Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive125

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 BAG confirmation running 2 Block 2.1 Advice to Daniel Breslauer 3 IP address - privacy implications? 4 Is this the right place? I need help 5 Repeated copyright violations 6 Deleting userpages of indef-blocked users? 7 Some double redirects to fix. 8 How to fix 9 Article probation? 10 Homeopathy-banner removed from Talk:Serial dilution 11 Updated (improved?) template 12 User:Anthon01 13 Open proxies that admins who are not part of WP:OP stumble upon 14 Two month backlog 15 Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters 16 Wikipedia:Image renaming 17 Article probation for Homeopathy 17.1 What is a homeopathy article 17.2 What is a homeopathy article? 17.3 Hidden text 17.4 Is this mic on? 18 Please help me bring more roboticists to WP 19 Caltrop (talk · contribs) 20 User 67.163.171.225 21 backlog of possibly unfree images 22 911 23 Attn:Admins - cpvios galore 23.1 Why was it undeleted? 23.2 Gah 23.3 Some more remain 23.4 Attn:admins - cpvios galore - Part II 23.5 Attn:admins - cpvios galore - Part III 24 Caltrop (talk · contribs) 25 User 67.163.171.225 26 Can I be protected 27 Please check the DumZiBoT edits 28 backlog of possibly unfree images 29 911 30 Continued OWNership and reverts against consensus 31 Threatening messages 32 Notice for thread above to highlight discussion of actions 33 Can't search for my article 34 Delete reason dropdown script 35 Template:GR 36 University of Pittsburgh and WP:NOT#MYSPACE 37 Jameel Sewell 38 AfD help 39 CU results 40 Michael Lucas (porn star) 41 Attack user page MFD 42 Umar Alisha 43 User page in wrong space 44 Series of image copyvios by User:Mangwanani 45 Indefinite suspension of WP:ACC 46 Career Pathways page deletion 47 Disturbing, potentially violent, vandal comments 48 User's rude personal attacks 49 Proposed unblock of SPA vandal 50 Action review on User:Ssbohio 51 Request for a merge 52 Deletion of page 53 Requesting hardblock 54 Totalitarianism 54.1 Consensus on totalitarianism as a POV term 54.2 User not taking matter seriously - suggest rollback and possible block 55 Concerns with user's Proding of Mayors' articles 56 Satanic ritual abuse, article probation 57 Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia 58 User talk:Jro201 59 Need an uninvolved admin to close Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment 60 Advice on Bio policy 61 Backlog for closing AfDs 62 Links to Encyclopedia Dramatica being created in multiple articles 63 Question regarding image speedying 64 Can someone DELETE my account please? 65 Can an admin take a look at Talk:NetZero? 66 66.99.53.142 67 Block review 68 Socks need matching 69 Bishzilla Chop! Reichstag in danger 70 Problem with AIV helperbot 71 Major concerns on Talk:Muhammad 72 Block revieww requested: 73 Interesting edits (image vandalism?) 74 Wikipedia:Requests for oversight update 75 Long-term spam campaign 76 disclosing deleted histories of articles? 77 Aggressive link-spamming on Edison Chen photo scandal and Talk:Edison Chen photo scandal 78 Plagiarism 79 unbiased look at some external links, please 80 Need help from admin who understands Japanese 81 VBS:Malware-gen reported on 100megsfree4.com

[edit] BAG confirmation running

Just a quick note that there's a WP:BAG confirmation (from the trial membership) of myself at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Confirmation under the old system (Snowolf). As has been required in the past, I'm posting this notice on WP:AN, WP:BOWN, WP:BRFA & WP:VP. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Changed link based on change to that page Martinp23

Similarly there is a confirmation running for Cobi (talk · contribs) at the same location. Martinp23 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As well as Dreamafter (talk · contribs). ~ Dreamy ^§ 21:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hello administrators. Please be aware, before getting involved here, that you will need to take at least an hour to understand the issue at hand. I am completely desperate and request your attention. This is my only hope.
I am User:Daniel575, I am User:Chussid, I am User:Bear and Dragon, I am User:GivatShaul, I am User:Motz5768, I am User:D. Breslauer.
I was blocked a long time ago because I had said that if permitted, I would love to kill Messianic 'Jews'. Since then, I have requested to be forgiven multiple times. However, I regularly see plain false information on Wikipedia, and then I correct it. For a year now, User:Yossiea has been hunting me on a personal witchhunt. The reason for this witchhunt is the fact that I am a member of a strongly anti-Zionist Hasidic group, while Yossiea is a right-wing Zionist who identifies with Kach. Yossiea intends to silence my voice here and remove any and all mentioning of Jewish anti-Zionism from Wikipedia. See the recent history of Yom Ha'Atzmaut. I am a civilized, recently married 22-year old Hasidic Jew from Jerusalem. For some background on the reasons for Yossiea's attacks on me, please see what I wrote on User talk:Tiamut#Arabic.
I request from you, administrators, to take a clear, unbiased view on what is going on here. I agree that I deserved a block for the things I said as Daniel575, that was very uncivilized. But it should not have been an indefinite block. Please take into accounts the fact that none of my subsequent 'sockpuppet' accounts were used for vandalism, in any way. I created new articles, performed maintenance work, reverted vandalism, improved existing articles, participated in discussions - not the things you expect from the average 'sockpuppet'. I reiterate what one participant in the blocking discussion about my remarks about Messianic Jews said: 'Propably he doesn't mean it literally, but he is speaking figuratively, as Haredi/Hasidic Jews often do.' That is indeed true. Judaism does no longer have a death penalty. There are no Jewish courts that have that power, and there will not be any such courts until our Messiah has arrived. Thank you for your attention, --D. Breslauer (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The most appropriate place to bring this up might be ArbCom. Emailing them would be most proper. Continuing to make accounts while being indef blocked does not help your case. B'hazlacha. Bstone (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a rightwing Zionist who identifies with Kach. I am someone who is disgusted that this is your 9th sockpuppet case. I am also disgusted that after 9 times you still come crawling back and demand to have rules not apply to you. Your POV is not the reason for your bannings. Wikipedia has users from all POV's. The main reason why you were banned, besides your threat, was because you are unable to debate in a civilized manner. Anytime a user disagrees with you, you go off. That is unacceptable. You are a confirmed sockpuppet account, and I don't think we need to debate this further. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice to Daniel Breslauer

Dear Daniel. Mazel Tov upon your recent marriage! May you and your wife have a happy life together forever! BUT, Why are you bringing in all this information about your personal life into this discussion? It is not right, and it shows poor judgment that you are exposing your young wife to attention from people online that I am sure she would not want. You are very young still (some of us here are far older than you and have been through life a lot!) You have a life ahead of you, why are you wasting time online? Go to your heilige yeshiva and learn more Toirah! In your spare time review the shiurim or learn with some Baalei teshuva and spend time with your wife, but why are you coming back here where people will have no patience or understanding of what you are trying to do? Stop it! Try to calm down. You are too hotheaded and disruptive. Maybe you need something to calm you down, but you are clearly coming here to cause trouble (you forget that Wikipedia is NOT a Yeshiva), you can't even help yourself that's how bad it is, just look at your editing and behavior, you are back a few days and already at loggerheads with other editors! Right now, you are violating:

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
2. Wikipedia:Civility
3. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
4. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
5. Wikipedia is not a battleground
6. Wikipedia is not for propaganda
7. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
8. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
9. Wikipedia:Libel, and even
10. Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.

So PLEASE, take my advice, do yourself and your new young wife a huge favor, and leave Wikipedia alone. You have contributed plenty! In fact leave the Internet alone. Follow the advice of the Rabbonim and Chachomim that you yourself follow who forbid use of the Internet. Why do you want to put your future kids at risk, like with this?: Parents are warned by rabbis that their children will be kicked out of yeshivas if they allow them any Internet access. See Of ostriches and cavemen; Can Israeli rabbis enforce their ban against the Internet? and Bezeq to launch ‘Kosher’ internet. If G-d forbid someone is setting you up and asking you to be online tell them that you have married now and you want to start a fresh life free of the Internet! Daniel, I beg of you, leave Wikipedia alone and learn more Toirah! Otherwise there are more than enough reasons for you to be blocked forever even as in your new incarnation, because it is irrevocably tied to the past with all its baggage. On the day of your chasuna H-shem forgives everything, but that rule does not apply with Wikipedia admins! Be well, IZAK (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in awe of this response, and would like to nominate it for Best-Researched, Politest, and Most-Germane Smackdown of a Conflicting Editor's Position Ever, In the History of Life. Seriously. Awesome reply...if I were of the hat-wearing gender, sir, I would tip mine in your direction. Gladys J Cortez 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is this crap? One does not need to appeal to arbcom to be unblocked in this situation. This user has clearly asked for a review of his situation, proven himself to be a valuable contributor, and is blocked on sight? What the hell is wrong with you people? -- Ned Scott 08:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP address - privacy implications?

[edit] Is this the right place? I need help

Would someone help me out? I have been accused of sock and/or meatpuppetry as the debate can be seen here. Here is the story: I created Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety a month or so ago. Another user placed an AfD tag on it. The article went into debate. As I am typing my case on my MDT (computer), my partner (in the Police Department that I work for) asked what I was typing so intently. I told him the whole story. He wanted to comment on it. Now, a few weeks ago, I helped him create a user account so maybe he would take interest in Wikipedia. His interest was marginal at best and didn't do anything with the account since then. When I told him about my AfD he seemed to get interested. I knew at the time that his input wouldn't really help my AfD, but I thought that if it got him excited about wikipedia, it was worth losing a minor article that I had written. Sock (or meat) puppetry didn't even cross my mind at the time. I can understand how it would seem as though it is a sockpuppet, but if you look at my record and my contributions, I don't think I even fit the puppeteer "profile." And if you look at the alleged "sockpuppet," if I did create it as such, I didn't even try to hide the fact that it was a sockpuppet. Maybe I am just guilty of being too naïve, I would just appreciate a little administrative guidance. I have asked for assistance from other admins, but basically got a guilty "stare" (if you will) and no assistance. Thanks. Sallicio (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

May I second Sallicio's request for help and/or comment? Barring some relevant point of fact that I have missed, this seems to me like a case of biting newcomers. --Iamunknown 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lord Pistachio has discussed this with User:Sallicio on the latter's talk page, and has done so well: to paraphrase, Sallicio was naive in getting their partner to weigh in; a lesson has been learnt; ultimately the "vote" of the partner will be given the weight or not that it deserves; and we'll all move on. I'll start that process by closing the various bureaucracies that have sprung up and we can all have cocoa before bed. But no, it isn't really WP:BITE - socking is a tedious problem here, and most socks are transparently obvious. But in this case, a dusting of WP:AGF can't harm. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that WP:BITE applies - or should apply - equally to newbies who don't "sock" as to newbies who "sock" or, in this case, help their friends register an account. --Iamunknown 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your mileage may differ from mine. That's cool. But I don't think much would be achieved by arguing about it or making life miserable for those involved on either side. I've closed the SSP, refactored the AfD and left both Sallicio and his/her partner messages to say they can delete or archive posts on this subject on their talk pages as they see fit. All done, and with minimum drama. If we're lucky! ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the help! Sallicio (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

For transparency: I've now closed the AfD after Sallicio merged the content into the parent article, which rendered the discussion moot; this was against the majority of the !votes but seems most equitable. Review welcomed on my talk page if people think I've overshot the mark. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 14:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated copyright violations

This user's contributions are repeated copyright violations from a manga publisher's web site. Not to mention that this might all just be the publisher using Wikipedia as free advertising. Suggestions on how to deal with the copyvio aspect of this? —Noah 08:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile trying to nontemplatalking to this person first. El_C 09:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I did here. It might have been lost in the sea of image warnings though. —Noah 09:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it did. I'll archive all of them and give it a shot. El_C 09:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed by this response that the editor is connected to the publishing company that is selling these manga titles. So we have a COI situation here. --Farix (Talk) 11:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting userpages of indef-blocked users?

There's a discussion about it over at WP:VPP#Deletion of userpages.

Is this something administrators generally do? Is the person there mistaken? And what is the policy on it? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I generally do delete indefinitely blocked users' pages, with the exception of sock puppet accounts (which are, as a rule of thumb, not deleted for tracking issues) and users who have been banned. This isn't a huge problem, really; it's certainly not worth kicking up a fuss about, anyway. Anthøny 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some double redirects to fix.

• Template:Cat-class → Template:Category-Class
• List of current rulers of dependencies → List of current dependent territory leaders

Both are full protected. Will ^(talk) 15:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to fix

Please will someone look at this. It is vandalism of a sort I'm not sure how to correct - I'm not sure how far back to revert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teams&diff=187920582&oldid=178807913

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I went back one, but if the vandalism's strewn about several pages, then it'll be hard to handle. Wizardman 18:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is. Several have already been reverted, I'll do the rest. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article probation?

I'm confused. WP:Article probation redirects to WP:General sanctions. That page lists all active sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, including some articles that are under "article probation" (somewhat circular here...). The page also has a brief paragraph that, I think, says that any administrator can ban any user for "disruptive editing".

That's as clear as mud. Can someone clarify that? What exactly does "Article probation" entail? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, Article probation comes from three places in descending order: ArbCom, RfC, or consensus agreement on one of the various noticeboards. Probation usually means that the user must discuss significant changes on the talk page before editing (removing "Be bold"), reduction to 1RR to prevent edit warring, or other such remedies that work out discussion before restricting article or user access. Thus maintaining the free spirit to edit any article or to be an editor on on any article. Long story short: the editor needs to keep in mind of maintaining neutrality in editing an article that they may be passionate about. Others may have a different view, of course. Keegan^talk 07:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'd say the common interpretation is, and it's codified well on the associated page:

Article probation : Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation.

General sanctions apply to individual editors, and discretionary sanctions give administrators a remarkable berth to do whatever is necessary to effectively combat disruption. east.718 at 08:17, February 1, 2008

It's not very clear to me. In the case in question, the particular user has been banned for a year, so the sanctions don't specifically apply to him. Instead the 'article' is on "article probation". From what I'm reading, that seems to mean that any administrator may ban any editor for "disruptive edits". Is that true!?!? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering your main editorial interests and the timing of this query, I'm assuming you're talking about RFAR/Bluemarine? Matt Sanchez has been banned for a year, and any administrator may ban any disruptive user from his associated page and any others related to it. So yes, your fears are founded. east.718 at 19:54, February 1, 2008

While I do have fears, I'm concerned because a) the horrible mess that has been that page... and b) that needs to be spelled out much more clearly. WP:General sanctions is currently a mix of sanctions against editors and sanctions placed on articles, which are two entirely different things. I'm starting a discussion on that talk page and hope that WP:ARBCOM will participate? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation and Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy-banner removed from Talk:Serial dilution

Could an admin take a look? —Whig (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to be more precise with notices here; that means evidence in the form of permanent links. El_C 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed 05:17, 2 February 2008 by Rifleman 82 (talk · contribs) ~Kylu (u|t) 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updated (improved?) template

FYI I have been cheeky and updated this: Template:notchat

This talk page is intended for discussions about improvements to the related article; it is not a chat room or a blog. If you want to ask a question about the subject of the article, please visit the Reference Desk.

