Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Administrators' archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Incidents archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
3RR archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Community sanction archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | Backlog

Contents

[edit] Real Life Ministries Redux

original note on this here...

The article has become a battle ground between church supporters and detractors with allegations and denials of direct church involvement, general incivility, misleading edit summaries (with a valid point raised), allegations of vandalism and edit warring. At this point it's no longer about the Afd, which was apparently vandalism but the establishment of anything resembling a stable argument. I have no vested interest in which "version" of the article exists but I'd prefer it to be something stable. It appears that the at least several of the editors have some connection to the church, including the IP, although some are handling it far better than others. I think the edit warring and article in general needs an eye by someone not headed to bed this minute. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to do it myself because I've voiced my own opinion at the AfD, but is there any precedence to protecting/semi-protecting the AfD itself? I've never seen that done, but then again, I've never seen a lot of things, a million dollars being one of them. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There have been some recent AfDs protected due to socks and other shenanigans, unfortunately I don't remember the article names. Something about Maoism in India and SriLanka, that might jog someone's memory. I'm so sick of this recent trend of nearly all out wars on AfD. I think there's a lot of good faith here but if the church is involved and/or vested detractors, this is never going to be a calm article. Has it just been deleted once (the speedy) or does it go back even further? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. As for calling this AfD "bad faithing" a recent trend, well. It's been going on longer than either of us have been here. Everyone has there "pet" articles or feels that they're topcis/hobbies/interests are important enough to be here. Some can discuss that civilly, others not. Churches/church groups, unfortunately, are no exception. Deep breaths, Cari. It will all be over soon.....and then replaced with about 100 more per day....sigh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's just that I've been involved in a number that have gotten rather heated. I think the ones that truly amuse me are the ones where people have no apparent tie but argue for the sake of arguing. This one at least has more context as there are at least two parties with some tie (official or not) to the church if they know about an article that hangs on the back wall. I like article stability :) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been involved in my fair share of hotplates too, and I haven't always been civil. All I can say from my own experience is to be sure you're keeping your head above the fray. <insert cliche about flies, honey, and vinegar here>. In debates, use policy/guideline/precedence/logic to describe your opinion, but be dispassionate about it. It isn't personal, so don't attack other editors no matter how ridiculous or combative they may come across or how much they attack you. Report ludicrousness here (as you've done in the past). Keeping in mind that bears in corners tend to show their claws, most of the n00b and IP contribs are to be expected in some sense when they don't understand this place well or simply say "BUT I LOVE IT AND YOU SUCK!!!". I'm not saying that you are guilty of any of this, BTW, quite the contrary. From what I've seen, you conduct yourself nobly and with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind, not just your own interests. Keep going! Glad you're here, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I like it here. I just think I live in a fantasy world where I'd love people to not take a deletion discussion about "their" article as a personal attack. That's why I think people should have minimal involvement in subjects close to the heart, I think it's natural to feel under a microscope so discussion is good but some lately have not gone so well. Thanks again TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism accusations

I'm not sure where to put it, so I'm putting it here. I recently tried to fix an article on New York to fix the name of the governor. I tried to fix it by reverting, which also put some comment about 9/11 into it. It had already been there and I was unaware of it. I was notified that I was going to be blocked for vandalism. I had found this statement afterwards and was trying to fix the problem (it was an honest mistake, I didn't know it was there). When this came up, I told the notifier what was goning on, and was immediately posted by another individual I was going to be blocked for vandalism User:Invisidble Diplomat. I tried to tell HIM what was going on, his reply can be found on his talk page (a picture of a gun) [1]. Just now, I was told (by him) to go to an administrator. Here I am.65.65.230.53 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Have left a civility warning on Invisible Diplomat's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts to obtain user's passwords

Beware of User talk:67.135.27.111. Has attempted to obtain my Admin password by fraudulently requesting the Wikimedia software to send them a new "lost" password. Obviously this ruse does not work as an email is sent to my email address with a new temporary password. I found a warning from another user on their page where they had done exactly the same. I blocked the account for a few days pending a review to see if anything else can be done for this type of fraudulent activity. The IP is registered to Qwest Communications and it may be a semi-static home address IP. I do not know if this situation has arisen in the past (I suppose it probably has). A longer block may be in order. Comments? -- Alexf42 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block as it stands. He actually CAN'T get the password using the methods he is trying, though trying it is grossly disruptive and deserves to be blocked on its own. A week is fine by me. If he returns and does something else problematic, we can always return the block for longer then. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to bring it up or even to bring up this IP's conduct (I'm the one who warned him after he attempted this method of acquiring my password this morning). The person behind the IP had tried the same behavior last month with me under another Qwest IP as part of a harassment campaign against me for trying to keep him in line; he is likely the sockmaster behind Gsnguy and related sock accounts, so I am very familiar with this fellow. Thank you for the block action and I'm sorry that he tried to get you too, Alex. Nate • (chatter) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this appropriate. It certainly isn't necessary, since the action can't harm anything; and it could well have been done entirely innocently. Regardless, I get things like this periodically; it's at most annoying. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Read the IP's edit history; it's clear that they are not doing this under innocent pretenses and are attempting to harass other users. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Jpgordon but I work in data and software security in RL. I don't see attempts to obtain user passwords, no matter how ineffective or misguided as being "entirely innocent". In RL this type of behavior in the company I work for would get our attention and could start prosecution by the proper authorities. In WP, all I can do is block the account. Has been warned, blocked for a while and watchlisted so I'll keep an eye out. To me (personally) this is second in abhorrent behavior after racism/antisemitism/et al. -- Alexf42 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no realistic way that the lost password requests can do harm. Annoyance. Deliberate annoyance, in the case of this IP (and, of course, I spoke up without looking at the contributions). But still just annoyance; it's hard to see that an action which can have no harmful effect (and which the perpetrator knows could have no harmful effect) could be prosecutable as a security issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You are coorect in that regard. I did not mean to imply it is the same case. I just meant that I don't believe this to be an innocent act. Stupid and misguided in the part of the user, yes. But as REDVERS said below, I vented already, now I'm content with WP:RBI. Cheers! -- Alexf42 22:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Will a block actually do anything here? I believe Special:Userlogin still works if your IP is blocked. Mr.Z-man 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Little or nothing that can be done, other than setting up a filter in your email client to dump such requests. Assuming I'm not atypical, such requests for a new password come from one in every 20 or so blocks, perhaps a bit more. It's actually touching: block a vandal and then get hopping mad that suddenly they can't vandalise. So they request a password, as if, somehow, it will appear on screen for them or come through the mail the next morning. Bless. WP:RBI is good advice. That and chortling to yourself about how incompetent they are being :o) ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(RE "REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight" -- Is FEH! considered uncivil in this neck of the woods?? Wanderer57 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC) )
In Wikipedia's current fashion, breathing is considered uncivil by many people. Especially if the "uncivil" person doesn't agree with you, in which case it's an unprovoked personal attack. Fuck 'em, I say. So, no, "FEH!" is not in the slightest bit uncivil, as far as I am concerned. But I'm in a minority. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current or future editor making substantial edits to these articles is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;
(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;
(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and
(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. User:Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. User:Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.

For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is a "topic ban"?

I just noticed that a user was blocked for violating a "topic ban". Apparently they were not allowed to edit a given article or its talk page. How do such bans work? Does an admin just say on the user's talk page that they may not edit a given article from now on, or is there a more formal process for it? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's normally the Arbitration Committee that decide on topic bans, although it's possible (though usually quite unlikely) for a group of administrators to decide and enforce a topic ban without more official support. Nick (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to expand a little, a topic ban applies to a set of related articles, so that if one applied to The Beatles, it would also apply to all articles about their albums, films, singles, and the individual members. A topic ban can result in wide-ranging limitations and therefore is usually only applied at a fairly high level. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Administrators can issue temporary topic bans unilaterally for articles on article probation, as well. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, uninvolved admins can issue short term or long term topic or article bans. It should happen after attempts to nudge the user toward collaborative editing has not worked. Often the user can still make comments on the talk page. In those cases, it can be a way to help an user began to explain their edits instead of reverting. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I know which user that Arctic.gnome is referring to. This particular user has been ban from editing both the article and the corresponding talkpage. At this point, it's at indefinite because this individual wishes only to push his/her POV and has, in the past, been uncivil while making libellous comments. nat.utoronto 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Speech of Apology

Resolved. Blocked as sock

This is the father of Gsnguy (Mr. GSNII),

I just want to inform you guys about Gsnguy's spree on reverting 75 slogans and performing miserable behavior, and fighting you guys.

It's a fraud for them to let them know that my son, has creating an spree of 75 slogans way back in October of 1986 err 2006. But then, he came back of January of this year, doing the same process over and over again, and eventually fighting other wikipedians (a very good encyclopedia person). Creating about 10 sockpuppets is very awful! And especially using the "Forget Password" feature. So I would've been trust my son, to let him suspend from this Wiki Net until April 1. Gsnguy? What did you say?


Gsnguy: To all of you Wikipedians and the Wikipedia Network, i am sorry about all of this nonsense i did, when i come back to editing on April 1, here are the five commandments of Wikipedia:

1. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE FALSE SLOGANS

2. THOU SHALT NOT FIGHT ANY WIKIPEDIAN

3. THOU SHALT NOT PASSWORDS

4. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE FALSE BLOCKS

5. THOU SHALT NOT BLANK PAGES, OR ADDING SWEAR WORDS!

I will follow the Wiki Rules and Regulations of this encyclopedia forever and ever, and ever. Thank You! And God Bless America!

(applause)


Mr.GSNII (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this user is a sock of User:Gsnguy Tiptoety talk 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And.. exit, stage left. The father can email the Foundation if necessary and offer an apology there. A credible one, that is. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably, he just posted the same cut-and-paste to mine and Gladys' talk pages. Reported to AIV and of course, he can't come back on April 1 due to his indef block. Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And I just denied his unblock request. Tiptoety talk 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just blocked another sock. Tiptoety talk 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, though: does it count as "fishing" to request a checkuser if you already know you've got a sock-farm and just want to ferret out ALL the footwear? Because if it's not, in this case I would think it might be a good idea. Thanks for all your blocking thus far...Gladys J Cortez 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking 213.140.17.103

Resolved.

Someone in #wikipedia has requested an unblock of 213.140.17.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); it was indef-blocked back in 2006 due to Squidward. He says it's an ISP NAT IP now (and appears that it was before the vandalism too), and I see no reason to disagree. If someone has other evidence that this IP is still an open proxy, please act on it, but two years is enough time for an IP to change hands or be closed. --Golbez (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.

PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection level again

We have another spurt of IP and sleeper account vandals hitting AN. I have boosted the protection to semi-edit / full-move from unprotected / full-move, with indef expiry to avoid the expiry wiping out the full-move.

In a few hours someone should turn down the semi-edit manually, retaining the move protection. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good move, I am getting tired of reverting. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some sort of bizarre hijinks

Some interesting behavior came to my attention today, involving Handy wall link (talk · contribs) and various socks. For some reason, this user creates a new account, lists himself as his own sockpuppet, and then posts their password on a bunch of random talk pages (this is how I originally came across this). I've been indef protecting the user and user talk pages, since they are only used by the user putting indef blocked, username blocked, and sock puppet blocked tags on his sock's talk pages. I'm wondering if we should delete and salt the sockpuppet category, since it's apparently only being used for disruption. I'm also going to file a checkuser to see if we can rangeblock or something, since autoblocks are clearly not helping.

Some of the other sock accounts are The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs), Hjuikopl (talk · contribs) and The golden easter party man (talk · contribs). There are also some IP addresses involved, but I can't tell if they are part of the disruption or are acting in good faith. Natalie (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reported this here several times regarding The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs). He also uses many many IP addresses, other socks (potentially a gigantic sock army), and carries on weird discusions on his own sock talk pages where he accuses himself of being socks of other puppetmasters (primarily Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs) and Rastishka (talk · contribs). Some of the IPs resolve to Ukraine and some of the to the UK. So far, nobody has done anything about it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide announcement

There's a 99.99% chance that this is a sick joke, but it's better to be safe than sorry. 69.84.98.179 (talk · contribs) has announced his/her suicide here. AecisBrievenbus 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suicide_note a number of sections above. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
So this note has also been posted from another IP. AecisBrievenbus 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's suspected that this a 4chan thing... WjBscribe 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this is just a troll - he keeps announcing this stuff to cause a reaction - best to just RBI. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec x 4)This guy has been trolling this for a couple of days now. If he were serious, he'd have done it by now. WP:DENY & WP:RBI apply. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)While I strongly agree with WP:SUICIDE, I have to agree with what is said above, just WP:RBI. Tiptoety talk
Well, its being coordinated by a forum, which is why the messages come from non-proxy but geographically unconnected IPs (multiple people, all posting the same message). WjBscribe 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And it is getting quite out of control, look how many times User talk:J Milburn has been protected because of it. Tiptoety talk 02:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) - there's been what I think is good work recently over at Wikipedia:Threats Of Violence which may be tangentially (or directly) related to this issue. It'd be great for anyone to take a look and see if there's anything they disagree with... I've suggested a variation on WP:RBI which may or may not be appropriate here, but might be a good rule of thumb, which is Report, Revert, Ignore. thoughts most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

65.186.81.255 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) if anyone still cares. Mr.Z-man 05:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And now this from 66.91.141.219 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). Tiptoety talk 06:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Very clear this is simple trolling. Even I am inclined to ignore it. Bstone (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked 68.33.135.100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and 66.91.141.219‎ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) for same issue, 12 hours each. MBisanz talk 06:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
To end it you need to; collect times and IPs. Work out locations. Call the tech number you got by running the IP. Have the server name abnd info ready! Next, find this forum and record where it is. Call the FBI and lay out the situation. Tell them you have what appears to be a felony suicide hoax as well as a conspiracy to commit. Get a case number and post it back here. If you need any further help, email me. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not that it's particularly relevant here, but what, precisely, is a "felony suicide hoax" (there are some state or federal statutes under which I suppose charges might be brought—although I'd have serious doubts about their tenability and would wager a great deal of money that no submission that the underlying conduct is criminal might be sustained—but I can conceive of no theory under which the post(s) at issue could be seriously prosecuted as felonies, at least with respect to the "suicide" content; whether some action relative to mere disruption of the operations of a site might be leveled is, of course, a separate question, although one I'd also resolve in the negative)? Joe 07:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a felony hoax because police will have to be called and time will have to be wasted. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB CheckPage needs attention

There are very, very old requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Littleteddy (roar!) 09:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Posts

Resolved. links removed--Hu12 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DrunkenDialer (talk · contribs) The recent posts are vague comments followed by a URL. I'm not sure what if any action is approp. Someone please take a look. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of the offending posts were removed. I have left a friendly note on their talk page, per WP:AGF. It looks like the editor has made some good faith edits to articles, it's just talk page comments that cause the problem. I'll keep an eye on this one. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sneaky talk page spamming. [2][3][4][5][6][7]
Accounts
DrunkenDialer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
76.109.174.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
--Hu12 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
slangmarket.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com
johnnypromo.biz: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com
Add LinkSummaries .. added (manually) to monitoring list of User:COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, since the issue has been resolved, the links have been removed, and I have vowed to discontinue attaching these links with my signature, is there anyway to redact the link so that it does not get crawled? DrunkenDialer (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User leaves confusing message on my talk page... Possibly admits to COI

Could someone please look over this message: [8] and see if I am reading this person correctly. They appear to claim to be editing Wikipedia to increase their own financial gain by pushing a certain POV in some articles. Its a bit confusing, but that is what I read on that. Any ideas or alternative theories? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the way I read it too and if so, it is reprehensible. The user did not sign his comment, (it is User:Nukeh). He should be told the facts of life and if he wants to increase his visibility/Google ratings he should go somewhere else. -- Alexf42 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The plot thickens: [9] He claims to be doing the work pro-bono, but this is a CLEAR admission of COI and seems entirely against the basic core principles of Wikipedia... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, so he admits that he has a conflict, so we can educate him about our COI policy. Has he spammed his site anywhere? I don't see any evidence of it. Wave power is a pretty small field, we're unlikely to get many experts who don't have some kind of vested interest one way or the other - the usual problem for wave power is that assessments of the field are dominated by those with a vested interest in some other form of generation, as far as I recall from my electrical engineering degree studies. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Off-wiki canvassing

Just a heads up, but a couple of science blogs are canvassing their readers to come to this article and fight a battle:

Ohconfucius (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

looks like one WP:SPA has already begun Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), perhaps some protection of Falun Gong is waranted?--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
err ok, looks as if its still semi-p from last year--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to note that the result of this canvassing has been the attraction of myself and one other established Wikipedian to the article. I don't intend to blindly support Martin's viewpoint or efforts, but rather to work to get the article in line with Wikipedia's standards, and to try to stop a battle, rather than prolong it. Some of the problems there lately have been due to Martin's inexperience with Wikipedia, and that shouldn't be too hard to correct. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently requested my userpage to be deleted. I've edited wikipedia for a while. Is anything going to be done about this canvassing?--Asdfg12345 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, what, exactly, do you expect "to be done"? It's merely an alert for a possible intake of well-intentioned newbies/edit warriors, so editors can keep an eye on things. --Calton | Talk 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huge backlog at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

I guess this page is not as watched as it used to be, but there's a huge (I'd say 60 items) backlog here. If you can spend a few minutes on a couple articles to see whether they (still) meet WP:CSD#G12, or need to be {{copyvio}} tagged, that would be great (non admins can tag too, of course!). A bot will remove the red links automatically, but you need to remove non copyvios by hand. Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll help! Rudget. 16:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Me too, but can only tag and note as such.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried, and when I when I finished I can swear there was more than when I started....*sigh* Tiptoety talk 04:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:External links

I've just protected this page due to edit-warring. Looks like some more opinions are needed to establish which side consensus favours. It all looks very silly to me, but I'm sure a few people will find this of sufficient importance to comment :) Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

At least three of the participants are administrators. I hope they notice the protection... —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
zee top of page notice is not exactly suptle.Geni 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review of User:Kaktus999 and their contributions

Most of this user's contributions are newly created unreferenced Geo and BLP stubs. I've reviewed some of them (mostly last day edits), and tagged them as unreferenced. In some of the edits, I've also noticed that the user would rename "External links" section, which usually contains links in a foreign language, into a "References" section for the sake of getting rid of the unreferenced tag.

