added the info, it would not have been removed. To repeat, this is not about the content but about an editor who despite strong advice that it is best for this encyclopedia if he is not the one to add it. --Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that it might be useful to review WP:Harassment here. Whenever Jim Hawkins pops up, a couple of editors also appear, making minor but irritating edits for no good reason. Jim Hawkins is a radio presenter with a wider off-wiki audience than almost anybody here, and pissing him off enough to start attacking Wikipedia publicly hurts the project a lot more than leaving out the information that a marginally notable person lives in the same county that he broadcasts from. --Pete (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"this is not about the content but about an editor" - the epitome of ad hominem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...about an editor who despite strong advice that it is best for this encyclopedia if he is not the one to add it. " That's not ad hominem but a description of the problem with your tendentious editing of this article despite multiple requests that it would be better for all concerned if you withdrew. --Slp1 (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support If he wouldn't leave voluntarily then a topic ban is the next step. -DJSasso (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny use of the word "voluntary". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice narrow motion here. Collect (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article's existence has caused a lot of grief to the subject, and if the article is still retained (though I hope common sense will prevail at the DRV), then that grief would be largely mitigated by the removal of Pigsonthewing from it. He has been a resounding net negative there over a long period of time, bordering on obsesive. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The claim that the article's existence has caused any grief at all to the subject is unproven, and frankly unbelievable; the subject is clearly only concerned about the fact that his publicity is not exclusively under his own control. To label the inclusion of material published by the subject himself in a nationally available magazine as "stalking" is ludicrous, and to call for a topic ban on that basis is hypocritical, dishonest, and cowardly. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Well thank you Professor Fatuorum for that penetrating insight into the mind and motivations of those who find fault with how the Wikipedia treats their biographies. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of unverified BLP information... Malleus is a professor? 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support POTW's edits have been disruptive on this article and to this encyclopedia, and since it appears that he can't accept the need to withdraw voluntarily, this needs to happen via a topic ban to the article and the talkpage.Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think it would be a good thing if Andy were to step away from the article, but this has the feel of a show trial or a futile blood-sacrifice. At the end of the day, no-one has shown anything wrong with any of Andy's edits. It's just that the subject of the article wants him removed. In that circumstance it's fine to ask him to step away, but it's also OK for him not to do so, unless anyone knows of a policy that says otherwise. FormerIP (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checking your facts would be good. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Explaining what you mean by that would be excellent. FormerIP (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When an editor is either unwilling or unable to disengage from an issue in which their presence - whether intentionally or through good faith actions gone wrong or misinterpreted - causes problems, then it's time for the community to step in and force the editor to disengage. To those suggesting Andy is not the only problem editor in this topic area: if other editors are felt to need time-outs also, please propose topic bans (and provide evidence) for them elsewhere (a sub-section, perhaps?), but piggybacking additional suggested editors onto this proposal is likely to just muddy the issue what to do about Pigsonthewing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Andy is there a need for you to be the one to edit this page? Because it looks like, it's become personal, and if it has, you should just agree not to do it. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it matter, so long as the material can be attributed to reliable sources? Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite Hawkins' attempts to personalise the matter (with regular PAs both on- and off-wiki), I have resisted rising to such bait and have restricted myself to discussion of cited facts pertinent to his biography; and to raising his calls for vandalism on WP:ANI, as I have previously been advised to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because there are many editors who can edit the article; its not going anywhere -- it's here to stay for the foreseeable future and if Andy is the issue than there is no reason for him to be so. On the other hand, if Mr. Hawkins' wants to encourage people to keep editing and taking about his article, it's going to be edited and talked about, with or without Andy. So, I'm leaning toward no formal bans at this point, until we find if it's Mr Hawkins or someone on his behalf that is involved. I still think Andy should refrain. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- why should we be topic banning Andy for adding information to the article that the subject himself supplied to a magazine for publication, including on the web? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- IMHO, the subject of the article, should have 'no say' over what should/shouldn't be in the article or who should or shouldn't be around it. To have such control would be a COI. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support two way ban There are two people involved here who have acted in an infantile manner that continues to disrupt the article. One is Andy, the other is Mr. Hawkins himself. I therefore would only support a restriction that removes both parties from the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sarek. Fighting censorship of reliably-sourced information is something that should evoke praise, not punishment. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Andy shouldn't be subject to any sanctions unless Hawkins is subject to at least the same. It's clear that the behaviour of Hawkins has been considerably worse than that of Andy therefore his editing and off Wikipedia conduct should be addressed either first or simultaneously at the very least. I would support a two way ban with that of Hawkins being the longer.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? You are proposing to topic ban someone who'd rather not have an article about themselves on Wikipedia from posting on the talk page, because they are objecting to having an article about themselves on Wikipedia? Now, there's an interesting proposition... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. You're trying to ban someone who's enforcing site policy but opposing a ban of someone who's trying to censor something that he already put online himself. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is it "enforcing site policy" to put whatever bit of information you can into a BLP as long as you can find a source for it? 28bytes (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In addition, this is a piece of information that can only be found by manually trawling through 1000s of his tweets being into an WP article with a high googleranking. In any case, site policy is clearly and specifically against the inclusion of this info per WP:DOB, and thus POTW, who has year after year tried (and failed) to include the info has been doing the exact opposite of "enforcing site policy". --Slp1 (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not how I found it; nor how I found reference to it on Twitter. Why are you making things up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to how you found it, but how somebody looking for info now would have search for it. But in any case this was not my main point.--Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is till not the case; Hawkins DoB is findable without reference to Twitter; he has referred to it on the BBC website. As for your main point; I refuted that in my response the last time a topic ban was proposed (link above) and found no consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per Jimbo's comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2#Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). PotW and MF need to be removed from this article, its talk page, and discussion of the article anywhere else on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, PotW appears to have demonstrated persistently vexatious behaviour and should have agreed to walk away from JH. A topic ban is now needed to speed up that process. Leaky Caldron 12:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence whatsoever to support your allegation of "vexatious behaviour". Indeed, even the poster of this asinine proposal says "I reiterate that I make no criticism of the content of any recent edits he has made". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speaking as the one who made this asinine proposal, I concur that the content of Andy's comments appears unexceptional. It is the fact that he is the one who made them which I do, indeed, regard as being vexatious. It's a process issue, not a content issue. I'm sure Andy you won't like your edits being called vexatious, any more than I like mine being called asinine, but we must agree to differ on this and just see what our fellow editors think. If our criticism of one another becomes no harsher I can live with that! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pretty much per Jimbo on the DRV. If the subject of a BLP does not want you to edit his article (whether rightly so or not) we should take that into consideration. And in this case I'd say it would be best for everyone if PotW would find other articles to edit. --Conti|✉ 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose One of the best BLP-policy enforcers has edited within policy and worked to form consensus. Persons repeating bad arguments enough times are exhausting the patience of Wikipedia, and their broken-record advocacy has made weak-willed editors advocate unprincipled topic bans. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