Hopefully it's better; if anyone disagrees, please let me know. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I like! Tiptoety ^talk 19:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd change "here" to the actual place it is pointing. "If you want to ask a question about the subject of the article, the best place to go is here." to "If you want to ask a question about the subject of the article, please visit the Reference Desk" Nakon 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll fix it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anthon01

Moved to WP:ANI. east718 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open proxies that admins who are not part of WP:OP stumble upon

I recently stumbled upon some idiot's forum spam for a proxy at proxiter.com. I test edited through it and found that it works. (I only used the preview button, so nothing is saved.) However, I am not part of the open proxy WikiProject. Should I block it anyways? Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I already reported it at WP:OP. Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just block it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. east.718 at 02:25, February 3, 2008

Thanks. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two month backlog

Category:Replaceable fair use images disputed has images which were marked for deletion over 2 months ago, and are not yet deleted or chosen for keep. I marked this category as a backlog over two weeks ago, and no one has taken a shot at it. The issue is photos which people replace the fair use replaceable tag with the fair use replaceable disputed tag. If someone could look through these images, please... The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through and doing a few of them. east.718 at 20:40, February 2, 2008

[edit] Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (cf. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Image renaming

• Bugzilla link: 709

While it's not currently possible to move/rename images, Betacommand has a bot that can perform the function for us the hard way.

Requests for image movement should be placed at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Image renaming. Admins are automatically authorized for the use of this tool, and non-admins may be added by having an admin list you at the bottom of Wikipedia:Image renaming, which also includes instructions on using the tool.

There is no "Requests for" process involved, you just need to have a reasonably good edit history.

Related pages can be found in Category:Image renaming ~Kylu (u|t) 06:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article probation for Homeopathy

At the suggestion of Jehochman and arbitrator Sam Blacketer,[1] I propose that Homeopathy be placed on Wikipedia:Article probation due to the long-running edit warring and other violations of policy which have afflicted that article. MilesAgain (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this might help. Let's try it. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wording of the restriction that would be added to Wikipedia:General sanctions:

Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of this article probation before being banned. All blocks and bans placed under this remedy shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans. Actions taken under this probation may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.

Wording of the notice, {{Talk:Homeopathy/Warning}}, that would be placed on the talk pages of affected articles:

The Wikipedia Community has placed all Homeopathy-related articles on probation (see relevant discussion). Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Editors must be individually notified of this article probation before being banned. All blocks and bans placed under this remedy shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans. Actions taken under this probation may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.

I think editors must be notified about the article probation and warned individually before they are subject to a topic ban. Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support This will help reduce disruptive, tendentious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Lara❤Love 18:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support, but only if it is abundantly clear that enforcement of AGF, NPA and CIVIL will apply equally to established and new editors, registered and IP editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• PS, I should add that I'm not an admin, lest anyone is misled, but we can't expect new editors to behave well if established editors don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per other opinions already voiced, however, SG brings good points to light. I don't have any personal history relevant to this topic, but it appears to be contentious. Rudget. 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Per SandyGeorgia. Gromlakh (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yep. If any article richly needed this, it's homeopathy. I don't see anything wrong with 24-hour blocks without extra warnings, and topic bans after one warning. The level of nastiness – from new and established contributors – is toxic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Please do. — Scientizzle 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Added revert limitation, logging requirement and appeal process, since there is no RFAR page to record these bans. Thatcher 19:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps a subpage of the article's talk page would be a better place to keep track of user-specific blocks and bans? I can see stuff getting lost in the AN/I archives. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to put all homeopathy-related articles on probation, then do a centralized record of blocks and bans at a subpage of the main article talk page, and link to it in the warning banner. Thatcher 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also added uninvolved. Thatcher 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made the requested changes. Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I also guess this is related. D.M.N. (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yep Tiptoety ^talk 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Just do it per WP:SNOW consensus. Keeper | 76 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This is probably the easiest and least oppressive way to try and end this apparently endless conflict. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have installed all the necessary files and code (within comments) to implement this, because it seems very likely to pass. As soon as an uninvolved administrator determines that a consensus exists, they, I or anybody else can uncomment the code. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

/me applies Wikipedia:Make it so... Guy (Help!) 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, although someone might question why the community is doing this when ArbCom refused to take the case in a content dispute. This action is probably the best way of preventing further out-of-control disruption with Homeopathy and seemingly unrelated articles, such as Thuja occidentalis. If we do this, then we can dilute some of the toxicity of these arguments. Sorry, I couldn't resist. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per duh. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support DrEightyEight (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC) per SG. All "related pages" should be marked as such too, before action is taken - unless the editor can be shown to have been fully aware and acting in bad faith --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• There's no question in my mind that this is necessary. It should broadly apply, esp. to botany articles as well. --Haemo (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Apply {{Talk:Homeopathy/Warning}} to the talk page of the disrupted articles. Jehochman ^Talk 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, here's a serious question: "Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages... Actions taken may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard." That's probation? I thought that was always the case, anywhere on Wikipedia. That ought to be standard operating procedure, not a special case, right? Or maybe I'm just taking rouge pills... MastCell ^Talk 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Err, roughly, it's just "expect less warnings and more kicking ass and taking names".

• Support - can we get a second poll to apply it to everything else in the namespace? WilyD 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Edit wars, multiple reports to multiple noticeboards, RFARs, and general mayhem. If this will help stop the insanity, then heartily Support. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Lawrence § t/e 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Bryan Hopping ^T 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Should include the endless botany articles that are filled with fringe alternative medicine nonsense. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comments -- traffic tix for blowing red lights are supposed to cut down on the number of people blowing red lights. They don't. •Jim62sch• 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comments -This is ridiculous. What's going to happen is that admins, many of whom are clueless about things like SPOV=NPOV in science and medicine, will think the loudest whiner is the one in the right. Thus, we'll have uninvolved administrators blocking and banning and protecting without a full understanding of the NPOV. The edit warriors who promote Homeopathy as if it descended from Mt. Olympus will push aside the science to win their point. This isn't going to work, and it is a reflex move that will have terrible unintended consequences--the demise of Wikipedia into the same unsourced crap that we see in Conservapedia. Sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• What is the problem with having an involved admin(s), who actually know the background, rather than relying on admins who don't have the interest (or capability) to review? Shot info (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There will be a suspicion that involved administrators are trying to gain an advantage in a content dispute by getting rid of an opposing editor. Same reason why admins aren't supposed to use their buttons in any dispute they're involved in. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "suspicion" and WP:AGF. Nevertheless, as OM and others articulate, uninvolved admins will need to be involved at some point or be woefully ignorant - much like what admins have(n't) done to allow the article to degenerate to the point where it is at the moment. Shot info (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The quality of new admins is so low, I do not trust them to actually understand this stuff. Do you know how many admins actually think NPOV is that all fringe theories get equal weight in an article? Moreover, with or without experienced admins, it's still untenable. The reason there is an ongoing edit war is that Homeopathy promoters have installed their POV in dozens of articles. Moreover, the main article, homeopathy itself, wouldn't be a mess if certain new POV-editors wouldn't show up every week or so to start arguments that were settled months ago, wouldn't toss in their own POV (getting rid of all of the criticism), and would allow the truly balanced editors (Peter Morrell for example, is a Homeopathy expert that USUALLY sticks with NPOV) complete their task. There are several tendentious editors, usually with a strong homeopathy POV, that jump in and start what appears to be an edit-war, but in fact, it's the truly NPOV editors reverting bad edits, arguing on the talk page, etc. It is wearisome, but not requiring this ridiculous edict from a few admins who don't dig very far. Yeah, I'm pissed at some of the admins for taking this route. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest that two involved admins and one uninvolved admin be assigned as a committee who agree on sanctions. Let them consult each other and if they agree, let them rain fire down from heaven. -- Fyslee / talk 02:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In practice what will happen is one uninvolved admin will place a ban, and then a discussion will ensue on this board. If the ban is improper, it will be removed. Otherwise, it will remain. This gives everybody a chance to comment. Note that users who are topic banned are not going to be blocked unless they violate the ban. Therefore, banned users can come to WP:AN to make an appeal. Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But the problem quickly arises that the admin is not familiar enough with the topic to even make the call for the ban. I have to echo OM's statements from above. Baegis (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • We are not ruling on knowledge. Admins will observe behavior and remove those who are acting badly. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Experience shows otherwise. I've seen an admin chastise an editor for saying that homeopathic preparations amount to a drop in the ocean, calling this hyperbole and an indication of bad faith, when in fact common homeopathic preparations are weaker than this. Given the nature of homeopathy it can be hard for someone with no knowledge to tell what's in good faith and what isn't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • • I've seen this happen over and over. If you guys want one of the really awful admins that we've elected to do this, go for it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Point of clarification What are "disruptive edits"? Unsourced edits? Badly-sourced edits? Edits that misrepresent a source? Or something else? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Misrepresentation, POV pushing, repeated violation of consensus, edit warring, name-calling, flaming, baiting. Ignorance is not disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly a source of drama. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Someone needs to take a breather --BETA 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is a homeopathy article

There are homeopathy tags being placed on non-homeopathy pages and on pages with no history of edit wars. What gives? Who decides what pages are related to homeopathy? Anthon01 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant talk here. The template talk should be the place to contest a specific article being on probation as a central place. Lawrence § t/e 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussions at AN where everybody can see them. Jehochman ^Talk 00:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If somebody uninvolved in homeopathy disputes wants to remove a tag, that should be allowed; however, if a homeopathy edit warrior removes a tag, I and probably others, would view that as disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 00:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea. That will automatically suck you into dispute involvement. Rather, we should just change the wording to include points where homeopathy disruption could happen or is likely to happen. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Only on these articles in which there is disruption. No disruption, no tag. And yes, adding that tag indiscriminately it will be assumed disruption. We had enough/. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In the beginning I didn't understand why the template should be placed on articles that obviously were not homeopathic articles, but later I read a comment that made more sense. It appears that the template and article probation are designed to make it easier to reign in homeopathic POV advocates (advocacy is forbidden here), and anyone who is disruptive in any manner related to homeopathy edits and discussions, IOW anywhere it happens at Wikipedia. In short it makes it easier for admins to stop fires and keep them from spreading. Here is a list of where the template is currently being used.

Therefore the template follows the numerous attempts by these POV pushers and advocates to insert homeopathy into all kinds of (often unrelated) articles, especially when those attempts are often used as an excuse by the author (an editor) to suggest (on talk pages) that the author's own book about homeopathy and his website be used as a source. Such attempts have resulted in many edit wars and fires getting started on articles that aren't normally associated with homeopathy. Although homeopathic drugs have no calories or active ingredients, the subject certainly provides plenty of fuel for these fires! Therefore the template follows the slightest mention of the subject of homeopathy, no matter where it comes up. It is a sort of "whack a mole" thing that is designed to curb edit wars wherever these attempted inclusions occur. It applies to editors of all persuasions. -- Fyslee / talk 07:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is a homeopathy article?

Seriously. Without a comprehensive def, this entire idea is asinine; hell it reminds me of the famous quote re pornography, ""I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it " •Jim62sch• 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A homeopathy article is any article that the homeopathy editors are edit-warring over. --Carnildo (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You might consider changing the template name from homeopathy to Alleged Psueodscience-related topics. That would cover all the pages that the editwar is being carried out on. Anthon01 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the template to match the exact wording of the remedy. That wording was copied from prior ArbCom decisions, so it has been tested and found to be serviceable. Jehochman ^Talk 17:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to be clear that it is articles that homeopathy disruption is relevant. Otherwise, some person could go through and declare the entire encyclopedia related to homeopathy and put everything on probation. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If it were our policy to assume bad faith, that would be a valid argument; but since our policy is to assume good faith, let's assume that no one will go through and declare the entire encyclopedia related to homeopathy and put everything on probation. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ri) No offense, Carnildo, but that reply is mind-boggling in the depth of its inanity. What, praytell, is a homeopathy editor? Someone who edited the article once, ten times, weekly, daily? What if two of these homeopathy editors are arguing over Differential calculus, does that make that article a homeopathy article? Please.

Dlabtot, SA's argument is perfectly cogent: however, the dismissive answer is unworthy of a wiki-sentient being. Were wiki a Utopia of perfection, your answer might have a chance at attaining value, but it isn't and it doesn't.

It's quite obvious that a number of points of logic or either being missed or willfully dismissed here, likely in the belief that wiki-tough-love and strict adherence to rules will simply end the debate. Sad. •Jim62sch• 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A homeopathy editor is someone who edit-wars on homeopathy articles. Now, this may seem like a circular definition, but if you can identify even one homeopathy article (say, homeopathy) using other means, you can use the two definitions to identify all homeopathy editors and all homeopathy articles. --Carnildo (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Again: What if two of these homeopathy editors are arguing over Differential calculus, does that make that article a homeopathy article? See Charles Darwin.

I really don't have the energy to spend bucking the winds of mass hysteria, nor am I apt to plunge into an abyss of illogic trying to rescue wikipedia from itself, so y'all have fun.

BTW, better tag 10 April and 2 July: Samuel Hahnemann's birth and death days. Oh, and the Samuel Hahnemann article itself, of course. •Jim62sch• 11:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden text

When the article is unprotected (or even before) should some noninclude text saying this article is on probation and referring the person to the talk page be added? MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this mic on?

Apparently removing tags supported by both sides of the dispute and calling another party a "stubborn editor" is not prohibited. Are the pro-science editors fears that this "article prohbation" is actually a "A-SPOV" (anti-scientific point of view) proposal founded, contrary to all of my hopes? PouponOnToast (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick question: Why are you harping on this point in three places? spryde | talk 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel I am disrupting wikipedia to prove a point (also known as "state your point, don't demonstrate it"), feel free to block me. I posted a notice about an incident on the incident board, commented on the disruption to the article and a proposal to stop it on the article and came here to see if anyone was interested in enforcing this probation, or if just saying "probation" was the extent of action. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I encourage editors to review Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Please notify anyone you think needs to be aware of this page. Administrators are welcome to add their names to the list of uninvolved admins who can provide enforcement. There is no rush. Soon most editors will be familiar with the expected standards of conduct, and those who refuse to cooperate will be limited or banned from the locus of dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortly thereafter there will peace in the Mideast, a cure for the common cold, and an end to poverty. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So saith the book of the Prophet Wikien, yes? I hope you're right about the common cold: I have a nasty one at the moment. •Jim62sch• 12:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please help me bring more roboticists to WP

I continue to run into a frustrating but interesting problem. I'm posting this here because the toughest problem I'm facing is that I keep on talking to people on one side or the other of a cultural divide, when what I really need to find is Wikipedians who span the divide, understand the problem, and might be willing to help a bit...maybe I can get help here, maybe you can point me in the right direction. In a nutshell, the problem is that people with important experience in robotics...people whose help we could really use...are mostly staying in their own little communities and not contributing to Wikipedia/Wikia/Wikiversity. I have put a lot of time into chatting with communities of hobbyist and student roboticists (who, btw, tend to have fantastic wiki-values and are just the kind of people we want editing here), and trying to get them to understand the benefits of being brave and tackling the WP-and-sister-sites culture, and a lot of time chatting in WP-related irc channels and robotics-related WP talk pages. Technologists in general, and roboticists in particular, are used to feeling rejection on a number of levels when they talk with people who don't have the same interests...and I'm convinced that's why we don't have more participation from them in Wikipedia.

