Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Are you sure that this is the page you are looking for? 2 Dispute resolution 3 Using this page 4 Invalid Sockpupperty Decision 5 Rules on April Fool jokes 6 IDGR 7 Challenges of upholding WP:BLP policy 8 Transnistria 9 Deletion processes backlogged 10 Request at User talk:75.92.75.126 11 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XXL (band) 12 Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab 13 Threats from a 'disgruntled' Editor 14 Is WP:PUI ineffective? 15 When signatures go bad... 16 Dunkenud (talk • contribs • count) block review 17 Could someone look into the issues brought up at User_talk:ESkog#Vandalization 18 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship 19 Deceased Wikipedians message 20 Wikipedia:List of protected pages 21 User:STS01 insists that reposting warnings on talk page isn't edit-warring 22 User talk:R9tgokunks 23 Rules for the next board election are being established 24 Black Tusk 25 Kansei Nakano 26 Misuse of warning templates

[edit] Invalid Sockpupperty Decision

User:Jpgordon has declared that user:sundaram7 has many sockpuppet and I am one of them. This is not a legitimate decision. Based on this declaration,user:Aksi_great has blocked my id indefinitely.

Reasons for my arguments:

1. Based on the check user, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn,the User:Jpgordon found sockpuppetry for user in different countries!! check the IP addresses in the argument and my IP address. He didn't put any reasons for it. Instead he put a odd statement[1] on the IP address.
2. user:Aksi_great is biased on this case. When User:Jpgordon first declined the case, he forced him to block the ids:[2].
3. user:Aksi_great is taking this in a very unprofessional way. see his odd comments [3] and [4].He has started putting unrelated users [5] under user:sundaram7.
4. Check the talk pages User_talk:Jpgordon, User_talk:Fear_the_Fire, [6].

I request you to remove all the sockpuppetry items from the user user:sundaram7 and unlock the users. Also I suggest you to check the nutrality of the admins who made the decisions.

If user:aksi_great was truthful and trying to resolve the issue[7], he might have taken a neutral descision checking all the users involved in vandalism and 3RR, instead he has taken a biased decision which is narrated in the user page [8]. Similarly, the administrator was not patiant to read all the arguments and counter arguments in the page. He put a odd statement[9] instead of a neutral descision. __ 213.165.53.209 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

And you are claiming to be who, Fear the Fire (talk • contribs)? --kingboyk 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

my user id is user:truehindu. I have noticed that the IP address change when i connect the net again, because of service provider IP range ___ 213.165.52.248 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this case is not taken care of. The issue that user:truehindu has rasied is still pending. We deserve a reply from kingboyk and the administrators. Sundaram7 06:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to requset some administrator to take care of this case -- Sundaram7 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have requested the administrators Jpgordon :[10],Aksi_great[11] to review the situation. There is no explaination of thier action. I have posted a message in Kingboyk:[12]'s talk page, but he is now withdrowing from this case:[13]. -- Sundaram7 08:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see why I got the message now. I thought it was a bit random. My original question was just to help the discussion along, it doesn't mean I've undertaken to sort it out nor do I have the competence to do it as I don't have checkuser access. --kingboyk 10:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why no administrators are taking care of only this issue. user:truehindu from 213.165.53.171 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

More Evidences for not sockpuppetter: Here are some more evidences which support that they are all different users: user:Jpgordon don't have any clear evidences put forward to justify his decision. [14]. User user:Aksi_great also don't have any clear evidences[15]. He is now keeping silence on this case. If they are truthful, they should provide some evidences. Otherwise we may have to assume that they trying to abuse the Admin power. It is proved that User:Fear_the_Fire and User:notBound are two different persons and they are not related. see User_talk:Fear_the_Fire for the details and evidences. User:213.165.52.248, who is user:truehindu[16] from his signature above, is using different IP than another blocked IP 59.160.207.14 [17] and it is put under my suspected user!. It is clear that user:Fear_the_Fire is editing from 59.160.207.14, from india, from his posting here: [18]. How it can be user:truehindu. User:notBound is also editing from India [19] and his also not user:truehindu. Finally, I am surprised to see why this case is not checked by some Administrator, Yet!! --- Sundaram7 06:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

People here fail to notice that Jpgordon has CheckUser status—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that Jpgordon has check user status. But the evidences above shows that his decision is wrong. Either he is abusing the policy (One is not allowed to use the tool for political control, nor to apply pressure on editors, nor as a threat toward an editor with whom you are in disagreement.[20]) or it is mistake from his side. Some other administrator with CheckUser status could verify it. -- Sundaram7 06:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules on April Fool jokes

(moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/AprilFools2007)

[edit] IDGR

Would you please be kind enogh to have a look onto the lemma IDGR? An account with the handle Jesusfreund (friend of jesus) seems to be eager to delete prooven and well sourced informations, for sample see [21]. Please allow me to point out clearly in contrast to jesusfreunds edit summary that of course Margret Bezold-Chatwins name is still the same and never has changed as easyly can be proven [22], [23], [24] ... and so forth. (I can't tell exactly, if he's an inexperienced newbie or a vandal, momentarily I tend to assume good faith, but I might be wrong. Byzanz

