Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

The following is a brief overview of new discussions taking place on the English Wikipedia. For older, yet possibly active, discussions please see last week's edition.

It is possible that the long-running saga of User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses is over, at least temporarily. As reported previously, User:Erik9 had nominated the user page for violating the policy on non-free content. Although there seemed to be no consensus on the matter, the debate continued at deletion review and a request for comment, before a second nomination of the user page was made.

It was during this debate that User:Cool Hand Luke posted to the administrators noticeboard the belief that the account was a sock puppet of User:John254. Erik9 was indefinitely blocked on 22 September by User:MZMcBride, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (second nomination) was closed as no consensus on 29 September by User:Cirt. User:Jack Merridew, itself a sock puppet account, offered a smile and a wink to Erik9: "bye, Erik ;)" ^[1] and this pair of comments.

At the Village Pump, User:Hammersoft has requested comment on two issues related to trademarks:

Should icons of trademarks be permitted in infoboxes or should they only be displayed in their full size?

Should trademarks of a subsidiary organization of a parent organization be displayed in the infobox of a parent organization's article?

User:Andrwsc felt the questions raised a gap in Wikipedia's policies: "What is missing is a clear policy about the use of trademarked logos in general". User:Postdlf noted that "Wikipedia content by its very nature only uses trademarks nominatively—to identify a trademarked product or service or the trademark holder. This is not trademark infringement, and in fact it is something even competing commercial companies can do legally, as in comparative advertising." User:Mr.Z-man felt that "All that matters is that the primary logo in the infobox is the primary logo of the school, not the logo of some specific department or section."

User:SlimVirgin requested clarification over the privacy section of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. SlimVirgin felt the section as written would "allow people to create alternate accounts for the express purpose of editing in controversial areas", something which would conflict with '"avoiding scrutiny" prohibition'. SlimVirgin proposed instead that the section read:

Privacy: An editor may create an alternate account to edit articles that might serve to identify him; for example, he might want to edit articles about his home town or about an unusual hobby he's associated with in real life.

However, User:Abductive failed to see an issue: "Whatever this incident with socking by The Undertow has done to Wikipedia, putting in place an toothless statement against privacy is not the solution." User:Ottava Rima felt the solution was simple: "One user, one account." After User:Risker pointed out "There are real issues with criminalising good behaviour" SlimVirgin conceded that "There's clearly no consensus to jiggle with the privacy provision, so I won't push it."

Main story: Sockpuppet scandal

This week saw scandal erupting around the Arbitration Committee after administrator Law was revealed to be a sockpuppet of the_undertow—a sockpuppet apparently operated with the knowledge of numerous administrators and of at least one member of the Committee.

A round up of polls spotted by your writer in the last seven days or so, bearing in mind of course that voting is evil. You can suggest a poll for inclusion, preferably including details as to how the poll will be closed and implemented, either on the tip line or by directly editing the next issue.

• User:Shoemaker's Holiday has initiated a poll at What Wikipedia is not as to whether to change the wording of "A concise plot summary is sometimes appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." The poll "seek[s] a temporary consensus to change" sometimes appropriate so that it instead reads usually appropriate. No conditions or time-line have been set for closing the poll.
• Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates is apparently not a poll. However people are supporting or opposing a proposal to amend WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) so that YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are not allowed in footnotes. Currently the Manual of Style guides against only their use in sentences.
• User:Chillum has instigated a poll after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry as to whether users should be required to declare their alternate accounts to an authority such as a checkuser or arbcom?

Your writer has trawled the deletion debates opened and closed in the last week and presents these debates for your edification. Either they generated larger than average response, centred on policy in an illuminating way, or otherwise just jumped out as of interest. Feel free to suggest interesting deletion debates for future editions here.