Here's the problem: try posting a comment to a general audience somewhere saying that you've had some success with getting a robotic vacuum cleaner or a robotic toy to work better, and asking people to try it out and see if they like it, and most of the responses you get will be dismissive in some way. This is not at all surprising...everyone has issues with everyday technology, everyone knows that all this stuff gets particularly scary if you look 20 years into the future (and these anxieties are reinforced every day by TV and films), and people who are perceived as technophilic are sometimes suspected of being semi-autistic, not willing to play by the usual social rules. All this discomfort tends to get dumped, without apology, on the heads of robotics-enthusiasts, and this has tended to make them clump together for their own protection and comfort. To translate to another context that you might understand better: imagine that you're the only black, or gay, or disabled person in a small town, and suppose every time you try to talk about what's interesting to you, people respond based on all their own stereotypes rather than listening to what you have to say. Get the problem?

Of course, WP isn't here to make the world better, we're just trying to build an encyclopedia...and this is exactly the problem. Wikipedia has coverage of most subjects in excruciating detail, but even the most basic questions about everyday robots aren't covered well in Wikipedia...and worse, you'll have to read 600 pages of stuff before you find out that what you want to know isn't here. (This is not a criticism of all the incredibly fine work that has been done so far on robotics articles, just an acknowledgement that the simplest questions...."Can I buy a robot to do this?"...are also the toughest questions with very complicated answers, and the people who know the answers are in general not participating in Wikipedia.) This is a tough problem to fix, the subject matter is hard and changes every day, but I am convinced that both Wikipedia-and-sister-projects and the hobbyist groups themselves would benefit from sharing, and I'm convinced that people who are neither technophiles nor roboticists could make a difference, simply by not allowing people to stereotype and beat up roboticists...that is, show them the same support you would show any minority, hell, any human. (I keep saying "them" because I'm representing as a "cross-cultural" member here, but I'm a proud roboticist, too.) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cube your problems and then help me bring more Scientologists to Wikipedia, too. Speaking as a cross-cultural member myself. Cheers. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. The only real solution to these scope problems is to do what you can, and let the others do what they can. If people are interested, then they will edit what they want. We can't force, or even attract, people who like a certain thing. As for the scientologists, we can do with out them. :) Prodego ^talk 21:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, you are one of the most well-spoken and thoughtful (philosophical?) roboticists I've ever come across. :-). Don't lose faith in this project. Wikipedia, although rife with cruft, is, a good place. Be encouraged, fine editor! In a weird way, you are not only a pioneer in your field, but a pioneer in the field of wikifying your field. That alone makes you stand above the rest. If your robot colleagues (I apologize, that was mean) don't like Wikipedia or see it's massive potential, then meh? to them. Keep up your fine work. Someone will come around to help. I would personally, but my experience in the field of robotics is limited to the Roomba. Cheers, mate. Keeper | 76 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AAAAA!. That's overwhelming, thank you, but it makes it sound like I was trying to sound brilliant, and no one likes that. I think what might be going on is that I've found from long practice that every second I talk about robotics, people's eyelids get heavier, so I have to super-compress what I have to say...maybe that just made it sound clever, I don't know. Anyway, thank you for your support. If you like, you can give us a vote of moral support at WP:WikiProject Robotics#Moral support, or maybe even display our banner from that page on your talk page. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the guy I used to share a lab with, Peter Kyberd. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't have to wait long for an example. Someone deleted a broken link today to an article that didn't exist yet, Lawnbott (that's a robotic lawnmower), so I replaced the link and wrote the Lawnbott article. I had already written an article on the subject on robots.wikia.com last month. It was immediately tagged...rightly so...as not listing sufficient sources to establish notability. But how do we establish notability for a commercial robot? Offhand, I can only think of one time a CEO of a home robotics company has admitted to sales figures (a year ago, 2.5 million Roombas shipped, see robots.wikia.com for the cite). Roboticists (at least, the ones I listen to) will tell you that most academic and journalistic reviews of new commercial robots are completely unreliable, it's much better to get a report from an individual or group that you know to be reliable who has tested the product. But "Joe over at Engadget says..." is not the kind of cite that WP likes to rely on. This problem has similarities to the problems lawyers face when using "precedent" to argue a case about satellites or intellectual property law...it's well-known that you get some very silly results. Likewise, if we tag robotics articles because they don't cite the same kinds of sources that would be appropriate for history articles, we're going to get some silly results.

I don't really expect to have any great difficulty with this issue, but I am inviting comment. What I've done for the moment is to leave the "primary sources" tag in place on Lawnbott and replace the "notability" tag with the "expert-subject | robotics" tag, per WP:NOTE#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. I'm going to intentionally leave tags in place and some things undone on robotics articles for a little while and see if I can get some cooperation from new robotics editors. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Google news search is a good way to find reliable sources for...those things that can be reliably sourced. In the case of Lawnbott, it works well: articles in the Christian Science Monitor and Sacramento Bee. Incorporate what those articles say, add them to the references, and your article should be safe. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you cite the journal articles and publications from which the article is drawn, that normally satisfies the notability requirement in the process. Unless the only sources are press releases and company publications, in which case the article may be doomed anyway. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites, and I completely agree. Hopefully the combination of newspaper articles sufficient to comply with WP:SOURCE plus informed debate among users (for commonly available robots) or experts (otherwise) will get the job done. Things are going well at the moment. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Robotics is successfully attracting new and very talented people to Wikipedia and generating goodwill...and the foregoing discussion helped a lot, thanks. Interested admins and other prolific editors may want to watch WP:WikiProject Robotics/Admins' Edit Log, which is intended to reflect your ongoing consensus and concerns by the simple expedient of listing what you're doing in robotics articles. If you have friends (including people whose English is not great) who are interested in robotics but don't know a lot about Wikipedia, please direct them to WP:WikiProject Robotics/Outreach. Thanks for all the support. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caltrop (talk · contribs)

Why do we have an active admin with a deleted talk page. β^_command 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me if this may seem too blunt, but did you try asking him first? Icestorm815 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, but have you tried asking him? It looks like there's on 28 deleted edits, so I presume most of the are at another location. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The old archives appears to be deleted as well. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The archives are spread over at least 4 pages, all deleted, and split using selective restore. They could easily be recombined though. Prodego ^talk 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this happening more frequently lately. See User talk:Bishonen (11,818 edits deleted) and User talk:FCYTravis (709 edits deleted) for other examples. - auburnpilot talk 02:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be correct to restore this, even without notifying them, and warn them. Make sure there isn't any PI or BLP concerns (and none of those BLP excuses, I mean a real reason) first though. NOTE TO ANYONE THINKING ABOUT THIS: If you restore Bishonen's page, it can't be redeleted. Prodego ^talk 02:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, it would not be correct to restore the talk pages without notifying them first. If there are BLP (or, more seriously, privacy) issues, we're shooting ourselves in our collective foot if we treat this matter as requiring urgent and rapid intervention.

In the grand scheme of things, no harm whatsoever is done if the talk pages stay deleted for a week or two longer. As Prodego notes, undoing the deletion is impossible for regular admins, and we should shy away from taking irreversible action without due care. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-deleting it is impossible, it should still be undeleteable. But I disagree in that, if you know there are no problems with the page, you can restore it. If it was selectively deleted though, you should not because it might be one of those special cases. Prodego ^talk 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again? I brought this up four months ago. --Carnildo (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a technical question, why would re-deleting be impossible? I've seen pages deleted and undeleted and re-deleted all the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a limit since a few weeks that only pages with less than 5000 revisions can be deleted by admins, to avoid server problems. henrik•talk 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the procedure for deleting pages that exceed the 5000 revision limit? Is it necessary to contact a Developer in order to have such pages deleted? Obviously, this isn't a huge problem, as there aren't many occurrences that one can think of, where a page containing over 5000 revisions would have to be deleted urgently, but it is a issue we should address, considering the scarce availability of Developers with root access. Anthøny 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not that scarce, Anthony. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User 67.163.171.225

I am really mad at this user. This user sent a personal attack to my talk page and I want him/her to be blocked. Here is a link to it:[talk:Footballfan190&diff=188677255&oldid=187835653]. Please, someone help me. Footballfan190 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. GlassCobra 06:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] backlog of possibly unfree images

According to the list of admins there are over 1,000 active admins on Wikipedia. Could one of you please take care of this? It goes back to the 18th of December. --Rockfang (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these were purposefully being left undone... but I don't recall for certain now. I'm trying to find out. Lara❤Love 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be thinking about #Disputed fair-use image deletion deadlines (update) above. Woody (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So....was someone going to help out Garion96 with this? --Rockfang (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up again. Will someone please help out with this?--Rockfang (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please deal with this backlog?--Rockfang (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 911

User:Hellno2 moved 911 to 911 (year), redirected 911 (disambiguation) to 911, then edited 911 despite a clear consensus that this should not be done (see talk page). I've reverted the redirect (and made a note on his talk page), but cannot undo the move and would like admin assistance in that. My apologies if I was supposed to ask for this somewhere else. Matchups (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attn:Admins - cpvios galore

Well... long story, but here's the gist. Category:Images from Bollywood Blog contains images from a certain blog called - bollywoodblog.com. Couple of months ago, I sensed that something was wrong with the way the images were being licensed and I brought it up. A long discussion ensued on various pages before I consolidated all(well, almost) of it on the concerned admin's sub-page. During the course of the discussion, I proved that the less than honourable blog was only hawking stolen stuff and many(dozens) of the images that they'd so graciously released on a CC-2 (not CC-3, as the licensing info proclaims) license didnt infact, belong to them at all! As a result of the discussion, dozens of images got deleted.

Even as more and more were getting deleted, editor(s) who had uploaded those images and were using them in their articles, bargained for more time saying they would come up with evidence that the images werent bootlegged. Soon after that, I went on a wikibreak for about 2 months only to return recently.

I now see that, there is neither any of the promised evidence, nor have the cpvios been deleted. Can any admin here give me a very good reason why? I tried knocking on some doors, but havent gotten any reply yet. And if there is no "very good reason", can somebody do the honours and speedy them now? Sarvagnya 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on Riana's talk page and the lack of confirmation that the images are really owned by Bollywood Blog, I'm deleting all the images as copyvios, and the associated template and category with it. east.718 at 20:59, January 31, 2008

Please restore them. Unless you have had personal contact with the blog and they have informed you that they have been lying to us? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with restoring the images. While Sarvagnya may have some points, it was confirmed by multiple parties that the images were freely available. As indicated, two other admins reviewed the material and saw no basis for deletion. At the very least, I believe User:Videmus Omnia and User:Riana, who were both involved in the discussion with the organization, which to the best of my knowledge Sarvagnya was not, should have been contacted in advance of deleting the images. I am taking the liberty of contacting them both and requesting their input on this possibly rash and ill-informed mass deletion. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ahh.. so you ".."tend" to agree with restoring the images..".. do you Mr. John 'uninvolved-no-axe-to-grind-third-party-opinion' Carter? How very slick! Stop being dishonest about it and trying to mislead people! Who are these "atleast two other admins" you're talking about? And what have they seen that proves that the two-bit blog actually owns the images they're hawking? If there is any such evidence, your two admins, yourself, blofeld and your friends had three months to bring it to the table. And you didnt. Worse, you guys had the gall the take me to ANI over the matter and more recently, to snigger. Short of incontrovertible-not-open-to-interpretation evidence being produced that the deleted images genuinely belonged to that "multi-million pound" blog, I strongly protest any calls for or attempts to restore the deleted images. And there is no need to 'inform' Riana or anybody else. It was done the last time around and even this time, I informed her (and Yamla and Butseriouslyfolks and on that Riana's subpage) a full day or two before I brought it here. Sarvagnya 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well they shouldn't have just been deleted like that without any new discussion. I have the disclosed media company which is the contractor of the images and only myself and one or two other admin know about it. The deleting admin has no idea what agreement was made and certainly shoulnd't have speedied OTRS affirmed images without new consensus ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

VO doesn't edit anymore, and Riana won't be online now. I'm going to admit a lapse in judgement - I acted with too much haste. I'll step back for now and undelete those images. east.718 at 22:39, January 31, 2008

I did not necessarily see a lapse of judgement, simply responding to a statement from a very vehement editor. In any event, you have my thanks and respect for your quick response. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The lapse of judgement was not when you deleted them, but when you undeleted them. I am sure you have some questions to answer now. Sarvagnya 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a long time ago since I received the emails but I had the disclosed media company which owns all of the images and contracts them to various Bollywood related sites which was kept private for contractual reasons. Once I slipped and even provided the link to Sarvagnya himself and User:But Seriously Folks had to yank it out of the history system immediately because keeping it private is serious, and it was revealed to only a few of us in good faith and trust by private email. The high profile media company was revealed as having ownership of many of the channels on Indian television, film distribution and other related media stuff. I spoke to the director of Caledonian publishing which is a contractor of the media company and it was confirmed almost to the point of frustration that wikipedia is able to use the images without a problem. It is clear the Bollywood blog is free to distribute them therefore we are cleared to use the images -if they were "illegally" "taken" how do you think the website is able to obtain images of events that had taken place only hours previously and in abundance of the latest events if there wasn't some kind of genuine connection and authorisation to distribute them?. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"The high profile media company was revealed as having ownership of many of the channels on Indian television, film distribution and other related media stuff."

