Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive145

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Odd new account creations?

The user creation log bears looking at, for the new users added from 21:53 onwards ... two entries per new user. Not a normal pattern. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the same issue on the RC feed and have alerted the system administrators. Nakon 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by brion. Nakon 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tor node

Resolved.

Could somebody please block User:140.247.60.83, confirmed Tor node? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Tiptoety ^talk 04:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disgusting vandalism

Resolved. warned, not active, moving on

The IP User:96.245.92.31 has been severely vandilizing articals, replacing their content with some of the nastiest stuff I've ever seen. Just look at some of the edits they've made! It's sickening! I redid their edit on the Zenon page, but it was horrible!24.3.180.166 (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning on their talk page. Next time feel free to report blatant vandals at WP:AIV.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

They haven't edited in 3 hours. Any further action would be moot at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

24.3, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Grandmasterka 08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanos Papalexis

I'm sort of at a loss here...appears we have a WP:OWNership problem here. Everytime someone tags this article for its various problems User:Nemesisman removes the tags without actually doing any repair work. I stumbled on it yesterday and thought it sounded familiar, but didn't realize until this morning that I'd seen it at New Pages when it was first created. At this point he's removed tags 7 times. I welcomed them and warned them a month ago, and warned again today...Whats my next step? (Yeah, I know, SOFIXIT, what ELSE can be done, the guy obviously can write an article so how do we point him in the right direction) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Have I missed something? The article looks like an obvious db-bio candidate but, history doesn't seem to show one being added. I can't see any assertion of notability whatsoever. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results of the ill-founded Betacommand decision

Please see how well Betacommand is observing the recommendation/suggestion/whatever-the-heck-that-was, that the ArbCom did in the Betacommand case. Bellwether ^B_C 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and here is how he deals with an administrator calling him on the carpet about such nonsense. Bellwether ^B_C 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you contacted an admin about it? They still have the authority to deal with any disruptive incidents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted it here, so that the Arbcom could see the result of their (in)actions. And there's already an admin involved. Bellwether ^B_C 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Post back here how this goes. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I told everyone that all the remedies are useless, but nobody listened. ArbCom is failing. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the Arbitrary Committee is working normally. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Was Kurt the first to use that phrase or is it spreading? The ArbCom do good work. Even if you disagree with them, or see their decisions as arbitrary, it would be very divisive to adopt such a dismissive nickname for them. Please focus on the decisions, not the contributors (the committee). Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to their "working". If more than pronouns are used then something more specific can be discussed. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But if you use terms like that, you may discourage reform or you may discourage people from standing for election. You may also discourage sitting arbitrators. If you think something is failing, do you continue to knock it down, or do you try and support it and make constructive suggestions? Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How are edits like that, irrespective of any AC decision, not block worthy as outright NPA violations? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I like to warn users before blocking them, even in serious cases like this. Any admin was free to overide that and issue a block, I just do things differently. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And thats the right thing to do. And I love Beta, but these NPA violations are what... every other day? Every second day? If there is no sign of stopping, and no one is preventing him from attacking others, something is obviously broken. Why is anyone exempt from NPA? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How many warnings does Beta need to get before being blocked? It's not like he hasn't been told that his behaviour is a problem. He has been told time and again, but apparently he doesn't change. I hate to make this comparison, but any other user would have been blocked a long time ago. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because "Blocking or sanctioning Betacommand needs to be weighed against the generally productive and much needed work he brings to the project. He is honestly quite irreplacable…" [1] Mike R (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No one gets exemptions to policy. No one. Any attempts to give anyone a free pass needs to be not just shot down, but executed. Anything that makes all editors not the same in this regard is incredibly disruptive and unfair. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be transferred to the noticeboard so the rest of the community can comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone is subjected to policy. See WP:JAIL for my thoughts on exactly the same subject. Seems to sum this up well. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:50, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

We need good editors, but only those good editors who are capable of working cooperatively on the project. Both halves are important. At the next one after this, I suggest short blocks, starting maybe at 1 hour, increasing in the usual way if needed. We dont need arb com for this--just the usual standards.DGG (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One hour? I was thinking maybe start with a week or so. Shorter blocks have not worked. I have no confidence that longer ones will either, but at least it's something that hasn't been tried yet. Friday (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggested a week's block in the last thread on this (see my comments here); given Beta's lack of attention to any of the attention s/he's stirred up, I suggest a 10-day-block. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, a lynch mob. And TreasuryTag leading the call for a piano-wire hanging of the accused, as usual. Glad to see things don't change. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the fourth of five editors calling for sanctions against a user who told another user to "grow a brain" - I don't call that leading a mob, I'm not sure what as usual refers to (other than the fact that you don't like my signature, Reddy) and it's reasonable that users are blocked for violating WP:CIV. And I hope you accept that the insults Beta used were violations of CIV. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

CIV is probably the most misused policy here, almost always applied to "things they said that I don't like". And I didn't say you were leading this lynch mob, just that you were the one in the lead handing out the piano wire. Ten days? Ten days? Shockingly punitive and you should be ashamed of yourself. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see things don't change. You mean like certain editors being allowed to do whatever they wish, policy and ArbCom decisions be damned? Yep, nothings changed. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess one editor's "lynch mob" is another editor's "finally trying to actually do something about a problem that's been ongoing for a couple years." Friday (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, we've already got a discussion about incivility going on; let's try not to add more incivility to it, if we can manage. -- Natalya 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, β should have kept the high ground there, and he did not. I would prefer nobody got blocked over this, but if he gets blocked then so should those who baited and trolled him. Gimmetrow 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously wonder why we still have an arbcom if they never come up with any decent remedies. All they seem to do these days is not look at the evidence and end up saying something like "please be nice". Practically all conflict solutions are de facto routed around the arbcom and resolved by the community (which is a basically good thing). dab (𒁳) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with editors whose excellent contributions are matched only by their difficulty dealing with other editors (Betacommand and Giano are the community's two most prominent examples), I like to weigh them on something I call the House test. That is to say, does the level of quality of a specific editor's contributions outweigh the negative effect said editor may have on community morale? What effect would that editor's absence have on the quality and continued building of the encyclopedia? Is that editor's focus something that any editor can do (such as categorization, image tagging, or other "chores") or is the editor's focus something less commonly found (DYK/GA/FA-level contributions on a continuous basis, expert in a subject, experience in a field)? We allow some editors to skirt the rules because they are positive forces overall, just as how Dr. Cuddy tolerates House's antics, Vicodin addiction and disrespect for rules because he saves lives that no one else can save. Similarly, we must balance Betacommand's willingness to delve into a darker section of Wikipedia policy against Betacommand's continued problems dealing with other editors in a civil manner. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with every word of this, Hemlock, including and and the. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course; as I've long said, we would do well to evaluate everything we undertake with respect to any individual editor in the context of what the net effect on the project of that editor's presence (or of his/her involvement in a specific area of the project) is. It happens, though, that I think it (and have long thought it) to be clear that the net effect on the project of Beta's involvement is (at least in the absence of his being willing to recognize that the community are paramount and may require of him whatever level of civility they think appropriate or his being willing to comport his editing with those guidelines and standards for which a consensus of the community exists) negative—the benefits of his involvement are, IMHO, greatly overstated. What is not clear, I'd say, is where the community stand on the "net effect" question here, although I think it is fair to say that although those who think the net effect of Beta's presence to be negative remain steadfast in that belief, those long situated on the other side of the issue are steadily losing patience and rather rethinking the issue, such that a consensus on the broader issue might develop in the not-too-distant future. Joe 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of this; House is a TV show and can be scripted. There is no acceptable reason for someone to continually be abrasive and act in ill-manner. No one is irreplacable on Wikipedia. To hold someone to a different standard because of pervceived need or want for participation is antithesis to the wiki idea. Keegan^talk 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is undeniably true that BC is not irreplaceable, we cannot and should not deny the effect an editor can have on the encyclopedia. What would Wikipedia look like if RickK or NYB were still active? To use examples from active editors, what would our articles on cricket and Vietnamese history look like without Blnguyen's excellent work? Would we be as comprehensive about Norse culture without Berig, or Chinese history without PericlesofAthens? The House test (and I only use House cause it'll stick in your mind better that way) isn't to establish different standards for different groups of people, but to give us something to assess how best to respond to a situation like the one Betacommand faces on a regular basis. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Now Hemlock Martinis, you know very well that the questions you pose are rhetorical and have no response available. Dragons flight's comment below more succinctly explain how I feel. Keegan^talk 04:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are really two philosophical positions here. Hemlock has articulated one of them well: That we should accept Betacommand for who he is and weigh the good he does against the problems he creates in order to decide whether his work is net positive or negative here. The other philosophical extreme, is to argue that a just society depends on the even-handed enforcement of the rules for everyone. In other words, to ignore transgressions undermines the foundation of fairness for everyone and creates a situation where others feel entitled to ignore social norms. We don't allow great scientists or doctors to ignore traffic laws simply because we value their other contributions to society. Personally, I hail more from this second school thought. BC is still wrong for being grossly incivil irregardless of how much good he may also do.

The real problem, however, is that unlike traffic cops we don't have any effective tools for dealing with what are, in the grand scheme of things, small infractions. I'd love to see BC fined $10 every time he acts rudely towards others, but we don't have any mechanism for enforcing that. Basically the only tool we have is to block him (or not). I sympathisize with people here who think that a block is too harsh. It doesn't really fit the crime. We want him to be more controlled and more responsive to others. Blocking does litte, if anything, to accomplish that. That said, if the choice is between blocking BC for a short while, or admitting that there are no consequences for incivility, then I'd have to go with blocking. That follows from my belief that the maintenance of just and equitable social norms depends upon the reasonable expectation that those norms will be enforced. Others may disagree, but that's how I feel. Dragons flight (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the double standard of remedies, but I disagree with how we respond to it. We can't punish BC, partly because policy forbids it and partly because you can't slap a digital wrist. I would be extremely troubled by blocking BC for incivility especially given the flexibility as to what incivility is. For example, telling someone they lack a brain and to shut up is relatively minor in my personal assessment of incivility. I haven't seen (and I admit I'm not familiar with BC's history) any evidence of stalking or harassment or anything else other than snide remarks and rude comebacks. It's distasteful for such an editor to act in such an immature manner, but we can't force him to grow up. That either leaves us with blocks and bans, or warnings and inaction. And in this case, I'd rather err on the side of keeping an editor than losing one. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you, and others, look into his past in detail, it makes for invaluable reading. To cut a long story short, his behaviour as far as I see it and have been forced to read, is completely unchanged over a year to 18 months, despite 2 arbcoms, a desysopping and a failed application for re-sysopping. I am in no doubt as to the fact that beta knows exactly what the community is and is not willing to put up with regarding his behaviour, and that beta considers himself no longer part of the community per se, fully prepared to work outside it as long as his actions meet with his own personal standards of what is and isn't allowed. He has, with continual appeasement, developed his own standards regarding wp:civil etc, which, once you get into his mindset, are startlingly consistent (for which he can at least be commended), hence the complete lack of acknowledgement of any wrong doing for any infraction. Honestly, I challenge anyone to find an admission, at least without an accompanying caveat of two wrongs. Per his own personal policy framework, he believes he is acting in the interests of the community, justified due to their apparent failure to adequately protect him from attacks and people 'talking shit because they know nothing'. He is quite the creation. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's really sad about that statement is that it's true. We do allow users to skirt any rule they want to as long as they are a net positive, because there are enough admins around here who think we can't live without them. The few times someone has the balls to say, "No, that's not right, we all play by the same rules or we don't play at all", it turns into a wheel-war. --Kbdank71 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath before commenting — we don't need to cause even more drama and flame-throwing. Thank you, Maxim_(talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Asking the community to deal with Beta is like asking the African Union to deal with a diplomatic crisisAlleged personal attack removed after a warning from MSBisanz. Barring the usual staunch defenders, 99% of users just accept he is untouchable now, to pretend he is going to get blocked for anything non-capital nowadays is just pure fantasy. I pointed out a while back that reading the wording of the arbcom policy pages, remedies are actionable by administrators, and I pointed out bc's precise civility remedies. The silence was deafening. Since that case I'm aware of at least 4 cases of outright incivility from him. MickMacNee
  • Compare and contrast no less, the indefinite block I am threatened with for the above apparently unnacceptable statement. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a quote from Jimbo Wales that might be appropriate to all who say he's invaluable to the project...I haven't had any dealings with him but all I ever see is complaints, RFCs, ArbCom, at some point well...here it is:

"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51 5 February 2008

Something to think about. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. I, for one, as a supporter of a "net effect" standard, certainly don't mean to suggest that the unseen consequences should be discounted; it is perhaps for that reason that I have yet to encounter a case in which I found a user's good contributions to be so great as to offset the harms caused by his/her being broadly and often disruptively incivil or otherwise unwilling to behave in a fashion that tends toward the promotion of collaboration. I simply don't think it appropriate to consider a user's problematic behavior absolutely without reference or respect to his/her constructive behavior, at least not in those cases where the effects of that problematic behavior can be roughly quantified, such that the harms caused by that problematic behavior and likely to be caused where it persists might well be weighed against the benefits accrued and likely to continue to accrue should the user remain with the project. (In this instance, I think it relatively clear that because Beta's behavior has continued for some time, including after the community expressed its disapproval of much of his manner of communication, and has caused, at least AFAIK, a non-trivial number of editors to leave the project or to edit with reduced frequency, the negative effects of his participation cannot be surmounted, or even offset, by the positive substantive effects of much of his editing.) Joe 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A more worrying cause for concern is his tendency to dismiss even people who extend him good faith in the technical aspect, that ask him neutral questions, namely the recent attempt to understand his assertion that because he uses a secret coding method, copyrighted to his employer (but shareble among trusted wikipedians), and that it is this that stops him from splitting his bot tasks, code that he is unwilling (or unable due to the unbelievable complexity and his view that the requester is an idiot and timewaster) to explain further beyond an apparently made up term. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I myself am prepared to put up with β, but there are too many editors here who are not, and we need them too. To keep this one editor, how many are we willing to risk losing? I would not assume he'll forsake us even if we prove we mean it about NPA. I don't think that poorly of him. DGG (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That Jimbo comment was his statement regarding his own blocking me "for being incivil" for a week (see here).. but BC can be uncivil all he wants, because, well, darn it, we just can't live without him and Wikipedia will fall into the abyss and be haunted by devil-smurfs for ever more.. </sarcasm>. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My essential problem with BC's behavior isn't even that he's not nice.. it's that he acts like a 15-year old. You cannot have an adult conversation with this person; he's simply not reasonable. He's unwilling or unable to collaborate in a meaningful fashion. And, since Wikipedia is inherently a collaborative project, where does this leave us? He's had plenty of time to start behaving reasonably, so it's now time to whack him with a cluestick until he either goes away or starts playing along. Friday (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here is replaceable. If someone is capable of writing a bot or bots that can do the same work, by all means, give it a shot. I have not had the "pleasure" of direct communications with Betacommand, but from the volumes of material preceeding this discussion, it's clear to me that it is only the bot that saved this person from a long block. The bot and Betacommand can be replaced. Maybe it's finally time to do so. DarkAudit (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I dislike the equation X = a license to be rude. WP:NPA is policy; it applies to all of us. Yes, we can be lenient up to a point for temporary lapses, but no amount of useful work creates a permanent exemption from the consequences of habitual violation. Durova^Charge! 07:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the negative effect of Betacommand's style of communication that you can't see from just one or two diffs: it makes people reluctant to get involved with certain areas of Wikipedia policy, because doing so could get them into a nasty confrontation with Betacommand. Most people would rather work on things where they don't get insults hurled at them on a regular basis. The people who do get involved are mainly the ones who are already in a conflict with Betacommand. (I suppose I'd include myself there.) This isn't a good thing, because it severely hinders reasonable discussion. It's very hard to un-polarize a discussion with Betacommand in it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above, I believe that if Betacommand acts up in such a manner again, it needs to be posted here, and someone can block him for a week. I know I'd support that. He's also on a last warning still not to fuck around with his bot and use it to disrupt things to make a point. Neıl ☎ 10:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And that is the problem, imo. BC does something, and we tell him that next time, he will be blocked. Next time, BC isn't blocked, but warned that he will be blocked next time. And again. And again. He gets away with disruption and incivility every time. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The "other" final warning is for dicking around with his bot (ie, spamming a user who he'd argued with with a few hundred templates), where I warned BC if he did something like that again, he'd be blocked for at least a week. He hasn't done anything like that since. Neıl ☎ 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:I LIVE IN A HAT

• I LIVE IN A HAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I've block I LIVE IN A HAT because he's clearly an ED troll here to campaign for the website. Just a look through his contribs show he's only been editing Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan pages. A review would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd give serious consideration to deleting this image he uploaded a few minutes ago, too - while I agree a case could be made for including a screenshot to illustrate the article, this has clearly been selected for troll value (expand to full resolution and read it). — iridescent 15:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Sadly, his friends will be along soon to work on our shiny new article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was an orphaned fair-use image, so I deleted it. Also, it gave me teh lulz. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I think we all knew this would happen. I think Krimpet made a good decision semi-protecting it, pre-emptive or not. I think though, that several editors will be watchlisting this article, so any content that is, well, out of line, so to speak, won't last too long, but, well, we will see as time passes, I suppose. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• No objections to the block from me. Acalamari 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse the block. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment - Block makes sense to me. I have the ED page watched, knowing that there is likely to be trolling/disruption. I have some ideas about what may happen, but I won't mention them here for WP:BEANS reasons. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:09, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've protected the talk page and replaced it with {{indef}}.-Wafulz (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• No problem with the block. Hut 8.5 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Back comes the ED article, back come the ED trolls. Same ol' same ol'. I say we nuke the article, it took a few months last time but they went away aprt from their monthly deletion review. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• We should once again nuke this useless article. The trolling level has already reached a fever pitch, including a request to unprotect it (which I almost immediately declined without elaboration), and a truly startling amount of edits in the few hours the article has existed in article space. I think we're better off without the ED trolls, who don't bother us much unless ED is being discussed. Horologium (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• And I say again, why is this useless, troll-attracting article still around? seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Because troll attraction is not a characteristic which is of relevance when considering whether an article should stay or go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• If you do not want the article on Wikipedia, despite it meeting our relevant criteria for inclusion (WP:WEB), it's currently going through AFD. Participation there would be more productive. Neıl ☎ 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note I have no opinion either way on the ED article but I do have a thought provoking question: Are trolls and rabble rousers the standards we base our content on? If so, Depictions of Muhammad, Don Murphy, and slew of other articles should not be here. If it meets the criteria we set forth for content, keep it, defend it like any other article we have. If it doesn't, nuke it and move on. spryde | talk 15:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Wikipedia logo

Please see Wikipedia:VPR#Wikipedia logo improvement for a discussion regarding improvement of the Wikipedia logo. I've uploaded a new version of the logo, and since this would be a major change, I'm guessing it would need wide consensus, so I'm posting a notices around. Please direct any comments to the Village pump discussion. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TFA move protection

As mentioned in a previous discussion on this board, I am no longer going to be move protecting the main page featured articles. It seems nobody has filled the role, and today's article has been moved by a vandal. Can I have an admin volunteer to fill this role? - auburnpilot talk 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good reason we shouldn't indefinitely move protect all featured articles? Gimmetrow 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking "Why should we indefinitely move protect all featured articles?" to which I would response "Why indefinite?" Move protecting while actually featured on the main page seems reasonable but doing so indefinitely does not. What am I missing or not understanding? --ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because most FA moves are either vandalism, POV, or ill-thought forks. An article through FA usually has the appropriate name for its content. Gimmetrow 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Gimmetrow. Raul654 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but I disagree. In any case, this doesn't seem to be the right place for this discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the right place? Gimmetrow 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the best place. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Seresin. - auburnpilot talk 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and move protected all the current scheduled TFAs with the exception of Lion which was indefinitely sprotected from editing/moving. Hope that helps a bit :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moves are only available to autoconfirmed users in Wikipedia by default, so the move protection status of lion was no different than any unprotected page. I've added move protection to the article. Graham87 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solution

I discussed this with east718, and he worked out a simple script to run under his account to move-protect the day's FA for 24 hours and 2 minutes, starting at 23:59 UTC. Call it a bot if you wish, but it is a script to move protect the FA without anyone wondering why the FA redirects to Poop since someone went to pick up dinner. He's going to run it, and any criticism/suggestions are welcome here, at my talk page, or his. Keegan^talk 05:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually coming here to suggest that exactly that be done. This seems like an ideal task for a bot/script. Resolute 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete a redirect?

Resolved. Redirect deleted. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Halp, I stumbled on a Video Game stub named "Inside Moon" and found that the game is just called "Moon" so I moved the page but could someone delete the redirect? [2] It doesn't link anywhere. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can also request that by using {{db-author}}. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it, but wasn't sure since it was an article move type redirect? I wasn't sure if it needed more explaination...thank you for sorting it out :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably {{db-r3}} would fit better. But if it fits to two deletion criteria... well.. delete :-) - Nabla (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy de-sysop of The undertow

Following inquiries from the Arbitration Committee, The undertow (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has requested that his sysop privileges be removed temporarily. Prior to any application to reinstate The_undertow's sysopship, the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.

For the Arbitration Committee.

James F. (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, is this resignation under controversial circumstances meaning an RfA is required, or is he free to regain them at any time after telling the committee? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is controversial, as the committee have to be consulted should he want resysopping. Al Tally (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1. What did he do (did I miss some huge controversial thing)? 2. He has to tell ArbCom if someone wants to nominate him on RFA? FunPika 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"did I miss some huge controversial thing" - yes, yes you did. See RFAR. Raul654 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I have in the past protested Arbcom's claimed right to prevent a someone not a party to the case from nominating someone at RFA. (not that I intend to do so in this case) --Random832 (contribs) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What is a "courtesy de-sysop" if I might ask? And if it was done only with his agreement, does that mean when he changes his mind the Committee will direct stewards to restore his bit? Avruch ^T 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation here, Avruch, is that The_undertow has consented to the desysopping, suggesting that it is not an involuntary removal of rights, but the loss of permissions remains under controversial circumstances. Although the removal of rights principle would usually endure in circumstances regarding administrator desysopping, the Committee has noted here that they should be a vital port of call in any proceedings to resysop. As an incidental note, The_undertow has blanked his user talk page, and had his user page deleted. Anthøny 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that Tango (talk · contribs) has made a number of problematic blocks. It also states that Tango's administrative privileges are to be revoked, and may be reinstated at any time either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been pointed out on the prop decision talk page that his desysopping did not numerically pass. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems 1.2 (Tango is suspended as an administrator for one month) has passed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It actually seems like 1.3 is the operative remedy passing in this case, because it passes as the clear preference and supercedes 1.2. I'd suggest not posting definitively about this here or elsewhere until its cleared up. Avruch ^T 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a 7 to 2 majority is not sufficient, but (1) it ought to be sufficient, and (2) the committee members agreed to close the case with remedy 1.3, i.e. Tango is desysopped, clearly stated on the Proposed Decision page. If this was an honest mistake, do correct it, but it looks kosher to me. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango/Proposed_decision#Remedies It appears it we had a fuzzy math problem! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The desysop has been done. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV has a backlog

Resolved. empty as of 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC). MCB (talk)

Could somebody take a look at WP:AIV? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Moller protection

Can I ask under what authority the Arbitration Committee has enacted a content decision, as seen at Erik Moller? Yes, I'm aware of the current hoo-ha, but this person is the 2nd in command of a major world-wide organization, and is so notable that there is no way they wouldn't pass AFD today without flying colors. That begs the question of where did the Arbcom authorize a content decision, which they have neither the power nor authority to do?

• Please clarify when the AC gained this new power, and where did the community authorize that?
• Please address the edit protected request at Talk:Erik Moller to redirect it to Erik Möller.