[edit] Challenges of upholding WP:BLP policy

okay, this guy has blanked loads and loads of pages without consensus, there is loads of damage he has done I have noticed, this guy is upto no good, and is doing more damage probably as we speak. I have looked at the history he has done. Can we get an admin to revert every blanking of documents he has done because I see it as a serious problem. Regards Govvy 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion further up the page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What concerns me most is the reaction this is receiving. Take this comment for example from Govvy: "At any time you shouldn't remove large amounts of information from bio's even if it is wrong." After reading WP:BLP, how could someone possibly come to this conclusion? Burntsauce 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You require consensus to remove information, you have blanked over what? 50 wrestlers? information pages in your history, +500 have a look people. He is covering up his tracks by adding a load on the other end by reverts of real vandalism to cover his tracks!! Govvy 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Govvy has reported Burntsauce to WP:AIV over this matter. I turned down the request. - Alison^☺ 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Without Diffs provided it's hard to say which exact edits Govvy is referring to, but looking at Burntsauce's contributions on Wrestling related articles, I see removal of uncited or extremely poorly cited quotations, unsupported opinions the subjects supposedly have, and the like. That's not damaging the article; that's enforcing policy. What I see as a serious problem is letting unsourced material sit in articles and consensus to support unsourced text in biographical articles isn't consensus that in any way furthers the aims of the 'pedia.--Isotope23 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've spent the last week or so going through Category:American professional wrestlers and I'm up to 'H' to date. Well over 90% of the articles are unsourced, poorly sourced, or have a series of "references" that are external links but are not being used as footnotes. The referencing on wrestling related articles is largely non-existent, and the articles are full of original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my sources for his vandalism of blanking pages without consensus., Kenny Benkowski, Shelton Benjamin, Stephanie Bellars, Carlene Begnaud, Christopher Bauman, Bart Batten, Nicole Bass, Jeanne Basone, Doug Basham, Josh Barnett, J.C. Bailey, Buff Bagwell, Bob Backlund, Eric Angle, Gene Anderson, Gary Albright, Mike Awesome, Tony Atlas, Melissa Anderson, Skandor Akbar, David L. Abbott. Those are all the articles in question, you need to view history, see his action and work around what I might be seeing. Thank you. Govvy 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney does BurntSource belong to you? Govvy 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to file a checkuser, and be proved wrong. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

None of that is vandalism. Burntsauce removed content that was not sourced and didn't meet one of our policies. On at least one of those articles an admin came along and protected the version that Burntsauce had edited to. We don't leave unsourced material in an article sitting around and waiting for a source. We find sources, then add material to articles. There is nothing here that requires admin intervention.--Isotope23 17:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it all looks different to me, to me I see vandalism. Govvy 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read WP:BLP? Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I want to echo Mackensen, Please take some time to read WP:BLP and WP:ATT, they do not support your position that this is vandalism.--Isotope23 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read it, the sourcing of information in wrestling is from the source itself and can be transferred direct to context of biographies. The information provided is normally truthful and fact based. Removal of large amounts of information even know it may be unsourced without or citing to request source is against consensus. There hasn't been added any period, there for his action as a result are classed as vandalism because he didn't include source request or tag/refer or ask for source information and allow the standard period for which is required to gather the resource links. Govvy 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, the information being added is primarily from TV shows which are not repeated, otherwise known as original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And does "TV shows" include pay-per-views, which when held by either WWE or TNA are released on DVDs and sold through nation-wide stores (i.e. Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy)? Nenog 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest another reading of WP:ATT here... You are absolutely free to gather the resource links to cite the text, which is all in the article history, but we don't leave uncited text in biographies waiting for someone to come along and source it. The onus is on the person adding the text to source their additions.--Isotope23 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hackney. After reading above, yes I agree with some of it, no I feel you shouldn't be able to erase massive amounts of information without cause. As for wrestlers, I can see that you would call it a different reality, but if you're just looking at the sport side, you should understand that these people worked hard to get where they are, they won belts and pushed their body to the limit. You can say unsourced but for WWE wrestlers, all the information has a backup with wwe.com and other top wrestling sites. There are starting to have books about it, but sourcing such information, have links for all the information will be hard to do considering that news agencies don't really source wrestling. I am really starting to see the limitations of wrestling articles on wikipedia. Now I am starting to feel that I should stay away from it altogether!! Govvy 18:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not impossible to source things. Regarding recent events at least, information gets added to articles on a regular basis after some editors have seen it on TV or a DVD. If the same information was added with a cite from a website which has the necessary information on, problem solved. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the news agencies shouldn't matter a bit. If there are books or portions of wwe.com (other than forums of course), that source info in these articles than you have sources right there. The next step is to cite these sources.--Isotope23 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, BLP says controversial material should be removed. What in the Bryan Danielson article was controversial enough for almost the entire article to be blanked? TJ Spyke 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution policy says: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Have you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-02/Errors and publicity? If we cannot provide a solid reference for the material, we shouldn't be printing it. Burntsauce 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't say you should just blank entire articles, that can (and should be) considered vandalism. Maybe I should consider giving vandalism warnings for these blankings, or I can go to articles on people like Tom Cruise and remove every single statement that isn't sourced. Maybe you should try improving WP rather than hurting it Burntsauce. TJ Spyke 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say removing the vast amount of original research and cruft added by wrestling fans is an improvement personally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How can any sane person call blanking everything except for the infobox an IMPROVEMENT? I think I will start handing out vandalism warnings like {{subst:test2a}}. TJ Spyke 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Handing out spurious warnings isn't going to do anybody any good. Removal of unsourced information is an improvement when it comes to real people who may be affected by our actions. If you wish to "save" the material, find a source for it. Frise 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information that isn't verified is of no use to the reader, therefore the removal of it is an improvement. It should also be noted that simply adding a couple of external links to a long article is not referencing, especially when the links in question do not source the majority of the article. Stubbing the articles and them being re-written from sources is improving the articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I stated this above but it's fitting here as well since this discussion seems to really go off kilter with regards to WP:BLP and everything.