Absolute bollocks. The ownership of each and every channel on Indian television is public knowledge. The big players include the Zee group (Subhash Chandra when I heard last), Star TV group (Rupert Murdoch when I last heard), the Sun TV group (family owned, Eenadu group (Ramoji Rao) and such others. Film distribution is also a high profile business and there are big and small distributors, all of whom make it to the posters, publicity material, credits, awards ceremonies etc.,. And you're telling me that there is another "hi-profile media company" which owns the Zee group and star tv group and sun tv and eenadu and film distribution and "media stuff"? Pray, which company is this? They must be worth a 100 billion dollars and its amazing they can keep their operations secret! Is it Her Majesty's secret service? And who heads it? James Bond? Sarvagnya 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it is clear that Sarvagnya isn't here to constructively edit the encyclopedia. Aside from the fact that he has barely edited wikipedia since the beginning of December, if it is personal committments elsewhere this is understandable but he has returned and felt rather surprised he hasn't got his own way. It makes me wonder why he is so concerned about Bollywood given the fact he rarely edits the articles. Whatever the case and whether he genuinely intends to improve the encyclopedia in the future and do something contructivie to help the site, it is clear that his true colours are revealed in moments like this, given his long history of disruptive behaviour (forgive my english english) and reports to admin councils. Clearly doesn't have an ounce of respect for admins either whether it is Riana, Videmus in the commons or John on here or anyone who has worked hard to make a legitimate agreement and gone out of their way and beyond to help this project develop. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall in the last discussion Riana saying that some of the images (no one knows which ones) were not owned by whoever is giving permission and were not properly licenced and should be deleted.[2] Do we have any way of knowing which ones? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

comment yes but it was revealed that the Bollywood blog is under contract from a major media company which distributes the images to many of the Bollywood related websites and it indeed owns many of the images that were deleted rather than the bollywood blog owning all of them. If the agreement between the disclosed company and bollywood blog is 100% valid which it clearly is otherwise they wouldn't be able to get hold of the images so fast then it is clear the agreement is valid. And as for those promotional images appearing on other sites this is exactly what I am saying -these images are distributed by the media company to sites such as Bollywoodblog and others which would explain why some of them appaear on different sites because they are under contract from the same company. Think about it rationally, why would the owner of Bollywood blog risk disclosing his contractor and telling us we are free to use the images if he was lying all just to help wikipedia? Does anybody really think he would risk the very running of his site just so he can provide wikipedia with a few images? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That was probably just as we were stepping into the discussion. Read the discussion fully and she admits that the blog had been dishonest with her and pending any new evidence emerging, the whole lot would have to be deleted. Just read. Sarvagnya 23:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also these were Yamla's, BSF's and Coren's closing comments. Sarvagnya 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am seriously concerned here. I understand that some images were shown not to be owned by the company. The claim (and I'm not trying to put words in people's mouths) is that some images are obviously screenshots and are not part of the deal. However, it is not at all clear to me which images are screenshots and which are owned by Bollywood Blog. Unless we are sure that all of the images are owned by them or that the images which are not owned by them (screenshots, etc.) are clearly marked as such, I feel we should not use any of the images. I'll note that it is not clear to other people which images are owned by them and which are screenshots because people have been uploading the screenshots here. --Yamla (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

it's not just about the ones that are screenshots from movies and television. The blog has provably stolen from other amateur, corny blogs. Read my opening post here. Note that all those red links were blue when I posted. Also, people might be interested in what BSF came up with after careful research. He said, "...Based on all of the above, I would wager that the blog has no photographers or exclusive images, and that all of the images on the blog site belong to other people. So unless somebody has compelling evidence to the contrary, they should all be speedied as copyvios and the site should be blacklisted." Sarvagnya 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Sarvagnya 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the problem images you identify are screenshots. However, the Rakhi--Sawant image is way beyond troubling. --Yamla (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

comment no it isn't Yamla. Please read my above comments tha Bollywood blog is under contract with this media company which distributres promo photos like Rakhi to various sites which accounts for your perceived idea they are copied. As for Sarvagnya basing his judgment on what little he actually knows about the agreement and had and still has nothing to do with what went on behind wikipedia he is ill informed to make such a judgment ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And that Rakhi Sawant image was one that I picked almost at whim to research. I am sure if you looked closer and harder, there are more such waiting to be unearthed. Sarvagnya 00:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone verified the OTRS ticket again? If the ticket is right, we can keep them. If they are copyvios and complain, we can direct them to this blog because of the authorization given in the ticket. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh now. Stop taking the discussion backwards. The OTRS thing is moot and besides the point. OTRS was where the last discussion started and it was soon trashed ... in the face of overwhelming evidence that the blog didnt own the pictures. Also, notice the discomforting fact that afa the blog is concerned, the images are only CC-2.. not CC-3. Care to read before you comment? Sarvagnya 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I am just wondering. I thought a third opinion of someone who is not involved in the case would be appreciated, but if it is not, I leave. By the way, it would be good to have someone from the OTRS office contact the one who gave permission stating there are concerns with their images, and whether they continue to confirm the images are copyrighted by them or not. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good example Image:Subhash-Ghai.jpg [3] [4]. I was already concerned about these images after reading the previous ANI discussions, but having read the sub-page discussion I endorse revoking the ability to take any image from this blog site, and the speedy deletion of all the images except in cases where there is clearly demonstrable ownership of copyright. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was it undeleted?

I want a very good explanation before I take this any further. Sarvagnya 23:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it strikes me as odd to discuss images that nobody can see. Let's try and be cool here, we can just redelete all the images if the need arises. east.718 at 01:05, February 1, 2008

And it strikes me as even more odd that a full two months after the last discussion the images hadnt still been deleted. Sarvagnya 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gah

Sorry, I've been away for a tad. I keep forgetting about this. I would delete the lot. We've been contacted by the folks at the blog who admit that they don't own copyright to all the images. They've given us contact details for the photography agency who actually do own it. I've contacted them, it's been a few months, and no response. So... I'd get rid of them until we do get word. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's as good as it gets. I'm going to redelete the images again in a couple hours if there aren't any significant objections. east.718 at 03:01, February 1, 2008

Yes that would have been best if the agreement was made directly with the photographic agency which do actually own ALL of the images rather than the Bollywood blog. All I can propose is that they are contacted one final time and if there is still no response within a week then I unfortunately think they have to be deleted. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

East, I do not see any 'significant objections' and I think it is high time the images are nuked and the site blacklisted. The two hours you said have long passed and I demand that the images be deleted immediately. I didnt spend hours digging and making a case for those cpvios to be deleted just for it to be brushed under the carpet. Sarvagnya 15:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not being brushed underneath the carpet; we are taking the time to make sure the right course of action is taken. With OTRS, which I used to be a part of, we deal with image permissions all of the time and we have to make sure that everything is right. Plus, it would be fruitless to delete the images, undelete, redelete and undelete because of a posting of a user or two. Now that Riana is giving us the word to remove the images, we will accomplish it as soon as a we can since we don't want to cause collateral damage with unrelated images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The claim of license is provably wrong in enough cases that it simply can't be trusted. Nuke the lot, and if people can find genuinely free versions or can provide evidence of release then they can be re-uploaded with that sourcing instead. They've had two months to clean up their act, they have not done so, I think it's time to act. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Just let me know what to whack and I will see if I can do a few. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some more remain

Some more remain. Can somebody take care of these? -

Image:PreityZinta.jpg Image:Zinta4.jpg Image:PreityZintawithNess.jpg Image:PreityZinta2.jpg Image:Zintagoair.jpg Image:PreityZintakank.jpg Sarvagnya 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And more - Image:ShahrukhK.jpg

Image:Aishwarya10.jpg Image:Saif_Ali_Khan.jpg Image:Deepika_Padukone.jpg Sarvagnya 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Preitykank.jpg is a FU. It is not licensed under Bollywoodblog's license.

As for other images, there are some more on Shahrukh Khan's article and Kareena Kapoor's one. Take care, if you do. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And more - Image:MallikaSherawat.jpg Image:SaifAliKhan.jpg. Hey Shahid, great to see you helping in the mopping up operation. Your help is greatly appreciated. Please let us know if you or your friend uploaded any more. Thanks. Sarvagnya —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What? ha ha LOL! I'm not here to help in anything friend. It was just a BTW comment to the first one. Bye, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attn:admins - cpvios galore - Part II

While we're at it, another one that doesnt pass the smell test. Look here Sarvagnya 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As if that wasn't enough huh? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a simple look at the terms of the website shows this is a false license. Also, on the bottom of the website, I see "(c) Copyright Kollywoodtoday.com 2006 - 2009. All rights reserved." Doesn't sound like Creative Commons to me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So this seems to be another OTRS job. Hmm..I noticed on the same terms page I linked above, most of the content is posted to the website or submitted by users. I would not be surprised if those sites do not have the actual permission to give out the photographs. More eyes should be on this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked in both English and Tamil and it seems that, for what I searched for, no copies appear online. However, I do also note that some of the images in that category cannot be found on that Kollywood website. I honestly believe that if we cannot find the same image on Kollywood, we should remove it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attn:admins - cpvios galore - Part III

Now that we have the bollywoodblog fiasco out of the way, I request people to turn their attention to this group of images from another seedy, corny blog. Let's get started with the problems -

1. This is an example of an image from the category and like all others in the category it has been released on a CC-3 license. The license info says -

“

...Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify these images, providing the site is attributed and a direct link running to the source on their site is provided. Correspondence to this effect is archived on Wikimedia's OTRS system

”

1a. The first problem is that there is no direct link to the source for any of these images. The source info only points to the blog's home page which is not very helpful at all.

1b. Since the images have been released on CC-3, does the 'permission letter' deposited with the OTRS expressly give permission for such a license? Or did somebody put the words in their mouth? Bear in mind that CC-3 provides for free use and reproduction even for commercial purposes. So once again, did the copyright holders give explicit permission for 'copy/distribute/modify' for commercial purposes also?

2. As with the bblog images, there are some images in this category also that are patently not the property of the blog. I am referring to some that are screenshots(cpright owned obviously by the producers of the movie), photo shoots(arguably owned by professional photo studios and modeling agencies) and what seem like crops of publicity material(the copyrights of which, once again belong to the producers of the film).

3. A little digging, I am sure will turn up more images from the category that fall in the Rakhi Sawant-Subhash Ghai(from bblog) category.

Can somebody please take a look at exactly what the letter with the OTRS say and confirm that permission has indeed been granted for a CC-3 license? And when we have that out of the way, can somebody confirm that the images are, in the first place, the property of the kollywoodtoday site to license. Sarvagnya 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a kollywood now? El_C 09:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed a few that didn't belong on the site last night, might do more tonight (Pacific US time). I spoke to Riana last night and she suggests to remove the images from here that came from that website. We can always restore later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir Blofeld wrote "I had the disclosed media company which owns all of the images and contracts them to various Bollywood related sites...it was confirmed...that wikipedia can use them." If they are contracted out to various sites thats an arrangement between the company and the sites- it doesn't extend further than that. We can't just have it okayed that wikipedia can use them, it has to be under the GFDL or similar license, okayed that any site etc. can use them, due to the various sites and people who reproduce wikipedia. Also we have no proof of what you say (not saying you're lying, but that would need to be in a verifiable form.) Maybe someone could contact the distributors of some of the films shown, or whoever else holds copyright, and see if they are aware of the pics? Merkinsmum 12:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caltrop (talk · contribs)

Why do we have an active admin with a deleted talk page. β^_command 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me if this may seem too blunt, but did you try asking him first? Icestorm815 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, but have you tried asking him? It looks like there's on 28 deleted edits, so I presume most of the are at another location. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The old archives appears to be deleted as well. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The archives are spread over at least 4 pages, all deleted, and split using selective restore. They could easily be recombined though. Prodego ^talk 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this happening more frequently lately. See User talk:Bishonen (11,818 edits deleted) and User talk:FCYTravis (709 edits deleted) for other examples. - auburnpilot talk 02:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be correct to restore this, even without notifying them, and warn them. Make sure there isn't any PI or BLP concerns (and none of those BLP excuses, I mean a real reason) first though. NOTE TO ANYONE THINKING ABOUT THIS: If you restore Bishonen's page, it can't be redeleted. Prodego ^talk 02:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, it would not be correct to restore the talk pages without notifying them first. If there are BLP (or, more seriously, privacy) issues, we're shooting ourselves in our collective foot if we treat this matter as requiring urgent and rapid intervention.

In the grand scheme of things, no harm whatsoever is done if the talk pages stay deleted for a week or two longer. As Prodego notes, undoing the deletion is impossible for regular admins, and we should shy away from taking irreversible action without due care. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-deleting it is impossible, it should still be undeleteable. But I disagree in that, if you know there are no problems with the page, you can restore it. If it was selectively deleted though, you should not because it might be one of those special cases. Prodego ^talk 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again? I brought this up four months ago. --Carnildo (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a technical question, why would re-deleting be impossible? I've seen pages deleted and undeleted and re-deleted all the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a limit since a few weeks that only pages with less than 5000 revisions can be deleted by admins, to avoid server problems. henrik•talk 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the procedure for deleting pages that exceed the 5000 revision limit? Is it necessary to contact a Developer in order to have such pages deleted? Obviously, this isn't a huge problem, as there aren't many occurrences that one can think of, where a page containing over 5000 revisions would have to be deleted urgently, but it is a issue we should address, considering the scarce availability of Developers with root access. Anthøny 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not that scarce, Anthony. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that all versions of a page will need to be deleted in a hurry. We should ask on Bugzilla for a selective version delete, as per the selective restore. Rich Farmbrough, 10:35 6 February 2008 (GMT).

[edit] User 67.163.171.225

I am really mad at this user. This user sent a personal attack to my talk page and I want him/her to be blocked. Here is a link to it:[talk:Footballfan190&diff=188677255&oldid=187835653]. Please, someone help me. Footballfan190 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. GlassCobra 06:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can I be protected

I appear to be the victim of a over jealous editor and his friends. If you look at my account you will see that they have gone through all my postings and images for the past year and marked them all for deletion. I am also getting abusive comments and it all started after I critisised an editor. I fully own the copyright to all the images I have posted and have offered them up for free use on Commons and have repeated told the editors this on numerous occasions and with telephone numbers, emails and contact addresses of the people concerned. Austenlennon (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)austenlennon

From looking at your talk page, it appears that your numerous images have been deleted because they failed to comply with our image use policy in various ways. I advise you to re-read the detailed advice in this regard given to you on your talk page. I also see no abusive comments aimed at you. No administrator action is necessary here. Sandstein (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You clearly did little or no work on my complaint before dismissing it and you seem to be content to defend youyr fellow editors rather than get to the truth. I removed the verbal attacks and I own full owneship of these photgarphs. One of you editors has even followed up this with the previous owner. Here is the email that he sent!

Please find below and email to a Wikipedia Editor from the previous copyright holder of this and all the other images that I have posted.

Dear Robert

Thank you for your email and your interest in Northern Ireland talent.

I presume that you are one of the voluntary editors that manages the Wikipedia site? If so I am I happy to confirm the following:.

Austen Lennon approached me, and other management agencies, several months ago and pointed out that Wikipedia was not representing the huge array of talent that we have in Northern Ireland. Mr. Lennon offered to help enhance this oversight in Wikipedia and asked me if he could use the images that I own.

Over the months Austen Lennon proved to be very passionate and honest about his commitment and has worked hard (and without any reward from myself or the other agencies) to improve the situation and as a result I gave him full copyright over all the images on my site and he is free to use these to help improve the information that Wikipedia holds regarding Northern Ireland talent. I placed no restrictions on the images and they are free to use as Common Media files (I believe that is the right term)

So, I believe that the answer you need is yes, Austen Lennon has the copyright to all of the images on my site, (www.DavidHullPromotions.com) and several other sites too.

Regards

David Hull Tel: 028 ( From ROI - 048 ) 9024 0360 Email: david@dhpromotions.com Austenlennon (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)austenlennon

[edit] Please check the DumZiBoT edits

• DumZiBoT (talk • contribs • logs)

Just approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DumZiBoT. Most edits are beneficial, but in the case it simply substitutes the HTML page title for the bare URL, it's not a change to the better in some 1%-5% of edits, e.g. here. Also this substitution often loses the fact on which website the information resides.

Please some volunteers check more edits of the bot, whether this collateral damage is acceptable in the otherwise good effect of this bot.

For now I've stopped the bot by its stop request page.

