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