"Let me add that the WP:BLP people seem so fond of quoting as an excuse to blank articles state that "contentious" material should be removed if it's unsourced. WP:BLP doesn't just say "Go on blank the whole page if it's not sourced", there is the word "contentious" to remember here, it makes a hell of a difference. Contentious as in "tending to argument or strife" or "characterized by argument or controversy", which in no way could be said to cover what finishing moves a certain wrestler uses, what titles he's won and whatever else seems to be deleted by invoking WP:BLP. It is a policy with a specific content, not a machete someone should indiscriminantly hack and slash with when there are little to no sources. "MPJ-DK 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:A, the burden of evidence is on those wishing to retain the material. I would suggest under the circumstances a more productive use of your time would be sourcing the offending articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah so now it's WP:A and not WP:BLP that's used? Consider this - if it's NOT contentions material, then maybe we're all better off sourcing articles instead of having to recreate it first it after its' been blanked out by someone. But I'm glad to see that you admit that WP:BLP isn't actually an argument for rampant blanking, good that we can agree on that :-)

I would love to find a "detal level" for what needs to be sourced because it seems to be arbitrary how much needs to be sourced MPJ-DK 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition quoting WP:A that is a favorite, "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." So once again NOT an excute to just blank out articles. quotations and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, so like WP:BLP it's "Contentious" material. MPJ-DK 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I am in TOTALL agrrement that ANY unsourced material in biographies is open to deletion. This project has grown like wild fire in the last 12 months. Maybe its time to clean up, provide sources and improve the quality since the quantity part has exploded. Just my 2 cents, cheers!--Tom 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Something that Jimbo said on the mailing list sums this up nicely. What is needed here is more effort put into finding sources and adding them to the articles and less time trying to justify why we should turn a blind eye to unsourced material because it is difficult to find sources.--Isotope23 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for finding sources, I'm not saying "turn the blind eye" - I'm saying "don't just summarily blank pages for lack of sources" neither WP:A nor WP:BLP support that practices. I could be finding sources instead of trying to stop people vandalizing pages by blanking them without good reason MPJ-DK 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Every single email written by Jimmy Wales that I have ever read supports the practice of aggressively removing material which is not attributed to reliable sources. I'm not sure how many more times it needs to be said. Burntsauce 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay this has got ridiculous - you quote WP:BLP as a reason to blank articles. I point out that's not what it says. Then you quote WP:A as a reason, again I point out that's not what it says - so now flying in the face of OFFICIAL policy you go on about e-mails instead? wikilawyer much you think? it's amazing that BOTH policies you used to as an excuse are now ignored - what happened to you "Defending the standards and policies of Wikipedia"?? I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous, stop wasting people's time so we can actually do so real work and not just bow to your whims. MPJ-DK 06:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And since you used it as a source here is the words of Jimmy Wales as your excuse to blank out pages "I hope the horse I am beating is still alive: we have to be absolutely ruthless about removing "I think I heard it somewhere" pseudo-information from Wikipedia, and especially from biographies." - as he said "I heard it somewhere" information, not "I saw it on Wrestling show X" information, rumors - not something that's been shown on TV etc. and not ALL information on a page, just the "I think I heard it somewhere" type of stuff. Your own source for blanking Gary Albright doesn't even back up your actions so could you PLEASE stop doing a general blanking of articles? MPJ-DK 07:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Key words - "been on TV". Not repeated, therefore can't be verified. Perhaps if you stopped adding original research based on your first hand viewing of primary sources it would be best? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering when WP:BLP and WP:A and "Jimmy's Mail" was going to be replaced by the "Original research" argument, your fallback position to everything. The point here is about NOT BLANKING PAGES when no policy supports it - by all means tag it as unsourced like you have been doing, by all means prod articles that haven't been sourced after giving people reasonable time to provide sources. But don't just blank out a page and use "No Original Research" as an excuse (or WP:BLP or WP:A or "Jimmy's Mail) because there is no grounds for that. And that's what we're discussing here, not whether Wrestling biographies are considered "original research" but if the practice of blanking uncontroversial, unsourced material is allowed or if it's vandalism. MPJ-DK 08:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And show me the part on "No Original Research" that says recapping events on TV is considered "Original Research", it's a "recap" not "research". MPJ-DK 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, what do you mean not to be repeated? Normally anything that has been on TV is prone to be repeated!! Govvy 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

TV episodes are citable sources, show me the policy that says they're not. --Random832 06:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT, the (current) official policy on reliable sources, says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process". Since once a TV programme has been broadcast, there isn't always a way for someone to see it again, they don't have a reliable publication process (unless the programme has also been generally released on DVD/video etc). Waggers 07:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares about the drive-through opinion of an uninvolved user: BLP and ATT completely support the wholesale blanking of content that has been tagged as unsourced for a significant amount of time. That is not vandalism, as it improves Wikipedia's signal-to-noise ratio. The onus to provide sources is on whoever provides content. Sandstein 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Show you the part that says recapping events on TV is considered original research? With pleasure, WP:A states Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. Unless you're attributing the material to a reliable source (which you aren't at presnent) it's original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

TNA always runs their episodes at least two times. WWE, as well as recapping and showing highlights of shows (i.e. WWE A.M.), shows old episodes of WWE, WCW, ECW, WCCW, AWA, CWF, and NWA on WWE 24/7. Almost all pay-per-views, and shows run by independent promotions (the major ones anyway), are released on DVD and can be viewed at any time. So would that be "original research"?Nenog 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. The requirement isn't that information can be verified three days later when a repeat is shown, the requirement is that the information can always be verified. WWE 24/7 is not relevant, the requirement is that the information can be verified now and in the future, so having to wait x number of years for a particular show to be repeated doesn't meet that requirement. I don't see why it's so difficult for wrestling fans to comply with Wikipedia policies, it has to be said. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that answers the TV shows, but what about the information about what pay-per-views which more than likely has been released on DVD or video and can be seen at any given time?Nenog 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, what constitutes as a "significant" amount of time for a page to be tagged as unreferenced? Taking a look at Gary Albright’s page (the history log), an unreferenced tag was added on March 27. Four days later the page was blanked for not citing sources. Is four days what Wikipedia considers a significant amount of time? Bobo Brazil and Matt Bentley were also blanked within a week of an unreferenced tag being added. Freddie Blassie, Adam Birch, Jerry Blackwell, Bobby Bradley, Paul Bowser, Michael Brendli, and Bob Backlund were all just flat-out blanked (there were no unreferenced tags on the page). Is it the policy of Wikipedia to blank a page as opposed to adding an unreferenced tag? Nenog 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