--Pjacobi (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm. I've got a talk page, also. NicDumZ ~ 07:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's nonconstructive comment apart, I don't see much more than some pleased users on my talkpage... As authorized by the BRFA, I've restarted the bot. If you find some major hole, you can still soft-stop it through this page. NicDumZ ~ 08:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] backlog of possibly unfree images

According to the list of admins there are over 1,000 active admins on Wikipedia. Could one of you please take care of this? It goes back to the 18th of December. --Rockfang (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these were purposefully being left undone... but I don't recall for certain now. I'm trying to find out. Lara❤Love 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be thinking about #Disputed fair-use image deletion deadlines (update) above. Woody (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So....was someone going to help out Garion96 with this? --Rockfang (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up again. Will someone please help out with this?--Rockfang (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please deal with this backlog?--Rockfang (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 911

User:Hellno2 moved 911 to 911 (year), redirected 911 (disambiguation) to 911, then edited 911 despite a clear consensus that this should not be done (see talk page). I've reverted the redirect (and made a note on his talk page), but cannot undo the move and would like admin assistance in that. My apologies if I was supposed to ask for this somewhere else. Matchups (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continued OWNership and reverts against consensus

On the article Boerboel, Frikkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has continually defied consensus, violated the 3RR, and been uncivil. Blocked three times for violation of 3RR, admin Samir worked hard to personally facilitate a discussion, which Frikkers refused to participate in. In December Frikkers was blocked for one month as a result of attempting to change Boerboel back to his preferred version against the consensus of the discussion. As soon as his block was up on January 31st, Frikkers again reverted. As the last user (not me) to revert his latest actions put it in their edit summary, "rv WP:OWN of article against consensus, removing interwiki links and removal of sections by user repeatedly against consensus". Considering that Frikkers continues to not only makes reversions against consensus, but almost totally ignores attempts to engage him in discussion, I don't know what the best solution is. Please advise. VanTucky 04:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs at AN/I? Might get more attention there. Bstone (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the user set up the account just to edit this article. Special:Contributions/Frikkers. If not ownership there must be WP:COI. Igor Berger (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moving to WP:ANI Igor Berger (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Threatening messages

User:Tinucherian has threatened me in my talk page. Despite all warnings by different admins, he keeps using different socks and anonym users to comment side with him on the AfD debate. Earlier, his family history article nominated to AfD by me. Admins, please look into the matter. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  07:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Later, User:Tinucherian had made apology in my talk page. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice for thread above to highlight discussion of actions

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Summary for three issues (A, B, C) that I think it would be good to discuss in regards to a recent block of a bot and a set of admin actions. Posting down here in case that section gets lost in the long thread above. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't search for my article

My article has a "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" tab on it and I can't open the article from the search field. I have addressed the concerns brought up. When will this tab be removed so that my article is available?

Thanks, Benjamin Metelits

Username: ben.metelits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_metelits email: removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.metelits (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone's attempt to copy edit the AfD tag broke the link to the AfD page. It is now fixed. --Dynaflow babble 15:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete reason dropdown script

I have written a script for automating the deletion reason dropdown and will be installing it into MediaWiki:Sysop.js later today if there are no objections. This replaces the current dropdown script (it also makes User:Ilmari Karonen's G10 script redundant, but I don't believe there's a conflict between them). Features:

• Automatically selects a reason from the dropdown if a deletion tag is found that matches a reason that can be found in the dropdown
• Enters "CSD G10: Attack Page" as the deletion summary if a G10 tag is found and no G10 reason is found in the dropdown
• Clears the deletion reason textbox if it contained the default reason and a reason is selected from the dropdown.
• Automatically links to an AFD or MFD if a tag is found in the content.
• Automatically fills in the PROD reason from a tag in the content.
• If an unknown deletion tag (any {{db-*}}), db-reason, or a tag which is recognized but not present in the dropdown is found, fills in the summary box with e.g. "db-reason|reason for page deletion"
• Tested in Firefox, Internet Explorer 6 and 7, Opera, and Safari.
• Simplifies displayed reasons in dropdown to avoid page widening: "[[WP:CSD#G2|G2]]: Test page" becomes "G2: Test page". Reasons are still linked in the actual value submitted.

The final version of this script can be found in User:Random832/simple.js if anyone wishes to test it in advance or review the code. —Random832 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:GR

I non-admin kept this protected template. Could an admin remove the notice for TfD? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, User:Happy-melon resolved it. Thanks to him. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University of Pittsburgh and WP:NOT#MYSPACE

[edit] Jameel Sewell

- Philippe | Talk 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone please help me with this guy who keeps trying to put in something that is NOT cited and is NOT on any websites that I look up. He even told me to go fuck myself or something that effect on my talk page. HELP!!! Boydannie (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD help

[edit] CU results

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik#Tajik. Both User:Tajik and User:Beh-nam are banned users evading their bans. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Lucas (porn star)

I am advising of a serious matter concerning multiple issues which requires administrative intervention.

Michael Lucas or somebody claiming to be him posted a statement on the talk page of his bio expressing dissatisfaction with its content, including the reference to his having been a prostitute, [6], a reference which has stood for over a year. Editor David Shankbone replied there specifically to the prostitute reference saying, "...if information is well-sourced, you will have a difficult time asking it be removed, and the prostitute mention is in the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and at least several others" and "But we'll work with you..." and "Unless someone reverts me, I will make a few of the minor changes", [7]. Prior to this, Shankbone three times restored the prostitute reference when it had been deleted by the now-banned editor Lucasent, [8], [9], [10]. Shankbone has admitted to having corresponded with Lucas outside of Wikipedia. Subsequently, Shankbone removed the prostitute reference and substituted the comparatively benign term "escort", [11].

That Michael Lucas was a prostitute is well-documented on the internet:
(1) http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/02/16/law-blog-law-graduate-of-the-day-porn-king-michael-lucas/,
(2) http://nymag.com/movies/features/23146/index1.html,
(3) http://www.glbtjews.org/article.php3?id_article=255.

There is a discussion thread on this matter, rapidly closed, at COIN, [12]. The participants are LGBT-related editors who work in concert and coordinate support for LGBT-related articles. In particular, editor Benjiboi who himself previously restored the prostitute reference after Lucasent deleted it, [13], now says it "isn't central or notable to his bio", [14]. Why restore it in the first place if it wasn't central or notable? As noted above, Shankbone restored the prostitute reference three times, and Benjiboi once. Another LGBT editor, Jeffpw, not involved in this thread, also restored the prostitute reference thrice after deletion by Lucasent, [15], [16], [17], calling it "sourced material." The prostitute reference had been restored a total of seven times by three editors. The prostitute reference remained until Lucas expressed dissatisfaction -- then Shankbone reversed and contradicted himself, removed it and substituted the term escort. Escort is not interchangeable with prostitute. The cited source says Lucas worked in prostitution -- nowhere does it say escorting. Other reliable sources listed above say Lucas was a prostitute.

This article has been a COI, POV, OR, and BLP nightmare almost since its inception. A review of its history and previous COI [18] and its archive [19] reveals how Lucas has worked through others to edit the article to his liking, i.e., to whitewash and sanitize it. Now Shankbone is editing for him (calling him an escort instead of prostitute) and other LGBT editors rally to support it. Shankbone is a significant contributor to the Wiki world, but he is as subject to the rules as any of us. I am bringing this matter here so that neutral admins can take appropriate action. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.10.239 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Wrong room. dispute resolution is three doors down on the left. If you bring this up there, someone will gladly help you! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

*wonders how you bring something up on a policy page* :) – Gurch 18:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One could, perhaps, go in there, look at the dozen or so options, and choose one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

one of which is here :D – Gurch 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what Jay is saying is that this situation is not an urgent one and thus should use a different option listed on said policy page. Of course, Gurch, feel free to deal with it, if you like. :D Lara❤Love 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You might get further eyes at WP:BLPN. Corvus cornix_talk 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I already directed this IP editor to BLPN when he/she posted to WP:COIN. Durova^Charge! 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attack user page MFD

I have a strong desire to close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments as speedy delete but would probably be considered to "involved" now. There is at least one other admin voting to keep the attack user page but I really think WP:MFD is the wrong place to deal with such an issue. Thought I would mention it here in case anyone else wants to close it early. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've commented in the MfD, but I wanted to note that this seems like a big fuss over a well-established practice. Though it is controversial on occasion, user subpages created for the purpose of compiling evidence and collecting thoughts to be used in WP:DR processes are usually considered tolerable. If it lingers overlong and/or never gets used for the appropriate processes, it's a clear speedy delete candidate. I honestly do not understand why this is such a big deal. Vassyana (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting nasty, with admins apparently misrepresenting policies, and the personal attacks now underway. I just left the author of the attack page up for deletion, User:BQZip01, a personal attack warning here. Can we get more eyes on this? Lawrence § t/e 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Umar Alisha

DrEightyEight (talk · contribs) recently added the {{notability}} tag to the article Umar Alisha. Danaullman (talk · contribs) subsequently added a message to the article's talk page about this tag. In what appeared to be a personal message to Umar Alisha, Danaullman stated that Umar Alisha was notable enough for Wikipedia. This was removed by Baegis (talk · contribs), restored by Danaullman and removed again by Baegis. I then restored the message as being "on-topic enough to be included on the talk page". RDOlivaw (talk · contribs) removed the message again as an "abuse of talk page". I'm asking other admins to look at the issue, to prevent what might otherwise become a back-and-forth revert war on a volatile subject, homeopathy. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG. They're effectively banned from editing the articles for the time being, so now they've managed to find reason to edit war on the talk pages. *smacks head into desk* I'll go talk to Dana. Lara❤Love 15:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I cleared the messages off the article's talk page, as they serve no useful purpose. I've reminded Dana of his edit summary restriction and warned of possible blocks for this kind of mess. Can this be resolved now? Lara❤Love 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User page in wrong space

Can an admin deal with the page Moccamonster it's in the wrong place and redirects from User:Moccamonster. Thanks.--Seriousspender (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it back. This type of move-revert can also be made by non-admins. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Series of image copyvios by User:Mangwanani

Hello, when one looks at the upload log of User:Mangwanani, one notices there seem to be numerous copyright violations where he has simply tagged the image as {{PD-self}}. The problem seems to stem not from bad faith or lies, but from the fact that he believes that because he retrieved the image from internet or scanned it, he can tag it thus. Examples:

• Image:Map of Harare.gif http://www.propertylink.co.zw/map.cfm
• Image:Simba Makoni.jpg Looks like it's from a press shot (low res, professional quality) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7227945.stm
• Image:Zimbabwe billboard.jpg http://flickr.com/photos/sokwanele/1366411450/sizes/o/ (but for non-commercial use only, so not compatible with PD-Self or wikipedia)
• Image:Balancing Rocks.png Looks like it was scanned from a banknote similar to this one http://www.banknotebank.com/display_img.aspx?id=904248&img=a
• Image:Mugabe procession.png the black border around the photo makes me think it's from another site
• Image:Jack Pithey.jpg Looks like a scan from a book
• Image:Gray Hofmeyr.jpg Looks like it's from a video interview
• etc it goes on....

His fair use claims are ok in general, Image:Nkomo.jpg looks like it's invalid though. The reason I bring this up, is because he is also asking unsuspecting users at the Graphics Lab, to make derivatives of some of his images, diff. His view on copyright : diff

Help, would be appreciated, because he actually right from a certain point of view, on the commons, they do tag flags and insignia as PD-Self, even though many of them are older than anyone alive, or were certainly not created by commons users, but by governments and other official groups. Jackaranga (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just silly that you are ignoring this, it won't get any easier for you to solve as time goes on but whatever. Jackaranga (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite suspension of WP:ACC

Per knowledge of a highly delicate matter in bug 12660 I propose suspension of WP:ACC until the issue has been resolved. _→AzaToth 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Except you've now told everyone about the highly delicate matter. Just blank the page next time, or something. I've tried to obscure this slightly. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Owch! This needs fixing ASAP. However, regarding obscuring the matter, I'm actually glad I checked what it refers to and will be acting accordingly myself now that I know - Alison ^❤ 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't find this matter terribly delicate, although it should be fixed. And, like Alison, I went to see what the actual issue was before forming an opinion at ACC. I think there is only one open request there at the moment and, depending on how soon this is taken care of, it shouldn't be a problem to suspend it temporarily. Natalie (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are people who regularly deal with requests for accounts (maybe look through the recent page history?), it might be an idea to let them know - plus anyone who grants requests after this bug was filed (at which point we can pretty much assume that the world and their dog knew about it), and before it was fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Od Mishehu deleted the history prior to yesterday, so now only admins can connect the dots. I think this solves the problem for the past emails. — Satori Son 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've passed this message on to unblock-en-l, as we create a lot of accounts for rangeblocked editors - Alison ^❤ 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, you can just fix MediaWiki:Createaccount-text locally so it doesn't use $1. I've done that for the default message now, in r30562, but it's not going to do anything to customized messages like you have here. No need to raise alarms, just fix it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki text tweaked by User:MZMcBride - yay! - Alison ^❤ 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, beans the musical fruit, the more you talk about this the more you give trolls bad ideas... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I think most of us who create enough accounts already knew this information, fwiw. So... it's fixed now? ~ Riana ⁂ 02:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, yes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yep! And to Jayron - security through obscurity doesn't work, dude. "Professional" trolls most likely read the bugreports more than we do. I'd rather have my eyes open :) - Alison ^❤ 02:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL at you guys. I filed that bug two weeks ago... I was resigned to accepting it wouldn't being fixed any time soon. Clearly what I did wrong was fail to stir up drama here. I shell be sure to do that next time I want one of my bugs fixed. :D Lucky I randomly decided to test out the account creation process, huh? (And the IP address I was sent had already been 'exposed', so don't worry) – Gurch 02:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it was just dumb luck that I happened to be looking at WP:AN (which I practically never do) and noticed this. The bug was extremely stupid and trivially fixed, just apparently no one looked at it. One of the jobs of the new junior developer being brought in is apparently going to be reviewing patches that are submitted on Bugzilla, so hopefully this fairly pathetic state of affairs won't continue for too much longer. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I guess my computer really was broadcasting my IP address. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain just WHY an IP address is a 'safety issue'? I've never understood this, and this attitude seems unique to Wikipedia. —Random832 17:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a safety issue, it's a privacy issue. Given an IP address, it's possible to trace you to your ISP at the very least; probably also to a fairly precise location (city, or in suburban/rural areas at least a moderately small region); and, if you're using a computer directly controlled by some organization, in most cases also your school, employer, etc. At the very least, in the large majority of cases (basically any non-public computer), anyone with a court order can track you down from your IP address fairly reliably. Even anonymizing ISPs like AOL keep long-term records on which customer used which IP address to retrieve which page at any given time, and this will be provided on court order. In more than a few cases, I suspect, records have been provided even without a court order, just a request from someone's lawyer. At any rate that's certainly happened for other data that could be considered private.

In particular, tracing someone's Wikipedia edit to their employer's computer is in many cases enough to jeopardize their job. Most companies, after all, have a policy that employees aren't supposed to be doing stuff like editing Wikipedia during work hours. More often than not, it would be possible for the IP address block's owner (the employer) to trace the IP address to a particular employee's personal computer. In fact, this happened in the Seigenthaler controversy, where Daniel Brandt whois'd the anon's IP and contacted his employer. As I recall, the guy was fired.

It's not true at all that this attitude is unique to Wikipedia. If anything, the contrary is unique to Wikipedia: MediaWiki is probably the only major web software package that will publicly display a lot of people's IP addresses by default, and Wikipedia probably the only major website that will do that. Usually IP addresses are stored, but kept viewable only for admins. Software packages that allow anonymous posting generally just have the poster pick a name for the post, which (it's made clear) is not registered and may be inaccurate. IP addresses are pretty much universally treated as privileged information to the extent practical. This is exactly what we do for registered users ― it's just the schizophrenic contrast of what we do for anonymous users that's weird.