Someone who has the time should further review this user's contributions and take prompt action according to the rules of Wikipedia. Gooddays (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-ana and pro-mia

Hello. I'm involved in an edit war at pro-ana. It basically concerns these edits by user Castillan, which link repeatedly to the commercial pro-ana site [10].

I thought it was a straightforward example of linkspam, and quickly reverted it. My revert was undone shortly afterward. I reverted again, and made additional changes on top of that, and ended up in an edit war. Shortly afterward, I asked for assistance on IRC and was then warned by administator Cyrius that I had violated 3RR (having had 4 reversions in a 24 hour period).

(Castillan has since copy-and-pasted the same text over to the related article pro-mia. The pasted text appears to have "[8]" where the links were because they've mistakenly copied the rendered text and not the article source.)

What I'd like to know is: does reverting linkspam count towards 3RR?

Thanks for your time. —80.237.187.34 (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, but it depends on the circumstances (see Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions) could be counted as vandalism if they keep adding the "spam" despite warnings to not do so. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Those edits look to be pretty clearly spam, so I think 3RR would not apply to you in this case, 80.237.187.34. Have you warned Castillan and, if so, did they respond? Natalie (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you haven't warned them. Generally, a warning needs to have been given before an admin will block, because unless the user disregards warnings we generally consider them to be acting in good faith. In this case, it doesn't look like anyone has engaged this user in conversation about why their edits are unacceptable, so I'll drop a warning on their talk page. Natalie (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Administrator Swatjester has just semiprotected the page. I suppose that settles the edit war. :P
Sorry about all the fuss, and thanks again for your time. —80.237.187.34 (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for using the file Mamintb.png in anarticle for french version of Natsume's.

How can I do? Many thanks for help.

Can you specify the article (I assume it's one of these; your reference is a little vague) and explain how that image needs to be used in place of words? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions about improvements to Wikipedia software

  • Please where can I send suggestions about improvements to Wikipedia software? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You can go to the technical section of the Village pump, or the MediaWiki Wiki, or post something on Bugzilla. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 13:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained rename of "Lists of companies" pages

About a day ago User:Russavia renamed just about all the article (around 100) in Category:Lists of companies by country from names like List of Australian companies to List of companies of Australia . I posted to the user's talk page asking why this was done or where it was discussed but they have not answered and I couldn't find any discuss looking around. I feel that the new naming is sounds a lot worse than the previous wording and should be reversed. IF there was in fact little or no consultation about this could someone with better tools than me please reverse it? I was starting to reverse a few manually but though posting here might be a better idea. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush in setting things straight -- massively reverting is probably just as bad as massively changing, unless there's some reason doing so is urgent and obviously correct. I can't speak for another user, but I believe the "Foo of Bar" construction is more widely used, at least in this area (see Category:Companies by country, Category:Companies by country and industry. It's a bit wordier, but may make things easier for some purposes -- many people know Australia->Australian, but fewer might know Yemen->Yemeni (for example), and using only one form may make searching easier. Obviously this convention is not universally used or preferred, if we look at examples like Category:People by nationality, but it does seem to be common in the particular area we're looking at. Feel free to discuss, of course, and we should await Russavia's response. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a response on SimonLyall's talk page, and will post here verbatim.

You may or may not have noticed that List of companies in the United Arab Emirates is up for Afd. Just one of many of these lists which have been put up for Afd. I made the changes firstly by following WP:BOLD, because of the following reasons:

  • The country specific category which these lists belong to is Category:Companies of country, not Category:Countryian companies (e.g. Category:New Zealand companies or Category:Barbudian companies)
  • Using titles such as Barbudian companies and the like present problems, as if someone is searching for the list of companies from Barbados, they are more likely to search for the country name rather than the descriptive. It also presents the problem of companies from Dominica and the Dominican Republic, both could be titled List of Dominican' companies. If people are not familiar with the descriptor for a country, it is going to make it harder to find and to categorise (wasting time looking), whereas what I have changed it to makes it so much easier.
  • Using the word "of" denotes that these lists are for companies OF the country concerned. --Russavia (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, of sounds really bad. Shouldn't that be from? — Edokter • Talk • 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth (not a whole lot), I looked into this once and found "in" was the most popular overall, but with species "of" was most common. For people it always seems to be "from". It's nice to have uniformity because it makes it easier to guess an article or category name. I don't know of any style rule on it. Third Opinion might be a better forum, or Village Pump.Noroton (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
My £0.02 would be that neither "from", "in", or "of" is as good as the plain simple "list of Ausralian companies". As a template- and bot-coder I approve of standardisation as much as the next editor, but sometimes a little bit of common sense should be applied. Who cares if the parent category has a different name to the list (Incidentally, I woudl support a renaming of those categories to "Countryian companies")? It still reads horribly. Happy‑melon 20:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Content, gettin' paid to spam

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Associated_Content_links.2C_get_paid_to_spam
See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Sep#http:.2F.2Fwww.associatedcontent.com
See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul#Associated_Content:_another.2C_bigger_Suite101.com.3F
See also - Associated Content, Performance Bonus Program and Payment

Past actions and for comparison, here are two links to the many Suite101.com removal discussions:

Associated Content links
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
  • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

Major concerns. Associated Content articles are no different than linking to a blog or personal website, with the exception the authors are paid by how many page views (clicks) they get. Articles are not professionally written, don't have sources, and are not suitable as reliable sources. We have been spammed with over 730 of these low-quality links. I'm not convinced how these could ever be used as as a citation or source, (in any appropriate context). This type of material is not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. This 'is another, bigger Suite101.com and should be delt with in the same manner. --Hu12 (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should blacklist them. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And perhaps someone should take a sharp pencil to Associated Content as well. Ronnotel (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
These are just downright unencyclopedic and we're an encyclopedia.
These links have been cleaned out before only to come back in even greater volume. I strongly recommend blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I endorse the decision to blacklist. Maybe this should be commented on more officially, so that external links which have no value can be blacklisted a bit quicker, to prevent some people having to perform a lot of work, and to prevent damage to articles (specific urls on such servers can be whitelisted when necessery). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Blacklisting seems appropriate here. The site is not a reliable source and probably won't become one, unless they severely alter their publication/editorial standards. If that ever happens they can be whitelisted. I can't personally figure out how the blacklist works, but if there's an admin around who can, I'd suggest they just go ahead and do so. Natalie (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You can get it added to the blacklist by an admin who knows what they're doing by putting a notice up at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I'd do it myself, but I'm tight on time at the moment and won't have time to put up a proper notice there, though I will when I'm free if no one else has by then. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I've put up a request at the meta blacklist. This still leaves us the problem of how to deal with the current links. We could set XLinkBot on the task, though that has the potential to cause some chaos. Whatever we do for a project this large, it would be best if we have a clear resolution here we can point to to say this isn't just a bunch of users on a personal crusade. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Removing blacklisted links certainly cannot someone's personal crusade. I've already filed a BRFA to receive a permission for my bot to remove such links. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
XLinkBot only reverts, and associatedcontent is already on the revertlist (it only reverts unexperienced editors and IPs). XLinkBot does not have a function to clean back in time, a bot that could do that would be an asset! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm giving RoboMaxCyberSem a barnstar!--Hu12 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll still need to handle to handle the links outside enWiki, but those seem to be much less in number (I found 13 on fr and 7 on de when I checked a bit ago), so it should be possible for a human to handle it. I'll likely get at it myself, assuming this link does get blacklisted. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to wander over multiple projects (my matrix). I'll get those--Hu12 (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Meta request was deferred pending further investigation. I've put up a request at the local blacklist for the time being. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Full spamsearch results (as in all wikimedia wikis) for associatedcontent.com are at User:MER-C/associatedcontent.com. There's about 800 links altogether. MER-C 07:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be too bold to go now and remove these links by hand? And is there any context where we shouldn't remove the links? Because I see a few links on the commons are just pointing out associated content uses a particular image. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd start removing the links after the site is blacklisted. And I'd generally leave anything that isn't in the main namespace (not worth the effort) and especially urls like http://spam.example.com, which are trackers used by spam patrollers. MER-C 08:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, will do. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
associatedcontent.com is now on the blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting paid to spam - other sites

Some other sites that have a similar (or the same) setup. these also lack oversight, pay for your publications, fail the core content policies, and tend to be spammed quite often, and in those cases also often with a conflict of interest. There is a lot of work involved for several wikipedia editors in cleaning after the people who add these links (though the bots tend to help a bit). A list (feel free to expand):

--Dirk Beetstra T C 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, These fail the core policies also. --Hu12 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ehow's parent company (Demand Media) owns 30+ websites...it looks like the new ones are the spammiest. I removed all the expertvillage.com video links, some Cracked.com links, along with most of the ehow links (there are several new ones added each week it seems) and some of the 64 or so golflink.com sources (see the history at one golf course with four references[11], since they seemed to be little more than summaries from the golf course info surrounded by advertising links. Flowanda | Talk 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When they advocate the same principles, then they could be added to this list. Are there also similar sites on the associatedcontent.com site? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
hubpages.com, ehow.com and lulu.com have been added to the blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be of interest User:A. B./Sandbox11 Lists many more article submission sites SEO people can and reportedly do spam.--Hu12 (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spamsearch results for lulu.com (847 links), ehow.com (174 links), squidoo.com (168 links - this was blacklisted globally at one point but it got removed) and hubpages.com (114 links). The French, Spanish and Italian Wikipedias appear to have a problem with lulu, should we blacklist it globally? MER-C 05:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SV Dynamo and multi-indef-blocked User:Kay Körner

Kay Körner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been indef-blocked under multiple names, including that one, Fox53 (talk · contribs · logs · block log), and Kay Körner 20.12.1983 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for disruption, sockpuppetry, and general shenanigens at the SV Dynamo-related articles.

Matter 1: He's now back as a number of IPs, all of which unfortunately resolve to a public library and thus should only be blocked sparingly. These include:

I would recommend liberal use of semi-protecting on articles related to SV Dynamo to hem in the disruption (and give poor Wiggy a break -- read through the edit summaries, you'll see what I mean). If it comes down to it, an abuse report may be appropriate, but I'd feel a little bad doing that to the poor sap since it's the library where he goes to school.

Matter 2: I'm pretty sure he's always been here. I thought about taking it to WP:SSP, but in my opinion it's just too obvious, and too obviously abusive, to necessitate an SSP case.

Captain Future, who edits almost exclusively in Kay's pet area of SV Dynamo, has been creating articles for the IPs to edit: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. If that's not using a sock to avoid a block, then I don't know what is. On the outside chance it's a meatpuppet instead of just an alt playing nice, the same standards apply.

I am hesitant to block this user myself because of my history with the situation, but I would strongly endorse a block of this user. - Revolving Bugbear 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's him. Compare: [17], [18]. I will look for more evidence upon request, but I will block this user unless someone raises an objection. - Revolving Bugbear 20:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The same user (presumably) is indefinitely blocked on the German Wikipedia [19], and if you google his name you will find that it runs amok on several other wiki projects, all related to SV Dynamo. This is what another library user left at the talkpage of one of the ip User_talk:212.201.55.6
"Hi. This is a public computer in the library SLUB. I'm not the vandalist, but it seems like someone has used this computer for vandalism before. (I'm writing this just for clarification as I saw that frightening warning.) Maybe to avoid this kind of problems in future, you might wish to contact the SLUB administration. In order to use this computer, a user has to log in with his personal log-in data, so there might be a way to track the evil guy. ;) Greetz, jo) 212.201.55.6 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)",
so maybe one can contact the library instead of blocking the ip. Novidmarana (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Community ban of Dot Com Infoway company Adsense marketing and Spamming

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1#Tamil_celebrity_spam
See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_1#Dot_Com_Infoway_company_Adsense_related_marketing_Spamming
See also - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Webgeek

Adsense pub-9515873777130697 .info's
pub-4598819753511212 some .com's related to Dot Com Infoway & Galatta.com

Accounts

Johndci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
59.145.90.11 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
59.145.89.17 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Dotcom Infoway Pvt. Ltd
59.145.90.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
DespoinaC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Nm.praveen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
202.56.193.118 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
203.199.195.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
Spinks wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Tamilfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
72.44.1.125 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
Hariharan wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Avulpakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
59.145.90.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

Stephenlewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Praveen100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
61.95.184.217 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
122.164.154.251 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
128.230.233.236 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
59.145.90.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
Fchristo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
59.92.120.61 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
122.164.155.38 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
59.92.103.25 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
59.92.103.13 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
59.145.90.14 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)


Dot Com Infoway is a marketing strategy and content developer, spamming Wikipedia on an incredibly large scale for several years. Both link and reference spamming. Also engages in link vandalism and article vandalism[20]. sites without adsense are "This site has been conceptualized, designed and created by Dot Com Infoway & Galatta.com " --Hu12 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blacklisting time, I suspect. I added to the en blacklist, but there is a lot of cleanup required, including several articles with no independent sources that could do with a {{prod}} with a sharp stick. We might need to whitelist some links (e.g. http://www.orampo.com/home.html) but equally we might want to nuke some articles as spam. Either way, a lot of work is needed to get this crap off the pedia. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed ... apparently Stephenlewis is the parent account based on the logs. Blueboy96 16:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A question ... it's not normally advisable to hard-indef IPs, but since one of those IPs is confirmed to be part of this spamhaus, shall I hard-indef it? Blueboy96 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, that Whois report is enough to ignore a rule. Two years worth of linkspamming is way too much disruption. Blueboy96 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ban with flamethrowers, wikitrouts, and whatever we've got that we can throw. Seriously, though, that list is way too long. Support a ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oowww!! My eyes! I agree, just make it go away! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More sites

Geez, 430 ghits for "dot com infoway & galatta.com". And I'm only up to #50. Pfft. I really hope these aren't crosswiki. Endorse ban. MER-C 01:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've indefblocked all of the accounts that weren't blocked already, and slapped the {{banneduser}} tag on Stephenlewis. No way in hell anyone will unblock these guys unless they want to be immediately checkusered as socks of this guy. Blueboy96 02:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Those have all been added to the BL also.--Hu12 (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's about it, I guess. MER-C 02:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add these to the BL. --Hu12 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-wiki links

There's a smattering of cross-wiki links. I don't know if they've been spammed or not (can someone check this?) and I only checked the top 20 wikis for each site.

I will follow up sulekha.com with my big spamsearch tool. MER-C 03:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And here we go: 271 links found on 25 wikis. Shall we blacklist this lot globally? MER-C 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely ... and alert the other wikis as well so any socks this spamhaus has can be blocked. Blueboy96 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's on Talk:Spam blacklist now. If there's anything that deserves a closer look re: cross-wiki spam, let me know and I'll run a spamsearch. I'm currently running spamsearches for the "getting paid to spam" sites above, so it might be a while before I get around to it. MER-C 04:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
about links on ja

Zscout370 informed us about these links on IRC #wikipedia-ja. I examined them: The sulekha.com link on Mahabharata was added by 130.39.222.169 "For date of the Mahabharata War" on 2003-08-29 and copied to ja:マハーバーラタ by ja:User:Aphaia on 2004-6-23; that means it was considered not a spam but a useful link at that time, though it has become a dead link now (maybe subhash-kak.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/06/the-date-of-the-mahabharata-war.htm by Baton Rouge).