support There's nothing about "carefully enforcing BLP policy" that requires one to continue poking the article's subject with a metaphorical stick. Walking away was an option that should have been taken. If AM won't take it himself, it's an appropriate time for a (pretty narrow and generally inconsequential) topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support; Hawkins has a fundamental problem with Wikipedia, and is unhappy in general. However Andy's actions on the article have been part of the main provocation on this issue for a couple of years - a provocation now largely ended and underlined. Except Andy refuses to step away from the article in a mature fashion and indeed insists he has done nothing wrong; refusing to empathise with the subject or even view the possibility that his actions have not been through-and-through positive. Through this he has demonstrated a troublesome attitude to BLP's; his refusal to maturely back away from the issue, and a stated intention to further harass the subject via Wikipedia, mean he needs to be actively limited from doing this. I don't entirely understand Hawkin's feeling of harassment or attack by Andy; however it is clear he feels this way and, as a mature adult, Andy should have been able to empathise and walk away. Not to do so reflect badly on his attitude and aims. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you making things up? Where has Andy said that he intends to "further harass the subject"? Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know; it's disappointing to see you making such a poor quality argument (i.e. inadequate claims of falsehood). He's consistently said he intends to continue editing the article. We can disagree over the term "harass", but in my book it counts - harassment takes many distinct forms (and I may be biased on this having suffered it myself). Hawkins claims the feeling of harassment from Andy (and others); even if we find it inexplicable (or reasonably consider it may be untruthful) there is a mature response; and that is to walk away. Otherwise we are persisting in harassment without any real obvious gain. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. Andy has clearly stated he is restricting himself to discussing cited facts. There is nothing inexplicable about Hawkins trying to get Andy banned from the article. He wants to control every bit of information about himself that is exposed to public view. Well BLP doesn't work like that here. Just because he cries "harassment" doesn't make it so, and it is foolish to accept his word on it. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's harassment, in my view. Disagree if you wish, but kindly sod off with the high-horse accusations of falsehood (because if we are going that route, Andy has demonstrated a lot of falsehood in his handling of this). The long term story of this article is that it was started in a good intentioned way but, and this is as much as I can dig up, Hawkins had an internet troll who followed him round and around, part of which included attacking his biography. I'm sure (or at least hope) you can imagine that causing stress and discomfort; indeed I can actively empathise with him, having suffered at the hands of a similar (though much darker) campaign of harassment. Since that was ironed out, Hawkins obviously retains a low opinion of Wikipedia and does not want an article. Then we come to the latest ~2 year fall out involving the date of birth - Andy persistently raised the issue and gained the ire of Hawkins for doing so. Hawkins views Andy as harassing him over this - and any continued editing of the biography of any sort is exacerbating the issue. As there is no real need for Andy to keep editing it the mature response is simply to walk away and let others do the work. I've done this, at least twice. A subject contacted us via OTRS and I tried to help them remove problematic material and generally clean up their bios - but ultimately couldn't go as far as they wanted. Eventually I became persona non-grata, and they asked me to leave them alone. Which I did, leaving the issue largely resolved. Andy, however, has refused to do this - and is insisting on persisting the issue. There may be some element of attempting to control the article content; and we should limit this. But Andy is clearly a sticking point in any dialogue; and rather than shrug our shoulders and resign ourselves to alienation Andy should walk away and forget about the article. I object to the idea we shouldn't care what a non-editor thinks. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing that an editor is only adding a published date of birth or published location, and therefore it can't be harassment, is the online equivalent of someone being accused of real-life harassment, then deliberately walking past the target's house – while protesting "but I was only walking down the public highway!" Context is everything, and as anyone who has been harassed knows, senses are heightened by the experience, so the subject's perception has to be taken seriously, even if we don't share it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your walking away may have been fine, but it was a voluntary action. Your forcing Andy to walk away is another matter entirely. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Andy has demonstrated a lot of falsehood in his handling of this" - the only falsehood I have demonstrated has been that promulgated by others; like the lie in Kim's proposal, above, which a small, but nonetheless disappointing, number of editors unthinkingly endorse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, sorry to be a pain but I know I wasn't lying because that's the utterance of a deliberate, knowing falsehood. I may have made a mistake, or I may have phrased something in a way that's open to misunderstanding. Can you be clear what it is in my proposal which is a lie? Maybe I can clear up the misunderstanding, or acknowledge my mistake. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's referring to your characterization of the edit request. You say that he requested that the information that he lived in Shropshire be reinstated, but the edit request actually requests that information about his column for Shropshire Life be added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I identified it clearly, above. You responded, but failed to remove it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you did Andy was to jump on me and call me a liar while remaining extremely vague about what was incorrect. Assuming Sarek's helpful explanation is the problem, then I wish you had been as clear to me yesterday. Please assume incompetence in me before you jump to conclusions of malevolence; I try to be neither but the latter is much more objectionable to me. I will go back to my proposal and reword it. My apologies to you for getting this wrong. It does not however change my view that it would be a net gain all round if you no longer edited this article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did no such thing (indeed, I quoted the lie in full); your new comment is therefore a lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your generous acceptance of my apology. Or not. This disputatious, confrontational method you have of interacting is the problem Andy. I know from your contributions that you are a splendid editor and article writer but you have all the people skills and diplomacy of a {insert amusing comparison here}. That was my last attempt at temporising with you, I'll leave this discussion to run its course now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This proposal makes a complete mockery of "comment on the edit, not the editor" principle. Andy has stated above: "I ... have restricted myself to discussion of cited facts pertinent to his biography; and to raising his calls for vandalism on WP:ANI, as I have previously been advised to do", and while he maintains that self-imposed restriction, it is a complete over-reaction to attempt to silence him on this topic. None of those supporting would accept a proposal to topic ban them from an area where they were reasonably editing in the way that Andy has restricted himself to. If Andy were to breach his own restriction, then it would be time for this lynch mob to reconvene. In the meantime, there is no valid reason to ban Andy from "discussion of cited facts", unless we think it sensible to allow subjects of BLPs to dictate who can contribute to their articles. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Are we an objective information source or an MMORPG? The article subject can have no other reason for wanting to remove information about himself from a Wikipedia article other than for spite, or to prove he can do it, or to win some kind of battle/crusade. The information Andy wants to add to the article is available throughout the internet, including the subject's own official Twitter feed as well as the BBC. The deletion request is made in bad faith. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Beeblebrox's view, but in light of our inability to identify Mr. Hawkins, a ban on Pigsonthewing and his accompanying consistent disruption is needed. MBisanz ^talk 20:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other involved editors