All that said, personally I'd be delighted if we chucked the Wikimedia privacy policy out the window, kept every edit and log entry's IP address permanently, and made them publicly viewable just as for anons. I've heard it said that this is how things were done in the UseMod software originally used by Wikipedia, and that it wasn't implemented for MediaWiki just because the author didn't feel like doing it, or something to that effect. Those who edit from work against company policy deserve what they get, and I would argue that the legitimate needs of those who desire anonymity for other reasons aren't enough to outweigh the benefits. This would have the handy benefit of permitting the abolition of the checkuser rank. Just figure out a way to ditch oversight and we'd be back to the highest rank within any wiki more or less being sysop. However, I don't foresee this happening anytime soon. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Career Pathways page deletion

Hello, I am in need of administrative help, as a page on a very educational and effective workforce development strategy called career pathways has been deleted. This occurred following my attempt on Friday 2/1 to add three external links.

The added links(http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/careerpathways/index.html; http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/careerpathways/index.html; and www.communitycollegecentral.org/Grantees/Kentucky/CCTINewOrleans0307.ppt) provided further content on career pathways and complied with Wiki standards as far as we are aware. While the link are from the same site (which serves as a sort of research databank), the products are the result of research from multiple different organizations.

We got word from the original creator of the page that he is now getting bombarded with emails from people who want to work on the site.

Please contact me through this account or at (email removed) to let me know how we can resurrect this important site. How can we put the site bAnything you can do to help get Wikipedia to put it back up would be appreciated. Again, I am not sure what edits you made Friday but the site was well documented and met the Wiki standards as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janan douglasgould (talk • contribs) 16:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is about Career Pathways, which was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven's deletion with a summary of "not an article". You can ask on their talk page about the exact reasons (I guess it was because the article mostly consisted of external links and did not include a proper definition of what "Career Pathways" means - you can probably just go ahead and write a proper article on the topic if you like, or use deletion review). Kusma (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbing, potentially violent, vandal comments

Please take a look at this: [20] Considering that the source is a school, I think perhaps this may warrant more than a simple vandal warning. Thanks, Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I put a school block on it and notified the abuse address at the school. - Philippe | Talk 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Might want to CALL the school. The abuse address might never be checked and this is an explicit threat by name. It's serious to the point of alerting the authorities by voice. I believe this to be the school: [www.oakland.k12.mi.us] Bstone (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Bstone. This is nothing to be taken lightly. It's most likely a joke... BUT... it would be way better to overreact than to have it happen, and know that we could have done something that kept it from happening. нмŵוτнτ 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please post here when someone has called the school and made a confirmed report. Bstone (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would do it but I am in school right now. But I suggest some one calls and calls soon. Rgoodermote  18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can call them. I'm in MN, right next door. Natalie (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The IT department is looking into it. Natalie (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Natalie. нмŵוτнτ 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Thanks for taking the initiative and time. Probably a harmless prank, but handing it to the authorities for them to investigate is the best thing to do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I received an email from the network administrator confirming that they located the student in question and have taken appropriate action and requesting an unblock. I'm going to do it. - Philippe | Talk 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User's rude personal attacks

On my special page regarding my user name in different languages, user Leventcik inserted a very rude message Sinat na ebana srpska kurva, meaning "son of f**ked Serbian bitch" (probably Bulgarian language-basics of it known to me). There's also a message in Turkish but I do not know what.. See: here

Cheers and thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is inappropriate for commments such as this to be made, but edit summaries like shown here are too inappropriate. WP:DENY is an important guideline. We need to deny these trolls and recognition, and when it comes to revision of vandalism (even on our own userpages) just say rv or use the undo button. Rudget. 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed unblock of SPA vandal

[edit] Action review on User:Ssbohio

[edit] Request for a merge

Please merge Steve shapiro into Steve Shapiro (note the capitalization). Somehow this person has an article on one page and an infobox on the other. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of page

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place but I need the following page [21] deleted. I am not sure if it can be done but as most edits hav been made by myself I seeno harm.

The reason being so is the nature of the details exposesed in the article and rather than delete those {there are several} it is easier for the whole article to be deleted.

Many Thanks Thenthornthing (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you want the article itself deleted, or the redirect, or both? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

both please Thenthornthing (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting hardblock

Total Nonstop Action Vandalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Name seems blatantly inappropriate yet was only given a softblock by User:Misza13.--Urban Rose 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an important consideration when blocking at UAA. If similar names come up within the next few hours after that block, then would be an appropriate time for a hardblock. Rudget. 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Rudget: until it has been demonstrated that the user has created that account with malicious and disruptive intent, a hardblock is inappropriate and unnecessary. Burden of proof of mal-intent lies with us, and insufficient evidence has been demonstrated. Anthøny 18:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Totalitarianism

Hi. An editor, Maglev_Power, seems to be deleting the term "Totalitarianism" from dozens of pages, all in a few minutres. Could someone please look this over? See: here, Thanks. --Cberlet (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like POV, but I do not want to start edit war with him. Maybe leave a message on his talk page as to why he is doing this. Igor Berger (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left a request for him to cease and desist the removals, and suggested discussing the tagging at the WikiProject for the tag he's removing. We'll see if it happens.. a look at the editor's history suggests this isn't a first time for this kind of activity. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor is Maglev Power (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). He seems to be rapid-fire content dispute with everyone else on Wikipedia. He is even removing references to Wikipedia:WikiProject Totalitarianism, since it contains the word 'Totalitarianism.' He has been going for about 40 minutes and seems to have made about 100 changes so far. He has blocked in late January for 24 hours for 3RR after doing something similar but that block has expired. He just resumed less than an hour ago. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to think it's POV to have those articles listed under that WikiProject. I've asked again for him to take it to the WikiProject for discussion. If he keeps up, can I get some thoughts on whether this is disruption? Tony Fox (arf!) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would recommed a 24 hour block unless he stop right now! Igor Berger (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks users because of a disagreement over content is inappropriate. I am willing to discuss the merits of my removal of the tags on a case-by-case basis, on each individual article talk page. Maglev Power (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The term "totalitarianism" is hotly contested by political scientists. It is a serious violation of NPOV and NOR for Wikipedia users to be randomly and arbitrarily inserting this tag in pages on specific regimes and individuals. The tag can go in articles that directly relate to the subject, such as totalitarianism and post-totalitarianism, books on the subject, and theorists who contributed to the concept such as Hannah Hannah Arendt. I am only removing the tag from where the classification of the subject as "totalitarianism" is subejct to serious disagreemnt within the realm of schoalrly research. Maglev Power (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is "serious disagreement" that Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany were at least somewhat related to totalitarianism. And since when do talk pages have to be NPOV anyway? I would add that democracy and human rights are also hotly debated by political scientists, but we don't ignore the existance of those subjects. --ElPeruano (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Maglev Power, that's your opinion. Other people have different opinions. Hence we have a process here called WP:CONSENSUS to edit articles and various dispute resolution procedures should consensus fails. We should not even be discussing the merits of your position here. As a single editor you do not have veto power over what gets written on Wikipedia and what does not. There is clearly broad or universal opposition to the changes you are making from a number of serious, experienced editors. Please desist from these contentious edits immediately. Let us know whether you intend to stop or continue, and whether you will edit war on this if all of your edits are rolled back. If you do mean to continue, I would suggest an indefinite or long-term block unless and until you promise not to further disrupt the project. I have left a message on your talk page to that effect. Wikidemo (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked what you said about Thailand totalitarianism which is not. It is authoritative. But your way of doing it is gaming the system which is against Wikipedia policy. So all your edits have to be undone and you can discuss them one at a time as you would like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My edits are not against consensus. It is a matter of longtime consensus on Wikipedia that the term "totalitarianism" is a subjectley applied, pejorative POV-term, even with regards to Nazi Germany and the Stalinist USSR. Hence the deletion of the pages like Category:Totalitarian dictators and "list of totalitarian dictators" a long time ago. Maglev Power (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a little hard to argue that your edits are part of a broad consensus when you didn't discuss them at all before you started, and once people realized what you were doing the ran here to complain. Obviously, many editors think what you are doing is not helpful. --ElPeruano (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not repeat the arguments becuase the Wikipedia community already had the discussion a long time ago. See the pages leading to the deletion of "list of dictators" (previously list of totalitarian dictators) [22] and the category "totalitarian dictators" [23] Maglev Power (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I still recommend a 24 hour block even if he promisses to stop. He literaly desrupted Wikipedia for WP:POINT Igor Berger (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is not punitive. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is preventative. This user has a track record of this unilateral editing, and I'm just considering how long the block should be. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see here he thinks we are threatening him with a block. So he still thinks he is right to disrupt Igor Berger (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been said many a time that a user has a right to remove a warning once they have read it. And seeing as he appears to have stopped his behavior, I think we should go ahead and assume good faith and allow the user to see where consensus lies. SorryGuy  Talk  02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on totalitarianism as a POV term

For users who are bringing up the matter of "consensus" on the project, I invite them to go the past deletion discussions that bring up the same concerns that I am stating now. See the pages leading to the deletion of "list of dictators" (previously list of totalitarian dictators) [24] and the category "totalitarian dictators" [25] Maglev Power (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not discussed THESE edits, however; I'd suggest doing so before continuing. At present, they appear to be bordering on disruption. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you were removing mentions of totalitarianism from article space, you may have a point. However, your edits are to talk space, which aren't governed by WP:NPOV in the same way: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)..." Additionally, by performing this lengthy series of edits, you are creating a mass disruption of a WikiProject whose presumed purpose is (among other things) to achieve consensus on whether an article's topic is or is not related to totalitarianism, and you apparently began this disruption campaign without bothering to discuss that consensus with the members of said WikiProject. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maglev Power's concerns are noted. I suggest that the WikiProject should have some discussion tagging articles appropriately, and discuss this editor's POV concerns on the project's talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User not taking matter seriously - suggest rollback and possible block

At this point the user is not seriously responding to concerns over his behavior - he deleted my warning calling it a "threat." He hasn't answered whether he intends to stop but from all indications he is not. I have started reversing his contentious edits beginning with this one on January 23. I likely won't get through them all but I suggest we simply roll them back. If he continues this or resists restoring the articles, I suggest an indefinite block. Wikidemo (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree 24 hour block. Igor Berger (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am stopping for the moment because I am too busy with the discussion here. I am not the issue here. You have yet to reply to the evidence to which I have pointed showing that there is a longtime consensus on Wikipedia regarding the recognition of "totalitarian" as a POV-term. Threatening to block me indefinitely because you disagree with me on a content matter is also quite inappropriate and anti-Wiki, and a bit totalitarian, if you were to use that term. Maglev Power (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Maglev Power (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with the following 5 comments). I don't have to reply to anything. Totalitarian is not my term and this is not my issue. I am giving you a behavior warning, not a threat. You're making contentious edits against consensus to make some kind of a WP:POINT that are causing a lot of concern by a lot of people. If you disagree as a policy matter with the content of hundreds of articles at once, you should bring it up and advocate your position in an appropriate forum and try to get some agreement for your changes. You are not entitled to single-handedly change that many articles simply because you feel that they violate some policy. At that point it is a behavior problem, not a content disagreement. I've reverted ten but I will go no farther - once this is settled my guess is that all of your contentious edits will be reversed. By starting to revert my edits (which are entirely appropriate under the BRD cycle) you've made it clear you intend to edit war on the topic. It's ridiculous to claim that Saddam Hussein should be removed from the totalitarianism project. Edit warring over that is misbehavior, not a content issue. I'm not an administrator and I can't block you. I'm simply laying out an argument that you ought to be blocked for this kind of disruption, and that the status quo should be returned rather than allowing a disruptive editor to keep the fruits of their inappropriate editing. I'm likely not going to stick around for the full debate, though. Other fish to fry. Wikidemo (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• These are you words, "I am stopping for the moment because I am too busy with the discussion here." So if you were not busy here, you would continue you Totalitarian crusade? Igor Berger (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He actually has started again at Talk:Saddam Hussein, and the block tariff has just cranked up a notch. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

At at Talk:Burma, and I've blocked for 24 hours to prevent further damage. If any admin feels this is inappropriate, please feel free to reverse me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that block. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And I. If he wants to try to get the WikiProject renamed, he should take that to the WikiProject, not remove all their tags. Bencherlite^Talk 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• It should not take as so long to block a vandal. The editor may not be a vandal but the actions are. We are told to WP:AGF but there is a limit of it and we have to WP:ABF Igor Berger (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is AN & not ANI, so it's a little bit slower paced. But to continue his course of action while this discussion is running, to me shows a level of contempt for his fellow-editors that throws AGF straight out of the window. Reasonably-minded editors, I would hope would stop and think, not pause and then continue. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All tag-removals have been rolled back. 'Night all. Bencherlite^Talk 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor's username caught my attention - a leading proponent of Maglev rail is Lyndon LaRouche. Reviewing his contributions, it appears he's been promoting the LaRouche viewpoint in articles, particularly Myanmar (LaRouche think that its proper name is "Myanmar" and that the British are trying to overthrow its government [26]), and Save Darfur Coalition‎ (LaRouche thinks the claims of atrocities are a fraud [27]). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but regardless, clearly, it is one of the more problematic wikiprojects and wikiproject talk page tags that we have, with a great potential for abuse. As such, I'm not entirely pleased with the manner in which tags for this wikiproject were added to talk pages, en masse, on December 2 by User:Kintetsubuffalo, without edit summaries.^[28] El_C 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, it's not that Kintetsubuffalo failed to use edit summaries to hide the addition of tags for this wikiproject versus other (noncontroversial) ones added in the same succession of edits: he does not use edit summaries at all. Upon notification of this discussion, I asked the user to adopt edit summary use, in general. Helpfully, it'll resonate. El_C 09:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments without my explicit consent, Wikidemo (!). I just wish to note, in answer to Kintetsubuffalo's blanksponse to my message, where he states: "Undid revision 188989580 by El C don't care,"^[29] that I, El C, do, in fact, care. Thx! El_C 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've apologized to El_C on my own talk page and promised that it was a mistake on my part - not that a mistake makes it any better, but I was being a complete dunderhead and thought I was editing my own comment to correct a misstatement. Wikidemo (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns with user's Proding of Mayors' articles

Greetings, I am concerned with the number of Mayor's articles that Noble Sponge (User talk:Noble Sponge|talk) has proded. I have only looked through a couple, but he Proded a former Mayor of Cairns, the 14th largest city in Australia with the rational of "As per Wikipedia policy, small-town mayors are not notable just for being mayors." Being a member of public office has inherent notability (I.E. you were considered by thousands of people to be worthy to speak for them.) I can't see anywhere that specifically says that "As per Wikipedia policy, small-town mayors are not notable just for being mayors." My main concern is that theses Prods appear to have been placed somewhat randomly and indiscriminately. I have left a message on the talk page of the user, but have had no response. Opinions?Fosnez (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians, the notability criteria are:

1. Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[7]
2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6]
3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