As to "Discussion on Sulekha.com" the link ("End of the Indic kingdom of Khotan" by Rockville) was added to Kingdom of Khotan by User:Enlil Ninlil on 2007-08-02T08:29:19 and copied to ja:ホータン王国 by ja:User:Freetrashbox on 2008-01-06T01:59:53. I don't know whether this link is useful/reliable or not.

bhavanaonline.info is Bhavana Balachandran's home site, but I don't know whether the actress is notable enough or not.~~

[edit] Repeated disruption and policy violations - what to do?

Resolved.

I found a user who uses, during edit wars with other editors, several sock puppet accounts to make highly opinionated edits and to agree with her own arguments in discussion pages.

She has been blocked previously temporarily for violating (in separate incidents) 3RR and sock puppet.

Through her main account, sock puppets, and anonymous IPs, she has been disrupting articles on Wikipedia since she joined: her edits correlate directly to edit wars and controversies on the pages she edits. Is this something I should just report on the sock puppet page, or should patterns of abuse be reported elsewhere? Thanks! 75.45.104.255 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we suppose to guess what this is about? El_C 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
People don't always ask questions the same way you would. To me, this item looks to be a pretty straightforward request for information about how and where to report the behaviour mentioned. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
it's an anonymous account. Ignore it. NO information.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF - we don't ignore requests just because they are made by anon IPs.
I logged out specifically because I think this girl knows I'm going to report her. I provided no information for the same reason.
Where do I report patterns of abuse?
Also, is it possible to submit the information so it doesn't show up here at first? I'm afraid she's going to try to "cover her tracks," so I would like the evidence to be observed by someone before she deletes it. At that point I'm fine with it becoming public.
75.45.104.255 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Report it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents (no ones going to delete it), and make sure to give details , accounts, links ect, guessing wastes everyones time. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that to prove the sock puppeting I have to quote the person's personal website. I'm afraid she'll change it as soon as she's outed.
Maybe I could add my report of the behavior to some (generous) admin's talk page, they can look at the site and say, "Yes, this information appears there," then it can be moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents?
Sorry for being a pain. It's just that this user is very disruptive, so I want to get this right. Thanks, 75.45.104.255 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Find an admin you trust and email them the evidence. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all. 75.45.104.255 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most recent suicide threat

Many of you will be familiar with the IP abuse of me linked to an unnamed site, but more suicide threats have come through, this time worded differently. The threat was made, I deleted my talk page to get it out of the history, and it was posted again before I restored, see diff. I have blocked the user for disruption and harrassment, and I am posting it here so that if someone feels the need to follow this up, you can. Please note that this is not the stock threat that has been posted many, many times before, but a newly worded one. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bog standard troll.--Docg 23:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just know some people advocate taking these all seriously. The police have been contacted regarding several previous threats citing my cleaning of D&D articles, so I just thought I would mention it here. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do NOT ever mention these things here. Contact the authorities if you must, but all that reporting them here does is encourage more of these trolls. They read this page you know. Revert, block, ignore.--Docg 23:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I normally would support authorities, etc. being called if these were unnormal, but for your pages, this troll has been at it for days. They are very obviously the same person. Just revert, block and ignore this one. — Κaiba 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

(Yawn). Here we go again. Indef protection for the time being. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Policy (Suicide threats, threats of violence, et cetera)

Could a few editors come over and take a look at Wikipedia:Threats of violence, see what you think, and if inclined, comment on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Threats of violence. Thanks bunches, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Split

The recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have disappeared was created over a previous AfD nomination [21], would it be possible for someone mop equipped to split the page into two? This is the second time I've seen this happen when the editor was using Twinkle ([22] was a few months ago), is it a common thing with the tool? Guest9999 (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pages fixed new afd now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have disappeared (2nd nomination) ViridaeTalk 04:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Katja Kassin problem

I've been contacted third-hand by an editor I trust (Vinh1313) about a problem with the German language edition of Wikipedia. They've printed the real name of Katja Kassin and have used the German language edition of IMDB as the reference source. Katja's complaining to Vinh (from Vinh's comment on my talk page) that "her parents having to deal with harassment from zealous people." The folks in the WikiProject Pornography have decided that IMDB's bio pages don't meet the WP:RS requirements since they're reliant on user-contributed info, so I can't see how the German version of the same pages can be considered any more reliable. As well the German edition has a privacy policy which would apply to this problem as well. Who should I point Katja to over at the German edition in order to have her real name redacted? Tabercil (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't know who over there you should talk to. I'm certain de:User:DerHexer would know. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 15:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you... heading to him now.  :) Tabercil (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, why does googling "Katja Kassin real name" give me a name in bold, sourced to en.wikipedia.org? I don't see it on the article, or in history going back to January, and if there's a privacy problem, perhaps there's something we should be doing? Relata refero (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Permanent protection' for China

On a trawl through CAT:EP I came across China, an unlikely candidate to be fully-protected to say the least, but I was quite disturbed to see the tag at the top of the talk page (permanent link to wording). User:Nat fully-protected China on 15/01/08, expiry indefinite, and every indication is that the protection was indeed intended to be indefinite. The protection was subsequently commuted to six months, which still seems extremely long. Nat claimed in the protection log that this action had support, and notes that it was brought up "many times" on ANI. I've dug a bit and found the most recent ANI report, which makes no reference to an indef protection.

I know that I don't know the situation, or how bad the vandalism has been, but I do know that regardless of prior discussion, this protection is not only unjustified by WP:PPOL, but also a violation of our fundamental ethos, not to mention WP:DENY etc. To my mind, this is the only way the vandals/puppeteers/trolls can actually win - they've prevented editors from working constructively on the article. I would advocate lifting this full protection immediately, probably converting to semi-protection, and letting those who do want to contribute constructively do so, even if every fifth edit is vandalism. That's what we have rollback for :D. Happy‑melon 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually set to expire on July 17th. - Revolving Bugbear 22:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Concur. Protection is a short-term response to an ongoing problem. Semi-protection can last longer. But other remedies are available for problems that range beyond that. Article should be immediately unprotected. Ronnotel (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Are we a wiki or aren't we? Long time semi-protection is objectionable enough, but full protection? Undo it immediately.--Docg 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Good call - such lengthy full protection is totally out of order in dealing with vandalism. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, and I seriously recommend you look through the entire history of the reason why we had to place a long term full protection. I would suggest starting with this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou and this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JackyAustine. This problem is, or at least was, that this particular individual has been building a supply of sleeper socks since 2006. The checkuser may have dug up 30 to 40 of them, but we believe that we only discovered the tip of the iceberg. Several sysops, including myself, have attempted many options before I locked down the article. A few of them being, indef blocking the socks, using checkuser to find the socks, etc. and this had been going on for months and months and months upon months. It was frustrating. So we came down to two options, lock down the page until the individual is no longer interested in Wikipedia and trying to push his POV with his socks, or range block several IP ranges. As option 2 would take out half a city, the full protection option was our only option. Granted, it was indef. but this was done so that we can make sure that the individual gets the message that his actions will not be tolerated and that we do not provide the individual an avenue to continue his disruption. As there has been no sign of the individual and his socks, I will unprotect the article. But understand that there was a very valid reason why I took those actions. Regards, nat.utoronto 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You missed option 3: revert vandalism, block sock, and ignore until the vandal gets bored. Locking the article for six months is NEVER an acceptable option - that's defeat. We might as well say "vandals win, close the database". If you can't be bothered with the constant reverting, then unwatch and let others do it.--Docg 02:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The action doesn't close an avenue of disruption, it permanently disrupts normal editing operations. I concur with Doc that this is absolutely a situation for revert, block, ignore. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There is another option that hasn't been explored as well. Those who did the CU have the IP address and access times necessary to engage the ISP of the offender. That isn't being done and for our hardcore vandals, it should be. It's pointless for drive-by vandals, but for someone bothering WP for months, it's hardcore. And telling the ISP their customers will be blocked from WP does make heads turn with them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
RBI just didn't work in this case as I've stated already so option 3 was not viable at the time. nat.utoronto 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The approach we have adopted on the Evolution article to deal with User:Tile join (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join to get an idea of the scale of the problem) is to semi-protect indefinitely, and full-protect as soon as one of the socks edits the article. We then checkuser the sock, block the associated sleeper accounts, block/rangeblock the IP, and then move the article back to semi-protection. This has been going on for about a month. I'm hoping that eventually the vandal will run out of IPs. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing topic ban on Blow of Light

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive353#Request input on topic ban
Blow of Light (talk · contribs)

This ban has now been in effect for three months. I have kept a close eye on Blow of Light in the time being, and it's clear he has addressed all of the concerns raised in that thread. He had developed into an excellent editor and has shown a willingness to learn from constructive criticism.

I propose to remove the topic ban, as it has clearly served its' purpose and it is now an unfair restriction on an otherwise-good editor. To avoid confusion, this proposal does not include Gp75motorsports, who has not had a similar level of success in developing as an editor to a stage where such forceful guidance is no longer required.

I welcome all input into this, so we can hopefully reach a speedy conclusion. Respectfully, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to give this a shot, provided BoL knows that he will still be under some sort of supervision. Not that I think he'll start playing up again. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that Blow of Light realises that should he lapse back into the pre-ban editing habits, it will be quickly reimposed. Daniel (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The only concern I have is that he still doesn't have the proper maturity in dealing with issues related to vandals which was one of the reasons for the topic ban. It's not at the level of obsession like it was when the ban was put in place, but just 3 days ago I had to talk to Blow of Light about his taunting of vandals. Metros (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, related to that vandal 3 days ago, BoL gave a personal attacks warning to the user for this edit. Incivil on the vandal's part? Yes. A personal attack? I don't see one. So I just have a bit of a concern about these kinds of issues. Metros (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that these are concerning, but it seems to be a one off case, and (at least, in my eyes) we should try and let it go in favour of what will be better for the project. And if it turns out not to be, then we re-instate the ban. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it's a big, huge issue, but it definitely will need to be watched if the ban is lifted. Metros (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree; I don't think anyone supports removing this and not watching him. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am in favour of lifting the ban, on the condition that we continue to keep a close eye on his behaviour. BoL has certainly made a lot of progress since the ban was first imposed and this could help him further, however, if the ban is lifted, I urge him to take it slowly for a while; if he has changed (I'm confident that he has), he'll know how to finally be in the good books with the community as a whole. :) Spebi (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I support removing the topic ban, but BoL's behavior should be monitored over the next few weeks or so given his continued tendency to taunt vandals. BoL should be informed about WP:DENY and WP:RBI. If he hasn't changed, we can come back here and reinstate the ban. --Coredesat 04:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support removing the topic ban. He's really matured since it was put in place, and I'm really pleased with his progress. If he lapses, of course, the ban should be reinstated, but he should definitely be given the chance. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support lifting the ban, but he will still need watching. Mr.Z-man 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my support to the removal of the topic ban, but I would remind BoL to continue to be careful in his reporting vandals and taking usernames to UAA, as a BITEy inclination to revert edits that are emphatically not vandalism and to warn users for such edits, as well as to report new users at UAA unnecessarily (if not plainly incorrectly), seems to resurface from time to time. Joe 04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess lifting the ban is fine, as long as he knows that he's still under strict supervision. GlassCobra 06:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One for the patient explanation squad

Uconnstud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for edit warring over his addition of links to material of questionable copyright. Since then he has:

  • filed three retaliatory 3RR reports against the editors that reverted him
  • filed a complaint about the admin who closed the 3RR complaints as frivolous
  • filed a complaint that his complaint was not taken seriously
  • complained about being warned about the above
  • been blocked for said disruption, block posted at ANI and reviewed on his talk by an uninvolved admin
  • started an RfC against the admin who blocked him (me), which was deleted

Sooner or later he is going to have to stop escalating this trivial dispute, and somebody really does need to point that out to him. My impression is that he will simply expand the dispute to encompass whoever tries to help, but it must be worth trying at least. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Still a relative newbie, though he may be a returning user or a former IP. I ran into him in the course of giving a WP:3O on an edit-war, and he seemed rational enough there after a bit. I'm sure if he's ignored for a bit, things will be fine. In the meantime, I'd suggest walking away from the tantrum. Relata refero (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Note left on talkpage. De-escalation recommended. Relata refero (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topic Ban: User:OffTheFence

AdHoc has topic-banned me for 7 days on homeopathy-related articles [23]. It gives the impression of being more to satisfy a pro-homeopathy editor who effectively asked for censorship of the discussion on a Talk-page [24] rather than to have a reasonable basis in its own right, indeed I specifically refuted the grounds cited.

The fact of a 7-day ban is clearly not of earth-shattering importance, but I'd like the matter of principle looked at, please.

Thank you. OffTheFence (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the article "Breast"

Resolved. glitch

This protected article has been vandalized.

Weird thing is that the article's history shows that it has been reverted to the proper version by ClueBot, but still the vandalized version comes up when trying to view the article. 91.153.68.110 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You probably need to bypass your browser cache to get the latest version of the page; looks OK here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Where's the vandalism? There's a photo of a woman's breasts, but that's what the article is about... I did a quick read through and did not see anything else. -- Flyguy649 talk 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As he said. Cluebot undid it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried opening the page with another browser, one that has never opened the said article, and still all I get is this line:
"The term breast refers to the things i like to suck day and night. Also i like stickin my knob in my girlfriend's cleavege and cuming inside her mouth."
I'm sorry to report this if it is indeed a problem in my end, but I fail to see how that could be since it can't be a problem with cache. 91.153.68.110 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
All I can imagine is that you're looking at a mirrored version complete with old vandalism; that wasn't even the recent version that has been corrected. As it stands now, the page here is fine. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC again) To be sure, I've purged the Wikimedia cache. It should be ok now. Otherwise you may need to bypass your browser cache (CTRL + shift + R in Firefox). -- Flyguy649 talk 15:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems it was the Wikimedia cache that was giving me the wrong version. The purge cleared the problem and I now get the proper article. Thank you! 91.153.68.110 (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fempiror History

Resolved. Article deleted -- Flyguy649 talk 15:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article to be blatent copyright infrigement, it seems to be directly copied from [25] which gives the copyright notice "The Fempiror Chronicles in its events, characters, history, language, peoples, and situations is based on the book The History and Language of the Fempiror Race and the Felletterusk Empire by George Willson, copyright 2005 and WGA #1124419. All rights reserved.". The page is the current subject of an AfD discussion but I believe that speedy deletion criteria G12 aplies. I've had it tagged for several hours, would someone mind taking a look. I did blank the page but it has since been restored. Guest9999 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cut and Paste Move

Resolved. Page histories merged. Kralizec! (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Holy Blood (band) was cut/pasted to Holy Blood (see [26][27] for the article and [28][29] for the talk page). Seems like a sensible move but could someone fix the cut/paste? Guest9999 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

Firstly, I'd like to say that I appreciate the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnights work here, but I've had concerns for a while about their use of {{Current Australian COTF}}. They always place this template on the main article page, several users including me have tried discussing this on the collaboration talk page because these collaboration/project tags belong on article talk pages. Article space tags inform the reader of problems with the article whilst collaboration templates belong on the talk page. I've pointed out Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage which states "Templates used in pages from the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page." yet the participants seem unwilling to comply with this. I'd appreciate opinions here about how we should handle this issue, and come to a consensus once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you could deal with a whole project; on the one hand, they are ignoring a guideline, but on the other, a casual reader seeing the template on an article (and it's only on one as I write) may well contribute and improve that article. I'm wondering if it's such a big deal? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
But the template looks awful - readers to the page want information, they don't want adverts about editing. Our major concern is the reader, hence why we keep notices limited to article information to main space and we always put collaborative tags on the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As an Aus project member, and infrequent contributor to ACOTF, I don't particularly like the placement of the template on the article page either. But I imagine there are arguments for and against - helps to get people involved, introduces people to the concept of editing... looks messy, too much internal information for the casual reader, etc. I guess you need to ask whether we want everyone who reads the article to edit it also? I do. It's kinda the point. But I don't like templates! :) I'm overall pretty neutral, and don't know that this requires admin intervention. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd just move it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Riana - didn't want admin intervention, just wanted to open it up to more users. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The article protection template(s) appear within article space. They don't assist readers in any way either. If something isn't broken, and is actively helping to bring attention to promote article expansion, why knock it? -- Longhair\talk 10:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Can another admin do it? Ryan and I have complained about it previously on Wikipedia talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, and they've argued that we don't have an accurate understanding of what the community's consensus is on it. If there truly is consensus to leave them on talk pages, I'd appreciate another admin/trusted user moving it; if Ryan or I do it, they'll just argue that we're biased, and revert. Ral315 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If its going to be on article pages, at least use {{ambox}}. Mr.Z-man 03:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a village pump, and the ACOTF talk page, for discussions re. this. Why limit discussion to administrators? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