The protection is thus improper, as the AC has no guidance or endorsement from the community to make editorial decisions on content, and if User:David Gerard misspoke in the protection log, it needs to be at a minimum redirected if not unprotected, as protection is not used for content/editorial decisions. We need to be utterly transparent in the handling of this case and treat it like any other article, or the media will roast us alive. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee granted itself the right to do whatever it wants on paedophilia-related issues a long time ago, purportedly to protect the reputation of Wikipedia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User behavior, yes, but content, negative. They simply can't do that, and they can't empower themselves to do so. As a body the AC has no editorial power over actual article content <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">(obviously including redirects and images, and text), and no individual user, admin, arbiter, or otherwise, has binding editorial power over any content matter at any time--that is 101% community derived exclusively. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:^demon has redirected it. Thank you. My major concern is that given the very visibility of the current "situation", that we do anything article-related that is tied into the matter absolutely above-board and by our own accepted community-derived rules. Or, simply put, "by the book", so that the media has nothing to latch onto here from our end. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, I'm not a sitting arbitrator and any such message is a suggestion to other admins of good sense and clue. As for your assertion that they have no power over content, that's actually not the case - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Where and when did the community grant the arbitration committee as a body, with their nominal authority, power over editorial matters? They are empowered wholly by us, and I don't recall seeing this detailed on their official page. They can only do what the community proscribes. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The community didn't prescribe the Arbitration Committee the right to carry out a nineteen minute star chamber trial and then issue an indefinite block (not of one-year, as usual) to a user with over 7500 contributions for creating a userbox declaring a fondness for "young women" (and not even using it himself, or warring over it). But there was little objection to that. We've just slipped down the slope to content censorship, now. It's only a matter of time before we're invading ru.wikipedia to claim the server space that is rightfully ours. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Sounds like a fun game. All their server are belong to us. You don't happen to know an open-proxy sockpuppet army that could help us out with the invasion, do you? :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the Arbitration Committee doing behavioral sanctions, and the like, but I'm in general opposed to things not being transparent. What I am opposed to however is anything that attempts to usurp control of article content from the community. If the Foundation themselves can't step in to do what except in rare cases when legal issues are at play, to not risk their Safe Harbor/Section 230 protections, the Arbitration Committee or individual admins certainly have no authority to do so for deeply embarressing problems. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Does deliberately violating Godwin's Law in that manner mean you have no intention of putting forward a valid argument? John Nevard (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever actually, y'know, read about what Godwin's Law is? I'm getting plenty tired of people mentioning this meme where it doesn't apply. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not making any assertions one way or the other, but I think we all have the right to know what the Arbitration Committee's powers are, where they are outlined, and how they are proscribed. It simply is not our way, otherwise. --David Shankbone 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fight the powah! There's some history to read up on, as I'm sure you'd be insulted if people assumed you needed to be spoonfed - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not averse to spoonfeeding, can you help a brother out and say what you are trying to say? Arkon (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The words "content" or "article" don't show up in the Arbitration page at all. The page in fact just details who was picked, why, where, how, and how Jimmy yielded all his authority over time to the AC, that leaves them... still with no editorial power over content. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note I did the move on a solely technical reason, and have no opinion on the article (or potential Arbitration) involving it. See my comments on the talk for clarification if need be. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As an update, Erik Moeller also now has an edit protected request; it was similarly protected by David Gerard. The Erik Möller article has now also been expanded, and is very heavily sourced--his notability is very clear and obvious. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment is slightly tangential but I don't think we can say something as clear cut as "the Arbitration Committee cannot determine matters of content". It is certainly true that they have traditionally refused to determine such matters, but to say they are prohibited from doing so needs some explanation. If we look at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope, "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" the use of the word "primarily" suggests they can hear other matters. That said, "5. The Committee will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus" suggests that if there is a community consensus that the Arbitration Committee may not hear matters of content, they cannot do so. I'm not sure there has ever been such a discussion. These wiki-constitutional issues are not though I think what this discussion turns on. Whether ArbCom can or cannot determine this issue, it would I feel be unwise for them to do so here given Erik's status within the Foundation. WjBscribe 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be unwise, but also they can still only do what the community deems to let them do at the end of the day. We let them do a lot, but if the community ever totally rejected something by the AC, the AC can't really do much about it, since they rely on the trust and faith of the community to empower them. They were once empowered by Jimbo, but now that Jimbo no longer owns Wikimedia and is just one board member, the AC derives all it's authority from us. They are not autonomous to do whatever they want. As you mention, though, it would be very unwise for them to try to start without asking the community's permission first. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that as editors themselves, the members of the Arbcom should have as much power to determine content as any other user, but no more than that. Saying "because Arbcom says" isn't an automatic pass on a content issue. As the collective-entity-known-as-Arbcom have always refrained from making any judgement on content issues, they cannot suddenly start to do so because it suits them to do so. Neıl ☎ 13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they have, I think their name has been used because Gerard believes the pedophile rulings give them the power over all pedophile issues including content - a simple mistake. Viridae^Talk 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As the person who initiated the pedophile directive with the AC, I hope this invocation of the AC by David Gerard was unrelated to this ruling. I devised of the ruling to protect minors from pro-pedophile activity (and by extension, the project from disrepute), and not for any other reason. El_C 05:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It has already been broadly used in the past to suppress accusations of pro-pedophile editing; I take it this was also not your intent? --Random832 (contribs) 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My intent was to curtail pro-pedophile editing, so it would be a given. -El_C 11:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SWATjester's statement at WP:RFAR

[edit] New logo

Per WP:VPR#New logo, the replacement of the current logo seems to be non-controversial. As I was told at bugzilla:14137, in order to perform the replacement, the new image located currently at Image:WikiNew.png needs to be uploaded to Image:Wiki.png. I would do this myself but Image:Wiki.png is protected. Once this is done, the bugzilla ticket can be re-opened, and the devs will implement the change. If an admin could please perform the upload, I'll re-open the bugzilla ticket. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaaa? This pic weighs in 105 KB, and our current logo is only 19. We can't replace it until it's optimised well. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to optimize. It seems User:Cryptic has done that now though (thanks Cryptic). The image weighs 23 kilograms, er, kilobytes now (teehee). If someone could now do the honors, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, hold on - whilst I agree the image is better, can I suggest that this is premature? Have images been created for all the other languages? We can't have them being different. When this is done, I think it would be a good idea, but give everyone time to comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of the other languages have already had their logos changed in this manner. I initially got the idea from the German Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the new logo cannot be in public domain, as the current logo is copyrighted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ignore my license summary, I just wanted to get the thing uploaded. We'll of course keep the current summary that already appears at Image:Wiki.png. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Most other languages already have smooth globes, and some (like German Wikipedia, whose globe we are now copying) have for years. It's EN that is a legacy. Dragons flight (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

^Yup. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be done, please check the licensing and what not. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan, I've reopened the bugzilla ticket. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This should also be an opportunity to also fix the invalid japanese (and there was one other language that also had a problem, I don't recall). It should be ウィ, not ワィ --Random832 (contribs) 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it will work that way, the logo issue in this case deals with the shades and layering of the entire image, which can be done post-original creation. I don't think the characters on the globe can be changed without the original rendering settings, which Nohat lost years ago. MBisanz ^talk 21:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be possible. We could do a new rendering of a simple sphere with the new correct symbols, then just take pieces of that and edit them into the present logo in 2-D. I'm not good with 3D rendering so this is beyond me, but just saying, I think it's possible. I don't think we need the entire original 3D source, necessarily. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was referred to here (from Village pump). Why is this discussion taking place in AN? Anyway, I found this image [5] to be really nice and less intimating than the current one. It also shows there is a way to create something similar to the current logo from scratch. And, of course, if the logo were to be recreated, some erroneous scripts can be corrected once and for all. (I, though, concur with the argument that since Wikipedia contains errors always, that the logo contains errors is somehow fitting. But showing that we are ignorant of foreign scripts isn't terrible good, I think. Shouldn't we solicit more feedbacks from the community at large?) -- Taku (talk)
Err.....I thought all images had to be PD and not copyrighted:

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest we use it. As you can know from the above, the logo has to be copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation. This is a different matter from the use of free images in Wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User-created images

Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images. All user-created images must be licensed under a free license such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license. They may also be released into the public domain, which removes all copyright and licensing restrictions. When licensing an image it is best practice to multi-license under both GFDL and a Creative Commons license.

F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] page protection?

Resolved.

Same-sex marriage has the padlock icon and claims to be semi-protected, and as far as I can tell was semi-protected at the time that [6] this anon-IP edit was made. On the other hand, I can't see the protection event that would apply in the logs. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

it was protected on 15 May but the protection has now expired. I have removed the padlock. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'd assumed the icon automatically appeared & disappeared. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, we got a bot somewhere checking the articles once in a while to see if they are still protected and removing the icon if needed, but I don't know how often it is ran. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

DumbBOT does that, and it's normally pretty quick from what I've seen of it. Acalamari 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pianist ru

See this user's Pianist ru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He is being repeatedly disruptive and incivil, and use cyrillic very often, even when talking to non-Russian speakers. I see other input on what to do next. Someone else should respond to him this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The user is being disruptive and abusive. I have watchlisted his talk page. It seems that he has been given another warning. If he does not clean up his act, I think yet another block is in order. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It was my warning, I have noticed he was already blocked. Well, he had a valid point regarding the Abkhazian SSR, it is pitty he was blocked for arguing a valid position. On the other hand I am skeptical on the usability for English wikipedia. Of a user with {{User en-0}} on his user page, especially if the user is combative and inclines to swearing. On the third hand, call me paranoid, but for a new user with almost no English he knows to well our jargon and alphabet soup. He might be a sock. Requires monitoring anyway. I would shorten the block but it is up to the blocking administrator Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is a Russian language Wikipedia. If the person does not speak English well enough to make meaningful contributions here, they may certainly be welcome there... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: He is not currently blocked. — Rlevse • Talk< /span> • 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hundreds of cut and paste moves

Recently I commented on a discussion at deletion review concerning the page March 23, 2004 (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 14#March 23, 2004). The discussion is currently ongoing but it's become apparent to me that the article in question and hundreds like it have been created through cut and paste moves which do not give any attribution to the original authors of the content - a violation of the terms of the GFDL license under which the content was released. I realise that facts cannot be copyrighted but the style, format and wording may well fall within the bounds of GFDL protection. Basically there was a pattern of taking a version of an article such as March 203 and then splitting off all of the sections into individual articles such as March 24, 2003 and then transcluding the split off articles back onto the main page for the month - (example diff). There is ongoing discussion about how the pages should be presented, whether the individual pages for each day should exist at all - irrespective of the GFDL issue - so maybe any action should be held off. Currently deleting or redirecting the individual articles would also destroy the main article for the month and even reverting them to their pre split-off state wouldn't be a complete solution as the individual sections have been worked on since the split. I don't know if any admin action is required at the moment (if G12 is discarded) but in the near future it seems like hundreds of deletions or history merges for the pages could be required. Sorry for the long post or if the issue has already been dealt with. Guest9999 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through and replacing the transclusions in the month articles for 2004 (January 2004 throught March 2004 so far) with substitutions, then redirecting all the individual day pages. I haven't checked through the histories of the days themselves, but this does at least leave the content readable on the month pages. As far as I can tell, this is a workable solution regardless of where the original historys lie, since the histories remain intact in one place or the other. I'd suggest keeping the redirects even if they were copy-paste moves in the first place, because they're reasonable search terms. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dang, I've got no idea what to do with April 2004. It doesn't transclude day pages like the others do, and the day pages are much more in depth than the month page is (see April 2, 2004 etc.). Could someone help me out with this month? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly revert to this version and then redirect the individual pages? Guest9999 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That worked, thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: 68.9.124.254

Resolved. User has taken this to WP:AIV. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could an administrator please have a look at this user. They have been continually removing the category from the List of 4Kids cast members article with no explanation (they may be right to do it, but a reason would be helpful). However, looking at their talk page, they've been continually warned for distuptive editing, and the last one was a 'you will be blocked'. Obviously, I can't do this, and it needs someone to review the situation before this is done. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops _ I see I should have dropped this into WP:AIV - apologies in advance ! CultureDrone (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PUI severely backlogged

PUI is backlogged by over a month. Can we get a couple of folks over to clean out the holding cells? (All it takes is verifying that there is no justification for keeping the image, and deleting it.) Stifle (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CommonsHelper blocked

Just a heads-up that the upload bot for CommonsHelper has been blocked at Wikimedia Commons. Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another image improvement proposal

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Favicon improvement. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very well established hoax

Today, I was contacted suggesting that CSBC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and CSBC Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) were both total hoaxes. Upon checking Google and the external links listed, it indeed appears that I can find no mention of this bank. The sources provided by the image are dead and have never existed, nor have the official websites etc. etc.