I'm concerned about what I believe to be biased editing by at least one editor in articles and stubs related to the disputed region of Transnistria. References and category listings relating to one or other side in the dispute are being deleted with refs and cats supporting the other inserted in their place. Spellings of place names are changed, sometimes with the resultant loss of links. Text is being added elaborating aspects of the dispute that are probably best served under the main Transnistria article, the motivation appearing to be support to one side in the dispute.

I've made a few attempts to make the articles more balanced/NPOV but if I continue I fear it could just turn into an editing war. Also, on looking further into this there would seem to be a fairly large number of articles and edits affected and I simply don't have sufficient time to deal with them all (particularly currently as I'm on a dial-up and without use of my own computer). I suppose I could slap disputed-neutrality templates over all the affected articles and leave them but that would only be a limited solution and I don't like the idea of leaving these articles in a questionable state. Can someone with more experience give some advice? Mutt Lunker 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should have a bot report this one every couple of weeks, on principle. That article is a constant source of partisan conflict, and the people who know most about the subject tend all to be deeply involved one way or the other. I'd suggest finding a couple of admins or long-standing editors on each side, to hack out a compromise, but I have a horrible suspicion they are all there already. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy to have a look at it after Easter. I've had a lot of experience in hacking out compromises on Yugoslavia-related articles, so I'm sure I could probably do something similar for this one. -- ChrisO 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nice to know that you'll take a look. I had no idea what a can of worms I was opening with this topic as there is a known puppeteer involved and I'm now being accused of being a sockpuppet. Even less motivation for me to take any further part I'm afraid... Mutt Lunker 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion processes backlogged

Stuff proposed for deletion is backlogged three days: March 29, March 30 and March 31. AFD is also backlogged with afds for March 28, March 29, March 30 (12 remaining) and March 31 needing closing. Let's use this Easter weekend to help clean out some of the crap. MER-C 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the backlog, but I'll be back tomorrow with more flammable materials for the forest fire. MER-C 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request at User talk:75.92.75.126

I left a {{drmafd1}} note at this talk page after the IP removed an AfD template from Items and concepts in FLCL. Not much later, a note appeared from an individual asking for the "Apache httpd logs" for the IP contributions, so that the user on their end could be identified. Setting aside the fact that this was not serious vandalism, and I don't think the employee should be terminated, the user has requested an administrator who knows how the Apache httpd logs can be obtained. I'm not familiar with what he's asking for (and I doubt that an administrator would have access if regular users don't), but could someone who knows what they are please talk to him? If you could, also stress that this was not serious vandalism. Leebo ^T/C 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I very highly doubt that'd fly -- see the privacy policy, that sort of information is only ever released to particular people in particular circumstances, if ever. You'd need to get in touch with the devs, for a request like that, although I anticipate they'll tell you pretty much the same thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured that would be the case. I was doubtful that that kind of information was available to any editor. I'm going to inform him, because I don't see the point in going to such lengths for an edit that wasn't even severe vandalism. Leebo ^T/C 03:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the Apache logs will reveal much. Here is a typical entry:

69.117.101.214 - - [22/Apr/2006:12:37:32 -0400] "GET /test.zip HTTP/1.1" 200 7714232 "http://72.136.70.187" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"

It contains the IP address (obviously 75.92.75.126), date and time, operating system, and browser. Unless the employer had a different operating system and browser combo for each computer, this information will be useless. --Bowlhover 05:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be useful. For example, X-Forwarded-For headers can tell who's accessing Wikipedia through a proxy, and the browser ID string can be revealing. --Carnildo 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we keep apache logs (or at least not for that long due to the size we would generate). Not to mention given the amount of apaches and squids we have it could take a huge amount of time to find. --pgk 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XXL (band)

It was closed with the following, figured i'd pass it along. Just H 08:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The result was keep, despite the best efforts of JzG to get it deleted. John Reaves (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"

Just a joke, light-hearted, a comment on JzG's veracity, more of a compliment if any thing. I would've appreciated a note at my user talk page by the way. John Reaves (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was despite my best efforts to get it sourced or not a directory entry. Wikipedia is not, as far as I'm aware, a directory of Eurovision bands. If this article still has no non-trivial independent sources in a month I will nominate it again, and for precisely the same reason. It's all very well saying "keep and expand" as some did, but when they cannot cite a single source from which it could be expanded, that is a rather pointless !vote. Nor was I the only one arguing for deletion on the grounds of lacking non-trivial independent sources. The only truly reliable independent source is a book which lists all the bands that played Eurovision - that is, a book which establishes the notability of Eurovision, which was never in doubt. WP:N: "A notable topic should be the subject of substantial and non-trivial published source material which is reliable and independent of the subject." This has been the subject of virtually nothing. So it should probably be merged to an article on that year's Eurovision, rather than kept as an unsourced and unsourceable article on a band which has precisely one hit, will never have another, and vanished without trace after they failed to win the competition.

I really don't think it's an especially controversial view that we should not have articles on bands that have no significant external coverage. We delete dozens of such articles every day. The band is not notable, the competition is, we already have an article on the competition.