He probably should've provided a better reason, but remember, any user can remove a PROD and discuss it on the talk page. MBisanz ^talk 07:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand councilors not being notable under the above criteria, but it isn't that hard to assume that all Mayor's are going to receive significant coverage by reliable sources (such as local newspapers etc) while they are in office? Therefore, wouldn't all verifiable Mayors be inherently notable? Fosnez (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with User:MBisanz's response, I'm a pretty strong inclusionist where municipal politicians are concerned. I've removed almost all of his prods, and encouraged him to initiate AfDs on them. Easy prod, easy de-prod. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fosnez, the thing I've often heard in AfD is that the theoretical existence of reliable sources can't overcome the lack of reliable sources. That being said, its probably not a bad idea to AfD these sorts of things so that users can find the reliable sources for those that exist. MBisanz ^talk 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd have to look at it on a case by case basis, taking account of WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, being the mayor of my city is a fairly ceremonial position; sure, there'd be local newspaper coverage, but all of it along the lines of "Mayor opens new shopping centre". He wouldn't be notable. At the other end of the scale you have, say, Ken Livingstone. And in the middle you have people whose notability can be thrashed out at AfD. Black Kite 11:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point BK - I agree with you that the Mayor of London would be notable but the Lord Mayor of London wouldnt. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's right; the position itself is notable, but the actual holders of the position probably aren't (unless they're notable for other reasons of course). Black Kite 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles on Australian mayors rarely survive AfDs, so prodding seems appropriate. If you disagree remove the prod template. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note that more than 50% of the article mentioned to begin with (Tom Pyne (Cairns Mayor)) was a coatrack for his definitely NN son, which I have removed. There doesn't appear to me much about Pyne online apart from rather trivial news stories [30] but there may be a few things worth adding. But Sarcasticidealist is right; this is a typical AfD case, not a PROD. Black Kite 11:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I completly agree that the Tom Pine article needs work. Today infact I was able to get a hold of some historical documents that I will be able to use to build on the bio more. Unfortunatly i left them at work :-( Fosnez (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satanic ritual abuse, article probation

This one needs to be put on Wikipedia:Article probation, quite badly. It's caused multiple threads at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, due the fact that a whole bundle of conspiracy theorists (the contributions of single-purpose account Abuse truth (talk · contribs)) are worth checking out here) have basically taken over the article. SRA is widely acknowledge these days to be a hysterical phantasm cooked up by the panicky media and social workers of the US and Europe in the 80s and 90s, though very isolated incidences of abuse of children with ritualistic overtones did occur and still do. A solid block of editors refuses to acknowledge this, taking refuge in querulous, tedious argumentation and the old refrain that "no evidence that it did happen is not the same as evidence that it didn't happen". Multiple users with brains have had a go at fixing this (User:Dbachmann, User:Vassyana started the current thread at FTN), but to no avail. The community needs to step in here and lend a hand against ridiculously obvious POV-pushing - AGF has exhausted itself. Just an example of how bad this is: for months a whole section was devoted to the case of "Adam", the headless African boy found floating in the Thames a few years back, as a possible incidence of SRA - despite the fact that nobody ever had any idea who "Adam" was, or how he met his death, apart from vague media mutterings about a possible link to voodoo. Something needs to be done here. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article yesterday - are there new issues? My hope was that through protection, the parties would be forced to go to talk and figure it out. - Philippe | Talk 23:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The problems are way more long-term than just the one dispute. This is rather like the fights over Homeopathy in microcosm. See here and here. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

this will not be resolved by AGF, as the issues are extremely emotional on both sides, and very deeply held. DGG (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5#Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia.

Without expressing an opinion here, I'll note that it looks like this could become heated, especially since there are conflicting opinions on Wikia, Wikimedia, and perceived COIs. It's not heated yet, but if you look at the TfD, Template talk:Wikia is not Wikipedia, User talk:AlisonW, User talk:CordeliaHenrietta and Talk:Wikia, there's starting to be some righteous indignation on both sides. In my experience, righteous indignation can sometimes be a sign of bigger trouble looming. Also the template has gone on and off several articles.

I'm not asking for an outcome in either direction, just calming diplomacy. It's one thing when trolls fight but I hate to see trouble break out among good editors.

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 00:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm hitting the road or else I'd get more involved myself. I note now that things have escalated to threats of blocks and accusations of admin abuse on some of the talk pages. Cheers, --A. B. ^(talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, AlisonW threatened to immediately block me for having removed the template from articles, here.

"It is only because your bot shows you as offline that I have not immediately blocked you."

Grossly out of line, and I asked her to withdraw that threat. As an involved party she shouldn't be doing that, to say the least. That is hardly an accusation of admin abuse, that's me asking an admin to withdraw a silly and out of bounds threat of admin action. Lawrence § t/e 01:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, I'm not sure I see much of a difference between what you said and what I said. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, I just wanted to weigh in, in my own defense. Lawrence § t/e 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Alison also threatened another user with a block over this template. Lawrence § t/e 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure that you target the right person... User:AlisonW, not User:Alison. Thanks SirFozzie (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Foz :) I've not threatened anyone .... well, no more than usual :) - Alison ^❤ 05:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is an {{AlisonW is not Alison}}? :) krimpet✽ 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Alison! While I think Alison may have wanted to at least chide me for being pedantic or repetitious before (kidding!), she definitely isn't the Alison in question... Lawrence § t/e 06:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I made the same mistake. Sorry, Alison. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly going the way for delete. Closing it early would be acceptable I'd think if problems arise again. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing it early would definitely exacerbate already high tensions. John Reaves 05:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with John, I don't think an early close would be a wise idea here at all. I also, however, don't believe AlisonW's block threat was a wise move. If a block were to be made, I would be willing to reverse it. I hope it does not come to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Even as one of the people that supports deletion here, I'd be against an early close as well. This one needs a full run. Lawrence § t/e 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably best, though the template is a very minor thing, it raises some significant issues, which I had thought were universal non-issues. Rich Farmbrough, 09:16 6 February 2008 (GMT).

[edit] User talk:Jro201

Jro201 is a newcomer who was blocked for creating a page. Could someone please review his block. Thanks --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef seems harsh. What do others think? Lara❤Love 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a plan on his talk page that is basically a short-term probation against creating new articles for one month/100 article edits. That seems reasonable that, given that the trouble is around creating new articles on a non-notable band, he gets his feet wet before running into the same trouble. Keilana, the blocking admin, has OKed this. I am awaiting the users response before proceeding. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good plan. If you kill'em, they don't learn nothin', as they say. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehow article probations for situations like these seem just a little bureaucratic. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BITE, ANYONE ? It seems strange, and perhaps a bit off to block anyone for their

first artcle? KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need an uninvolved admin to close Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

Hi. I need an administrator who has been uninvolved in the discussion at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment to bring this discussion to an appropriate close at the designated expiration time. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Follow-up - the designated expiration time has now passed, so any time will do. Cheers again! bd2412 T 18:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on Bio policy

Hi, I would take this to the BLP board but bio is of dead person and I'm not easily finding documentation that we treat dead people's bios in roughly the same manner. In an RfC on Harold_Washington an editor keeps adding this image which seems only to besmirch the former mayor. The painting is notable enough and has it's own article. Is there some easily identifiable policy that could resolve the dispute one way or another? RfC has run 3-to-1 against use but editor has now re-added several times saying RfC doesn't really count. Benjiboi 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP doesn't include deceased persons, but what is the encyclopedic value of this to the article? If the image is gratuitous, keep it out. If it's relevant to a significant portion of the text, it belongs. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, up to a point: BLP can reasonably be applied wherever genuine hurt is caused to living individuals, and the recently deceased have been extended the same courtesy before now, but Washington died a couple of decades ago so that doesn't really apply here. I agree, though, that linking to the article on the picture should be more than enough. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the image isn't gratuitous, and it assists the article in explaining why the image was immediately controversial. Unfortunately, the Harold Washington article has seen some fairly determined efforts to remove any mention of Mirth and Girth whatsoever, and I've been somewhat concerned that some of the editing involved has been to tout the subject of the article, rather than offer an encyclopedic entry into the man's death and legacy. Also in the article is an image of a statue of Harold Washington. Both were/are on public display, both are artistic representations of the subject and if anything, the painting is more notable than the statue image used int he article. lastly, while an article about the painting was in fact created, Wikipedia is full of images that are used informatively across a number of articles. That this particular image tends to offend a small group of Washington memorialists seems an invalid reason for not using a notable and descriptive image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog for closing AfDs

Just a friendly note that there are some AfDs more than a week old still waiting to be closed! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Encyclopedia Dramatica being created in multiple articles

Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to report this. I just wanted to request that an admin take a look at today's edits by User:Moodkips. Links and a redirect have been created pointing towards ED, this following yesterday's declined Deletion review on the subject. Could an admin take a closer look at all of this? --12.193.27.158 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for a short time for disruption, and their point-making and disruptive edits have been reverted. If the same behavior continues after the block expires, please notify us, and an indefinate block will be instated.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A "short" time? God, have half a brain and indef the bastard. Will ^(talk) 21:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If he returns and does it again, I will. And I love you too. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre (Will). Go scream here instead. Geesh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nice job shifting focus. May as well change the section heading now. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy has blocked the account indefinately. As we already knew, Scepter was infinitely wise in predicting this as the obvious and correct path to take. I am worthless scum. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre / Will would do well to keep his outright rudeness, profanity and blasphemy to himself in the future, IMHO. Still, problem now resolved, I believe? Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and your message sounds like a good secondary resolution note. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an spa with a tempter tantrum. His failed DRV nomination of ED obviously led him to a POINT violation. Indef. block is appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 22:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Corvus cornix, and I endorse the indefinite block. Acalamari 22:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jayron assumed good faith, which is absolutely fine, but I've seen some similar recent nonsense so I felt inclined to be firmer. No need to sling mud at each other, nobody did a Bad Thing here. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  Especially since the name is eerily reminiscent of the "Mudkips" meme that plagued WP a while back. Endorsed SirFozzie (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I did a check with Special:Linksearch and found an image which was copied from ED. I don't think that's an issue, but I thought I would point it out so that admins could verify the image can be used here. --12.193.27.158 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it. The image had no encyclopedic value, linked to ED, and was taken directly from that site. No reason to keep it. Acalamari 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding image speedying

On Image:100 0980.JPG, the speedy rationale is that "License plate number is visible, could be a privacy violation." I'm not sure if this is valid for a speedy deletion, so I'd like some feedback on what should be done. bibliomaniac15 05:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, but I've fixed the image anyhow so doesn't require deletion for that reason. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone DELETE my account please?

I wish to leave fully and thus have my user and talk pages only accessible by sysops/admin for legal/record purposes. I am not asking for an IP block though as that might affect others, it also would affect me should certain policies within WP change and I feel able to again support the project. To all the throughly decent editors and admins, all the best - to all the the trolls, rule players and unthinking "Jobs-worth" admins, well I won't waste my keyboard on you lot... SouthernElectric (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your account itself cannot be deleted. However, your user page, talk page, and user subpages may be deleted per m:RTV. Please review that and see if that is really what you want to do. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, after looking at his user and talk page, it looks like he has already left. I've deleted his user page, talk page, and sandbox. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete user talk pages. RTV is no justification for it. By all means, delete individual edits which contain unwanted identifying info, but this has nothing to do with whether or not someone is claiming to leave. Friday (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can an admin take a look at Talk:NetZero?

Please let me know if I posted this in the wrong place. There's a discussion at Talk:NetZero that started quasi-content ... that migrated to being about the company, not the article ... and which now is about the users posting to it. I had been involved in the talk initially and erroneously allowed myself to get pulled into a talk about the company rather than the article, so I spent a week away from it - I just peeked in again to see how it wrapped up, but it's still ongoing. While user:Cheeser1 appears to be attempting to walk away (he attempted to boiler-plate the discussion as it's not appropriate for the talk page), the other user who I had been dealing with initially, user:Theaveng, seems disruptive (removing the boiler plate and restoring the changed subject line that tries to hide that it was a talk about the company, not the article) - resulting in a talk section that's extremely long for something that should have ended within 2-3 posts total. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is any further disruption, the user will be blocked. Lara❤Love 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 66.99.53.142

Hello, I'm one of the admins at 66.99.53.142, it's recently been brought to my attention that our IP address has been blocked on numerous occasions for violations to Wikipedia's editing policy. I was pointed this way by the admin Kbdank71, and I thought I'd ask for your help in finding a way to keep our students from vandalizing your site, or at least pointing me to the articles I need to read to get this corrected. His point of “I would think that if your students are old enough to be editing Wikipedia, they are probably passed the point of the "Vandalism is bad" speech having much effect.” is also unfortunately ringing true as well. Any help I can get would be greatly appreciated.

Yorktech (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Yorktech. Technical options at our end included (a) blocking all editing from the IP address, (b) blocking anonymous editing but allowing students who already have accounts at home to edit from school, (c) continuing to revert vandalism and issue short-term blocks. (There is some vandalism but your school is not even in the top thousand vandal sites, probably.) It looks your school forwards XFF headers and the local IPs you edit from are of the format 10.10.X.X. Certain admins with Checkuser permission can tell you which IPs were used, if you can show you are an authorized representative of the school (Release of this info is covered by the privacy policy). Send an email to info-en-o@wikimedia.org with some real-life contact information so that whomever answers the message can verify your authority in this manner. Thatcher 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers can do that? you learn something new every day i guess. (I didn't think the IPs - let alone the XFF IPs - that individual edits were made from were stored). —Random832 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers know nothing! By the way, that's a really bad haircut, Random. Thatcher 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so that is what the "thatch" in your username refers to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can subscribe to an RSS or Atom feed of the talk page, which should receive a warning/notice whenever vandalism is caught. Warnings are often, but not always, issued before blocks, and blocks are usually followed with a notice. The contributions page for the IP address will let you see every specific edit made by editors that are not logged in. The IP address can also be blocked because a logged in editor was just using it and got blocked with the relevant option selected, or is already blocked and tries to log in while using the IP. I'm not aware of helpful ways of tracking that back other than trying to log in and reading the message explaining the autoblock reason. It will contain text of the form "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "username". The reason given for username's block is: "reason". That will identify the user and the reason - but you'll have to look at their contributions for more data. GRBerry 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sent the e-mail and added the rss feed. As you can tell, since the time of the previous post, someone from this site struck again. I'm beginning to wonder if the only reason we don't vandalize more is the fact that we're generally on blocked status. Thanks for your help in this. Yorktech (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We have one school district with an employee User:NERIC-Security (already discussed on WP:ANI and from what I understand has validated his employment) who has taken it upon himself to protect Wikipedia from his students' vandalism. If your school wanted to do similar, making sure as NERIC has to avoid role account status, I imagine Wikipedia's community would only be grateful for the assistance. Now if we could just get larger schools involved... 207.145.133.34 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block review

I'm not one to use the block function very often, so I would like a review. I've blocked Benv-b92 (talk · contribs) for 12 hours for repeatedly inserting text copied straight from radiotimes.com. Right call? — Edokter • Talk • 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:BLOCK, a user/IP may be banned for "persistently violating copyrights". I'm fairly sure this qualifies. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, it seemed that he wasn't violating copyright. However, User:Daniel Case endorsed the block on the blocked user's talk page, and I must say I agree. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socks need matching

Suspected sock puppets has a considerable backlog. Experienced editors and administrators can help investigate these reports. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Will add my efforts now. Rudget. 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishzilla Chop! Reichstag in danger

Erm, did anybody happen to notice this? Quite apart from the danger to Berlin, the monster's departure looks a little ominous. Suggestions, anybody? 79.229.81.234 (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - what is the point of your message? Neıl ☎ 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he was worried about all the legislators. Utgard Loki (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with AIV helperbot