I then contacted a Danish user, who also asserts that it does not exist. Before I delete this (very shortly), I would like to provide the opportunity for a couple of extra opinions from English Wikipedians just to make sure that we're all on the same page and not missing something, given this article has existed since September of last year. Furthermore, if consensus is that this is a hoax, we need to decide what if any action should be taken against Thrór (talk · contribs).

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections to deletion...the URLs on the articles being down is just one of many issues here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely delete. As for Thrór (talk · contribs), I looked at his other contributions, and they seem to be fine. It baffles me then why he would create a hoax article. I suppose it's possible he didn't know it was a hoax, but that seems rather unlikely.--§hanel 09:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the one that links to the California Southern Baptist Convention. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, its revenue was said to be $700 billion, almost seven times that of the Bank of America, or a little less than the GDP of Canada. GG! El_C 09:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I missed that :) Thanks all. Daniel (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Whilst we're on the subject, could someone cast an eye over 24 hours in a day? It's the bit about Ancient Egyptians and complex regular polyhedrons (or CR4P, as it's said to be) that's got my hoax-radar bleeping. _GB^T/C 09:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I prodded it and left a pointer at WT:WPM. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's now been unprodded and taken to AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dy93

Dy93 (talk · contribs) is apparently recreating already-deleted articles about a hoax soap opera. I'm no expert on Australian soap operas, so I can't tell if these are real or not, but other editors seem to think not. But what drew my attention to this user was the creation of Maggie Reynolds-Webbers with a db, hoax, and unsourced tag already on it, which indicates that Dy93 probably copied it from somewhere, though I can find no previous history of any such article with this title. Corvus cornix_talk 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see what they did. They just copied over the content from Maggie reynolds-webbers. Corvus cornix_talk 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

They appear to be a sock of indef. banned User:Dylan93. Corvus cornix_talk 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked, etc. Nakon 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive sockfarm or just a university class' project?

Maybe I was working in WP:SSP for too long and starting to get paranoid, but I think that many members in this task force share a striking similarity in their userpage design. Look at the task section and check out the 30 different members' userpage. They share a lot of things in common (too much in common in my opinion). Almost all have a very short userpage (few lines maximum), all have a link to their personal sandbox and most have a link towards the task force page. Some users mentioned that it's for an english course called ENG 102 at University of Kansas. I have tried to contact a user,User:Sld8719, and ask him about the nature of this project (I'm just picking him in random, because it would take a long period of time to contact all 30 members on that list), which he ignored me completely. Can someone enlighten me and see if this is a massive sockfarm or actually a class using Wikipedia to work on a class project?

Lovely. This is in Jbmurray (talk · contribs)'s territory, but I don't think he's around this week. If anyone needs it, be sure to refer this group to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-09/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the multiple references to English 102 at the Uinversity of Kansas, seems likely they're students on this course [7]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Or is it this one? [8] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that it is for the class ("I have created this account to fulfill the requirements of an assignment for my English class.", from the second member's userpage), and that it's possible that they got strict guidlines for creating an account and what to put on their userpage, perhaps even because if they are being evaluated for their work, their professor wants it a certain way. On the other hand, it could be a very elaborate group of sockpuppets... but my gut says it's more likely a class. Of course, my gut has absolutely no references, so really has not validity at all. One sort of odd thing though, if it's an English class, why are they all a part of the Environmental Record Task Force? That seems like sort of a specific topic for a 100 level English class. -- Natalya 20:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an admin but I thought I'd look into this for you. If you look at [9] you can see a note from User:Mcwabaunsee who is the classes teacher. Someone may want to contact them if there are questions (or if there is a better way to do this)? It seems the environmental interest comes from the teacher. Oboler (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I just left a note on User talk:Mcwabaunsee. They don't look like socks to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It registered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The teacher's userboxes seem to fit pretty well. The user is from Kansas and teaches at an institution for higher level of education. (Side note: It was me who left the welcome message in that teacher's talk page 10 months ago *jaw drops*) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User seems to be stealing images and passing them off as their own.

Hello. I am not sure if this is the right place, but I suspect that User:Angela2109 is passing other people's photographs off as their own. Take Image:Clickorticket.jpg for example it can be found here (fullsized image here). Image:78adventurer.jpg appears to be a screen grab from a DVD.

Also suspect is that the images appear to come from several different cameras since the EXIF data is there see for example: Image:1971colt.jpg, Image:Lightning Storm.JPG, Image:Clickorticket.jpg, Image:RedOntdiplmtpltEDIT.jpg, Image:98Dodgeschoolbus.jpg, Image:1975MercMonarchG.jpg Image:1979Monarch.jpg, Image:85topaz.jpg, Image:1988 Dodge Van.jpg, Image:Datsun1979.jpg and when it is not there (or is) the date stamps seem to differ greatly see for example Image:84LYNX.jpg, Image:1977powerwagon.jpg, Image:RedOntdiplmtpltEDIT.jpg, Image:1978military.jpg

The stuff without the EXIF data (along with the stuff with it) appears to have been photographed over a wide geographical area ranging everywhere from Asia, the Pacific Northwest, Ontario, Florida, Pennsylvania, Germany, British Columbia, California, Illinois, New Jersey, etc.

They also attempted to pass of a photo of a Chevrolet as a Dodge Image:62Dodge.jpg see: [10] Given the resolution of many of their image images, like Image:1960townpanel.jpg, I suspect they obtained them from various websites.

The coup de grâce has to be Image:NYC1974.jpg which they claim is self-made, but they on their user page claim to be a "20 something photgrapher" - so unless they have a time machine, they could not have taken a photo of New York City in 1974.

I would doubt that any of the images that they have uploaded are in fact their own work. What is the next step? Should I leave it in the hands of an administrator? Die Profis - Die nächste Generation (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I have blocked the user for massive copyright infringement. Nakon 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. What should be done with the images now? Die Profis - Die nächste Generation (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably tag them as {{db-copyvio}} with an explanation of why you believe they are copyright violations. -- Kesh (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake article, sneaky tactics and probably not a newbie

Control The Nation With Discipline Tour, a brand new editer built this article in minutes which is suspictious enough. Myself and another editer who are up on all things Janet Jackson believe it to be fake. The sources dont support it. I believe it was built for the sole purpose of adding to Janet Jackson article. Additionally the user originally called it Control The Nation With Discipline. Someone requested that it be deleted so the "new" editer simply moved it by adding the word Tour to the end. He/She moved the article to avoid deletion. Also im not convinced this editer is a newbie. Thoughts are appreciated. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I warned them to stop. Lets see where this goes from here. I have my suspicions on who this is, but I am waiting to see what his response to the warning is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Jayron. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about Paul Vogel

I noticed that the date that shows when Paul Vogel gets unbanned is May 3, 2008. It is May 15, 2008. What should be done with this user page and this user's listing at Wikipedia:List of banned users? Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have noticed other expired bans at Wikipedia:List of banned users like User:Venki123 and am trying to remove them from this list as I see them. Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Paul Vogel never edited under the account of the same name, it's a placeholder for ArbCom direction. So blocking/unblocking the account isn't really relative here. His ban has expired, he can contribute accounted or as and IP. He never registered or has the ability to access the Paul Vogel account. Keegan^talk 06:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If IPs or registered cause the same disruptions as the Paul Vogel accounts then they'll be blocked too. The problem is not the editor, it's the editing behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [name removed] requesting suspension of bio for limited time period

Resolved. Article deleted for now by Rjd0060 per OTRS request. —Travis^talk 01:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What do we do about this? - Icewedge (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of material from an article? I just rolled it back to the previous version. —Travis^talk 00:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that what I was thinking, but do we do anything about her request at all? - Icewedge (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

They reverted again. I'm not quite sure what to do. I would recommend having the user email OTRS (info-en at wikimedia dot org) with more information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have E-mailed the user with that advice. - Icewedge (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And I left it on the users talk page, and I've undone the blanking for now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It actually doesn't seem like too bad a request. If it can be verified that the user is who he says he is, I think we really should consider deleting the bio for a month - if this will affect his real life, and he's open to having it restored soon, it's not a big deal. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. If this is a genuine issue, blanking the page is clearly not the answer. —Travis^talk 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but deleting the page as a courtesy may be. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the article per OTRS # 2008051810000246. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the name from the heading of this section for users privacy. - Icewedge (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to also do the same for the diff provided in the first line of this section if this censorship is truly necessary. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The diff is fine because the people who the information should be hidden from are not going to be combing through the archives of WP:AN randomly, she only wanted what could be picked up by Google dealt with. - Icewedge (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sock

AdamNailor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) looks very much like a returnee, I am wondering if this is someone banned or sanctioned under a previous arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience). Guy (Help!) 07:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks likely given the editing patterns and articles that they are editing. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:57, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement image has different subject than the original image

I've never encountered this issue before, so I don't know where or how to report it. Image:Morrison.jpg, which was formerly an image of Philip Morrison, has been replaced by an image that appears to be Toni Morrison. From the image logs, it appears that this is not a new problem; earlier the image was replaced by an image of Jennifer Morrison. Users apparently have already deleted the image from most of the articles where it was used to illustrate Philip Morrison.

Can the old image of Philip Morrison be restored, or is it necessary to upload a new copy from the NASA website? Is there an easy way to identify all of the articles where it was formerly used, so it can be restored? (I know it was used in List of polio survivors and Philip Morrison, but there may have been other uses.)

It seems to me that it shouldn't be possible to over-write an image this easily. Is that a bug or a feature?

It looks to me like this type of thing could be averted (at least in part) if the file name were more specific, such as PhilipMorrison.jpg. However, before it's renamed, it needs to be restored. --Orlady (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On the image page, look under File history. Click on a date and it shows the revision. Save the image and reload it with a more descriptive name. ----— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted the last image change and restored the correct image the two articles that I'm aware of. Is there any way of finding out where else it was used? Is there no way to change the image name, short of uploading it as a brand new image? --Orlady (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to re-upload it. There is some discussion on the ability to rename images, but any results are down the road. ----— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also a deleted version of that image showing Kirk Morrison.

Anyway, the real problem is the image name; people are going to keep uploading their pictures of Wotzisname Morrison as "Morrison.jpg" and selecting the "ignore all warnings" checkbox on the upload form. We do have a policy that says images should not have names that are too generic, but it doesn't seem to be particularly well enforced; I've seen the same thing happen before with Image:Jake.jpg, which has a rather impressive deletion log and (for those who can see it) upload history. In that case, after IfD chose to keep it at the current version, I ended up reuploading the original, since deleted, version to Commons under a different name.

IMHO, the right thing to do in situations like this would be to delete the image and protect it against recreation, and then reupload (with a note about the original upload history) any freely licensed, non-copyvio versions at more descriptive titles. The idea being that, if there have already been four completely unrelated images uploaded with that name, there will be more. And, since it's the name of the image that violates policy, it shouldn't be merely reverted but actually deleted and reuploaded with a more appropriate name. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:In the News

Can someone add the blurb, "Leonel Fernández of the Dominican Liberation Party is re-elected President of the Dominican Republic." to ITN, using the picture, Image:Developgains 05.jpg? It was approved at WP:ITN/C. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done sans the image as it is a probable copyvio per Commons. Woody (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History merge for Howlin Rain and Howlin' Rain

I was wondering if someone would mind restoring the history of Howlin Rain (speedy deleted criterion A7) behind the current page at Howlin' Rain. The newer page - created on the day the old page was deleted - contains indications of importance and several references from reliable sources. I thought I requested this at the time but looking at the history I guess I forgot to. Sorry for the trouble. Guest9999 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Advise of concerns. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guest9999 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request review of 2 week block of User:TTN

This is to request review of the block issued by Vassyana (talk · contribs) against TTN (talk · contribs) for violating the terms laid out here of the Episode and Character arbitration case. I know; groans all round but bear with me here. I advocate alleviation for User:TTN because I feel this block is unwarranted and, at two weeks, excessively, almost incomprehensibly, punitive, given the issues involved. For the record, I have not been solicited by anyone. Moreover, I know User:TTN can himself request review of his own block. I would ask for wider review, however, since the issues here are important. The recent blocks and AE filings (including one involving me, referenced below via this AE case), put petty schoolyard enforcement over important dialogue.