Any topic ban should be extended to User:Malleus Fatuorum, who has taken to calling Jim Hawkins an idiot on the talk page. --Pete (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually true, but I did call Hawkins a pratt elsewhere. Twice I think. Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban of Malleus Fatuorum - for (a) calling Hawkins an 'idiot', and a 'pratt' (US contributors might like to look that one up in a dictionary), and for not being able to read a link that clearly shows him doing the former. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No surprises there then. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has MF been blocked for his violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? If he hasn't been blocked, why? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're... new around here, aren't you? Doc talk 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

140, you are well aware of the situation. No need for rhetorical questions. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

must be one of the other people who use this computer. there are many. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. Malleus Fatuorum 06:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loki may have used his mind-control mojo on the purple archer, Hawkeye. Ãvengers Assemble! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is an absolutely brilliant idea. Let's take an already highly polarized issue, pick out a couple of the high profile folks on one side of the conflict, and try to get them topic banned. What an awesome idea!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you'd like to explain why an article on a vaguely-notable radio broadcaster has become a "highly polarized issue" in the first place? Nothing to do with the idiotic soapboxing that has gone on by the 'WP:NOTCENSORED - we can fill articles with any old crap' crowd? The simple facts are that what should have been a minor dispute over what is reasonable content in an article about someone that few have heard of, has instead become a magnet for the most ridiculous point-scoring, ludicrous waffle, and outright trolling, as one could possibly imagine. Of course Hawkins is pissed off - who wouldn't be, seeing such infantile behaviour. If we are going to have heated debates involving personal attacks, rent-a-mob editing, and general mayhem, let's at least find something that actually matters to do it over... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may actually be compelling, except for the fact that at least half of the "infantile behaviour" is coming from Hawkins himself (if you believe that it actually is Hawkins here; but even if you don't he's on YouTube and apparently local and UK national radio screaming about what a hardship it is to have a Wikipedia article about himself in existence). Hell, at this point at least part of the reason that he's notable appears to be related to his anti-Wikipedia screeds! Apparently everyone can publish whatever they like about the guy as long as it's not repeated on Wikipedia.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. More reliable sources to back up his notability with this will be interesting when forthcoming. Folks: if you want to be in the public eye for a living, expect the unexpected. It's an occupational hazard. Doc talk 05:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. BLP isn't an excuse to run roughshod over our site's policies and guidelines; we've banned people for trying to do that before (before my time, but Don Murphy is one such example; there are others). How is it that we demand COI editors give us a shrubbery before daring to contest information about their band/creation/product, but people obstruct any attempt to prevent semi-coherent, unfounded bitching from subjects in these situations? I would wholeheartedly support banning Hawkins from the article to prevent his trolling the talkpage with vague complaints any further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per Jimbo's comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2#Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). PotW and MF need to be removed from this article, its talk page, and discussion of the article anywhere else on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strained reasoning to leap to barring MF here -- as "search" times out in counting the number of times "idiot" appears on article talk pages. We ought not get carried away. (Note I !voted "delete" on the article) Collect (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Persons who faint when they hear disagreement can host tea parties in Stockholm. Some discussions and debates take time to resolve, and free discussion is better than more authoritarianism. Wikipedia has enough apparently authoritarian personalities clamoring for topic bans and blocks whenever there is conflict, and they should be repudiated. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Malleus did some trash talk on the AFD. But doesn't seem to have a stated intention to continue to poke at the subject (via the article). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is it still April 1st? --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If people can't stand Malleus' forthright and accurate condemnation of "hypocritical, dishonest, and cowardly" behaviour, then they need to seriously consider finding a more tranquil hobby. I'd suggest crochet may be suitable. Calling a pratt a pratt is not sanctionable. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Utterly absurd. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ridiculous melodrama. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hawkins