They're not following policy after being advised of it. Move the template to the talk page, if they revert, block them since nothing else seems to get their attention. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it and was immediately reverted by Matilda (talk · contribs). Anyone want to get the cluebat out? ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This whole situation is blown out of proportion and absolutely ridiculous. It's been discussed several times before and no good reason was come up with to remove it. As it stands, the template sits on an article for two weeks. I'd object if it were longer, but I think that it serves a useful purpose and talk of blocking is more disruptive than the template itself - I'd question the merits per WP:BLOCK of any such action. Orderinchaos 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Placing this kind of notice on an article page, rather than a talk page, is a significant departure from normal practice and must therefore be well justified. The justification I have seen here appears to be "well, why not?" and the idea that it is temporary. I have issue with the idea of its being temporary -- while it may be temporary on that article, it will soon be moving over to another article. The notice will always be on some main-namespace page. Secondly, it is ugly. Thirdly, collaborations are quite obviously a inwards-facing operation rather than an outwards-facing operation; they are functions of groups of established editors. There is an invitation to edit every page; singling out one particular page is somewhat bizarre. Talk of blocking is, of course, premature to the extent of being somewhat absurd. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be ugly (I agree), but anyone is welcome to improve upon its' presentation. -- Longhair\talk 11:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not surprisingly the purpose of the template is to highlight that the article needs improvement and to encourage people to work together to do so. This is the same concept as {{refimprove}}, {{wikify}} or a host of similar templates which are also added to the article mainspace and not the talk page. I appreciate that readers are looking for information and not templates, but if these other tags in article mainspace don't distract people I'm not sure why an {{ACOTF}} tag on a grand total of one article at a time is a disruption. It should be noted you do not need to be a WP:AUS member or an Australian to edit an ACOTF, so I don't understand why it is considered more "inward facing" than any other improvement tag.
On top of this, the ACOTF template is usually successful in getting editors to make major improvements to articles. If templates are in article space are a problem then surely the place to start is with the backlog of wikification, copyediting, merging or referencing tags that sit untouched on tens of thousands of articles for up to a year.
I hope this does not seem overly aggressive - I just think it's tilting at windmills a little. There are surely more important issues with article appearance and tagging than this. I also think this is a better conversation for the ACOTF talk page or village pump as suggested by Dihydrogen Monoxide above.Euryalus (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a substantial difference between this kind of template and a wikify one. The latter has a specific problem that it seeks to fix. This template is general, non-specific and focussed entirely around the users who are to be editing it, not around the problem that needs to be fixed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that there is often substantial improvement to an article after it is identified as the Australian Collaboration of the Week. The addition of the template probably has negligible, if any, effect.
Yes, there are more important issues. However, that does not mean we have to ignore this one. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear this has divided opinion, and so I'll try and appeal to both sides here - just to be complicated. :P
I think that SK makes a good point above - this isn't the venue for discussion about this template, and I'd pretty much rather see it at the project talk page or something of the like (even though this has already been attempted, I think...) and admins don't really need to be the only group open to this discussion, as DHMO points out above. Yes, it's ugly, but then that's probably it's purpose - to catch attention and make people click the "edit this page" button - it is after all the only reason we're here for. I would however prefer to see better interaction between the users, Ral and Ryan say above they have contacted others about this before, now whether or not the outcome of that conversation was to place on the talk page or not, shouldn't those they contacted at least respect that decision and talk back to them instead of just reverting it immediately? Of course, it's starting to sound like I'm in some sort of fantasy world here, I pretty much promote Utopia but as we know, that'll never happen, ever. With that in mind, I think it's best for the template to be redesigned, removed or deleted and a better form introduced, something like a little icon box in the see also or external links sections or maybe even just a little text in the top right hand corner of the page. Whether this is implemented or not is another question, but at least we are having a go at debating this now before it leads to something else. Rudget. 11:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If SK is me, I didn't make that point, though I do endorse it. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've converted it from the ugly and unprofessional bright yellow to an {{ambox}} notice in blue. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 11:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As a wider audience is now aware of the debate (which is appropriate) and given there seems no immediate need for admin tools in resolving it, could I suggest this discussion continue at the ACOTF talk page? Euryalus (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't going to get sorted on the talk page - it's clear you simply ignore concerns when they're raised as "they've been discussed before". A sifnificant group of non collaberation members have seen this and dissagree that it should be on the article page. It's completely out of norms of how we tag articles and should be on the talk page. I suggest the whole collaberation finally listens to this point. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry? Not sure who you mean by "you" - Australian editors are not a Borg collective and I've personally never said this should be ignored because "it's been discussed before". I don't think any concern raised by a longstanding and reputable editor should be ignored, and I don't think I've ever done so. My point was I don't think a genuine consensus has been reached on the location of these templates and it might be worthwhile to continue the pursuit of consensus at somewhere like the talk page, Wikipedia:Collaborations or the village pump where even more people can have a say. I still think this is a minor issue and I doubt I or anyone else will die in a ditch if there's a decison to relocate the templates elsewhere. Euryalus (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The general point also is that this is only one of many collaboration templates. Whether collaboration templates should be on articles or talk pages should be decided at a unified Wikipedia-wide level, not by individual wikiprojects. Specifically, those who read Wikipedia should get some say. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I reverted the removal of the template from the article page (Gundagai) because the issue has been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight and the consensus reached there is that the template is placed on the article page. The template was removed without discussion by someone who has never contributed to the Gundagai article (or to any similar article) and as far as I am concerned was disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Did User:Redvers discuss the removal with anyone, eg on the article talk page, at WP:AWNB, on the template talk page (or even check that page) - no. Australian wikipedians collaborate overtly. I fail to see any evidence of the assertion by User:Ryan Postlethwaite that a sifnificant group of non collaberation members have seen this and dissagree that it should be on the article page. User:Ryan Postlethwaite contributed to the discussion on the template talk page but there weren't many others there sharing his view. --Matilda talk 06:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that nobody thought it necessary to contact me directly by email or my talk page about this discussion, but I'm probably the person who has added this template to articles most often. I like the {{ambox}} style, thankyou to Redvers for that - I had wondered why there didn't seem to have been a change to the collaboration template when most other maintenance tags went to a new style, but I hadn't spotted what it should be when I had looked. The template is part invitation to improve the article, in a similar way to other maintenance tags, but it is also partly a warning to readers that the article may be changing more often than usual, so they might want to check back again if they're using it as a reference for anything else. For the record, I support the long-standing convention that the template is displayed on the article itself. --Scott Davis Talk 14:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have again reverted the move of the template to the talk page. I still see no evidence here in favour of the move against the preference of Australian collaborators (sounds worse than a cabal). Perhaps somebody can arrange some discussion in a usefuul place to gain a consensus view or otherwise. Please note I do not like the threat above of if they revert, block them since nothing else seems to get their attention. You have our attention. We are discussing here and will go elsewhere with our discussion if invited to do so. --Matilda talk 21:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The point is, you've now made it clear that you aren't willing to listen - I think I'n right in saying that every non collaboration member here has said the template should be on the talk page, yet you go and revert? It's obvious you guys are going to want to keep the template on the article page - it's your collaboration. You should listen to what the uninvolved users say, what the guidline says and attempt to get a consensus yourselves that this is ok. "You have our attention. We are discussing here and will go elsewhere with our discussion if invited to do so." - we clearly don't have your attention. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Where is this being discussed project-wide? This appears to be Ryan trying to enforce his own view on a group of active editors seeking to improve the encyclopaedia. Ryan has dropped in a few times and removed the ACOTF template, with help from Ral315 and this time also Redvers and WAS 4.250. Every time, it has started by unilateral removal of the template, followed by reversion and a discussion leading to overwhelming support to leave it on the article - one article for about two weeks. Much of the support comes from well-respected Australian editors and admins. This time, the discussion seems to be here, presumably in an attempt to get a majority of non-Australian support. I don't see the same issue in the history of The Betrothed or in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration. Was the real concern about the colours, not the placement? This has now been altered. Beryl Anthony, Jr. and List of United States Representatives from California have had an equivalent notice (collaboration of the week) on the top of tthem for over a year, with no comment or attempt to move it to a talk page. Ral315 used this as an example of an accepted exception to the "rule" in January, while arguing that the ACOTF template should be moved. The longest the ACOTF template has been in one place over that time is 26 days, and it's only supposed to move every second week. Is it any wonder we feel a little picked on? --Scott Davis Talk 22:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with this general summary - captures my thoughts pretty well. Orderinchaos 05:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAME much? Does it really matter if an article has a banner on the front encouraging improvement for a fortnight? Is it really that big a deal? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Again? Surely this has been done to death previously without any consensus reached. Ryan's idea of "listening" seems to mean "agreeing with him". And threatening to block those who disagree with the self imposed consensus? Priceless... -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • "one article for about two weeks" - actually, as I've pointed out, there are many collaborations, and so it is more likely several hundred articles for anything from a week to several weeks. I might actually support such tags on the article pages rather than the talk pages, but there are lots of talk page tags that should never go on the article, and we need to be clear as a project where the boundary lies, not just allow it in some cases because one wikiproject wants things done that way. Carcharoth (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thankyou for raising the discussion to the general case. I don't know how many active collaboration projects like this there are, but I would support each one placing an {{ambox}}-style notice at the top of their current article (not candidates) for the reasons stated above. I don't have time now to go through Category:Wikipedia collaborations to determine how many of the not-quite-200 are active. Undoubtedly this conversation should be continuing somewhere else - feel free to move it and leave a note here. --Scott Davis Talk 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A case of merge and delete and the GFDL

[edit] Bryan Derksen's Summary

I've just got into a bit of a dispute with another administrator so I'm taking it here to get wider participation. A long time back I wrote a little article at Tucker's kobolds about some fictional monsters from Dungeons and Dragons. It just went through AfD and got merged into Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons), which I'm fine with. The problem is that Tucker's kobolds was then deleted, which removed my authorship attribution from the database. As far as I can tell this is a violation of the GFDL, and it means that the material at Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) is now a copyright violation. User:Nandesuka is insisting otherwise, though, and re-deleted Tucker's kobolds when I restored it as a redirect. Opinions? Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should be restored and then redirected. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(aec) We are not infrequently too strict in our construction of the "attribution" requirements of the GFDL, but it would seem that your text constitutes a significant portion of the new article, such that attribution is appropriate (for a discussion of the relevant issues, one may see, e.g., WP:MAD); I cannot, further, in view of the potential usefulness of Tucker's kobolds as a plausible search/redirect from an alternative name, imagine why one would delete the redirect (contrary, it should be probably noted, to the outcome of the AfD) or, having deleted the redirect and been apprised of the reasons for its restoration, would delete again. Nandesuka's explanation evidences a misunderstanding of practice, if not policy, that is, by virtue of its breadth, a bit disquieting, but we probably need go no further here than simply to restore the redirect (and its history), which restoration should be entirely uncontroversial. Joe 23:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nandesuka's Summary

I recently closed an AfD as delete. During the AfD, someone merged the content into Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). After the article was deleted, the original author of the article, Bryan Derksen (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) undeleted the article and left a note on my talk page claiming that to not leave the article history in place was a copyright violation. When I queried him about this -- this theory is certainly novel to me -- he responded in detail on his talk page, saying in part:

"That text, which I hold the copyright to but have licenced to Wikipedia under the GFDL, is now in the Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) article. However, if you look at that article's history, you won't see my attribution under it. Wikipedia "gets away" with this by considering itself to be a unitary work, so the fact that my attribution remains under the old article's history means it's still compliant. However, the moment you deleted Tucker's kobolds my contribution was no longer attributed to me anywhere in Wikipedia. That meant that Wikipedia was violating my license terms, making the article Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) into a copyright violation."

In response, I have re-deleted the page under CSD G4, removed the allegedly copyvio text from the Kobold article, and left a request on Danny's talk page, asking if this novel interpretation of the GFDL is one that the Office supports. I'm putting my actions up for review here, and asking for admin input on this issue. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh geez, there is really no need for any of that, this is what merging histories is for.
Problem solved with all contributions attributed. — Κaiba 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that quite right, although generally we need not merge histories where the page from which content is merged can reasonably/sensibly be redirected to the page to which a merge is undertaken (to be most careful, one ought generally to note the origin of text in an edit summary when he/she merges a non-trivial amount of information in order to incorporate the history by reference). In any case, since Danny no longer works for the Foundation and, um, probably isn't the WMF's favorite person about now, he's almost certainly not the one to ask. You (Nan) might try, for instance, User:Mike Godwin, but there really is no "novel interpretation" with which to quibble here; the practice that Bryan details has, AFAIK, been common here for years. Joe 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The copyright policy very clearly states that Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used when copying content to another website. I can't even imagine a logical argument that this can be ignored when copying content to another Wikipedia article. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Merging the histories does seem like the best solution here. It's an interesting question because, as Bryan says, when material is merged, it means that something editor A has written is no longer attributed to him. What is worse, I feel, is when editors copy and paste material into other articles without attribution (i.e. not in a deletion situation), because then it appears they have written it. I've had editors lift almost whole pages I've written, writing that took me hours if not days, and just copy and paste it onto another page, with their name in the edit summary as though they're the authors. I have to not mind, because this is Wikipedia, but I always wince when I see it.
Having said that, we do agree when we join up that our writing effectively ceases to belong to us. When other websites use our material, they credit Wikipedia, not the individual authors. If Bryan's interpretation of the GFDL is correct, they're all in violation of it, so I don't see how that interpretation can be correct. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you do want to copy something from one article to another, what is the proper way to go about doing so? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no practical objection to the merge, but the GFDL claim underlying it has to be addressed. If Bryan is right, the deletion policy needs to be updated. We have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of articles with text from deleted articles that are in violation of copyright if he's correct. That's why I'm making it an issue (my personal interest in kobolds is, to be frank, pretty minimal). Nandesuka (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would certainly agree to that. I've occasionally gone digging through old deletions looking for merge-and-deletes to fix, but it's a bit big of a task (and rather unrewarding) so I'd welcome all the help I could get. Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if we don't have thousands of articles withe text from deleted articles in violation of copywright, which further suggests that in such instances, the deleded articles should indeed be restored and redirected. If the articles existed in the first place and material from them was mergeable, then the deleted articles must have been a legimatime search term and there's no real reason why they shouldn't be restored and redirected. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That's precisely my thinking, and, moreover, what I always understood to be the thinking of the community. Joe 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
One might very reasonably make the case that websites that credit Wikipedia but do not link to our article and the history associated therewith and to the GFDL do violate the copyrights of the authors of the material. As to us, although I, for one, have suggested that we finesse an argument that Wikipedia exists as a single encyclopedic entity, such that we might need credit only five principal contributors, I think the community has long recognized that there are prudential concerns (most prominently, those related to the lifting of one's contributions about which you write) that counsel against our wholly disassociating contributors of substantial material from that material. I may be entirely crazy, but isn't it our usual practice to redirect an article after text from it has been merged, whether per an AfD or not, to another article? I thought this to be a settled issue, but I may well, I suppose, especially if Nandesuka's supposition that we have many articles that incorporate significant text from deleted articles is correct, be wrong. Joe 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I recall in previous discussions I've read about this sort of thing, when people just attribute "Wikipedia" and include a link to the article they're technically in violation but it's let side because one can click the link and get a list of contributors. If they were to host that list of contributors directly on their own site they'd be fully compliant and since clicking a link is transparent to the end user it's effectively the same thing. Having the list of contributions hidden in the deleted article database is rather more problematic.
In this case, I would think that a history merge would be unnecessarily messy; I generally only do such things when the revision histories don't overlap with each other (for example correcting an old "cut and paste" page move). Leaving a redirect would keep the histories tidy and furthermore actually improve peoples' ability to find the content that used to be there, so why not? Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Bryan's interpretation is correct; incidentally to SV's point- the only justification that can be made for those others just attributing to Wikipedia is that people can then go to the original Wikipedia article to get the author data. JoshuaZ (talk)
(ec) Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks says that other websites must at least acknowledge the main authors, and notes the theory that a link back to wikipedia suffices. If we send notices to WP mirrors about copyright violations, we do so as an individual with a copyright on certain contributions to a page. I think Nandesuka has a point here. In my experience, it is pretty standard practice at AfD not to delete articles which are merged, but to redirect them if any significant text is merged elsewhere, although it's not done every time. Gimmetrow 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bryan is correct. See Help:Merging and moving pages: "Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from." In practice, such merging can happen before the AfD (in which case the AfD isn't really needed), during the AfD (frowned upon) or after the AfD. If the AfD closed as merge (or keep), there are no problems. If the AfD closed as delete, things are a bit more problematic. Technically, the material that is or was merged should not have been merged. It can be removed from the article, but once the original addition has taken place the attribution needs to be there somehow, usually by undeleting the original page and having the history in the form of a redirect. If the page name is problematic, the edit history can be shuffled around to a neutral title and handled as before. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your input. I've restored the article history and replaced the material. Nandesuka (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And thanks for restoring it. I haven't looked around in the deletion guidelines for a long time, is there a good spot in them to mention this GFDL caveat? Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging seems the place, perhaps with a prominent link to Wikipedia:Merge and delete. —Cryptic 16:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, I've added a note. I had no idea there was an essay on this subject, fantastic. I wonder if it'd be a good idea to get Godwin to look it over for legal correctness and maybe make it a guideline. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Admiral (Honorverse)

Resolved.