I urge review based on the following considerations and I beg indulgence that these issues be duly considered. Briefly, they are:
1) The Messenger counts.
The block was issued after an AE was filed by User:Pixelface. This user has no direct involvement in the particular question at hand (a single Pokemon character; Sonic Hedgehog characters whatever they are). I will not speculate as to his motives, but will note that his recent tagging of almost every single Haydn Symphony was a pointy, passive aggressive, and seemingly petty retaliation against editors he considers to be inconsistent or unjust in their approach to the ongoing discussion concerning our fiction notability guideline and plot-summary injunction. By editor I mean me, so I use the term loosely of course. Still Pixelface still owes long-suffering User:Moreschi 30 minutes of his life back. Frequenters of the AN/I board will be familiar with other instances of this specific editor's fractious, pointy, disruptive and querulous behaviour.

This brings up Point (2): the Wider Spirit of the Ruling

The Arbcom wrote, importantly,

The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute.

Perhaps User:TTN's behavior can be narrowly construed as having violated arbcom's injunction (the timeline can be seen at the AE page and on the blocking admin's talk page). I disagree, but can see why the perception is there that this is the case. A two week block is still an over the top reaction. User:TTN's transgression was for issuing a call for attention (the purpose of the Fiction noticeboard/Wikiproject talk pages) of a single article/set of articles. This was clearly in good faith, since it was in keeping within an already extensively-discussed and widely established editorial practice, sanctioned by many from the relevant wikiproject. The issue raised at the AE, as succinctly put by User:Pixelface was: the restriction says TTN is prohibited from requesting merges on project pages. The phrase "He is free to contribute on the talk pages" does not allow him to request merges on project talk pages.

This is absurd wikilawyering.

The fact is that real, open and genuine debate remains as to the fate of fiction related articles and their appropriateness for Wikipedia. If, upon review, it is determined that User:TTN was engaged in fractious badgering or disruptive behaviour, then sobeit; I am humbled. But it seems forgotten that point (2) is AS IMPORTANT as point (1) in the arbcom's decision. Editors who are running to AE to obtain blocks based on scholastic, by-the-letter interpretations of TTN's actions are behaving in a way that both is detrimental to the project and runs counter to the spirit of the arbcom ruling. I request that this block be lifted or else substantially lightened. I further request that User:Pixelface and all editors be warned that the arbcom ruling is not license for actions more fitting The Crucible than Wikipedia.

A two week sanction for what is a minor infraction in an ongoing, sitewide dialogue about how best to handle fictional articles and the dialectic of central policy versus cloistered interest is excessive, if warranted at all. Eusebeus (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a 2 week block is GROSSLY overdone, and that this comes as a result of a concerted campaign to wikilawyer the terms of TTN's probation by Pixelface and others. I am going to bring this up with the blocking administrator, at the very least, and suggest the block be lifted quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Given what happened, I think a 2 week block was pushing it. Granted, TTN knew what he was getting himself into, but it wasn't as bad as I've seen. That being said, if a neutral party finds it to be grossly unjust then I'd be fine with a reduction, or even an unblock if the reason is good enough. If said neutral party since it justified, then I'd be fine with it as is. And this is coming from the Episode inclusionist side. (I'm pretty sure neither or us three that have posted thus far are neutral in the matter) Wizardman 02:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue for a block reduction on one simple argument: this is the first legitimate violation of his terms, even reading it hyper-literally. The sanction included that deadly phrase "to be interpreted broadly". The breadth of interpretation so far has been breath-taking, with the removal of unsourced material from an article being interpreted as "deletion".

In addition, the two-week term violates the Arbcom terms, which read Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. A two-week block for the first violation doesn't even approach briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. Kww (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

it was not the first violation. and the ed. had made it clear from his behavior that he was going to continue pushing the limits. Even without the arb com decision, a two week block for disruption would have been fully appropriate. DGG (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Except even if it was a repeat violation (again, he's free to work on talk pages per the ArbCom ruling, so there's no violation here), the max the ArbCom allows for is one week. SirFozzie (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN has violated the ArbCom restrictions imposed on him at least three times since April 22. On April 23, TTN requested that Sgeureka redirect the Meowth article.[11] On May 8, TTN requested that the Bulbasaur article be redirected.[12] On May 11, TTN requested a merge of Sonic the Hedgehog character articles.[13][14] The sentence "He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate." does not allow him to violate the rest of the restriction: "TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." --Pixelface (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN has not in any way violated his arbcom restriction. It was specifically stated that he is still allowed to make suggestions, requests, and participate in discussions. We've been over this before. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And for the love of god, the entire point of his restriction was to make him take these issues to the talk page. The "request" part is undoubtedly referring to tagging an article for deletion or merging. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And the part about discussion "initiated by another editor"? How could the "request" part only refer to tagging? TTN is going to put a merge tag on a project page? Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games are project pages. He can participate on talk pages but can't request merges or redirections on talk pages. If TTN could just request others do for him what he cannot do for six months, there would be no reason to restrict him at all. TTN is prohibited from requesting the merge or redirection of articles related to TV episodes or characters for six months. Period. --Pixelface (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He is free to participate on talk pages. Period. If you would understand that and abide by it, and stop making complaints when he abides by the ruling, the drama level would go way down.Kww (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So what do you make of it when Anomie asked TTN "Weren't you restricted from requesting merges, redirections, or deletions of character articles?" at the thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games? --Pixelface (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's to make of it? He said that he was still allowed to do so on talk pages, which he is.Kww (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The block was a good call given the long-term problematic history. Unfortunately, the title of this thread seems to be ringing true. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna Endorse the two week block. After the prior one week block for violating the restrictions, and the fact the sanctions are to be interpreted broadly, this is clearly a good block. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) TTN posted on a project page requesting a redirect.[15] This is explicitly in violation of his restrictions, which regardless are supposed to be "interpreted broadly".[16] Contrary to some assertions, he was not responding to a prior conversation, but rather the first party acting.[17] I truly cannot fathom how an increased duration block for a blatant and unquestionable violation of ArbCom sanctions that are framed to be interpreted broadly should be in any way controversial. Vassyana (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both interpretations of "requesting" are reasonable, it's not as crystal clear as some on either side would make it out to be. If some people think it's what ArbCom meant, and some don't, isn't this a simple matter of using Wikipedia:Rfar#Clarifications and other requests? --barneca (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like there's something already sitting there on this with no ArbCom comment in two weeks. --barneca (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what's not clear here? He posted on a project page to advocate for a redirect. Under even the most generous reading of his restrictions, it's exactly what is prohibited. Vassyana (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not arguing that your block is unjustified under the Arbcom rulings. What I am arguing is that every previous block has been an illegitimate stretch of the arbcom ruling, and the instance you are blocking for is the first offense. Two weeks for the first offense when the ruling says a maximum of one week for repeated offenses isn't appropriate.

As to why it's controversial, it's because of the history of unjustified blocks. If this was the first bad call, I might shrug. Instead, it's an overlong block following a wholly unjustified one. That tends to make me see a pattern. Kww (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous block was reviewed and left in place, which indicated to me that it should be considered as a valid previous block. Even some of the editors who expressed concern about the particular block reason noted that there were other likely sanctionable actions. I therefore saw no reason to treat this as anything but a repeat violation of ArbCom restrictions within a short period of time. Vassyana (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I now see there's an open ArbCom request to clarify this very thing that hasn't been handled in a couple weeks. This block is not justifiable. To block someone for something that there's grave doubt whether it's a violation of the ArbCom remedy is just not supportable, in my eyes. Once ArbCom clarifies the situation, and if the behavior continues, I'd be fine if there was a block then. Now? Not justifiable. SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to call the AC on this, if they've let it go so long. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A plain and blatant violation does not need to wait on ArbCom to clear up the particulars of the boundaries. I truly cannot begin to fathom how there is any doubt, let along "grave doubt", that TTN violated his restrictions. Vassyana (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN has been violating the spirit of the injunction as well as sometimes the letter of the injunction. Pretty much every edit he makes is with the aim of merging fiction articles, although he no longer backs up his suggestions with edit warring. What kind of sanctions are then in order, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What has worked for other users' policy sanctions is to totally bar them from the area of interest that keeps getting them in trouble. TTN is a good editor. Perhaps a ban on any username of his from fiction articles for x months will put a stop to this? There are millions of other articles he can work on. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Peregrine Fisher - TTN has shown himself to be a single-purpose account with no other purpose to being here other than removing material. End of story. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Lawrence Cohen has a good point. A topic ban may resolve the issue without removing a contributor, and it provides a more focused solution. Vassyana (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How is a topic ban any different from the restrictions placed now? He will just interpret it some other way to continue what he wants to do. He has had months of AN/Is and other conflict to do something (anything!) other than work to deleting and removing material and has done none or very very little. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We've put "do not discuss" topic bans on people before. Privatemusings had one where he couldn't even discuss BLPs, Everyking can't even discuss Phil Sandiferer, and we've had others. It would be different if there was a total "no fiction articles discussed or edited in any space on this website" restriction. If he's here for Wikipedia and not his own ends, he'll keep editing new or different things. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, except he can email other people to do his requests. MBisanz ^talk 05:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And if similar disruption causes problems for the normal workflow with other editors, then we can look at sanctions there too. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 06:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if TTN would start going after african villages, human genes, or whatever or if he would start writing articles. He might just quit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If TTN was to go and redirect all the unneccessary album articles, and have all of the non-notable schools and myspace bands deleted, i'd wouldn't have a problem with it --Jac16888 (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

doing this as TTN did, by mass redirects of hundreds of articles, would of course be equally disruptive on any topic whatever. DGG (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For example (not endorsing this for TTN, nor am I not not endorsing it--its just an example), a similar ban was placed on User:Whig in regards to Homeopathy articles, as seen at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. Whig's activities have been almost non-existent since the sanction was Arbitration Committee endorsed, as seen here, which may reflect that without the area of focus he was so hung up on, he was not here for any other reason after all. If TTN similarly vanishes, without having the ability to eliminate fiction content from Wikipedia articles, the question would become how much net benefit do we get anyway from SPAs that leave waves of disruption in their wake? Things to consider. Should TTN be barred from fiction as Whig was barred from Homeopathy? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If we can agree to a topic ban, that TTN cannot edit, comment on, suggest, discuss, or mention any articles or content related to fictional media topics and projects, and that he may not contact other editors off-wikipedia to proxy edits, and that topic ban is to be construed broadly, I will unblock. MBisanz ^talk 09:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence's example of Whig is interesting. I also feel that SPA should sometimes be more broadly interpreted. People can get too involved in a single area even without being an SPA. Some people refuse to walk away from a subject area even if them doing that for a short while might be the best outcome. Short topic bans should be adopted voluntarily and should not be seen as a mark of shame. It is merely telling people to take a short break from an area and come back later. If the problems persist while x person is gone, then we know they are not the only source of the problems. If things improve, well then... (I'm thinking of other areas here, not just the fiction-related content). Carcharoth (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to endorse the two week block as well until such time that a topic ban is enacted. After reviewing the contributions, his imposed restrictions, and his previous one week block for violating said restrictions, this user deserves the block and a possible topic ban. No one editor is indispensable to the project, and if the discussed topic ban is enacted and the user all but quits editing (i.e. Whig example above), then there is a positive net gain: the disruptive editing and trolling ceases. Perhaps the editor can work elsewhere more diligently... seicer | talk | contribs 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

None of TTN's recent edits are disruptive, and they sure as hell are not trolling. Please use your head before making slanderous accusations against editors in good standing. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Note. I have made an unblock proposal to TTN.[18] If he agrees to fully refrain from initiating merge/redirect/etc discussions, and to avoid getting others to so do on his behalf, until the ArbCom clarifies his case, I am willing to unblock immediately. Vassyana (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN accepted.[19] He is unblocked. Vassyana (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pixelface