Soviet-run peace movements in the West has been re-nominated after a listing at deletion review. The previous debate, closed on 19 July, was believed to have been biased by "off-site canvassing on a secret mailing list", while the closer of the first discussion, User:Pastor Theo, was "later determined to be a sockpuppet of a banned user". The second nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in the West. User:Crotalus horridus contends that the article is "a clear violation of synthesis, not to mention [the] neutral point of view" policy.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination) has been listed at deletion review. As reported last week, the article was re-nominated at AFD roughly ninety minutes after the previous debate had closed. This re-nomination was closed by User:NuclearWarfare as no consensus on 2 October. Article nominator User:Cunard lodged the review later that day, expressing the opinion that "no reliable sources were found to establish the notability of this website". NuclearWarfare is happy for "the DRV community to decide" the outcome.

• Is Predatory fish the same article as Predator fish, or are they different and therefore they should both be in Wikipedia? Discuss
• Is Boycott Scotland a "non neutral website" whose notability is based "on 24-48 hours worth of media jumping on the bandwagon"? Discuss here
• Mass nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillabhrenainn Ua hAnradhain sees thirty-eight articles nominated for deletion by User:Lampman who says there is "nothing in these articles that could not be represented much better in a list."
• The notability of Patricia Aakhus, Randall V. Mills, Russell Blaylock, Free alternatives to proprietary software, BitchX, Alianore de Lovayne, Todd Bardwick, Bee Money, Abkhazia–Venezuela relations, PIRCH, Bonus round and Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck has been questioned and is proving contentious in the relevant deletion debates
• This week's too long didn't read award goes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hispanic Day
• Have you heard of the Raptor Jesus meme?
• Bad smell award: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage 2 has been open since 12 September, having been relisted by three separate administrators. A further re-listing looks unlikely to your writer

• Should we merge Category:List of rivers of the United States to Category:Lists of rivers of the United States?
• Is Category:Places historically in Berkshire over-categorisation?
• Should we remove "genre" from the name of Category:Western (genre) films and its subcategories? Discuss
• Should we have templates like {{Latest stable software release/rxIRC}} for tracking non-notable software? Discuss

• A discussion at the administrators noticeboard was initiated by User:MZMcBride, who wanted to know if there would be an "issue lifting some ancient indefinite protections placed on talk pages?" MZMcBride has compiled a list of such pages at Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely fully-protected talk pages. The only real concerns expressed were that administrators should not "unprotect them blindly, [since] there needs to be someone to recognize when an ancient protection is there for a very good reason".
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator has been created "to address the role of administrators and editors by consolidating efforts to address relevant issues". Your writer has signed up.
• User:Shivlingam was blocked for socking and generally being a nuisance after it transpired they had awarded them-self every possible barnstar. (See Abuse of barnstars / possible sockpuppetry)
• User:WebHamster was indefinitely blocked for breaching the policy on Living people's biographies. (See Richard Gere and the gerbil)

• User:SlimVirgin has proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee code of conduct
• User:Ched Davis has proposed Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct
• Wikipedia:Vetting process has been tagged as being a new idea. The idea is that "experienced editors are invited to propose possible {administrator] candidates for vetting", in part to "prevent the RfA process from being quite so toxic"
• Should the Manual of Style guide against the term "and/or" while using it quite prolifically within its own guidance? Discussion at And/or
• It is proposed to merge a number of separate naming conventions back into Wikipedia:Naming conventions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Merge. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) have already been merged back to the main page

• User:Crusio has proposed Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)
• User:Balloonman has proposed Wikipedia:Adminship coaching with tools RfA reform proposal

Thirty Requests for comment have been made in the week of 28 September – 4 October:

← Previous "Discussion report"

Next "Discussion report" →

In this issue

5 October 2009 (all comments)

New talk pages

Sockpuppet scandal

News and notes

In the news

Discussion report

WikiProject report

Features and admins

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

• The RfC on the proposal to increase the default size of thumbnail images might be important enough to highlight, since it involves a very high proportion of WP articles. Tony (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll bear that in mind for next week's edition. All readers are reminded that each issue is directly editable prior to publication, and that we operate a tip line at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. People can also drop me a line at my talk page, I'm not likely to view any notices as canvassing since I'm fairly confident in my ability to judge whether to include something or not. Hiding T 12:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What is with all the sockpuppet accounts unveiled all the sudden? The naysayers are going to have a field day with this, you know... *wanders off grumbling incoherently* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]