Is there any particular reason you felt the need to share this here, by the way? Guy (Help!) 10:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that John should not make such comments in his deletion closings, and that this closing is brought to WP:DRV because the arguments to delete (lack of sources) were stronger than the arguments to keep - or alternatively, we could resolve this by merging/redirecting to Eurovision. >Radiant< 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• I argued to keep, but I agree with Radiant's comment. Nothing personal against John though, I think it was just an honest mistake to say that, I can see how it can be misconstrued. Just H 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not offended in any way, just to be clear. I laughed. I thought he was referring to the fact that I speedied it, it was reposted, and then I AFDd it. But yes, the arguments for keep did not seem to me to be founded on policy. A merge would be fine, the source about Eurovision is a more than adequate source for the fact of this band having performed that year. We just don't have any non-trivial independent sources about the band. Incidentally, a small group of editors are trying to rewrite the central notability criterion to explicitly allow single-sourcing, which I think is a very bad idea. See {{pnc}} and WT:N. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I don't see any problems with a merge, probably would have been the best way to close it anyway. John Reaves (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

This post refers to the recent move request Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Shatt al-Arab or Arvandrud or Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud.

The move request discussion has already been closed.

• First, Tariqabjotu considered that the result is move to Shatt al-Arab, giving as reasons that the discussion was not a vote and that it had been conclusively demostrated that Shatt al-Arab is a far more common name in the English language (the main criteria upon which our naming conventions rely). – (See examples of usage).

• But then, Khoikhoi considered that the result is no consensus (i.e. keep at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab), giving as reason that "there still doesn't appear to be a clear-cut consensus for the page move".

From his short explanation, my personal impression is that Khoikhoi is disregarding the arguments expounded, and effectively treating the move request as a vote with 8 against the move and 7 for the move. Of course, I could have misinterpreted Khoikhoi's reasoning.

In order to get as much imput as possible, and thus archive a better, clear consensus on what the result of the discussion is, I'm posting this notice here in addition to the one I previously posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Let's all be patient, wait to see what other administrators' and users' views on the issue are, and avoid any revert until a clear consensus is formed :-) Best regards, Ev 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no clear-cut consensus to move the page. There were 8 votes to keep the page at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab, 3 votes to move it to a similar title Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud, and only 7 votes to move it to Shatt al-Arab. Therefore, Khoikhoi acted correctly. --Mardavich 11:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But a move request is not a vote, and none of those 7 or 8 opinions against the move were based on our current naming conventions, but rather in the belief that all official names should be included in the title.

All policy and guidelines-based arguments were in favour of the move. - Best regards, Ev 12:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is a guideline, not a policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is a guideline, not a policy. And according to this, "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." Khoikhoi 12:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Wikipedia:Naming conventions is policy (read the top), and the operative phrase in the sentence you quote is, of course "no good reason to change it" - which doesn't apply here, because "use English" is a good reason to change it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say WP:UE, not WP:NC. Khoikhoi 12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but like with all those pages, the "convention" sub-page is only spelling out the details of what is already formulated as policy in the main policy page (Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use_English_words). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but "use English" doesn't apply here, both names are used in English, and neither is English. Khoikhoi 12:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And WP:NC clearly states that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed." --Mardavich 12:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering. For all I can see, this should have been a very straightforward case of applying the normal policies (most common name used in English), without any need for debate. Khoikhoi, after all the similar discussions we two have overseen together, I have no idea why you are taking this rather outlandish view now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(big edit conflict) Khoikhoi, the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Naming conventions ("This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia.") made me believe that it was a policy, and not just a convention. My mistake, I removed "policy" from my previous comment.

Well, it is policy after all :-) I restored "policy" to my previous comment. – I simply assume that Khoikhoi has a much better understanding of such details than I do, to the point of prefering his explanation over the big bold notice on top of the page. - Regards, Ev 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the controversial names section of our naming conventions mentions that "if an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." (emphasis mine)

As I said in the move request discussion, I think that compliance with our naming conventions is a very good reason to change the title. And our naming conventions call, over and over again, to:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "prefer [...] what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize",
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "[u]se the most common name [and] represent common usage",
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "use a widely accepted English name [, which] often will be a local name",
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "if you are talking about a [river], use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."

7 editors shared this view, and argued to move the page in accordance to these guidelines (and common Wikipedia practice). Best regards, Ev 12:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And 11 editors didn't share that view, that's not a consensus. So as the policy clearly states, both names should be used when editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. --Mardavich 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich, again, a move request discussion is not a vote. Consensus is not formed by mere numbers, but by considering agruments and the validity of those arguments for the specific purpose of naming Wikipedia articles. - Regards, Ev 13:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's action was just, these are not English names, two local names, both in use in English media, furthermore as Mardavich points out, 11 users were indeed in favor of keeping the title unbiased --Rayis 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, everybody agree that both names are used in English but Shatt Al-Arab is more common. The naming has some political overtones. 7 Users evaluated this fact as the need to move the article to Shatt Al-Arab, 12 Users preferred the slash name. Nobody wanted Arvandrud alone. We usually require something like 60/40 consensus to change a name. Here we have something like the reverse 40/60 towards the change. Yes, AfD is not a vote: we are ignoring bad faith votes, we are ignoring obviously incorrect reasons, we are ignoring canvassed votes. Honestly I would not be surprised if there was some canvassing in the vote but I see no indications that one side was much better than the other. There was clearly no consensus here to change the name and if anything there as a weak consensus to keep slashes. In this situation if Khoikhoi would made another decision the amount of discontent would be even stronger. I propose to accept Khoikhoi's closing for now and if the name would cause sore feeling in a month time then just rerun the WP:RM. Might be it would be better advertised so that many neutral people could participate. Remember we have only probably twenty active Iranian and Arabic active users but many thousands active users who are uninvolved with either side Alex Bakharev 13:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But, Alex Bakharev, not one single editor opposed the move argueing that the current name better reflected our current naming conventions. Not one. Respecting those arguments as valid would, in effect, transform the move request in a vote, in which policy and guidelines-based arguments can be nullyfied by the sheer force of numbers.