I know I've been asked to disengage on this issue by two people, but I think we need some comment on this - I'm a bit worried about Pixelface's actions. If TTN is disruptively deletionist, Pixelface is disruptively inclusionist, to the point where he got two blocks - one for harassing me, and one for edit warring on WP:NOT. This latest AE request looks like another instance of possible inflaming the dispute. Comments? Sceptre ^(talk) 10:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not shoot the messenger or start playing tit-for-tat. Catchpole (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's shooting the messenger when the messenger isn't entirely blameless - two blocks on an E&C party for being disruptive in fiction doesn't look good on someone. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Pixelface, Sceptre, Eusebeus, TTN and others should all take a voluntary two month break from fiction related articles and see if the atmosphere improves without them? No offence intended, but sometimes removing the most active and forceful editors lets others participate and things go in a different direction, hopefully for the better. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't take a break - I've agreed to help write some fiction articles in the near future - and as next week is Sweeps week, I doubt a break would be much help anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweeps week? Maybe Sweeps? Ah, right, I see: Nielsen Ratings#"Sweeps". Creating redirect. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, blame Bruce Almighty and my current location - turns out it's four weeks long, but regardless, most of the season finales for shows not impacted by the writer's strike too much (e.g. House, Grey's Anatomy) is next week (Lost's is two weeks time) Sceptre ^(talk) 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, I reported TTN to AE because I was reading WT:AFD, which Masem linked to from WT:NOT, which you know I've been commenting at for quite some time now. At WT:AFD, Masem mentioned TTN and linked to a thread TTN started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. I looked at that thread and Anomie asked TTN "Weren't you restricted from requesting merges, redirections, or deletions of character articles?" I looked up the thread and TTN had requested a merge of TV character articles on a project page, which is a violation of his restrictions. My two recent blocks have nothing to do with TTN and your suggestion that reporting an editor to AE for violating their restrictions is "inflaming the dispute" is ridiculous. You say I was blocked twice "for being disruptive in fiction" but that's false. Refuting all your false claims about me is getting really old. Now excuse me while I disengage. --Pixelface (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you will have your work cut out for you if you want to demonstrate that a successful AE request is disruptive, unjustified, harassment, or needlessly inflammatory. Pixelface certainly has disruptive things on his record, adding merge tags to Haydn symphonies comes to mind, but I cannot see that his activity in reporting TTN to AE was among those disruptive activities. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On its own, you'd be right. But he's got a recent history of disruption, and as Eusebus points out, Pixelface had no interaction with TTN on the articles he was blocked for. I think even the AE result is being contested. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How about reporting Eusebeus to Arbcom enforcement for a series of edits that were

1. Over a week old
2. Already settled by discussion between Eusebeus and Jac16888 on their talk page
3. Already settled by a parallel discussion between me and Alaskan Assassin on my talk page? [20][21]
4. Doing this during the middle of this particular storm?

Classing his Arbcom enforcement report as "successful" is accurate only in the most sardonic of ways. He persuaded admins to block TTN when TTN had not violated his sanctions. He and others have managed to get admins to block him for a total of three weeks, and discuss his "pattern" of misbehaviour when, in fact, the first block was completely unjustified and the second was much longer than the Arbcom restriction he is accused of violating would permit.

If we get to hand out two-week blocks like bags of candy, I think feeding Pixelface's sweet tooth would do more to calm this controversy down than giving one to TTN.Kww (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Arbcom clearly stated "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions." We do not need to denigrate Pixelface for avoiding edit-warring and notifying administrators of problematic behaviour. Catchpole (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that Pixelface's current activities at least at WT:NOT over WP:PLOT could be argued "broadly" as failing to work collaboratively with others to resolve policy issues and could be considered a form of edit warring. Mind you, P is definitely standing up for something he believes in, which cannot itself be penalized in any way, but there's a difference between trying to work with other editors, and standing at the same spot and yelling until one is blue in the face, refusing to move from a position. Am I asking for a block on P now? Heck no, but I think it's important to look at P's larger activities as we are doing with TTN's larger activities to determine if a violation of ArbCom is occurring. --MASEM 13:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When considered in the context of Pixelface's ongoing and passionate arguments against WP:PLOT, AfD comments such as "there is no real world information policy" certainly seem rather disruptive... Jakew (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, could you give me a link to the real world information policy? --Pixelface (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Masem, if you could tell me who was involved in the recent edit war at WP:NOT that led to the policy being protected, I would appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite protected it from the changes that Hiding, Collectonian, Ned Scott, and DGG had made to it in the last day, but in light that policy pages are not trivial toys to be played with; significant changes to policy pages should be discussed first before they are made. --MASEM 14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And you think I haven't been discussing changes to a policy page enough? You're saying my comments at WT:NOT could be considered a form of edit warring? --Pixelface (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of the request by ArbCom that all parties work towards collaborative efforts to determine the resolve between policy and guidelines dealing with episodes and characters, and that by WP:EDITWAR that "confrontational edits" are considered a form of edit warring, technically yes. Am I going to ask for any enforcement on that? Definitely not, but it is appropriate to point to what's happening on WP:NOT as part of the larger consideration. --MASEM 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pixelface is Pixelface, TTN is TTN. Arbitration has failed to solve this issue twice. Does anyone believe the community can do better? If so, maybe an rfc is the better venue. Build a consensus on how best to deal with such situations. Hiding T 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I had not the least objection to the protection,and Hiding also stated his agreement with it. B&R having been done to see if there was a consensus, its time for further discussion. I do not think it amounted to edit warring yet, but the disagreement was enough that the protection was a reasonable thing to do time, to prevent what probably would have been edit warring. I think we can reach an acceptable wording eventually. However, we do need away to mark that some section of a policy is disputed. DGG (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topic ban for TTN

Several users have mentioned that a topic ban may be appropriate for TTN, an idea that may be very helpful. What length would be appropriate? (Three months? One year?) What particular scope would be appropriate? (All fiction and fiction-related topics, broadly construed? Articles to which WP:WAF is applicable, and all related discussions?) Is a topic ban even appropriate and necessary? Vassyana (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably obvious from my previous comments, but I will go on record as opposing a topic ban. I agree that the tantrum that starts every time TTN edits an article is disruptive, but he is not the source of the disruption, his opponents are. Let's take his previous block, for editing Final Fight:Streetwise. He was criticised for removing about 80% of one of the cruftiest articles around, and turning it into a reasonable video game article. He made three different passes at it, and was reverted by Zero Giga and an anonymous IP. Each pass made an effort to address the previous concerns. This editing was broadly construed as requesting a deletion, so he got blocked for a week. This event is one of the clarifications that Arbcom is so studiously ignoring. Black Kite shows up a few days later, and, instead of removing 80% of the article, only removes 65% of the article. Not a peep. None of the editors that so cheerfully reverted TTN's edits wholesale found a single line of Black Kite's edits to object to. The only conclusion I can reach is that the editors that were reverting him were not motivated by the material: they were motivated by the fact that it was TTN that had made the removals.Kww (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, as they say. Regardless, TTN blatantly violated his ArbCom restriction with his recent actions. Some may be baiting or harassing TTN, but that is a seperate issue about another user that should be addressed in another subsection or thread. It offers no bearing on TTN's actions, such as using project space to request a redirect (an action specifically forbidden by his ArbCom restrictions). While you raised points that may be worth addressing, the actions of others are not a legitimate defense. Vassyana (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No strong argument with the existence of the latest block, just its length. There are interpretations that say that he didn't violate his restrictions, but I'm not going to fight hard for them. The problem is that so many people are arguing like he is a flagrant repeat violator and the restrictions need to be escalated into a topic ban. In fact, he is not a repeat violator: he is, at worst, a one-time offender. The arbcom restrictions call for a block of less than one week duration for his behaviour, and discussions of escalating it into a topic ban are completely unwarranted.Kww (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - indeed, it does take two to tango, which is why I don't think it should be just one side that gets hit. I'd be much more comfortable with general sanctions, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, Kww, what would you recommend? A general topic probation? A time out for all heavily involved parties? What do you think would be most effective and fair to all involved? Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Should I ever have suggested a topic-ban for TTN, then I was joking. I am doing the exact same trims as TTN (and this is my today's trim), I have redirected hundreds of episode articles, but still you'll find my talk page and block log surprisingly empty. Why? Because removing excessive plot summaries and unsourced trivia is not evil, it is quality control per policies and guidelines. And people see that I occasionally work on GAs and FAs (where massive trimmings are always the first step). And I ask nicely before I merge or redirect. And I tend to only edit abandoned fiction articles where people have lost their fanatic fan attachment. Too bad people are seeking revenge on TTN for his former bad civility habits and now for daring to politely suggest improvements to articles that are not abandoned yet - I can't think of another explanation for why he's in "ban"-worthy trouble and e.g. I am not. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As to why TTN is in "trouble" and you are not, the arbitration committee specifically restricted TTN from performing certain actions for six months. And you can read the E&C2 workshop page for past discussions of topic bans. While your block log may be empty, I don't have to remind you that you were an involved party of the E&C1 case. --Pixelface (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Even before the arbcom result became official, I asked nicely why TTN gets singled out. I never got an answer, and I still don't understand why he gets punished, and why e.g. you and I don't. Almost all of his old edits reflect policies and guidelines, but granted, he had occasional issues with incivility, boldness and editing speed. And now the restriction, which I sincerely hope was just intended to prevent his bad habits and not his good skills, gets "broadly interpreted" that he can't even improve the encyclopedia by being nice, not bold, and slow. Block TTN for gross incivility, block him for boldly merging stuff, block him for running around like a bot. But don't block him for nicely pointing out terrible articles (where others can decide if his judgement is bad) or for trimming material that shouldn't have been there in the first place (which was never part of the restriction). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If we could get TTN to work collaboratively like you, that would be great. He still isn't civil and still hasn't shown he can actually improve an article (other than deleting large sections). The feeling I get from his comments are that he would edit war in a second if that wasn't prohibited. Maybe a topic ban can help him learn to be like you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a ban on edits other than adding sources? Forcing him to add some sources would probably improve his radar for what is fixable and what isn't. It used to be I'd revert him and add a source. He'd then revert. I'd revert him and add another source. He'd then revert, and so on. He needs to learn something about the improvement side of wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to backdoor decisions that were rejected by arbcom, are we? Absolutely not. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussing matters on a noticeboard is hardly "backdoor". ArbCom has also made it clear that the community can discuss and enact restrictions on AN/ANI. Please take a breath. Vassyana (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, what's wrong with you? I read every word of that arbcom case, and was even a party of it, and I can tell you that I never once considered the restrictions to mean that he couldn't start a thread in the talk namespace. TTN dealt with a lot of things by force that he shouldn't have, but he was always willing to follow policy. He came back before his six month restriction to engage in discussion, something he was never sanctioned for, and something all of us wanted him to do more of. He does not have a topical ban specifically because such a ban was shot down by arbcom, and because it doesn't help anyone. TTN has made a huge amount of positive contributions to the project, and there's a lot of us that are going to make sure he's still able to continue to do that. We wanted him to improve his methods so that things didn't get so heated, and so that he would stop forcing things, regardless of who was right or wrong. If he thought that the arbcom ruling meant that he shouldn't be starting threads on the talk page, he wouldn't be. You have no clue about TTN, do you? It's so easy to see him as a villain, isn't it. It's sickening to see admins here not only endorsing this ban, but suggesting that running him off the project would be a positive gain for us. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the talk namespace. He requested a redirect in the project namespace, which is explicitly against his ArbCom restriction.[22] Vassyana (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a talk page, just like this one, that is only in the project namespace because of technicalities. I can't believe you made a two week ban over such trivial nonsense. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned, what do you think the term project page means in this sentence? "TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." What action would TTN be doing if he made an edit to a project page that amounted to a request for a redirect? Does TTN have a history of putting merge tags on project pages? What do you think the arbitration committee meant when they included "or project page" in their ruling? Why do you think the arbitration committee included that phrase in their ruling? --Pixelface (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OH, I don't know, maybe guidelines and policy pages. Let me repeat something, since you are having such a hard time understanding it: "He came back before his six month restriction to engage in discussion, something he was never sanctioned for". It doens't make any sense, not even by a stretch, that they would sanction TTN from starting talk page threads. And on a side note, it is shameful the way you are campaigning to drive TTN off the project because of what amounts to a content dispute. Who's next? Will you be supporting a bogus block on me if it suits your needs? -- Ned Scott 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines? That's a bit outside the scope of reason. It's highly unlikely he'd be making an edit "that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding" to such a page. It's even more improbable that such a narrow restriction was intended. If such limited scope was the intent, ArbCom almost assuredly would not have used a wide reference to project space, nor used the qualifier "to be interpreted broadly". Vassyana (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We specifically talked about it on multiple occasions, regarding if TTN was allowed to ask another editor to redirect or merge something, during and after the arbcom case. As a party of that case, and one who agreed that TTN was going the wrong way about some of his tactics, I can assure you that most of us were under the honest impression that there were no restrictions to discussions. It doesn't make any sense for arbcom to restrict him from project talk spaces.