On one occasion an account with an inappropriate username had been blocked for a definite period of time (not indefinitely). I tried to report it to WP:UAA for username violation requesting that it be blocked indefinitely, but as soon as I added its entry to the page, an AIV helperbot removed it stating that it had already been blocked even though it was not blocked indefinitely. Is there any workaround to this problem?--Urban Rose 17:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to JIMBOBOB2 - it's already been indefinitely blocked. Rudget. 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No it was a different user a while back. I can't remember the name but I remember having this problem.--Urban Rose 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. Rudget. 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd report that to the bots User_talk page, the bot owner should be monitoring that and is best placed to help --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major concerns on Talk:Muhammad

That entire thread is bad enough, but as an FYI, there is one anon user (User:72.48.250.225) who has taken the conversation off into what amounts to a flame war, and refuses to back down. Another user (User:WilyD) has tried to take the edge off by removing the flame war-laden section, but the former user is hell-bent on continuing to place that section back and accuse Wily of censorship. I've placed a 3RR on the anon's page, and have spoken to Wily, but other folks may be able to help, as I was one of those in the original flame war (I've since backed off and am trying to settle this one down). --Mhking (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've since blocked her for 7 hours and told her to read 5P and CIVIL, by-the-by. That place is become an extreme problem and blanking a lot of the trolling, baiting, personal attacks, impersonal attacks, rants, raves and offtopic arguments is going to be needed if we want to restore it to a place where constructive talk can occur on how to improve the article (which is in lousy shape). WilyD 19:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Under the current climate, it's impossible to use that page for constructive dialogue - I did suggest a couple of days ago that the main talkpage should be effectively abandoned and that all "work" should be done on a sub-page - at least for the present. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to comment that the traffic today seems considerably lower than yesterday, then found out the article just got slashdotted. Hopefully that doesn't affect things much, and serious discussion on any productive changes (i.e.: image placement) might have a better chance at leading somewhere within a few days. Resolute 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read that tread and the IP (User:72.48.250.225) was in no way uncivil. In addition User:WilyD is hell-bent on removing a vaild discussion. They also go and block the IP? What you were doing Wily was edit warring on a talk page! You then used your admin tools to block the editor you were in conflict with! You then made treats to block another editor who disagreed with you! Thats what is happening here. --Domer48 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Domer I too have read the thread and I cant find any incivility by the blocked IP. And admin involved in an edit war should not block the editor they are in conflict with and then warn me with a block for what im not sure. BigDunc (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of incivility on that talk page that goes unnoticed and unaddressed. WilyD did not archive an entire section, he deleted an entire section, again and again and again, even though it contained valid, on-topic points (through example) on how images for articles are chosen. Then, when all "incivility" was removed through a large edit, he continued to remove the entire thread (at least twice) for unknown reasons, while threatening to block both the original poster and BigDunc. This is bully editing, article-"ownership", and it is unacceptable. While the thread does deal with another article (penis) frequently referred to on the Muhammed talk page, the thread is completely on-topic and makes some valid points about the nature of censorship, and editing decisions on what images to include or exclude. Its repeated deletion (and WilyD's blocking and threatened blockings of other users) cannot be justified nor tolerated.70.112.75.86 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes things just need to be archived to /dev/null. I'll be happy to blank any other incivilites that are troubling you, by-the-by. WilyD 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mhking I see it was not personal with you and the IP and you did post a warrning on WP:3RR. WilyD was in a good two minutes later with the block. I suppose filling out a 3RR report is just for us editors, and we don't have the ability to block at will. I still think it is wrong for an Admin to block an editor who they are in dispute with, in fact I know it is. --Domer48 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mhking is calling an editor a troll not a personal attack, is it also a failure to assume good faith. That must breach our policies on civility. --Domer48 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying things like "Editors here: watch out. Your actions are not going unnoticed" alone seems like a valid reason to block. This IP user was getting pretty hot under the collar and a short time-out to cool off seems to be justified. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Your actions are not going unnoticed." Seems like they did not go unnoticed. User:Mhking seemed to be getting hot under the collar here. The blocking Admin was editing warring, a sure sign of getting a bit hot too. Should they also cool off. Block themselves perhaps? --Domer48 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I was getting hot under the collar -- which is why I backed off and asked for help here; additionally, I freely admitted being involved in the flamewar when I posted here. I'm not proud of it, but like I said, I'm trying to back off of being as visceral as I have been with this topic. I am certainly not blameless here. But I would like things to settle down as much as everyone else here. --Mhking (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that a lot of people where becoming inflamed and incivil is why I opted to just blank the section rather than hand out warnings & blocks. WilyD 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate warning to be give to an editor from WilyD? BigDunc (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly perceived incivility in the topic in question. While it would seem that the user had later restored the topic with "incivility removed", the post itself is only of peripheral relevance to the article in question and runs on the bad faith assumption that editors are merely including these pictures with the motive of inciting Muslim readers.

Instead of using specific examples to support such a charge/presumption, the user devotes almost all of the post itself to rant about the representation of images on an entirely unrelated article. What pertinence do the problems of the penis article have to this article in particular? The analysis of that article alone violates WP:AGF, and the connection made seems entirely based on a blanket picture of Wikipedia editors.--C.Logan (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I should post a note here, since I reverted User:WilyD's removal of that section once: I didn't see a real need to remove that section. The conversation was perhaps a bit hot, but things weren't getting out of control until the very end. That doesn't warrant, in my opinion, removal of the entire section - instead, a pleading from a disinterested party to step back from the discussion for a little while might have worked out better, with removals of only the content that truly crosses the line into personal attacks (and not the entire section). As for the topic of that section, while I disagree strongly with the IP editor's assertions, I don't feel that they're irrelevant to the discussion. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block revieww requested:

User talk:Optimus91. Hmm? User requests unblock, blocking admin has yet to comment. Yeah or nea? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need Ryulong's input in order to support this block. Indef block w/o explanation would not be my preferred action here. I think the only question is how long do we wait for a response. Another 12 hours? Anyone else? Ronnotel (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a good faith account being blocked indefinitely without warning. I'd say unblock until a satisfactory explanation is given by the blocking admin. --PeaceNT (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we assume good faith of administrative actions unless there's reason to believe otherwise. The block can stand until Ryulong returns to discuss it. FCYTravis (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" does not mean "assume everyone always does the right thing". If he was blocked without explanation, the explanation should be obvious. If it's not obvious, it was a bad block and should be undone. Friday (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That said, the block has already been lifted by another admin, and I don't see that there's any immediate reason to reimpose it. FCYTravis (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been unblocked by Ryan Posthlewaite. Blocks, not being punitive, are not maintained if it is not believed that the user poses any threat to Wikipedia. Counting this discussion AND the user's own talk page, there are no less than 7 admins who seem to think the indefinate block was unjustified. If and when the user does something in the future that merits a block, they can receive a second one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, didn't realist there was this discussion - I was responding to a CAT:UNBLOCK request, I wouldn't have unblocked so quickly if I knew it was up for review here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the block or unblock, I found this [31] to be an unnecessary stirring of the pot. Just a note. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And, FWIW, factually inaccurate. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Ryan's unblock pending a response from User:Ryulong on the original block, which, btw, I absolutely do assume was made in good faith. Ronnotel (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The unblock looks well-founded. Based on this, is there a connection between this account and a previous account? --SSBohio 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Optimus91 is checkuser-confirmed to be making disruptive edits while logged out. I don't know why Ryulong did not say so, and a brief block and a talking-to would have been more appropriate for a first time offense, but Optimus91 is not lily-white, here. Thatcher 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should have made that distinction, but I forgot to, at the time. I have not been online for that long now, and I was just dealing with a banned user's newest sockpuppet by trying to find a range based on what I already know from his logged out edits.

With Optimus91, I have been dealing with edits out of a particular range belonging to SingNet for the past couple of days to articles that I edit. One page has been replaced wholesale by the text of another page for no reason that I can see. I asked Thatcher to check out the range to see if there was going to be any collateral damage, and Optimus91's name came up. I didn't do anything for a bit until I found the same vandalism, again, as well as other deleterious edits to other pages while logged in. I blocked him for that reason. His edits are made in good faith, but they are not beneficial.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting edits (image vandalism?)

DVOO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user inserted a picture of Jojo's feet into her article, which remained there for two weeks. He also tried to put this image in Caroline Flack. His upload log[32] suggests a common theme. Pseudonymed (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, partialism... нмŵוτнτ 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The crude photoshop at Special:Undelete/Image:Carolineflacknude.JPG seems enough for a block, IMO... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to block, definitely. Normally if they added stuff like that in words they'd be blocked already. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for oversight update

Related logs:

• usurpation of the Oversight username
• creation of the new account

The email of User:Oversight now points to the oversight mailing list. Those with valid oversight requests (see the oversight page for what constitutes an oversight request) may use Special:emailuser/Oversight to have personal information made unrecoverable on English Wikipedia.

Thanks to ArbCom for implementing this feature. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea, and very useful. Far easier to track that down, I'd say. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why things were easier when I went to request an oversight about 10 minutes ago. Nice. Metros (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I would recommend fully protecting this userpage, since there is a link within it to Email, rather than just the normal "Email this user" sidebar link. All other redirects leading to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight are already fully protected for obvious reasons. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, and went ahead and protected both the userpage & redirected talk page. Feel free to unprotect if someone comes up with a good reason... — Scientizzle 04:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this is a good idea, having used it for User:Mediation Committee recently. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah. Finally some action and less drama/bickering/long-winded discussion. bibliomaniac15 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to set up similar dummy accounts for all of the other WMF mailing lists e.g. wikien-l, unblock-en-l, etc. — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term spam campaign

I have my concerns regarding a user who I suspect may be a WP:SPA and has been massively linking, over a period of many months, to an adult oriented website. The user in question is FranchisePlayer (talk · contribs) who has been dedicated to ensuring that a link to "Boobpedia" sticks in certain articles. I have brought this up at Talk:List of big-bust models and performers but at this point I'm not sure that is sufficient. Several requestions have been raised, including: Is this link acceptable under WP:EL and WP:BLP and following that, is this acceptable use of a single purpose account? RFerreira (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• This site has been promoted before, in good faith, by people who are fans of it. The biggest problem is that people link it as a source for factoids, but it fails all rational interpretations of sourcing guidelines. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disclosing deleted histories of articles?

In what situations is it appropriate to disclose the deleted history of an article? A user asked me for the deleted history of a category and I want to make sure that I am allowed to disclose it. The reason I'm asking is because former administrator Everyking (talk · contribs) was de-sysopped for offering to disclose deleted content.

Thanks in advance. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking was de-sysopped because the content in question had privacy concerns attached to it. Some admins have a policy of releasing content as long as it's not a BLP violation, an attack page, spam, or contains a privacy violation. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and if it's not a copyright violation either, I always userfy these pages on request. Cool Hand Luke 07:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the information. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the history of a category is unlikely to be useful most of the time. —Random832 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aggressive link-spamming on Edison Chen photo scandal and Talk:Edison Chen photo scandal

User:JSIN has been aggressively posting spam links on the abovementioned pages, and has reverted all my attempts to suppress them. An administrator's (or two, or five) attention would be much appreciated Ohconfucius (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

I have found plagiarism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jon_Elrod Who should I notify of the violation? The plagiarized part is the first half of the article.Indy501 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that is a copyvio strictly speaking. The wording is different and is based around basic facts. Second opinion requested however. Viridae^Talk 07:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio and plagiarism are different things. The format of the two passages are similar, but the wording is not, so I'm not sure whether it is strictly plagiarism. —Kurykh 07:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Similar? It was exactly the same. I changed the worst parts and am working on it more.Indy501 (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're working on it, that's why it didn't appear to be plagiarism to Viridae and Kurykh. Could you link to the most recent version with the plagiarized material? Natalie (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagarism is not the same as copyright violation. Unattributed ideas, even if not word-for-word copies, can still be plagarized. If Historian John Doe arrives at the conclusion that "X caused Y", and you say "Y happened because of X" and DON'T say "John Doe said Y happened because of X", that's still plagarism even if its not a copyright violation. The one of the key reasons for verifiability is that it is right and proper to attribute to whom an idea came from... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Indy, I believe, is referring to this revision, which has several lengthy word-for-word copies. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unbiased look at some external links, please

Third opinion please. This user added these external links- Special:Contributions/Mohammedz1. Actually, it's a link to one web page with the title of the link taylored to each article. I reverted and left him a note asking him not to add inappropriate links. He feels I was wrong, and that the link is appropriate. If someone could look at the additions and let us know what you think, I would appreciate it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

MHO - Just took a look. It looks like a blog, however, I may be wrong about that as it's

totally in Arabic. We may need to have an Arabic reader take a look. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a language bar on the top right of the page that translates to English. It certainly looks like a blog - a video blog, to be precise - in English. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need help from admin who understands Japanese

Can an admin who understands Japanese please leave a message for Atsushi7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) asking what they are doing? The editor keeps making a user page in Japanese and asking for it to be deleted. It's getting a bit tedious to delete it. He is also using:

• Atsushi8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Atsushi4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Atsushi22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Atsushi24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Atsushi25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

The deletion log for Atsushi4 is just ridiculously long. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just block them all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also related to Akanemoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who has had the pages deleted and restored numerous times, not to mention many listings at deletion review to then get them restored again. Certainly disruptive. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also here as Atsushi2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked 26 likely socks. John Reaves 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that this editor was more active than I thought. I was trying to be nice and figure out what he was up to, but blocking all of the accounts is fine with me, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VBS:Malware-gen reported on 100megsfree4.com

x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• See - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#www.100megsfree4.com_-_fairly_urgent_request

I've done an emrgency blacklist on the domain untill more can be determined. --Hu12 (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no infection. I've sandboxed Firefox and Internet Explorer to see what files have been created, but have nothing suspect. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing either. Although I wonder if we're potentially linking to one of their sites a bit too much. Spam perhaps? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

x42bn6, do you have avast! or another kind of anti-virus program? I used to enter the same site and not get any kind of virus detected either. I have avast! now and I when I went on a site the avast! reported that something from the site was using VBS:Malware-gen to try and infect my computer. www.100megsfree4.com isn't a huge loss anyways, it is a free hosting site. The owners of the sites within www.100megsfree4.com can branch out under a different host if they want to.

^demon, no, most of the links, which came from professional wrestling articles, were actually decent. They came from a site within 100megsfree4 called Wresting Information Archive and was quite useful. Sites on the 100megsfree4 domain should be blacklisted off and whitelist specific ones without malware until better sites are provided. One of the specific links that I tried that had this Malware on is in the history of this article. The link on this site specifically had the worm on it (not to mention the wrestling ones I found earlier). — Save_Us † 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I use AVG. I've run it through my sandboxing software and I did find one webpage that had that YOU ARE THE 99,999,999TH PERSON TO VISIT THIS WEBSITE CLICK HERE TO WIN A PRIZE advertisement but otherwise nothing. Do check this, though: [33] - do any of those links start screaming the same message? It seems it's a false positive (AVG has some, too). There are no dirty JavaScript or Visual Basic Script files generated for me. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. False positive most likely, if you see that Image it shows a false positive on the avast! forum (the irony). I'll ask Hu12 to remove it. — Save_Us † 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a false positive then. It's no longer blacklisted. Always better to be safe than sorry. Thanks for the feedback and report. --Hu12 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes, I iz post virus link. I think we can mark this as resolved? x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)