And please, take a look at the examples of usage. I haven't heard yet one single policy or guidelines-based argument not to follow common English usage here. - Best regards, Ev 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if the majority here considers that it would make things easier, let's open a new move request today (and beg all administrators who are native English-speakers to take part in it). - Best regards, Ev 13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The RFM very clearly and obviously ended in "no consensus" for a move, and there are no grounds on which to criticize Khoikhoi for his decision. What you are arguing is that the lack of consensus was not correct, that the people involved in the discussion were partisan and non-native English speakers, that the evidence was clearly in favor of a move anyway regardless of how people voted. That is not a criticism of Khoikhoi, but a criticism of those who spoke against the move. Whether or not you are correct in your own opinion is a matter for a different forum, but you have no grounds for criticizing Khoikhoi for acting on the basis that there was no consensus, because there was clearly no consensus; what you are actually criticizing him for is for not ignoring what people said, and doing what you wanted anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Jayjg, it has nothing to do with Khoikhoi "not doing what I wanted to be done" (i.e. move the page to Shatt al-Arab). It's about my understanding of how Wikipedia works.

I critizised Khoikhoi's decision based on my understanding of what consensus means in move request discussions. I honestly believed (believe?) that only arguments based on our naming conventions were valid ones, and that people's personal opinions which blatantly ignored (and contradicted) the most basic principles of our naming conventions shouldn't be considered.

It appears from the input by Khoikhoi himself, Alex Bakharev and now you that either I misunderstood how consensus is determined, or the paramenters along which our discussions are carried out, or even that I misread our naming conventions.

Either way, my cristicism of Khoikhoi's actions was a result of what appears to be my confusion about the procedures (attributable to my misunderstanding of the guidelines, my incapacity to understand the rules, or my sheer ignorance).

I honestly thought that this was a clear-cut case of "reflecting English usage", and that not a single argument against following that usage was respalded by policy or guidelines (worse, that those arguments ignored and even contradicted the said policies and guidelines). Thus, I was quite surprised to see what I interpreted to be clear consensus overturned on grounds that I understood to be illegitimate.

It appears that it was a mistake, but a bona fide one, I assure you. My issue was with the procedure followed, not the specific decision of moving or not the article to where I wanted it moved.

As I hinted above, I'm no longer sure of the soundness of my interpretation of how Wikipedia works in these cases. I will stay away from any such discussion for a while, using the time to try to understand the procedures better. If my actions on this issue caused any of you unnecessary trouble, I sincerely apologize (especially to Khoikhoi).

I really need a short wiki-break. In any case, it's already time to indulge in another session of Easter gluttony (you wouldn't believe the fish schnitzels my brother makes. Happy Easter everyone :-) Best regards, Ev 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This kind of dispute is precisely why I wrote Wikipedia:Naming conflict two years ago - to develop an objective methodology for choosing between two arbitrary names for the same thing. I suggest you all have a look at it and use the same methodology in this case. -- ChrisO 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Khoikhoi decided to oppose another administrator's decision. The closing the decision administrator focused on policy, and his argumentation looks to me convincing. Khoikhoi focused on votes (X versus X). I do not agree with this rationale, and I have doubts if this was the right thing to do. I think that if Khoikhoi wanted to oppose the initial decision should not focus on votes, but on policy, and on the arguments of the discussion: Is there a consensus or not that this or this naming is the most common in English per our WP policies? This should be the main issue leading to his decision.--Yannismarou 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We can always just let the move request continue for another week to gain a clearer consensus (or to cement a "no consensus"). -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'm struggling to find another situation in which this kind of "/" thing occurs. We have Sea of Japan instead of Sea of Japan/East Sea. The same goes for Persian Gulf, instead of Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf. And we keep British Isles as a standalone, despite the naming dispute. -- tariqabjotu 15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already clearly explained on Talk:Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab why your comparison to the Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf is way off base and incorrect. This is a totally different issue of two historical names with modern political overtones (as opposed to "Arabian Gulf" which is a modern invention of the 1960s by Arab nationalists) so please do not make that comparison again. Alex Bakharev's explanation is sound to me, and I see no problem of maintaining Total WP:NPOV on this issue. Wikipedia should strive for Total NPOV whenever possible, and in this case, because of the history, because of the modern politics, because of the WP software which allows double titles, we can gain this Total NPOV. In the end there was literally no consensus for a change. Khorshid 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Tariq is right to point out that we've faced similar issues before. I hope people haven't forgotten the Gdansk/Danzig fiasco already! The problem we have here, as in other cases - like virtually every placename associated with Kosovo, for instance - is that one particular local version of the name predominates in English, but that version of the name is associated with a particular faction. We don't normally use a "/" approach in such situations. We rely instead on identifying common usage. That was the whole point of Wikipedia:Naming conflict - to provide an objective basis on which to decide which version to use. The most important sentence in the whole guideline is that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We can't declare what a name should be - our role is simply to state what's the most used version in English. -- ChrisO 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with keeping it as Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab. It represents both POV names, which is something Wikipedia encourages and by what i've experienced here in Wikipedia, is hard to achieve. Both names seem to be used in English even though none are English... Regarding the earlier comparison, the Persian Gulf is an international body of water, with an internationally-recognized name which has a long history in English and all the other languages. Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab on the other hand is a local body of water, exclusively under the sovereignty of Iran and Iraq with two local names, it differs from Arabian/Persian gulf scenario. I don't think it can be compared. Regarding the voting, I checked it out and I agree that no consensus seems to have been reached voting-wise and argumentation-wise. I suggest a re-nomination in the near future and keep it up longer so a solution is reached. This is my 2 cents. - Fedayee 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threats from a 'disgruntled' Editor