-- Material in article; GFDL concerns eliminated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite closed this discussion as delete, but because the article has been merged, the deleted article should be restored and redirected to the article to which the information was merged. I have notified him of my post here on his talk page and her replied on mine. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if people would conduct mergers according to the procedure set out at Help:Merge, which might help prevent source articles being deleted improperly. I will notify the editor who merged the material how to proceed next time. Meanwhile, if you encounter situations where people are merging out of process, please make sure they know that they are to note the merger with a wikilink to the source article in the edit summary of the destination and to note the merger in an edit summary at the source article as well? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
All right. I've notified the merging editor & noted the merger in the edit summary. The question is whether it's better to restore the deleted article, since nearly the entire body was copied & pasted into the destination article and we must maintain history for GFDL compliance or do a history merge and delete the remaining redirect. Alternatively, of course, we could selectively delete the merge, but we'd have to delete subsequent edits as well in order to ensure that the text doesn't pop up in later edits. Given that one is a dummy edit to note the merge (mine) and the other the placement of some tags, that might not be undoable. I suppose we'll wait and see how the closing admin wants to handle it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems from the above discussion, that if we are in fact keeping the merged material in, we should restore the old article, but redirect it. I indicated that to Black Kite here, but have not yet received a reply. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have asked him at his talk page how he'd like to handle it. He has not been on recently, and I'm sure that he'll weigh in when he is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Dougweller has undone his merge of material from High Admiral (Honorverse) to Grayson Space Navy — as he indicated (twice) he would during the AfD. This would appear to make the retention of the history of High Admiral (Honorverse) unnecessary. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, the comments attached to the AfD decision by Black Kite stated that the decision to delete was made on the assumption that the material was now at the Grayson Space Navy page. Otherwise the decision would have been to merge, as per the original decision that he made. Having Dougweller remove the material now seems to be problematic, given that decision. - Bilby (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    I had not seen the tweak to the closing. The intent to undo in the event of a delete result was User:Dougweller's in the first place. See my section below, where I express my concern about merges during an AfD and their potential to derail a discussion. As things stand, nothing's gone, so anyone can resurrected the material in either location. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The editor who merged the material has removed it. Both the merged material and the redirect have been deleted. This will prevent the accidental restoration of the merged material at some future point and prevent accidental copyright violation. As I have told the editor who merged the material, the information can be rewritten without copyright concern. Just to avoid further issues, I think I'll do that myself and place a copy-vio free version of the information on the talk page of the destination article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Completely rewritten material is now in the article, which satisfies the conditions of the AfD without copyvio concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re both examples

In both cases, Tucker's kobolds and High Admiral (Honorverse), the article was under discussion at an AfD and during the course of the discussion, some bold merging was performed. This seems to amount to gaming the system to preclude a deletion; further, the longer-term effect is to enable the resurrection of non-notable articles at a later date when the evil deletionists have moved on. Such strict interpretations of licensing will lead to never being able to delete anything; once some bit of cruft gets typed into this site it'll never fully go away. Sure, a few folks can perform history merges in a few cases, but wikipedia is huge and the new/anon editors are legion. There are serious scalability concerns involved. Picture wp:2010 with 2 million tv episode articles, another 2 million tv character articles, &c. — for D&D, and Starwars, and a million other pop-cult 'verses. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Any admin who can close an AfD as delete can perform a history merge. It's daunting the first time or two, but not that difficult. :) On the other hand, if admins are nervous about this, perhaps it would be appropriate to create a new section at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old to allow closing admins to list articles as "Needing history merge", which would allow admins who are more comfortable with those to merge & then delete the resultant redirect. (This is, presumably, for those cases when a redirect may be undesirable. Sometimes the redirect is useful as a search term.) In related,I do agree that merging content during an AfD is gaming the system. In many cases it will be a good faith error, no doubt, but it would help if we could somehow publicize that this is frowned upon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
We would still probably be best off to just restore and redirect the article anyway as the AfD was really a no consensus and the term seems a legitimate search term. As for Wikipedia in 2010, it would actually be nice if we are as comprehensive as possible. We are not a clone of Britannica, we are generla and specialized enyclopedias and we have the editors and disk space to be as comprehensive as possible. There is no valid or constructive reason for us not to have millions of articles on tv episodes and characters. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The AfD closed as delete. This is not the forum to argue that AfD closures were procedurally incorrect, and it certainly isn't the forum to debate delationism vs. inclusionism. :) The legitimate concern of GFDL compliance has been addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears that it was more a merge closure. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Has BhaiSaab exhausted community patience?

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) was banned by ArbCom for one year, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Since then, he has had his ban reset 12 times, and has now been reset across two calendar years.

Frankly, from my perspective as an uninvolved administrator, I believe it is ridiculous to reset a ban timer this often. If that is necessary, this user obviously has no intention of honoring it. Accordingly, I have grabbed this bull by the horns and extended his block indefinitely. I now ask that this be endorsed as an indefinite ban. Blueboy96 13:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a clear-cut case indeed. — Coren (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Give me a reason not to ban this user, and I'll oppose. Otherwise, support ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Concur; indefinite does not mean infinite - although of course it becomes de facto a ban if no admin proposes(that is what it says in WP:BAN) an unblock. The onus is on the account to then determine what the block becomes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. BhaiSaab's previous resets were due to CheckUser misidentification of sockpuppets of User:His excellency - apparently they lived in the same metropolitan area (one of the world's largest) and used the same ISP. BhaiSaab's ban was, to begin with, unduly harsh, seeing as the Hkelkar case only arose due to Hkelkar's incessant socking, which BhaiSaab warned about, but was ignored. I say this as one who has dealt with some disruptive aspects of BhaiSaab's behavior - e.g. tag-team edit-warring - but I don't see him as remotely unreformable - he struck me a decent fellow, albeit one with whom I usually disagreed, who played according to the prevailing climate (edit warring was the norm on Islam-related articles throughout much of 2006, and continued to be on Islam-Hindu/India-Pakistan articles). He was banned, supposedly, for expressing to Hkelkar, who was posing as a Jew, the opinion to that Israel shouldn't exist - one with which I very much disagree, but one, like it or not, is held a significant proportion - perhaps the majority - of Muslim editors. This is minor trolling by WP standards, somewhat mitigated by Hkelkar's dishonesty - of which BhaiSaab was aware, and attempted to bring to the attention of the community - and hardly worthy of a year-long ban. I wouldn't hold him up as a model editor, but from ArbCom to the resetting of the ban after CheckUser errors - a.k.a. false charges, unretracted by those who made them - he's gotten a raw deal. And re Hkelkar, BhaiSaab was right where Dbachmann and a sitting arbitrator were wrong. I would suggest to invite him back on a tough revert parole - say, zero reverts except vs. vandalism - but allowing creative edits and talk page posts.
Also, it would be appropriate if someone informed him of, and, ideally, allowed him to participate in, this discussion.Proabivouac (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above in opposing an indefinite ban. I don't believe BhaiSaab was handled particularly well during the H.E. sock saga. Why the resets to his ban weren't rectified when it was discovered that many of the listed sockpuppets actually belonged to His excellency (talk · contribs) (such as Falcon2020 (talk · contribs) or MinaretDk (talk · contribs)) remains a complete mystery. His ban was also changed to indefinite during a community ban discussion in March 2007 and then, when there was no consensus for the indef, the ban was erroneously reset to 1 year from that point onward (despite no new cases of sockpuppetry from BhaiSaab).
Had these resets been rightly retracted, then this latest case would not even constitute block evasion (assuming this really was BhaiSaab) - although I concede that this point may be a bit trivial. Given the number of times he's been mistaken for H.E, I don't believe BhaiSaab has exhausted community patience. ITAQALLAH 01:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prolific sockpuppeteer

Resolved. No administrator action required at this time. Jehochman Talk 23:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Rws killer got blocked indefinitely for repeatedly posting a teacher attack article Ms. menna, and he evaded his block 11 times by resetting his router and getting a new IP address whenever he would get blocked, and so far he has at least 12 sockpuppet accounts. They have since got all blocked forever, but recently he threatened by e-mail to me that he would make another account, which I suspect he did. He did not get blocked yet, I think. Is there a way to stop this cycle of block, get new IP, create sockpuppet? STYROFOAM1994talkReview me! 02:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Only by blocking the IP range, or reporting the abuse to his ISP. Can't even consider either of those unless a recent IP is known. I was going to suggest salting the article he kept recreating, but I see that was last done almost a year ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I protected the page, I'm surprised that wasn't done first... Grandmasterka 02:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There will be a suspected, recent IP address in category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rws killer. STYROFOAM1994talkReview me! 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
On further research, I found that many of his usernames are very similar with in http://wowhordefallen.proboards105.com/index.cgi. Perhaps we can get a lead from here. STYROFOAM1994talkReview me! 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition, I have heard rumors that User:Rws killer and his sockpuppet accounts have another, administrator account from the same place, and operated by the same person. Can you find out who it is? The person also threatened to block me with the administrator account by framing me, and said so by e-mail. Looks like a case of personal vengeance after I helped people ban the user in question 12 or more times now. STYROFOAM1994talkReview me! 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
File a suspected sock puppet report when you spot any new sock puppets. Reverting, blocking and ignoring the troll usually takes the fun out of trolling, and they eventually go away. Wikipedia does not kick in doors and confiscate computers. If you find that the editor comes from a particular ISP, we can file an abuse report. Jehochman Talk 23:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:John Reaves

Resolved. user has apologized for a trifling offense, no harm no foul Ronnotel (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody look at recent edits, particularly the edit and edit summary here and also this one and indicate whether this is normal behaviour for this editor, or if the account is possibly compromised? Relata refero (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This sure looks like a compromised (admin-enabled!) account. This is completely out of character for John. If this is the case, should we request an emergency desysopping? AecisBrievenbus 13:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd think so. If anyone's on IRC, or if a 'crat is watching this page...? Relata refero (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder. Old editions of his talkpage have also had that strange message on top. Recently he replaced the old version of his talkpage, and then again put that message on. I'm not sure what's going on. Other people familiar with John should perhaps weigh in. Relata refero (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Crats can't desysop - you need a steward on meta for that. I don't use IRC, but the meta page says that the channel is [here. I haven't come across John Reaves (talk · contribs) much but those edits don't match what I'd expect. There may be an explanation, but just in case, a quick removal of the buttons to be on the safe side might be in order. Old versions of the talk page have that message on only because it's the current version of the transcluded sub-page, not because the sub-page has been like that all along (it hasn't). BencherliteTalk 13:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, I just worked out the transclusion myself. You're quite right, we need a steward to step in just in case. Relata refero (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Could a block be in order? Rudget. 13:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Since he hasn't made any more edits or made any log entries in the last few hours, I think that some close attention is warranted but not yet an emergency desysop. It could be someone playing with his computer when he waled away. If any unexplainable admin actions start to happen, or a string of strange edits, then a temporary desysop might be warranted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No. let's just wait a bit. I've emailed him ( hopefully his email has not been compromised too) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Has a CU been run? Rudget. 13:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(ECx2) It seems like he's rather irked about something. If the account's compromised, the person is doing precious little with it. Anyone tried email/talk page? (I see Theresa has). Watch and wait... -- Flyguy649 talk 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Stewards informed, watching the situation. Relata refero (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
His e-mail's disabled. Maxim(talk) 13:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't use wikipedia email. I emailed him independently. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let's not be too hasty here: John may simply be feeling pretty pissed about something-or-another, on- or off-wiki. I don't think it would be reasonable to desysop on the grounds of account compromisation (equating incivility with account hijacking is not backed up by sufficient evidence) or otherwise, unless the sysop. tools begin to get used for project disruption. All reasonable measures have been taken here: people are keeping an eye on Special:Contributions/John Reaves, the Stewards have been informed and are watching... "Wait and see" is our best bet, until things become demistified. AGK § 13:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Largely what the stewards feel, specially that its been 4 hours since the suspect edits. Though they think that a CU might be helpful, so if anyone can contact on on short notice... Relata refero (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, it appears that he does use such language in his edit summaries. E.g. see [30] Ronnotel (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

One self-directed swear word when removing an accidental self-block isn't quite the same as an expletive targeted at all visitors to his talk page... but (changing mind) let's wait and see given the time since last edit. BencherliteTalk 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest everyone just wait and keep an eye on things here. No harm whatsoever has been done, simply an alteration of a comment on his talk page which could have lots of explanations. I don't see any grounds for performing a checkuser at this point. Will (aka Wimt) 14:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, what about penis vandalism? Right here, after doing this. I think we should desysop now, and ask questions later. If it really is him, he can confirm his identity to us. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a comment on his own talk page five hours ago. It does not constitute vandalism at all. Will (aka Wimt) 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The message he deleted with the offensive edit summary wasn't even to his own talk page either - it was to User:Prodego's [31]. --Folantin (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
He changed "Sign and date your entries by inserting (four tildes)" on User talk:John Reaves/talk to "Sign and fuck your entries by inserting (penis symbol)". If that isn't vandalism, then what do you call it? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Incivility. As I say, keep an eye on things, but we have a privacy policy for a reason and we shouldn't just go around checkusering people and desysopping them five hours later because they were rude in an edit summary. Will (aka Wimt) 14:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Greeves (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
What would change it? He's not active atm—there's no emergency. Why don't you wait for him to explain it? If there'll be an emergency (e. g. he misuses his rights) he still can be blocked/desysopped. But he hasn't even misused them in this case. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This is what worries me, but as others said, he hasn't been very active lately anyway. Enigma msg! 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser shows that the account is unlikely to be compromised as the edits are made from his regular IP and computer. As his user log shows no dubious admin actions, I'd say thing are okay and folks should calm down just a little - Alison ❤ 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been on an unannounced break for the past week or so due to vacation and time-restraints (the vacation can probably be verified by Alison's CU report) and when I logged in last night (St. Patrick's Day weekend, if you catch my drift) and saw something I didn't particularly like...well all I can say is sorry and I'll go clear a backlog or something as penance once I'm back in the swing of things. John Reaves 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

per Occam's Razor, WP:EUI. Ronnotel (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ten people weighed in and not one remembered its St Paddy's weekend? And Alison's Irish, too! Relata refero (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The last time this happened (when another user was overly celebrative), it was much more exciting. Only ASCII penis vandalism? I'm disappointed. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:DemolitionMan

Resolved. WP:1RR restriction replaced with topic ban on British Raj articles. To be reviewed in two months Ronnotel (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'd like to change the 1RR restriction placed on this user, following this discussion and confirmed above, to a topic ban. In my opinion his disruptive behaviour has not changed and has simply moved venue from the article to the talk page. The talk page is a cesspit, and I'd invite all those commenting to read it, as well as the RfC on DemolitionMan, but choice comments in the last couple of days include:

I suggest a topic ban for DemolitionMan would do a lot to get that talk page back to some kind of order. It'd also force him to edit outside what is obviously an emotional subject for him. As things stand he seems to be headed straight for a ban. Leithp 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, it is difficult to find evidence to use to defend DM's behavior. I note that his outright racial animus has subsided. But I am beginning to suspect that he sees himself as the modern-day equivalent of the rebellious Sepoy seeking (150 years after the fact) to overthrow imperialist rule with Indian Rebellion of 1857 as his mutinous assembly ground (he will no doubt take my use of the terms mutinous and Sepoy as evidence of my imperialist tendencies). However, I note that he describes himself as "holding the fort" until re-enforcements arrive. I am losing whatever hope I had left of seeing him reform. Ronnotel (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I get banned for 3 months. I serve that ban. I am restricted to a 1RR rule. I abide by that too. I have not indulged in edits on that page; merely voiced my views. Comparing Ronnotel to a God in the Indian pantheon is attacking him? Warning a user about violating the 3RR is attacking him? And this has nothing to do with bad faith. It is an observation. I think Assuming Good Faith works both ways. Admittedly, exchanges on the page have been heated.
Shouldn't this qualify as attacking too?
"I feel that this page is being held hostage by user:DemolitionMan and user:Desione, who are insisting on edits that go counter to anything that is considered remotely reasonable in the current historiography of India. First they had insisted on adding the Hindi script; now, finding they can't push that, they're wasting everyone's time with ludicrous claims about the "First War of Independence." - Fowler&Fowler
"How cute.
Anyway, as said by Fowler its actual sources that count. But if you really want to play this game still; 60 million in the UK, 20 million in Oz, 30 million in Canada, 5 million in Eire, 5 million in NZ, 250 million in the US, 70 million in Nigeria, 45 million in the Phillipines, 13 million in South Africa....
And this is with the inflated numbers of English speaking Indians, the assumption that they are all Hindu nationalists and completely ignoring the well educated Dutch, Germans, etc....--Him and a dog 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)" - Josuquis
[[32]]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by DemolitionMan (talk • contribs)
Making the comment "beware of Ronnotel - he will do everything in his power to get you banned" [33] is attacking him, as is "how could I possibly take over this page with Ronnotel hovering over my head like Shiva doing his Tandav" [34]. You may think that you have "merely voiced [your] views", but what I see is a series of ad hominem attacks. Leithp 17:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounded more like a joke rather than an attack to me Desione (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Did not read like a joke to me, more like a rather bitter whine. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

The 3RR rule had slipped out of my mind and personally I am glad that user DemolitionMan gave me a friendly reminder about it. The discussion is "heated" and words have been flying out from all sides. In this case user DemolitionMan can hardly be singled out. As best as I can see it this is purely an attempt to get DemolitionMan banned in order to sway the opinion towards a perticular point of view. 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs)

Also, for those of you who haven't noticed, please note that user DemolitionMan has awarded an "IndiaStar" to user Fowler&Fowler very recently despite the fact that they have been having heated arguments. This clearly shows DemolitionMan "sportyness" and "good will" beyond the apparent differences in the discussion on FWoI. Desione (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He may have awarded me the "India Star," but that doesn't take away from the fact that his contributions to the Indian Rebellion page have been extremely divisive and his talk page discussion full of venom. Looking at his contributions (DemolitionMan (talk · contribs)), what worries me is that there is precious little other than "Indian Rebellion of 1857," and, there, his edits—during the last month that I have had occasion to observe them—have been entirely focused on whether the rebellion should be called the "First Indian War of Independence" and with what qualification. Even so, had he shown any grace, any respect for scholarship, any ability to distinguish between what helps build an encyclopedia and what doesn't, I would have had more sympathy for him; unfortunately, he didn't. He needs to cool off. He needs to realize that in the world of modern scholarship on the 1857 rebellion, the rebellion itself is not being re-enacted—with the scholars lining up under "British" and "Indian." Finally, he needs to be less arrogant about his own expertise, especially since the quality of edits he has made both on the Indian Rebellion of 1857 page or the Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857 page, rise to nowhere near the level of discourse presented, for example, in the high-school book chapter Rebels and the Raj: The Revolt of 1857 and its representations used widely in Indian schools today. In my opinion, a topic ban is in order. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Fowler, stop treating wikipedia as your personal blog. Solicit views from others (specially Indian editors whose views you seem to be allergic to) while contributing to articles on Indian History. Most people are usually too busy fighting off your bias wasting time which would be better spend improving articles such as British Raj and Company rule in India. Not to mention the fact that anyone who attempts to write in these articles is quickly reverted by either you or one of the members of your fan following (who usually come from the same island as you do). Again, this is not your personal blog and I really hope that this is not your full time job because it certainly appears to be so. Seek out and encourage contributions from other members and specially Indian editors (who are clearly in a great minority in wikipedia articles on Indian history) whose views are naturally inseparable from articles related to Indian history. If there was such a thing as a negative India Star, I would have definitely given four or five of them to you by now. Good luck. Desione (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Nor is it (DemolitionMan (talk · contribs)) personnel blog, were he may post, unchallenged, any opinion or accusation he feels fit without let or hindrance. The Indian POV is not automatically considered suspect, what is considered suspect are sources that appear to have little or no academic credentials, and yet user DM sees fit the question those sources which have, demonstrably, academic respectability (and when this is pointed out resorts to blatant racial slander). It is not his POV that is being challenged; it is his attitude and tactics. Moreover, yet again, we see the wining about being outnumberd, this is patent rubbish, as a lok at the posts will show.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]
Have you seen [[User::Fowler&fowler]]'s edits on British Raj and Company rule in India. A blatant and highly offensive attempt to portray British Raj in a benign positive manner while excluding, threatening, and belittling any sane attempt to correct such biases. What do you expect will happen when such users are treating wikipedia as their personal blog. Obviously you will get sharp reactions. The only reason his edits are going through is because Indian POV is in minority as compared to those people who for some strange reason tend to think that British Raj was god's gift to this world. If User:DemolitionMan is banned Fowler is going to have a free run. At least there is some control right now. Desione (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
We are discusing the Indian mutiny page, you do not carry personel vendetas from page to page. Two wrongs do not make a right. Because another user behaves in a poor manner does not give any one else the right to. If you have issues with user [[User::Fowler&fowler]] then report him, and stop making accusations that you do not back up with action. It dos not matter how others behave; the issue here is DM, not anyone else.

You make a claim that the Indian viewpoint is in the minority; whilst in the talk page for the Indian mutiny you claim it’s the majority. Most of [[User::Fowler&fowler]] recent edits on Company rule in India appar to be adding pictures, please provide some links to blantent and hightly offencsice claims he is making. Nor can I find any overtly (and diliberatly) offensve comment on British Raj, nor is he alone in these edits. Again pleae provide some examples, rather then making vaugue accusations.

If DM was the only Indian editing the page you might have a point (though it’s debatable how much of a problem this would be). He is not, and I suspect that Regentpark will keep a close eye on things. Please stop trying to pretend that DM is a lone voice of reason in a ranging cacophony of ignorance; he is not (you yourself are proof of that, and the fact that at least one other editor has chosen to stop editing is not anyone else’s fault but his own). [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

To user:Desione. You say: "At least there is some control right now." I don't understand. user:DemolitionMan, who has been on Wikipedia a lot longer than I have, has never edited either British Raj or Company rule in India, whereas I have been editing them both, especially the former, for over a year. My style of editing has remained the same throughout. Why would he suddenly exercise control when he didn't earlier? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that User:DemolitionMan is trying to contribute to the topic in a meaningful way and that he definitely brings a perspective to the article that it is currently lacking. It is important to understand that the reason he is singled out as disruptive is because, and these are not my words, he brings an 'Indian POV' to the article. I'm not sure why an Indian POV, whatever that might be, is automatically considered suspect, especially considering that the event in question is Indian. It is also useful to understand that scholarship in this field was based mostly on non-Indian sources during the first fifty to hundred years after the rebellion and it is only now that Indian sources are coming to light. Wikipedia is better when it behaves as an inclusive encyclopedia and worse when it tries to exclude one or more point of views - and attempting to incorporate some of the sources he points to would make this a better article.
However, I also feel that User:DemolitionMan has a serious problem with the discussions on the talk page. His behavior is often aggressive beyond what should be considered acceptable in wikipedia (or elsewhere) and is not conducive to finding a consensus. He doesn't seem to understand that bringing newly released material into an article requires a level of diplomacy and tact that may not be essential when adding material from established sources (diplomatic and tactful are clearly not DM!). Therefore, I support a short term topic ban and encourage him to consider working on a few neutral articles during the period of the ban. Some perspective on what wikipedia is and what it isn't will certainly be useful for him.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

but exclusion of one point of view goes both ways. Much of User:DemolitionMan has either involved unrealted topics (such as the Mau Mau rebelion), attacking sources based on nationality, or (as I precive) decite. Any and every tactic has been used by User:DemolitionMan to attepmt to force a particular POV onto the artical, and to crowd out any facts that do not fit into that POV. He has attempted to intimidate and I belive, provoke other editors.[[Slatersteven (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

It's not attacking the guy though I can see why the first part can be construed as attacking. However, why did you only post half the post? The entire post said that I am not convinced about his intentions. And the Shiva/Tandav bit was a stab at humor. Anyone who knows about Shiva and the Tandav would consider it funny. DemolitionMan (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate user:RegentsPark's empathy for user:DemolitionMan, however, it is inaccurate to say that user:DemolitionMan is being singled out because he brings an "Indian POV" to the discussion. There has been plenty of superb scholarship on the 1857 rebellion and early colonial India by Indians in the last 30 years. Gautam Bhadra, Tapti Roy, Rudr. Mukherjee, Seema Alavi, Ranajit Guha, T. Khaldun, and Rajat Kanta Ray are a few examples. There is nothing in the contributions that user:DemolitionMan has made to the Indian Rebellion page, that is worthy of being called an "Indian POV," if by it we mean the POV of Indian scholarship and not the POV of DemolitionMan as an Indian. Wikipedia doesn't care about the latter POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
See [35] and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DemolitionMan for 'Indian POV' allegations. The larger point is that he is trying to bring less established sources into the article and some of the material, IMHO, enhances the article. We should be discussing how to appropriately address that material in the article but instead, and I completely blame DMs style for this, the discussion quickly devolves into personal attacks and edit wars. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that I have never had a problem with an Indian POV and have stated so publicly and in private emails. What I have a problem with is a hostile Indian POV, and the disruptive acts that DemolitionMan has used to pursue it. I agree that all points of view should be represented in the article, but that does not mean that we can ignore inappropriate and disruptive behavior when a particular POV fails to garner WP:UNDUE weight. Ronnotel (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ronnotel, I would agree that you have been pushed inappropriately a little bit by User:DemolitionMan although I think he sees that. In my opinion such issues can be resolved without going for a ban. The main source of the problem here, in my opinion, is the POV pushing by pro British Raj enthusiasts. Desione (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


What evidence do you base that on, given that even after 3 month a Desi edit ban and then a 1 edit limit he continues to engage in the kinds of actions that have led to this (and the previous) complaint. It seems to me that he does not view his actions as wrong, and indeed views himself as the victim (as it seems do you). [[Slatersteven (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]
Ronnotel, I don't mean to imply that you're picking on DM. As far as I'm concerned, you've been a very fair admin and have, in fact, often gone the extra mile in trying to keep User:DemolitionMan contributing within the system. I have no doubt of the Wikipedia:Good faith that underlie your actions and those of several others (including User:Fowler&fowler). However, I do also tend to think that User:DemolitionMan's contributions are often dismissed as being on the fringe, or outside the fringe, because of an assumed Indian POV, mainly because much of what he brings here is not in the mainstream. I'll try to explain this on the article's talk page but let me categorically state that, IMHO, your actions have been exemplary. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is a place for such less accepted, less established sources in the article however they should be a minor point and it should be clearly said that they are a minority viewpoint and where people do believe them, etc... The way demolitionman is trying to have things is saying that these sources are absolute fact and that what the world's scholars widely hold to be the facts about the events in question are not worthy of even being included.--Him and a dog 14:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


And perhaps you would like to state your views on V.D. Savarkar here - an Indian freedom fighter, whom you derided on the talk page. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? And a lot of people aren't particularly fond of the chap who killed Gandhi, freedom fighter or no, so its hardly beyond the pale to express a negative opinion on him. Relata refero (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Gandhi was killed by Nathuram Godse. Savarkar was implicated but exonerated. His bust was unveiled in Indian Parliament a few years ago. Generally, he is well respected in India. His legacy is kind of like Bose - anti-British but violent unlike that of Gandhi and Nehru who were anti-British and non-violent. 125.99.102.80 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


  • I have just reviewed that talkpage, to which I am an occasional contributor, and am afraid that I can't find evidence supporting the belief that DM's worth the trouble he puts us through. I still can't get over "The British Military? The guys who are yet to apologize for murdering women and children in Amritsar? As stated, degrees acquired in the UK hold no merit in this discussion." It's not the cheerful link between current conditions in the British military and the Amritsar massacre - which was in 1919 - but the cheerful dismissal of anyone who has published in, has ever had a teaching appointment in, or obtained an advanced degree from Britain. There are many more such instances on that talkpage. ("It is utter nonsense to state that ALL historians agree that "WoI" is a not a correct term. Unless ALL means those who stand up to "God Save the Queen.") The user's done nothing since his return but agitate about the name of the page and the relative placement of various such terms; he has publicly announced that his only interest is in maintaining some level of control till enough Indians get online and come and support him; he hasn't made a single useful edit. Not one. Why are we keeping him around? Relata refero (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    Because, as a community, we tend to fall into the trap of confusing "Assume good faith" with "Ignore bad faith". — Coren (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that we have given DM a huge amount of 'assumption of good faith' even when he has used tactics that boarder (and crosover) on decite. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]
The final effect of any ban on User:DemolitionMan is going to lead to a free run propagate pro British Raj (and related issues) bias. And that fact is the key to understanding this. Good luck Desione (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

DM is not the only Indian editing the page, nor does he appear to be the only person pushing his POV. I suspect that Regentpark will keep a close eye on things. So it is not a fact, it is a POV assumption, like so much of DM’s ‘facts’. If you believe that an Admin is acting I bad faith report him, please stop making veiled accusations.[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Try not to put words into peoples mouth, either mine, or administrators, or Regentpark. Rest later (because i am putting more time into wikipedia than i am comfortable with). Thank you Desione (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


then why did you seem to imply that there was an attempt to silence debate? If you do not wish inference to be drawn from your words then say what you mean.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)]]
I am probably the only Indian resident editing this page. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You have no idea whether that is true or not.
Note to all: this is exactly how this editor operates. Non-stop speculation about motives, locations, and ancestry.
Can someone close this now? I see no uninvolved editor arguing for an extension of DM's editing privileges. Relata refero (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware that living in another country changed you nationality or race. Is DM seriously susgesting that only Indians living in India can understand and appreciate their own history.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)]]
"DM is not the only Indian editing the page" - who is the one who brought nationality into this debate? It certainly wasn't me. Err - don't you see Desione arguing for an extension of my editing privilege? Doesn't he count? 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a clear implication in the language used that both yourself and others believe that the problem is a lack of Indian editors (or too many British ones). That the Indian (actually DM’s, it has not been demonstrated that his is the majority view, and certainly not the only, view in India) POV is in a minority. This is at the hub of the many (self) justification’s at the heart of DM’s defence. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)]]
Yes, except for maybe some minor exceptions, but I don't know if that is more disappointing or the fact that the large number of overwhelmingly British editors on that page have not shown any inclination to solicit and incorporate the "other side of the story" in their "scholarly" attempt to write history. In any case solicitation and analysis of diverging viewpoints has never been a strong point of history in general (as opposed to "POV pushing" and "glorification") like what one would normally expect in say physical sciences. So in that respect I think you are doing more than a great job of "holding the fort" (although the part that lands you getting banned, etc. can definitely be avoided) Desione (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree or disagree that user demolitionman is the only native Indian living in India editing the Indian mutiny page? Moreover there has been no attempt to stop his POV being inserted, only that he obeys the rules, respects opinions (and allows) the of others, assumes good faith and stops racist and aggressive language. His language and attitude is one (or appeas to be) I am right and everyone else, no matter what sources they bring, are wrong and I shall not allow any source that contraticts my logic. Moreover he has continued to diplay double standerds that boarder on willfull deception. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)]]
Steven, I would appreciate not being called a "native"; I find it derogatory and insulting. Please see WP:CIVIL. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There HAS DEFINITELY BEEN a consistent attempt to miff his voice and the voice of ANY OTHER EDITOR who ever tried to post the story as it is known in most parts of India. Just to let u know I myself lived and studied only 1500 kms away from DMs place and I completely agree with his views. There are some Indian editors (Actually only One Suresh Ramasubramaniam aka Hserus alone) who LIVES in India but surprisingly disagrees. But then he is only limited to DISAGREEING/DELETING/REVERTING/FILLING IN FOR SS OR JOSQUIUS TO SAVE THEM FROM 3RR against anything called Indian POV by his personal definitions. And for that matter, I dont even live in India for more than a decade now, and in a place I live, I have more Pakistani friends who ALSO happen to recite the same version DM speaks. So I am a bit surprised that a mere absence of ENGLISH LANGUAGE LITERATURE is all that is enough to kill an editor who has done more research on anything even remotely related or relevant to this particular section of Indian History?