Those calling for JH to be topic banned from his article and its talk page would do well to consider that doing just that would give him more ammunition in his crusade against the article. Sometimes it is better to allow people such as this room to vent, rather than banning them from an article which they are the subject of. Hopefully, with MF and PotW topic banned, a reasonable number of watchers and semi-protection in place (this could be raised to permanant full protection as I recently proposed), this article can then settle down to its relative obscurity in a dark corner of Wikipedia. JH has been told a number of times how to get any inaccuracies in the article corrected, something he adamantly refuses to do. All info in the article checks out, there is nothing negative about him in the article. You can lead a horse to water... Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: .. with MF and PotW topic banned, - are you declaring a consensus or making a unilateral decision? .. or just speculating on solution? I'm asking because my perception is honestly unclear on how that sentence was intended. I certainly don't see any consensus for MF being topic banned from that at this point. I'm even somewhat questioning if PotW has firmly been placed under that restriction. — Ched : ? 12:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been - though some people appear to believe that I've breached a de facto ban by editing after being given the option to withdraw voluntarily. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as Andy says there is no formal, informal, voluntary, obligatory or de facto ban currently in place. Hence this discussion to implement a formal, obligatory ban which as far as I can see is not over. Until it is, no ban exists (and of course none may exist even then, depending on the closing admin's reading of consensus). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I was looking into a crystal ball there, speculating what may happen if a set of circumstances was in place. It was not ny intent to present my comments as my imposing the topic bans currently under discussion on the editors in question. It is for the closer to determine whether or not the proposed topic bans should, or should not, be enacted.

PoTW, you seem to be missing the point of Jimbo's "request". IMHO, he wasn't asking you to stay away from the article, he was telling you to (I'm open to correction by Jimbo here if I've got it wrong). The way I read it was "I'm asking you very nicely to stay off the article; but, if you don't, there will be repercussions". This proposed topic ban is a direct result of your declining to accede to Jimbo's request.

(edit conflict) Thank you for the clarification, and ...

comment: I'm somewhat confused, and more than a little suspicious of this entire ordeal. First, if a person chooses a profession within the public eye, then I often think of the phrase "even bad publicity is better than no publicity" quote. Meaning that Mr. Hawkins appears to be more a local voice than a internationally known celebrity. As such I would think that he would be grateful for an article on a site with the exposure that WP has; especially as it is not inflammatory or derogatory. The article even attempts to document facts he himself has offered into public evidence. That he (JH or an accomplice) would raise such a fuss over PotW's efforts to document the article to me reeks of some sort of attempt to manipulate WP as a tool in a publicity stunt enacted in order to embiggen his popularity or fan-base. On that note, I'm more inclined to ignore the whole thing and let the article drift back to (as Mjroots says) some "dark corner" of obscurity. Cynical perhaps, but just IMHO. — Ched : ? 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, the nub of it is that JH, like Sally Boazman and others, doesn't get to control what goes into, and what is kept out of, the article and doesn't like it. Both have tried to get their articles deleted and failed. No doubt there are others. If the situation was reversed, and a non-notable person was trying to get an article kept on Wikipedia, I'd be doing my best to ensure it was deleted. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not quite all there is to it. He's also unhappy that he has to go in and revert stupid shit that anonymous lulzers put in there about him. Not everyone thinks that having an article about them on Wikipedia is a blessing that they should be grateful to us for bestowing upon them. Not everyone feels honored that the number-one Google hit for their name is a biographical article on an open wiki that any idiot can add hateful comments to. Especially when we then turn around and insult the article subject for daring to be bothered by it. Don't think people aren't cataloging the various occasions Wikipedia editors have insulted the guy. Right here on this thread admins are calling him a troll and calling his complaints "semi-coherent, unfounded bitching." You think that reflects well on us? It does not. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What reflects poorly on us is this pusillanimous kow-towing to someone whose complaints amount to "semi-coherent, unfounded bitching". We should have a bit of backbone and topic ban Hawkins. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'm not condoning any edits to the article that were in breach of BLP, the fact is that JH does not have to remove stupid shit from his article. There are plenty of other editors about who can do this. With the number of watchers of the article now, I would expect that any future vandalism of that sort would be quickly dealt with. Of course, long-term full protection of the article would prevent any vandalism in the first place, as I've said before.