A disagreement between two editors (myself being one) has attracted the attention of another editor, who seems to have appointed himself as 'judge and jury'. He is, admittedly, very involved in Wikipedia and has done a lot of good work, however, he seems to think that Wikipedia is 'his own' and that he 'shall' have the final word. He and others have banded together to try to prove my edits wrong, which they can't as I have provided verifiable sources to back up my edits (they have not). He has, recently, suggested a 'Formal Mediation' between parties to try and resolve the matter, which is acceptable, but now he has started to issue THREATS and suggestions that are of a SEXUAL NATURE! Evidence here ...

1. "I must also alert you that I am aware of your account on WiganWorld.com"

This is a 'lighthearted' local communication forum enjoyed by the local community.

2. "I will also post links to your WiganWorld.com account. You could incurr considerable restrictions (blocking) upon your account."

This is 'interfering' with non-Wikipedia business and intruding into my private business. If he can trace my whereabouts and my accounts elsewhere the problems he could create are endless!

3. "I will also bring all the source material that the users have brought to the articles, and contact them to co-file their opinions on this matter."

4. "I'm not your friend, a private councillor or a cybersexual."

This was his reply when asked 'why he was following me around and reverting all my edits'.

5. This, on my talk page, came as a result of 'highlighting' important words in a message to him regarding the issue ....... " MR Hanson, I have NEVER said THAT Pemberton IS not AN area IN it's OWN right. STOP saying THE word "YOU", as THIS is UNHELPFUL. I HAVE infact STATED that WE should WORK off SOURCE material, AND that IF we HAVE a CONFLICT of SOURCES, we SHOULD state THIS in THE article. I actually STATED to YOU (though YOU have NOT mentioned THIS in YOUR reply) THAT you ARE not PROVIDING suitable SOURCES, and ARE merely SHOUTING as LOUD as YOU can TO get HEARD. Again, THIS is NOT helpful, AND I WRITE in THIS style TO demonstrate HOW frustrating YOUR text IS to READ. It IS not APPROPRIATE is IT as IT is CLEAR I HAVE the ABILITY to READ normal TEXT. Jhamez84 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyKINDAgettingINPATIENTwithTHISsillySHOUTINGandBLAMINGnonsenseTHATkeepsREOCCURINGeverytimeIlogINaboutAsubjectTHATisREALLYveryTRIVIALandCOULDbeSORTEDifYOUwentTOtheLIBRARYthenTHISwouldALLbeOVERB

This guy has hammered my talk page with authoritative comments and has resorted to threats because I won't back down regarding a disputed issue on the Wigan articles. Could anyone, with the authority to do so, rein him in a bit before he gets too full of himself? ........ User, Jhamez84.

80.193.161.89 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Do you mean this?[25] Provide diffs for your serious allegations. Durova^Charge! 13:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If an administrator does take an interest in this problem, I'd be happy to provide contrary evidence that this contributor has a history of breaching WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, WP:A, WP:MOS, WP:TALK, etc etc.

The message above appears to be in retaliation (after third opinion and request for comment) to my intention to contact the mediation committee about this user. Yes I've lost my patience with this user, I hold my hand up, but I really have nothing to hide here, and would certainly welcome intervention.

Other users have expressed dissatisfaction with this user, I'd be happy to request for their comments also. Jhamez84 13:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No need. I've scanned both your edits for the past week and the IP levels false claims. 48 hour block. Thank you Jhamez84 for being patient and using dispute resolution. Follow up at WP:ANI if necessary. Durova^Charge! 13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's really appreciated. Jhamez84 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is WP:PUI ineffective?

The backlog never seems to go away, and most of the links brought there have no discussion and remain undeleted. I was just about to list Image:DSCN0634.JPG as an unfree image, but what's the point? Someone uploaded this image as a free image, but these websites say that it "is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 License", which I understand is not allowed here. [26], [27] It isn't being used on any article.

I was under the impression that WP was taking steps to drastically remove unsourced/unfree material, but this page just sits a lot of the time. What can we do to make it more active (admins take more of an interest in)? Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I know little about PUI, but for this image, you should just tag it with {{cc-by-nc}} with a link to the page showing the image's actual license, which will add it to CAT:CSD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:PUI is ineffective. A couple active administrators regularly clean out the backlog. I personally tag blatantly copyvio or forbidden-per-policy with the appropriate speedy deletion template or IfD tag; if, however, I come across an image that is not blatantly a copyvio but I have concerns that it still is, I take it to WP:PUI. Pretty simple, really. --Iamunknown 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When signatures go bad...