Further more, TTN even stated that he wasn't under that impression, and pleaded that we get clarification from arbcom. We had requests for clarification for that same case that was weeks old, and we still haven't heard anything from them.

TTN is a good editor. Just because someone has arbcom restrictions placed on him doesn't suddenly make that person a delinquent. I don't think TTN ever had any real issue with civility, and get I see people bringing that up. You guys don't even know what you're talking about, and you're just assuming that he's out there to be a bad boy. We don't throw away AGF for every aspect of an editor, simply because they had some problems handling certain situations.

And yet you still went and blocked him. Talk about completely missing the point. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I respect a lot of what you say, but you need to calm down. I'm not "campaigning to drive TTN off the project." He's welcome to contribute to the site. But he violated the restrictions that the ArbCom imposed upon him. And I'm not the only one who thinks that. And I suggest you send an email to the arbcom mailing list for clarification of their ruling, lest you find yourself blocked for meatpuppeting for TTN through email. --Pixelface (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't get blocked for meat puppetry if I'm not acting as a meat puppet. I've offered to consider TTN's requests, but never to blindly act upon them. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While I have tangoed with TTN on a couple occasions, I've never doubted his sincerity in wanting to improve the project. While I don't like the tactics he's used in the past, if he wants to change, I'm all for it. If he can somehow learn to not act how he has in the past, let's let him do so. That's the whole point of what people were trying to get him to do, and now that he's showing some signs of it, people are wanting to slap him with topic bans for a year? That's just absurd. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Restrict him from any of the kinds of stuff he likes to fight about—essentially anything related to popular culture—for a year. Anyone else waging the same campaign with the same tactics should be subject to the same restriction. Everyking (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't fighting about anything, he was engaging in valuable discussion on actual article issues (and ones where several other editors in good standing agree with him). TTN is already under a restriction, because the only thing he was doing wrong was forcing edits/ edit warring. This activity in discussions was never an issue, and it certainly isn't here. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• TTN is prohibited...from making any edit to an article or project page...that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor. TTN started a discussion advocating a merge, the result of the arbcom made it clear thats he's not allowed to, and the arbcom clearly meant that a prohect page counts, otherwise why would they include it. While TTN probably should have only been blocked a week, as per the ruling, it should be noted that he hasn't requested an unblock<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> himself--Jac16888 (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. He could be guilty, he could be willing to take the block, or he could be holding back an unblock request because of what I perceive as a lynchmob who will stick him into a room with Charles Manson and not look back if he so much as pops in colored contact lenses. I'm guessing the third. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 06:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn, you've found me out. Now what should i do with my charles manson room? Seriously though, the arbcom ruling does clearly state one week, he would be perfectly justified in asking for a block reduction at least. I would grant him one--Jac16888 (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• He has contacted me asking me for assistance. He believes that his latest block is unjustified. I can see his point, but, as you can see, I haven't been fighting for that, because a literal reading of the text does prohibit that edit (although I will say that I believe the "project page" language was intended to prohibit creation of AFDs and similar pages, not postings on noticeboards or wikiproject talk pages). I think that it is worthy of clarification, and that his existing block should be shortened to time served.Kww (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from TTN (posted by request from his talk page) I go with that I am not allowed to merge, redirect, or delete articles, and I am not allowed to make requests for such actions on articles or project pages. I am allowed suggest such things on the pages of the articles and projects, and contribute to XfDs and other similar discussions. I started discussions on a few projects, so that shouldn't be a problem. If someone really, really wants to be literal about the fiction noticeboard (it is an open forum like any talk page) not being acceptable, fine, but that should come with a warning rather than a block. Until they clarify it otherwise, this really seems unwarranted. TTN (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topic Ban for Kww

For people that care to register an opinion on the topic, Kirill has proposed a topic ban for both me and TTN here. Can't say that I'm thrilled.Kww (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving long discussions to subpages

Lately there's been a lot of this at AN, ANI, and some village pump pages. I wanted to get people's takes on this, as while I understand and appreciate the intention, I myself find it rather annoying. Whenever a discussion is moved onto its own page, it can take a while for its participants, or even people just watching the discussion who haven't commented, to realize that the conversation was moved, since they of course won't automatically have the new page in their watchlists. The discussion could go on for a while before certain people realize what happened, with developments occurring that people may want or need to know about immediately. I don't think having a long discussion residing at AN or ANI is disruptive enough to warrant this and I'd like to suggest that the practice be stopped. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

at 200k for the discussion and still growing? Watchlisting will not help as the edits come faster than you can check - and when you see them missing you check the pagehistory and voila see what happened. Should be done more often for all the dramaz. Agathoclea (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't even necessarily notice anything's missing. When there are constant edits made to a conversation occurring at a page you have watchlisted, you have a lot of chances to see that it was edited. If a discussion gets moved off that page, you have one chance to see that happen. After that, you might not necessarily notice anything missing, even if you do happen to look at the page randomly afterwards. There are only a select few major participants who would go specifically looking for it. Casual participants or viewers wouldn't. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I know moving a page adds it to watchlists. If there was some way to have MediaWiki see it as a move, without moving the originating page it would be a good thing. MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. In the meantime though I think the practice should be, as we say, frowned upon. Or at least it should be proposed/discussed first in a subsection of the pertinent discussion. These moves are usually done by one person randomly, with little or no discussion about it. An effort should be made to at least make the participants aware that the move will happen/has happened. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an (admin only) "add Bar to all watchlists that also include Foo" button, but I think you're overstating the problem. The length of this page pre-move, and its level of activity, was utterly ridiculous. If you got one edit conflict on an entirely different section, you'd get five more with contributors to the drama thread before you manage to get your comment in. Without the split, this page would now be over half a megabyte of wikitext: that means if you get an edit conflict, the page that loads is well over a megabyte in size. Spare a thought for those poor editors without the luxury of high-speed internet connections. Happy‑melon 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

One idea could be a bot that follows the subpage and made a null-space edit to the main noticeboard page indicating a changed as occurred at subpage:X. MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's only a problem in the brief transition period before everyone realises that the discussion has been moved, I don't think something like that would be necessary. As I've said, I really don't think it's that much of an issue: it's really not hard for a competent wikipedian to track down where the discussion has gone. It helps if the splitter uses an informative edit summary, of course. Happy‑melon 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an issue for people who realize the discussion is missing from the page, but it is an issue for those that don't. I think a bot is a good idea, although I was thinking more in terms of leaving a talk page message for all the participants. I'm afraid MBisanz description was a bit beyond me in tech-speak. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

SCORE! You got my name right. Basically it would be a bot editing the main noticeboard page and only creating an edit summary that there was a change at the split-off page. MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a similar problem though, just creating one edit summary that's easily missed. I think the user talk page message idea is better, and still feasible, I think. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole of AN's wikitext was about half a Gigabyte before the Betacommand discussion (which has surprisingly already grown about another 30 Megabytes since the move) was moved. FunPika 22:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this one of those british/american things. Right now I'm seeing the page as 348,567 bytes meaning 348 kilobytes. I know my connection could never handle a half a gigabyte page, which would be a little smaller than an entire CD-rom. Also, note, FunPika is referring to the split to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry, not the split to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand in February (Should the newer be merge to the older?) MBisanz ^talk 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean kilobytes. The subpage is at about 160 kilobytes now. 30 megabytes is more like a video clip. In any event, I understand the intention. I simply think the participants being informed should be more of a priority. A single edit summary isn't sufficient. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though the text is around ~700 kB for this page, it compresses down to ~200 kB, and transcluding the subpage negates the (relatively small) size savings.... 96.15.106.42 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• slaps self with wikitrout* Of course it was half a meg... FunPika 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)The split was actually proposed on the talkpage, and as such would be visible in the watchlist a little longer than here. Also to address the other point - at a particular size transclusion should be avoided as well. Agathoclea (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not have a navigation box for currently active AN subpages? I don't feel brave enough to copy the code from {{cent}}, but that would be the general idea. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New arb clerks and clerk helpers

On behalf of the arbcom, I am pleased to announce that User:Coren and User:Jayvdb are now official arb clerks and that User:Nishkid64 and User:Ryan Postlethwaite are now clerk helpers. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk helpers? Oh the bureaucracy.... Mr.Z-man 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Merely clerks in training. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure why we need official clerks/helpers. Why can't anyone help out? It's a wiki... people shouldn't be prevented from helping if they don't hold a meaningless title. Al Tally (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here. Al Tally (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP used as advertising?

Resolved. DianeFinn blocked as a sock of Dereks1x

Two mediators have said that Barack Obama is a very contentious article and difficult to edit. That's why I seek a larger opinion. The question is not whether this sentence or that sentence belongs. The question is one of subtle advertising...is it allowed per WP:ADVERT?

Barack Obama's article has a political positions sections. This is being used as an advertisement. Those who support Hillary would probably like to smear Obama in this section and those who support Obama want the advertisement. So both sides probably want it. What is better for WP?

Richard Durbin is the other U.S. Senator from Illinois. No such section. Jimmy Carter is a former president, like Obama will be someday. No such section.

Political positions information may be ok and inserted into his biography if they are part of his Senate accomplishments and then would be in the Senate section. Political positions sections could also be in the 2008 Obama campaign article. Leaving out political positions also would help reduce edit warring as there would be no section to battle.

Admin attention and comment is requested because the larger issue of advertisement in WP is at stake. Uninvolved admin can see the forest and not the individual trees. They could comment here about whether my analysis about advertising is logical. That's why this is in AN. DianeFinn (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't live in the US and couldn't care less who wins, there's no earthly way a straightforward summary of a political position is advertising. Whyever would you think it is? The British equivalents (David Cameron#Policies and views, Gordon Brown#Policies, Nick Clegg#Beliefs), all exist perfectly happily, as do Hillary Clinton#Political positions and John McCain#Political positions. — iridescent 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The selection of which political position to write is very much opinion. So is balancing how one describes the issues. More importantly, why is the man's changing positions part of a biography? Why is it that just a campaigning politician gets such section, not other politicians? Why is it that issues that were important before and in previous campaigns not listed? (Is it that old issues are stale for advertising but current issues are ripe for advertising?) I bring the inappropriateness of such section up since it is a larger question for admin, not just specific for Obama. It could easily be used as advertising in Clinton, McCain, Cameron, etc. DianeFinn (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just a content dispute. There is no need for admin intervention. Suggest marking as resolved and leaving for dispute resolution (frankly, you have a better argument if you wanted to AFD Political positions of Barack Obama and force a remerge back into the main article). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT a content dispute but a larger question for Wikipedia. If you ask the advertisers, they aren't going to admit it is advertising. The larger question for WP is whether advertising is allowed and if sections can be used as advertising. Solving the issue here will solve the issue in several articles of politicians who are campaigning for office. Solving the issue here also eliminates the idea that it is an attack on Obama as the problem is solved systemwide (a few politicians), not just for Obama.DianeFinn (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is "a larger question for Wikipedia" then you should be bringing it up on the Village pump. AN is for administrator action, not for general consensus on Wikipedia policies and suggestions. -- Kesh (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Peterpipper

Resolved. blocked per WP:NLT

A quick glance at the users talk page shows legal threats agents the wikimedia foundation. Also this edit also shows signs of legal threats and disruption. The user has already been blocked indefinatly as a sock of User:Chris19910. I beleve that a ban by the wikipedia community would be appropriate here. Mww113 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support As reporter. Mww113 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

They have already been blocked per WP:NLT. This doesn't need all this voting stuff... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Mww113 (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In response to some external criticism

I meant to post about this blogging much earlier today, but unfortunately I had to make some money. I don't want to argue about the contents or points in, but Massey's comments raise some questions:

• Why is using the word "Wikipedia" in a user name not allowed? (Although I have no strong opinion about the matter, this is the first I have heard about it.) And why is this reason not clearly documented in a location a new user will see? Wikipedia: Username policy does not explain why.
• Why was an article indefinitely semi-protected? I'm not interested in arguing whether or not the article mentioned in this blog should be protected, but I would hope the usual procedure is to discuss the matter before applying any protection indefinitely. And if this is not policy, I think it should be: one can always protect an article for a couple weeks, then change the period to indefinite.