JH should drop the Off-Wiki bashing of us Wikipedians. His continual sniping at us on Twitter is not doing his cause any good. Seems to me that he is still flogging a dead horse with the continual attempts to get the article deleted. In return, we, as Wikipedians need to ensure that the article remains fully compliant with WP:BLP. As Jimbo has said, it would be better if certain editors were kept away from the article as part of our side of the bargain, hence the two discussions above. Mjroots (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to be fair it's not "admins" who are saying that, it's me. His actions strongly resemble those of a banned user regarding his article; one can only make vague accusations for so long before it moves from a concerned subject to someone trying to troll his way into getting his demands; I think we passed that point a while ago. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the county he publicly acknowledges living in "stupid shit" any more than the county he was born in? And Mjroots, if Jimbo told you to jump off a cliff would you do that as well? Jimbo's opinion is irrelevant, or at least no more relevant than anyone else's. It's high time that Hawkins was topic banned from his article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a chip for you to bargain with. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing "stupid shit that anonymous lulzers put in there about him", remember that Hawkins has asked his Twitter followers to enter falsehoods into Wikipedia, and specifically into our article about him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with "[if] a non-notable person was trying to get an article kept on Wikipedia, I'd be doing my best to ensure it was deleted.", because that draws a false equality between the two situations. A non-notable person is non-notable, and should be excluded. A notable person (even a marginally notable person, and nearly anyone who regularly goes onto the public airwaves has at least some notability) can always have an article, if it's warranted. This person is living in the public eye at least part of the time, so there should be no reason that documenting his public persona would be a real problem. The fact that he doesn't like Wikipedia and publicly speaks out about it on the air only increases his profile (bumping his notability up slightly), since he's using this site as a bit of a hot button topic. He's certainly not "world renowned", but he has enough of a public profile that at least some people be looking him up. Judgement can vary about how much interest is enough interest for Wikipedia to have an article on the person, but it seems as though that decision has already been made here several times.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of engaging in off-wiki organized vandalism campaigns, why doesn't the subject go through the normal channels to find satisfaction for his complaints? This is an issue for OTRS, or perhaps the Foundation. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's been doing precisely that for six years. Nothing happens, The only good result is that at last all the crap is out of his article, but as we see, certain editors still want to harass him with trivial edits that are in themselves wikilegal, but have the effect of upsetting him even further. He's not one of us, he doesn't understand how all this stuff works and from his point of view we're all a wunch of bankers. --Pete (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works both ways of course. And nobody in their right mind could possibly call the inclusion of a simple fact published by the subject himself in a nationally available magazine as "harassment". Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does. --Pete (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "in their right mind". BTW, I don't believe that link says what you imply it does. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1rR at Pro-life feminism

{{archive top|1=Nothing to discuss here, move along... --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 03:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)}}Struck close pending request for clarification.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A notice for a 1RR restriction has been placed at [37] by User:Binksternet after he issued a strong warning to me that the article was under 1RR. He stated on the talk page that it is abortion-related, and that any editor could establish the 1RR restriction.