  • Demolitionman is not worth the trouble - we need a free run over the page with our personal POV? I thought we are supposed to be accomodating all views to make it a perfect NPOV?
  • Ban him and Regentspark will do the job - we only need a token editor, if regentspark or desione tomorrow react, there's one less to argue their case too. And I thought Wikipedia was not restricted to a group of users?
  • I have to reluctantly agree - actually i would love to see him screwed for having gone against what my Grandma taught me, but I have to show that I have a neutral point of view. And I thought we were supposed to assume good faith.
  • Each editor / administrator talking loudly here, has IGNORED that the RFC page is still open and no conclusion could be drawn there. So I assume that when Ronnotel started losing grounds in Cawnpore, he called reinforcements to open a Lucknow front here? --213.42.21.62 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

Okay, I'm not seeing anyone other than Desione arguing that a topic ban isn't appropriate. Unless anyone has anything further to add, I'll change DemolitionMan's 1RR restriction on Desi articles to a topic ban on British Raj pages. It'll be scheduled for review on May 4. Leithp 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well - I have something further to add: There isn't a consensus yet. As I see it and as Ronnotel explained so well - since at least 2 editors feel that I add value to the page - i.e. Desione and RegentsPark - let's hear from some other Wikipedia admin. DemolitionMan (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
RegentsPark expressed support for a short term topic ban above [36], which is why I didn't count him. I'm happy to wait for further input though. Leithp 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I didnt know Wikipedia was a number game board. So Mr. Leithp, the new maestro of Wikipedia NPOV a la Brittania, here's ONE MORE NUMBER in addition to Desione's voice. - My name is Bobby Awasthi who is STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER TO MOST QUESTIONS RAISED ON THE SAME RFC PAGE which you have used as A TOOL in your opening session of this crusade against an Indian perview of the story. User:Bobby Awasthi
Leithp should now revert whatever action he has taken since there is a third editor who feels THIS PARTICULAR GROUP OF EDITORS (and possibly linked Administrators) IS PERSONALLY BIASED AND CLUBBED AGAINST USER DEMOLITIONMAN so they do not look at the CONTENTS added by DM in his arguments, but are more worried about his tones/overtures. As far as I remember, any faith teaches that knowledge should be welcome, no matter what the source is. Here instead, it appears that knowledge should be discarded if it does not match your school teachers POV even if this has to be done in the garb of democracy or neutrality; however questionable the end result be. Bobby

By the way, case started, fans witnessed, lone witness ignored, conclusions drawn, judgement passed - doesnt all this sound like a KANGAROO COURT? Was just wondering. --213.42.21.62 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, take a short break :-) . I am sure your views in opposition of ban have been noted. Desione (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This is getting absurd. Every single account speaking up in DM's defence has edited the same problem article tendentiously in a manner identical to DM's. What part of "uninvolved" are people having trouble with? Relata refero (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And what about those who are speaking against DM? Have they been miraculously freed of their sins (so to speak). At least I don't deny my biases unlike some who have a ridiculous notion of "i tell as i was told" or actively use sockpuppets. Desione (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh* so I have a bias now, do I? Which is what? Oh, never mind.
And are you implying I actively use sockpuppets? Come on, try not to lash out randomly, it only makes you look worse. Relata refero (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Refero, it could be argued that those posting against me are the ones who have edited the article tendentiously. From the entire bandwagon which indulges in pushing the British POV, the only one who makes legitimate points is Fowler - so I wouldn't say he edits tendentiously. As for the others, it is my personal view and shared by a few others that merely the British POV is being pushed here. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, I wouldn't say that you're the only POV-pusher on those articles, just the most unhelpful and disruptive. Relata refero (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Leithp I agree with your conclusion and support a topic ban on the mentioned user. Rockybiggs (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, no input in DM's defence except from identically tendentious editors. Relata refero (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading the above discussion, I also support a topic ban on User:DemolitionMan. Besides I will also propose to carefully watch the edits by User:Desione. A block may in order for the later user for violation of 3RR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Desione is currently blocked for 3RR. Sanctions for this pack of disruptive editors look entirely appropriate. Moreschi (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, following the discussion above, DemolitionMan's restriction is now changed to a topic ban on British Raj articles to be reviewed in early May. Leithp 12:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Itihaaskar (talk · contribs)

I am the user Itihaaskar and I was blocked by requests from Shshshsh (talk · contribs). We we were engaged in a debate on the historicity of Jodhabai being the wife of Akbar. I have been writing that modern historians like Irfan Habib, Harbans Mukhia (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=9780631185550) etc categorically dismiss the idea that Jodha was the wife of Akbar. Shshshsh (talk · contribs) on the other hand contends that this is not the case. I requested User ShShShSh many a times to come up with a reference from modern historians to support his POV. Till date he has been unable to do so. On the other hand I provided unanimous agreement of modern medieveal historians that Jodhabai was not the wife of Akbar.

You can see the debate here where Shshshsh (talk · contribs) does not even know the names of modern historians whose reference he wants to overturn by his POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodhaa_Akbar&diff=193312471&oldid=193307992

Even if historians say that such name did not exist, they are just hisotorians. Their opinions do not constitute a fact. Also, there is no sign of them being notable at all. Who are they? Are they prominent?

Then he was told: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodhaa_Akbar&diff=193460993&oldid=193460581

Please be a bit more serious. Irfan Habib is a well known historian. You not knowing him is irrelevant to this debate.

. . . . .

Leading scholars of medieval history, Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra and Harbans Mukhia, categorically dismiss the idea that Akbar had a wife named Jodhabai.
It is high time you show us some references to back up your POV. Otherwise it is blatant POV pushing from your side! WP does not entertain such behavior. Sorry.

Till this date he has not shown us a single reference from a peer reviewed historian that Jodha is the wife of Akbar.

Yet he wants to own the aricle and wants to have only his POV be written:

Even now the article tries to give an impression that movie is "historically accurate" when infact the name in the title itself, Jodha, is historically false.

Mediveal historians have consensus that Jodha was the wife of AKbar's son as the genealogical records from the house of Marwar (the princely house in which she was born) clearly indicate: http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/ips/j/jodhpur.html

  • 20 Raja UDAI SINGH 1583/1595, born 1539, married and had issue, 17 sons and 17 daughters. He died 1595.
    • Rajkumari Man Bai (renamed Taj Bibi but better known as Jodha Bai), married 1588, Shahzada Salim (later Padshah JAHANGIR, Emperor of Delhi), born 1569, died 1627. She died 1603.

I have a couple of questions:

  • a) Can a user write there POV without citing a single reference?
  • b) Can you get others blocked because you are friends with some powers that be?

I have only edited from my IP address and my user name yet I cannot edit using my username for last many days.

What should I do?

124.125.208.35 (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you asking admins to do / look into here? Orderinchaos 10:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Is the taking away of my editing privilege justified? Secondly please guide how to deal with a person who does not cite any peer reviewed references and just wants to write there POV as is the case with Shshshsh (talk · contribs).
124.125.208.35 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked for sock evasion. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean sock evasion? I hope you understand how DHCP works. ISP's provide you a dynamic IP address in internet cafes. 124.125.208.* is what I get assigned. I cannot control the last octet. This is really high handed ness on your part to keep accusing me of sock puppetry. 124.125.208.35 (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone else please look into why Blnugyen is blocking me repeatedly? 124.125.208.35 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


I request some admin to look into why I am being blocked from editing. All I have done so far is cite references from peer reviewed historians. Please see the beginning of this thread. I repeat I have only editing from my IP or as Itihaaskar. 124.125.208.35 (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Blnguyen is a checkuser, and I presume he is certain that this account also edited as User:Chaffe sep, though it would help if he said so on the record. Judging by the user's talkpage, he has not been aware of what policies he is breaking in editing while not logged in. I think the reset of a one-week block to a month for asking this question here is a little OTT, especially as this editor's points on sourcing, if not wording, appear correct. (I am amused by the edit comment of the person who was accusing him of vandalism: "It doesn't matter. I didn't remove that, but except for historians' views, there isn't any factual approval of her not being Jodhaa". Ha. The only people who disagree are historians, and what would they know...) Relata refero (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this user has edited as Chaffe sep (talk · contribs) and probably also Tirem (talk · contribs) in addition to Itihaaskar. He also edits a lot while logged out, although I can't tell if this is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation or not. And he is evading the block to post here. I can't speak for Blnguyen but if you think you can educate this user and get him to follow the rules then I suppose you could try. Thatcher 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No I have not edited as Chafe sep or Tirem. Only used my IP when I forgot to login or my login name. My editing this page is not an attempt to evade the block it is just to raise a concern that my editing privileges have been taken away when all I was doing was using references from peer reviewed historians who are considered authority on mediveal history of India which I thought is what wikipedia encourages. Please restore my editing privileges if possible. I am also very surprised by vandalism accusation from user Shshshsh when he has till date not cited a single source / reference to support his POV.

124.125.208.35 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liberalism/Additional reading on Liberalism

Resolved.

The title Liberalism/Additional reading on Liberalism is malformed per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). The content also bothers me:its a reading list. Should it be AfD? Renamed? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional reading on Liberalism or Talk:Liberalism/Additional reading both seem to be pretty easy alternatives, if this is to be kept; if not, {{prod}} or {{afd}} are probably the way to go, gives it a chance to be spoken for. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have moved it back to Additional reading on Liberalism per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles. As for the content, per Luna. BencherliteTalk 11:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It was exactly what I was thinking. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown importance?

I'm not sure where to raise this issue, so I'm bringing it to the place where the brightest, best-informed people in all of Wikipedia seem to be found.

I notice the article Muhammad has a lot of category labels. One of them is Category:Unknown-importance Islam-related articles.

It seems to me absurd to say that the lead article about the founder of Islam is of "unknown importance" among Islam-related articles. Is this a case where I should be bold?

Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, it's labeled as "core" on the template. It just seems to be labeled as such because there isn't a cat for Core-importance. Anyways, bringing this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam they should fix it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wiki software prob

the last bracket shouldn't be blue (often cataloged in a reference work such as the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings) Mccready (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... weird. Try reporting at WP:VPT. -- Flyguy649 talk 15:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GT4

Resolved. Vandalism reverted by ClueBot, notifying IP directed to WP:AN/I WP:AIV for future issues.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:24.45.153.28 (IP) Spam http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gran_Turismo_4&diff=197813478&oldid=197640990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.138.120 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed community ban of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris

I propose a community ban of

The Mantanmoreland ArbCom case is apparently about to close, with 4 net votes to close in place. Therefore, I propose that the community act to tie up the loose ends here, by enacting a community ban of Samiharris as a disruptive sock and POV pusher, and Mantanmoreland as a disruptive sockmaster and POV pusher. I am willing to enact the ban myself after discussion. (but not until the case actually formally closes) As a reminder, despite ArbCom findings not specifically acknowledging it, the community has already found the evidence of sockpuppetry compelling, as documented in the RfC. I was debating where to propose this but this seems the best place. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice The discussion continues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion

Somebody ought to leave the occasional comment, lest this notice get archived. R. Baley (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice that: The motion to close the RFA/Mantanmoreland has been opposed by user:Newyorkbrad (for now) in consideration that this thread at AN/I may attract discussion. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
They have closed the case because there are still a sufficient number of votes to close. This thread appears to be winding down, as threads do when they reach such considerable length. Jehochman Talk 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not over till we say it is. (quote from Animal House) SirFozzie (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As of this moment, you're on double secret probation. (from same movie) - Dean Wormer 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I had wondered where ArbCom derived the wording of its remit from... serious question, how long does a topic have to be inactive before the archive bot does its thing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
AN threads are archived 48 hours after no edits, ANI 24 hours. To check this (or indeed change it - oops, WP:BEANS....) look at the archivebot template at the top of each page (you need to click edit to see this). In this case, Miszabot and the time periods I stated. You can fool the dumb bots though by putting a "future" timestamp on this section (or indeed no timestamp, though I'm not sure about that). What you can't guarantee is that some human won't try and manually archive the subthread and manage to lose everything... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Nonstsndard sigs will also throw the bot, as what happened on 16 April 2007 with Quadell's one-post-only topic that wasn't archived until I manually redid the timestamp to be standard. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I was a member of the Deltas... but at da tech, not Faber_College, Also for the record I think this is the longest AN thread I've managed to start, so far. Not that I was trying for a record, mind you. ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, following recent developments (block/unblock of Mantanmoreland), I am presuming there is another thread on this matter, somewhere? --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Requests for clarification on WP:RFARB. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cough LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding User Mhsb

OK, in regards to the previous discussion, this user nominated ATI - Aero Transporti Italiani for speedy deletion under section A1 which I find highly disputable considering the article and the users record. They have now gone on a Speedy deletion spree and nominated dozens of articles in a few minutes with the same tag and same reason "It is a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.". For example the article Blåbärskullen transmitter was nominated by them for Speedy deletion under A1 but this tag is incorrect as the page needs to be translated and the appropiate tag should be "notenglish". I could be wrong but I think this is absolutely bizarre behaviour. I'm not happy. --James Bond (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the many inappropriate speedy tags, deleted the few articles that were suitable for speedy deletion, and left some advice for the editor. I hope this resolves the matter.DGG (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Prediction: dude will be an admin within 15 months.  :D Mr. IP (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to express my concerns in creating a record in the Admin Noticeboard without notifing the users involved. Both users did the same: Admin SatyrTN and --James Bond. The warning messages at the top of this page cleary states that:

"As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed."

When acting as administrators, they are also expected to be fair, exercise good judgment, and give explanations and be communicative as necessary. I didn't see any of this happening with these two users I mentioned. They created an incident with my username without notifing me. They created an incident in the notice board, without investigating what in fact happened. The User:SatyrTN, didn't have time to investigate the issue and rather being communicative, he prefered to open an incident in the wrong place. The User :JackSchmidt noticed a page move I made on my page and asked User:SatyrTN to investigate my recent actions, which he found weird, and it really was if someone doesn't communicate and investigate what in fact happened. SatyrTN replied back saying that he didn't know what was going on (he didn't talk to me) and, in his own words, he didn't have the energy to deal with it. Again, he failed to communicate with me and posted an incident here, again in the wrong place.

The second user, not admin, James Bond, again, failed to communicate and rather by talking to me, he instigated propaganda against me by calling the User:Opinoso to the discussion, the same user I was having problems with edit warring, one of the reasons of creating the first incident report. He didn't call me to present my defense.

I would like to protest against these two users SatyrTN and James Bond. One misused their admin privileges against me. This page is not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. They failed to communicate, clearly violating an admin conduct policy. User James Bond instigating propaganda against me by calling another user (with whom I previously had a dispute) to prove his point, is this a vendetta just because I added a speedy deletion tag to the article he created?

Please, I would ask you to talk to me or investigate what was going on before you post an incident against me. Again, you are posting an incident in the wrong place, I am not a Wikipedia disruptor to be listed in this page. If you have any issues with my actions that you would like to discuss please, use my talk page. Don't misuse admin privileges, you guys are here to help. Since those incidents are being reported in the wrong page I kindly ask you to delete this section. Thanks.

--Mhsb (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, I would like to apologize to Mhsb for failing to notify them in regards to my entry. The reason why I did not notify them was because, (since I was picking up from the this recent discussion) at the time of my entry, EdJohnston had already notified Mhsb of the discussion that was taking place and because it's my first time here, I was unfamiliar with how things worked. In regards to Mhsb statement, and I quote "he instigated propaganda against me", I don't think I follow. I notified Opinoso regarding my post here has he was mentioned in the previous discussion that had been archived and I believed he was relevant. Again I quote "User James Bond instigating propaganda against me by calling another user (with whom I previously had a dispute) to prove his point, is this a vendetta just because I added a speedy deletion tag to the article he created?" I was not aware Opinoso and Mhsb had a previous edit dispute, I was only aware that, from the previous discussion that Mhsb, according to SatyrTN, misused AfD tags, therefor I believed it was relevant to my entry. Just for the record, since it dosn't seem to be clear, I have no Admin privileges, nor have I ever had any. In regards to the issue of the incidents being reported in the wrong place, I cannot comment for SatyrTN, but in my case, they were about deletions and specifically the use of speedy deletion tags, therefore they should have been under Incidents - My mistake. --James Bond (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the previous ANI thread commenting on Mhsb for eccentric editing, it would be good for his reputation if he would confine himself to uncontroversial work for a little while. (An editor at ANI proposed that he be blocked for 36 hours). It is also a concern that he archived all the previous warnings from this Talk page, some of which were quite serious. Otherwise he will increase the general impression that he is very intelligent but does not know how to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That's OK EdJohnston, I acknowledge what you said. I will forfeit myself in editing controversial issues for while, since this has been damaging my reputation, in that point I must agree with you. Regarding archiving my talk page, I don't share the same idea, what is the advantage in not archiving my talk page if everything written there is damaging my reputation? Furthermore, there is no Wikipedia policy that prohibit me from doing that. So I am not sure if I followed you when you say "It is also a concern that he archived all the previous warnings from this Talk page,..." Quite honestly, I'd rather had been blocked than being constantly challenged by my previous actions. I had already asked apologised the user User:Dúnadan‎, I explained my past action to other admin users and I don't want to spend all my time here having to defend my self since from my point of view I didn't do anything wrong, and if I did have some mistakes, I assure you that I was acting in good faith.