I'm working right now to fix this problem, but just so many people are aware, Atomic Religione (talk • contribs)'s signature has screwed up the dozens of pages he's left comments on by making the page completely bold from the point he signs to the end. I think I've got most of them fixed by adding </font>. If you see anymore that I miss, please fix them. Metros232 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See what happens when you let amateurs practice HTML coding without a license! I thought MediaWiki used to correct or remove such bad coding before it caused harm? *Dan T.* 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Atomic Religione has realised that something is amiss too. (aeropagitica) 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is all related to today's HTML Tidy update, it's also affecting a large number of templates and even a bot or two. --VectorPotential^Talk 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the opposite, it used to not correct or remove bad coding on signatures; Wikipedia:How to fix your signature was created soon after it started rejecting bad coding on them. --cesarb 21:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunkenud (talk • contribs • count) block review

I blocked Dunkenud (talk • contribs) for continuing to upload images without licenses and sources after warnings. I based the block on Wikipedia:Blocking policy of vandalism (continuing to upload images w/o the needed info). Is this in accordance with the policy? feydey 17:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. —Ruud 11:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone look into the issues brought up at User_talk:ESkog#Vandalization

Thund3rl1p5 (talk • contribs) has accused ESkog (talk • contribs) of abusing his administrative tools in the case of blocking an IP (69.241.124.150 (talk • contribs)) at ESkog's talk page. ESkog replied at Thund3rl1p5's talk page explaining the block and inviting him to bring it up here if he still had a problem but instead Thund3rl1p5 chose to continue bothering him about it (including calling him a bully) and vandalised my userpage when I tried to explain. Wondering if someone could look into it and check that there was no abuse of power and if so have a word with Thund3rl1p5 about it to avoid any further problems. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do review this action. I don't know what connection Thund3rl1p5 has to the IP I blocked, but he seems to be quite adamant that I made a mistake, although he doesn't want to ask for advice. As Veesicle said, he has escalated to low-level personal attacks on both myself and Veesicle over what appeared (to me) to be a simple run-of-the-mill case of blocking a vandal... (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they are likely the same person, given the activity times over the last 24 hours, they are both active at around about the same time. It appears to be a comcast cable address, so I assume semi-static. I'll reblock the IP without the anon-only flag. --pgk 11:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

A case has been filed concerning Wikipedia:Requests for adminship -- Cat ^chi? 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Being speedily rejected as not within the ArbCom's remit. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deceased Wikipedians message

The recent threatened suicide of a user has raised an issue I don't think we have yet, thankfully, had the opportunity to address - what do we do with the userpages of deceased Wikipedians? We cannot delete their accounts, but deleting their userpage seems callous. As Wikipedia lives on, it is inevitable, if sad, that some of us will die and our offline relatives will have to inform Wikipedia, especially if the deceased is an established or active editor. To this end, and seeing as we can never delete an account, I have created this notice for if we ever need it:

This Wikipedian is known to be deceased.
Bona fide.

The bona fide ("in good faith") is not only a gentle pun on WP:AGF and an appreciative message of their work they have done for Wikipedia, but also shows that we assume that this person is dead because we have been told so and may not have verified it. I thought it a suitably tasteful way of handling a distressing situation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This unfortunate event need not merit a template. If you want to see a list of dead Wikipedians, try Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Xulin is the perfect candidate for a template such as this. His userpage has nothing but a category in it. It doesn't seem right to have nothing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of protected pages

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia:List of protected pages for the background; the page has gone overly long, probably due to the overenthusiastic bot, and it's now next to useless. Something should probably be done; we could try to go back to not using the link templates, as was done before the bot, or perhaps split the page. Any other ideas? --cesarb 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:STS01 insists that reposting warnings on talk page isn't edit-warring

I attempted to remove a large amount of information that fails WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS from the article Colin Cowherd, and User:STS01 continues to slap warnings on my page. Without commenting on the (in my opinion, dubious) nature of the warnings, I removed them from my page, acknowledging I have read them. However, he is persisting in reposting them and told a third party that he's not reposting, that he's giving me new warnings. (diff [28] (Please note, I have done 1 revert, with a description and a request to discuss it on the talk page of the article, which has been ignored. Can someone sort this out, please? SirFozzie 00:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He has now responded on the article's talk page, so hopefully we can now work towards a consensus version of the article. Striking through my request. SirFozzie 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:R9tgokunks

Could someone look at this editor's unblock request before he blows a gasket? I'm the blocking admin, BTW. Thanks, Gwernol 03:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for the next board election are being established

Such as no leaking like last time. 4.250.198.86 10:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Tusk

Black Tusk (talk • contribs) has become a problem again, as was pointed out to me here. He was previously known as User:Duggie roy@hotmail.com, where myself and others discovered he had uploaded a relatively large number of articles that were copyright violations from various webpages. Duggie/Black Tusk usually rearranged some phrases and changed some words, creating what seemed to be useful Wikipedia articles, except for the copyvio issue. His contributions are numerous, and his method makes it hard to easily search for what he copied from, so I'm asking for some help here to go through his new articles and try to make sure there are no more copyvios. Also, I have given him a final warning here, since he had previously promised to stop and apparently didn't. --W.marsh 17:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kansei Nakano

There seems to be a bit of idiocy going on at Kansei Nakano. It was moved to Stupidest person alive, and the, the contents were copied back to the original article, losing the edit history. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this or not; but, the edit history needs to be restored back to the original article, and the redirect at Stupidest person alive should probably be deleted. Neier 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of warning templates

Not sure where to ask, so please point me in the right direction. I've encountered an editor who uses vandalism warnings and other tags as bludgeons, for example giving someone a {vandalism2} warning over what is obviously a content dispute. He's been asked not to do that, to no avail. He's also been pointed to the appropriate policy pages, but responds with an idiosyncratic interpretation of what policy does and does not allow. Any suggestions? Raymond Arritt 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And who is this editor that you speak of? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My aim was more to get advice on how to handle the situation than to report the person, but here is an example. Raymond Arritt 01:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like wikilawyering to me. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Him, or me, or both? If I'm in the wrong here, I'd like to know. Over-reacting and making a fool of myself is not something that I want to do (intentionally, anyway). Sorry if I'm being obtuse. Raymond Arritt 04:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Him (or her). Not you. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the spurious warning tags, and ask the other person to stop. If the behaviour continues, you may need to open a Request for Comments about the user. Jkelly 05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, I just checked out Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle#POV... gotta say, this guy is being exceptionally dickish. I think you'll be opening an RfC sooner than he'll stop adding spurious warnings. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)