Curiously enough, Binksternet was blocked in the recent past for a full week for violating an 1RR restriction placed on him [38], then also given a 0RR restriction on an article, etc. Making his stern insistence on 1RR enforcement tres amusant. The enabling page does not appear to indicate that Pro-life feminism is one of the articles included, nor has it ever been included in the past. The ArbCom page states that admins may act, but I do not think Binksternet is an admin, and if he were, his acts as an involved editor would bar him from acting. What I find most amusing is that this non-admin is the one who is most active in injecting "abortion" into the article, in which it ought to play a very minor role indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet's block doesn't change the fact that the entire abortion topic area is under 1RR - rather, it provides evidence of that fact. As I've already explained to you, the article is semiprotected for three years as a result of the ArbCom case, proof of which can easily be found on the case page, so there's absolutely no use pretending that the article isn't covered by that case. You're also not making yourself look very good by falsely attributing to Binksternet the claim that any user can establish a 1RR restriction, after Binksternet and I were kind enough to warn you that it was a sanction reaffirmed by the Arbitration Committee after being imposed by the community, and after you were subsequently warned by an administrator. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The admin stated that anyone at all can place the warning notice on any page - which I find outre. And the "warning" was that the admin felt that the notice sould be so placed. Cheers - but notes here which are inaccurate and placed by an involved editor ought reasonably be responded to. Binksternet stated Any editor, even Collect, is able to add the 1RR notice at the top of this page which is contrary to how I understand the process. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, on reading the community sanctions and the Arb case, I'm not sure the 1RR is still in effect. I'll check on this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the case leads me to think that it is in effect indefinitely. The sanctions would be lifted only by later decision. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYyankees51 checked with Jclemens some little while after the case because he and I also weren't sure if it still applied, and he confirmed that it is: "unless we explicitly say we're taking away a community remedy, assume that we're not". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

page with cleanup needed

The Annelid page has several places where a boilerplate "example image" has been randomly placed. It clearly doesn't belong there and I'm not sure how to remove them.--66.7.139.222 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be OK now after this fix. You may have to bypass your browser cache to see the latest version - Ctrl-F5 in many browsers. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incompatible with building an encyclopedia?

Collect (talk · contribs) states here that "and most of [8000 articles mentioning abortion] have a far clearer connection to "abortion" than this article has". "This article" is Pro-life feminism. This statement seems to me to show a POV-pushing mentality that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Should administrative action be taken? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[SCHOOL-1] Prieto, Bianca (March 17, 2012). "Tensions still simmer in Trayvon Martin shooting case". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved March 23, 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[MiamiHerald-2] Burch, Audra D.S. (March 22, 2012). "Trayvon Martin: a typical teen who loved video games, looked forward to prom". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 2012-03-23. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[3] Anderson, Curt (2012-03-26). "Family: pot linked to Trayvon Martin suspension". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2012-03-26.

[NYT911-4] Alvarez, Lizette (March 17, 2012). "911 Calls Add Detail to Debate Over Florida Killing". The New York Times. Retrieved March 20, 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 877: / Line 877: @@
 The [[Annelid]] page has several places where a boilerplate "example image" has been randomly placed. It clearly doesn't belong there and I'm not sure how to remove them.--[[Special:Contributions/66.7.139.222|66.7.139.222]] ([[User talk:66.7.139.222|talk]]) 15:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 :The page should be OK now after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Annotated_image&diff=485272457&oldid=485208959 this fix]. You may have to [[WP:BYPASS|bypass your browser cache]] to see the latest version - Ctrl-F5 in many browsers. -- [[User:John of Reading|John of Reading]] ([[User talk:John of Reading|talk]]) 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
+== Incompatible with building an encyclopedia? ==
+{{User|Collect}} states {{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|prev|485403803|here}} that "and most of [8000 articles mentioning abortion] have a ''far clearer connection'' to "abortion" than this article has". "This article" is [[Pro-life feminism]]. This statement seems to me to show a POV-pushing mentality that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Should administrative action be taken? --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 22:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 22:05, 3 April 2012