--Mhsb (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC) --Mhsb (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Don't Know if my Uploaded Photo is Restricted

I recently uploaded a photo. The link is Image:Sim Family Watching T.V..jpg‎. The thing is, it is from The Sims. The makers of this PC game allow owners to publish their videos and pictures taken from the game on media-sharing sites like YouTube and Photobucket. I assumed it was same for Wikipedia. I just want to be sure I'm correct.

what is thast cat doing? And why is there a midget in a suit under the chair? ViridaeTalk 04:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't ask, you don't want to know ;-) in response to the matter at hand, unless the publishers completely release all rights to the content or explicitly state that the images can be used for anything, anywhere there should be a fair use rationale. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Caribbean H.Q., that cat is definitely directing traffic. El_C 07:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that there is a paranormal apparition that the cat sees that the humans do not. We need further investigation as to whether or not this is proof of ghosts. I advise we set up a new noticeboard. Keegantalk 07:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You shall not puss? El_C 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • groan* I like the concept that the cat is surreptitiously fighting evil forces while mere centimetres away the family is unaware of his continuing efforts to save them from harm. The midget in the suit is perhaps the originator of the evil with which the family pet grapples. ViridaeTalk 09:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
When you say evil forces, you mean something very specific and organic, right? Relata refero (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That evil coloured clud thing. ViridaeTalk 11:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, though, this is the third or fourth image-rights question I've seen on the main noticeboards in the last few days. Is there a centralised location where these should be brought? If not, that might be a useful new noticeboard. Considerably more useful than some of the recent ones that haven't taken off, I should add. Relata refero (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I HAS SEEN GOSTES?!? caknuck ° is kinda hungry 23:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.Geni 12:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha, of course. Well, I'll move all further instances of questions of that sort there. Relata refero (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionpedia

Picked up at DRV[37], according to its description Deletionpedia is an archive of deleted Wikipedia pages.[38] They 'rescue' the full edit history of pages.

An automated script does the following:

  • A Wikipeida user tags a page on Wikipedia as a candidate for deletion.
  • They upload all pages which have these tags to a temporary store.
  • They check Wikipedia's deletion log, which lists pages which are deleted from Wikipedia.
  • If the page which was deleted is in our temporary store, they upload it onto the Deletionpedia wiki

I checked a recent deletion of mine and found the deleted page. User:H2g2bob might be able to fill in more details, e.g. if it requires an account on wikipedia. Sorry if I missed a related thread and you all were already aware of this.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a problem. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, we get rid of it so that it isn't waisting space on our servers. If this site wants to keep junk articles, they are free to do so, the articles were, after all, freely licenced. The one problem might be if they were using an admin account to look at deleted articles that were deleted for legal reasons. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, going to add this one to COIBot, this is not exactly something that is useful as an external link to have in articles for those that did not make it into this 'pedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Taking the whole history avoids copyright problems, but I can see this becoming a problem in terms of attack pages, especially attack pages against Wikipedia editors. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a problem; the articles were freely licensed under GFDL, and anyone anywhere is allowed to use them, as long as they attribute it back to the source. In this case they have gone the extra mile and retained even the contribution history, which would not be required. We only require something like "some content has been taken from from Wikipedia" to appear on the footer of the site, along with the GFDL licensing information. So we cannot censor other people's use of our content just because we decide that we don't want that content anymore. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I can confirm this is my website. The idea behind it is that a lot of pages on Wikipedia can (and should) be deleted because they're not encyclopedic. But they should be kept somewhere because they're interesting, and because someone has often put a lot of work into making the pages. Another advantage is having the full edit history available for pages held on mirror sites (avoiding possible gray areas with the GFDL).
Uploading attack pages is not my intention: I'm willing to CBlank or delete any that I find, or introduce something to the scripts if there's any good way to do it. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
To answer Tikiwont's question, it does not have an account at all on Wikipedia (but it does use the api --h2g2bob (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be easy for you to at least not upload pages in either Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion or Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(ecx3)They're already kept, just with the history hidden. Trying to make other sites comply with the GFDL is a hiding to nowhere. And you will be over-run with crappy, idiotic and libellous pages, to which you will have a responsibility to some degree. Good luck to you. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 22:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Redvers is right. If anything, focus solely on the XfD pages. Things that are speedied are speedied for a reason. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Someguy1221 - checking my code, I'm only looking at 'Importance or significance not asserted pages for speedy deletion' and 'Contested candidates for speedy deletion' (in addition to PROD and AFD). Contested could include attack pages, so I'll add a check against the deletion reason. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I note that the current Deletionpedia main page "Page of the Month" is one that was speedily deleted under G12 for being a copyright violation.... not sure that's the wisest speedy criteria to be harvesting. BencherliteTalk 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, my initial post was to share that this exists. It is clear that any problems with the contents are not ours. Nevertheless, it adds a new level of transparency to our deletions since one can search e.g. for topics or deleting admin [39]. with the deletion discussion conveniently linked and reposting of content a piece of cake. So if the site scales up, it may develop into a significant change in deletion as we'll be having a public trashcan with all its potential and drawbacks and actually a step towards Pure Wiki Deletion. (Since I don't think the resolved tag is applicable to this thread and it discourages taking notice, I removed it. This can be archived if there isn't anything else to say.)--Tikiwont (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

with respect to reposting of content, it will have an side effect that will be a benefit--it will enable any editor, not jut an admin, to check whether an apparent reposting is indeed essentially the same content and thus justifies a G4 tag for speedy deletion. We should thus be able to get rid of the unchanged repostings more easily and more accurately.DGG (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, someone should report this to Coren, his searchbot should include this domain and tag articles accordingly .. :-) .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you man that he is searchbot should not tag them. If it was posted here under GFDL, and was not originally a copyright violation, reposting is not conceivably a copyright violation. DGG (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Should I be terribly happy or terribly sad that something I deleted is featured as the list of the month?.  :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a problem for Wikipedia, but the person doing this might think twice. DMCA may (or may not, not tested in court) protect Wikipedia from certain liabilities by shifting them to contributors, but anyone who reposts Wikipedia articles assumes that liability, and anyone reposting them wholesale assumes all manner of actionable liabilities embedded in the articles. But anyone reposting articles which were deleted for a reason assumes an even greater concentration of higher-risk liabilities. Quatloo (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, my internet rep rises everytime Deletionpedia archives non-notable resumes like this one, soon I should have enough power to overthrow Jimbo as chairman emeritus. <evil smile> - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge help needed

Hello! I hope this is not an inappropriate place to post this notice. I was doing some cleanup work with our Cameroon-related articles, and I noticed a couple of articles that should be merged: 2008 Cameroon protests and 2008 Cameroonian anti-government protests. The former is far more comprehensive and well-developed (if I do say so myself), but the latter is probably better titled. I would therefore seem that the sensible thing to do would be to merge 2008 Cameroon protests to 2008 Cameroonian anti-government protests, basically replacing that page, but using the longer title. However, the page histories should also be merged, I think, to preserve everything for the GFDL. Can someone assist? Thanks a bunch. — Dulcem (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No responses. Should I post this somewhere else? — Dulcem (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears from the histories of these two pages that they have been standing on their own and developed independently. A history merge only applies to cases where a cut&paste move has been performed; there is no cut&paste move here, so there's nothing to fix, hence no need for a WP:HISTMERGE. You may use the normal editorial merge and note your merge in the edit summary, or give a link on the destination article talk page. That should be enough for GFDL. :) For the record, requests for history merging should go to Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, but I understand that this noticeboard is often considered a preferable venue as it is watchlisted by more admins anyway. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I think I did everything all right . . . . :) — Dulcem (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD throttling?

This AfD was closed by Edokter (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - an admin active in the relevant WikiProject - only 77 minutes after being opened. He closed it "early" (an extreme use of the word!) on the grounds that no reason for deletion was asserted. I'm at a loss to follow that reasoning (AfDs often result in a "merge" or "redirect" conclusion, and this should be no different), and as nom, would ask that it be re-listed for some actual discussion to help reach the conclusion? After one comment by an involved user and less than 80 minutes' of "publicity", I don't think that an involved admin should close. Any thoughts? —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked as nominee that it be merged, not that it be deleted. if something is desired to be merged it shouldnt come to afd in the first place. Se WP:PM for the correct procedures. DGG (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't, actually, I said that the character failed WP:NOTE and intended a discussion to take place in which people voted keep, delete, merge and/or redirect, as per the usual procedure at AfD... could we not let this take place, then if/when people say merge we can merge? Why shouldn't we? —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
But the character obviously doesn't fail note, considering the 37 references. With that, any suggestions of merging or moving belongs on the talk page, not in afd.--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 18:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
(Closer's comment) I closed the AfD indeed because no reason for deletion was asserted, and TT basically suggested a merge with Voyage of the Damned. As deletion was not going to be either a desired or likely outcome (Nom suggests a merge and article is currently a good article nominee), I decided to close the AfD, as AfDs should only be started when actual deletion is desired. Good faith nomination, but I just think a duscussion for a merge is better suited elsewhere. — Edokter • Talk • 18:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Treasury, what you are trying to accomplish can be accomplished with appropriate merge tags. See WP:MERGE, or as DGG said, Proposed mergers. If you feel the outcome will be/should be "merge", AfD (D stands for deletion} is not the right place. You need to initiate a talkpage discussion. Yes, it's true, that sometimes a result of an AfD is merge, but it shouldn't be the stated nominator's wish. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
As I understand the actual practice here, it usually goes as follows: if you think the content though appropriate as content within an article is not worth a separate article, you should propose a merge. If consensus at the article talk page disagree, and think it is appropriate for the article to be kept separate, and you still think it does not meet our general standards for articles, then bring in back to AfD , with the intention of removing it altogether. If at this point the consensus should be a merge, the general discussion at AfD before a wider audience gives sufficient consensus for overriding the discussion at the article talk page and carrying out the merge. (alternatively, it might confirm that the article is justified as a separate article, or decide to delete, usually on the grounds that sufficient of the content is already present in the general article.) But why involve all of us of the general body of editors participating in AfD if the people working on the topic can reach a satisfactory decision by themselves? I do not favor keeping fragmentary articles when there's a better alternative--such ought generally to be merged & I think most people usually agree on that, at least as a compromise that can get a ready consensus--but we would bog down altogether if every one of the tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) that need it had to go to AfD to get it done. DGG (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with the way an AFD was handled, you can always request a deletion review. AecisBrievenbus 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested moves

Wikipedia:Requested moves is building up a hearty backlog. Some attention and assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It so often is: I've never understood why that page is backlogged so often. As far as admin tasks go, I would have thougt that that one is fun, and requires engagement with the material. Relata refero (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Orangemike Speedy Delete of Bernard Spitzer

Resolved.

User:Orangemike has placed a speedy delete on Bernard Spitzer and earlier deleted the article arbitrarily against policy. Given that there are 16 references and a book about Spitzer who built the largest apartment in New York City. However you can read the comments on my talk page and you will see that he wants it deleted because it is not of interest outside of New York. I have asked him that if he wants to delete he should put it up for a standard afd nomination and he has refused. I am concerned that a speedy delete will destroy considerable information without a proper process. As mentioned he has already done this before on this article. I am personally surprised given some pleasant interaction between us before. This is not personal. I just want to protect the article of which there is immense interest. Americasroof (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Take it to deletion review. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This belongs at deletion review as suggested above.--Hu12 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Article still exists so no need for deletion review at moment. I have contested the speedy deletion as I don't think it meets the A7 speedy criteria. It is significantly better than the previous versions of the article that were speedy deleted. Suggest anyone thinking it should be deleted should take it to AFD. Davewild (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. That's really all I wanted. If the issue pops up again I will bring up the history. Thanks again for speedily resolving this. Americasroof (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageResizeBot‎

Due to the recent controversy over image bots, I thought I'd alert you to the request for approval of ImageResizeBot, which can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageResizeBot‎. Please comment there to keep discussion fairly centralized. :) Thanks. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New\alternative template for requested moves page.

I just thought i would mention that i have created a template as an alternative to {{RMlink}} at {{RMlink?}} which is for those who are undecided over the new name. It is to accompany {{moveoptions}}. Just thought i would leave a note here. Simply south (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment

Ongoing harassment by

including use of several sockpuppet IP addresses. User is removing tags from certain pages, spamming a commercial website that sells products. Rather than discuss the revisions, the user makes personal attacks in the revision comments, and makes personal attacks on my talk page. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs? I've had a brief look at his contribs, and have found some civility issues in his edit summaries, but I haven't found the behaviour you're talking about. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are two from my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A74.228.158.68&diff=198770773&oldid=197577160 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A74.228.158.68&diff=198908588&oldid=198770773

Look at the revision comments for this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chicago_Gaylords&action=history

The talk page is the most obvious. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility issues are obvious and Berian warned him, suggest block on next occurrence. Pls give spam diffs, I don't see them. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Chat with the Executive Director (and other wiki folk.......)

my 'spam sense' is tingling somewhat, but I shall nervously point your attention in any case to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly where we've just published what I think is quite an interesting conversation with Sue Gardner, our Executive Director - you can also listen to the previous chats with Danny Wool, and hear what interesting wiki types like Durova, and Raul654 sound like in the 'real world'. Oh - and if you think I bang on 'on-wiki' - you 'ain't heard nothin' yet! - Privatemusings (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kneesthey unblock request

Resolved.

Kneesthey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

User Kneesthey vandalized Wikipedia:AN/I twice, replacing it with a redirect to Genital wart. The first was [40] followed by a reversion by C.Fred. Kneesthey again redirected Wikipedia:AN/I to Genital wart: [41] . I noted the reversion by C.Fred and the final warning on Kneesthey's talk page, reverted the second incident of vandalism by Kneesthey and indefinitely blocked Kneesthey for abuse of editing privileges, in that his two edits indicated he is no inexperienced editor. Kneesthey then requested the block be lifted [42] on the grounds he did not vandalize after the final warning by C.Fred, [43] which was placed after the second of the two acts of vandalism. Should I lift the block or reduce it from indefinite to a shorter block, because the final warning did not precede the second vandalism? Edison (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless if the account was given a final warning or not the edit pattern displayed obvious SPA, vandalism-only tendencies, I support the block. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Good block. Reason for requesting unblock is not convincing, since he is clearly an experienced editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Would bet money this is a sock. Lots of money. Endorse indefinite block. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC)Looks like a fine block to me. Tiptoety talk 04:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The user was here for no good reason. Good block. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible COI Spamming

116.71.250.162 (talk · contribs) has been adding links to inthenewspapers.net into multiple articles. On a quick glance, it does have links to a group of newspaper articles on the subject at hand, but it doesn't seem to be a very wide range of reports (for example, "Benazir Bhutto" only brings up 7 links). Bringing this here for more eyes and because admins can roll back all contributions by this IP a lot more effectively than me. Thanks. Risker (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acetone peroxide

Could you please delete/truncate the History. I'm not concerned about terrorist blowing other people up but about teens blowing themselves up. Thanks, --193.254.155.48 (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for such drastic action. HappyCamper removed it (as far as I can see) because it wasn't encyclopedic: Wikipedia is not Wikibooks, so it's more encyclopedic to detail professional method of producing it. Removing history entries is potentially problematic (due to GFDL issues) and to be used only in situations requiring drastic action (e.g. someone slandered a living person). If people really wanted it is easier to google other sources than dig it up in the history. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 13:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, But i take the liberty of deleting the exact date leading to the page history from the discussion page. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted this because it's somewhat pointless if the article's complete page history is visible to all, which it is. Anyone seriously wanting this information will find it, so refactoring other's comments on a talk page is unnecessary, and actually deprecated. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)