Or am I out of touch with reality, as I often seem to be nowadays? -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As to the name, for me that would fail under "an impression of undue authority" in Wikipedia:Username_policy#Inappropriate usernames. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the protection, indefinite != infinite. Anyone can request unprotection on WP:RFPP, on the talk page, or on the protecting admin's talk page. The article had been semiprotected 3 times in the past due to vandalism by anonymous users - 4 days in November 2006, 4 months in mid-2007, and then a couple weeks in late 2007. The blogger in question must have been gone from Wikipedia for a long time, protections are generally not discussed on article talk pages but on WP:RFPP. The length of the protection is up to admin discretion. I think the history of the page from late February (shortly before it was protected) makes it quite clear why it was protected. Mr.Z-man 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it might be helpful to link the relevant page protection discussion from the article's talk page, for the info of newbies who don't know about RFPP. Dcoetzee 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dcoetzee's suggestion would be the minimum needed to help someone with no knowledge about Wikipedia practices to understand why a given page is protected. And as for the semi-protection, a glance at the history shows that within the last 48 hours the page was vandalized by someone using a sleeper account. In other words, we make Wikipedia harder for the newbies while barely slowing down the vandals. That's not something to be comfortable about defending. -- llywrch (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So instead people should just spend their time reverting vandalism for days on end, yes, that's a much better solution, I don't know why we use protection at all</sarcasm>. Mr.Z-man 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is only going to get worse with the autoconfirm increase. Most people don't know how to navigate the various bureaucracies of Wikipedia that aren't part of the namespace. "Oh, you want to fix that typo? You'll either have to wait 7 days and get 20 more edits, or you can go to this other page called RFPP and fill out this form, where it'll get processed in a few hours ..." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The message displayed when trying to edit a protected page gives: a link to the article's protection log, a quick explanation of semi-protection, an invitation to use the talk page, and a link to RFPP. If anything we're giving them too much information. Requests on RFPP are uaually handled within minutes as well. Mr.Z-man 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. That would happen if an IP clicked View Source, but why would one? The image Padlock-silver.svg now links to the relevant part of the protection policy when used as part of template:pp-semi-protected, which is a recent development. However this is often not placed on the article by s-protecting admins. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Username policy is fucked. You're welcome to participate in discussion at the various username places - RFCN, UAA, Username policy, etc. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the Username policy: no matter what the rules are, some body is going to be unhappy. What I'm concerned about is explaining the rules so anyone who is a stranger to Wikipedia can understand them. -- llywrch (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Names containing Wikimedia Foundation trademarks generally aren't allowed because, well, they're trademarks. Same if you registered a name with "Pepsi Hound": you don't own the right to use the trademark to represent yourself. Gracenotes^T § 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very much not how the username policy works. If you look in the username policy, you will not see anything saying it should be used to enforce a dubious extension of trademark law. The name "WikipediaFixer" was blocked because TWINKLE users dig through the new user list to find every name they could possibly block under any crappy justification, to rack up a high score at the Award Center or in their admin coaching ("hmm, you might be qualified, but first you should go get 20 noobs blocked at UAA"). Feel free to help fix the username blocking process, so that people who invent their own rules don't keep alienating newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No one blocked WikipediaFixer: "wikipedia" is blacklisted. An older version of WP:U (which probably ranks as one of our most volatile policies) prohibited names with Wikimedia Foundation projects in it; it looks like that clause is no longer there, as is the clause about trademarks. The rationale for prohibiting WikipediaFixer was something like (and I guess I was wrong about the it): "In my opinion, 'wikipediasteve' is inappropriate, but borderline. I wouldn't suggest blocking anyone who is using such a name already, but they should be banned going forward. I don't understand why they haven't been already, always. It isn't about the trademark, at all. It's about good user behavior, I think. The point is, we should not represent ourselves as being official or whatever." —said Jimbo, Feb 2007. Gracenotes^T § 03:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive tagging by Die Profis

Since I unblocked Angela (with Nakon's consent), Die Profis has gone and tagged every single image she uploaded as G12 speedy-eligible, and removed them from articles ... without specifying where the image was copied from. This appeared to be some sort of retaliatory tear, and I have reverted some of the edits and warned him that any further activity will get him block.

Die Profis only began editing six days ago, and the bulk of his edits are here on this thread or the taggings today. Is his behavior consistent with any other known editors or sockpuppeteers? Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I just noticed that one of the photos that the person uploaded I have seen somewhere else before and checked to see if there were any more problematic images. I asked what to do here [23] and just followed instructions after presenting evidence. I have had no malice towards the person who did them, but there is something fundamentally wrong about taking images and passing them off as their own. Especially the most blatant one of a photo of New York in the 1970s which they claimed was self-made, but they on their user page claim to be a "20 something photgrapher" - so unless they have a time machine, they could not have taken a photo of New York City then. The evidence was a pattern of behaviour, something that hopefully will change in future. I had no malice or no desire to have anyone banned, just wanted to make things right. I did not take unilateral action, I asked what was the proper thing to do after finding a problem. Die Profis - Die nächste Generation (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User removing my cut/paste notices

For some reason User:Brian Boru is awesome‎ decided to WP:Stalk my edits and remove my comments from editors whose cut/paste moves I've had corrected in the past few months. These were legit notices and I'm curious as to why a random editor is deleting my comments. It also looks as if this editor has also removed many disrutived editing notices from their own talk page as well.

Maybe because they think chiding people for things they did over a year ago is a little over the top. Corvus cornix_talk 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, these error were only recently found. I didn't realize that going unnoticed for a period of time allowed uninvolved users to remove others comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.79.163 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't do RFA, do you, Corvus ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to say, Sceptre. Corvus cornix_talk 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it needs me to say "Zing!" at the end. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Or else I'm a little dense this evening.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain how its over the top when even Template:Uw-c&pmove states "Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.79.163 (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attention needed for Italian Empire, Italian Colonial Empire and Evolution of the Italian Empire.

Hello. I need immediate attention by an admin for User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's edits in these 3 articles. He does appear to really want to contribute to Wikipedia, especially in historical fields, but some of his methods are disruptive at least. At first, he cut and pasted the content of Italian Empire to Italian Colonial Empire' and then started a major elaboration of the article with more than 50 edits I think. I told him that this was inappropriate and then I signalled the case to [[[WP:SPLICE]]. After that, we regreted his move but...well I still can't understand what he did. I think he moved Italian Empire to Evolution of the Italian Empire, but couldn't understand what he was trying to do and especially why. So I need help to clear this mess up. For more understanding, I suggest you read our talk on this talk page and the splice entry along his comments. Thanks --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore this for now. Thanks. Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Krimpet for blocking User:Joelster's IP

Admin. Krimpet has blocked Jolster's Ip for one mistake for a logged out comment and personally I think that is just not right. The User that he commented did not care Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good block, given what the diff that caused the block. GRBerry 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GRBerry, logging out to vandalize is definitely inappropriate. This should have been discussed with the users involved before coming to AN as well. Mr.Z-man 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A silly block, IMO. I agree with Tree rocks, especially since the "victim" has said to unblock. And not necessary to be here at AN. Recommend an unblock of Joelster. This is blown way out of proportion. And that picture was really bad. And LL is way better looking than that picture. Ok, I've said enough...support unblocking of Joelster, per Lara. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove may not care at the moment, but I do. Why would logging out to perform drive-by a attack on another user ever be acceptable? Jokes happen, but this does not look like one; I'm unable to interpret this edit as anything but malicious, at this time. I see the user has a pretty solid history of contributing, but it has to be asked: is this the first time they've done it, or the first time they've been caught? Might support a block reduction, if it's made clear we'll see a return to productive editing, but I quite support Krimpet's original block. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Keeper, I don't think this has been blown out of proportion in the slightest. This was a completely inappropriate edit and a good block by Krimpet. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. Krimpet took an appropriate action (1 week block)[24] against an anon, 59.101.188.187 (talk · contribs), that made a clearly vandalistic edit.[25] As it turned out, the anon was Joelster's account, so Joelster was caught by the block, and immediately requested an unblock.[26] East718 reviewed the unblock request and declined,[27] and then also blocked the Joelster account itself for 175 hours.[28] Joelster has since "quit" wikipedia (see Meatball:GoodBye), and admitted that he made the edit while drunk.[29] LaraLove evidently doesn't care about the edit, and says it's okay with her if he's unblocked.[30] If Joelster promises to avoid this kind of behavior in the future, and East718 is consulted, I'd support an unblock. But I see nothing wrong with what Krimpet did. --Elonka 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If they were hammered, I think it would be appropriate to show leniency, provided we get some assurance that it never happens again. That changes the dynamic from "harassment and avoiding scrutiny" to "making silly edits while drunk", and I don't think my reaction would be proportionate to the latter offense. east.718 at 21:23, May 17, 2008
    • As a postscript, Joelster says he does not wish to be unblocked, but does wish to apologize, to LaraLove, east718, Krimpet, and the Wikipedia community in general.[31] --Elonka 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • As a post-postscript, Joelster was unblocked by east718 in light of his contrition (had to look that one up). He promises to stay cyber-sober in future, and is greatly enjoying making his first real edit in three days. He would like to thank those who (whether wrongly or not) showed concern for his block. He would like to point out that a proper reason for the original IP block would've been appreciated. He would also like to say that any edits (or emails) made in the following hours after his block were made while either pissed or pissed off. He does, in fact, have cojones (had to look that one up too). He is also getting the hang of referring to himself in the third person. Thankyou, good bye, and good luck. Joelster (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grawp

Last night, Grawp had more fun. He used about four accounts, before a checkuser found around 50 more. Grawp has taken a liking to rather common articles - yesterday, it was the letters of the English alphabet. I have move-protected all of them since. Now, following the pattern, I have a list of all number from 1 to 2500 (with talkpages) that can be move-protected all at will. Thoughts on move-protecting everything fro 1 to 2500, with talkpages? Maxim_(talk) 12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. There's never going to be a legitimate need to move those pages. Need help? Seraphim♥Whipp 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, no help really needed. It's a protect script... I'm still waiting on a few more opinions, we're talking about protecting 5000 pages. Maxim_(talk) 12:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm enthusiastic but, just like you, there's no way I would start something like that without seeing what other people think :). Seraphim♥Whipp 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, and as Seraphim says, there's no legitimate need to move pages like that. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no need to move mundane pages such as numbers, and protecting is an especially good idea if they are being targeted by everyone's favourite pagemove vandal. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 13:12, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any progress in getting his ISP to do something? Blueboy96 12:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Much as I dislike large-scale pre-emptive protection, the titleblacklist has been a complete failure and anything that slows this langer down or makes him less effective, I am in support of. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The titleblacklist has been ineffective because Grawp has demonstrated a fondness for obscure Unicode characters in his pagemoves. Unless we disallow Unicode in titles (which I don't see happening anytime soon), any flag that triggers on HAGGER?, HERMY? or somesuch will continue to be circumvented by Unicode. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is using TOR for the most part so any action against the ISP may be limited in its effectiveness. Like Willy on Wheels I suspect that there are imitators as well. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just imitators; it's rabid channers. I can attest to that; look at Ocean sunfish's day as FA and the fallout from that on my talk page (Administrator bit required to view the deleted revisions). It's why I don't allow any protection on my talk page aside from move-protection. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I might need a bot flag for this. I will clog RC for a few hours with this... Thoughts? Maxim_(talk) 13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Before we just go adding bot flags to accounts, can this task be added to an existing bot and send it up for a quick run through WP:B/RFA? Or a new bot request would be fine. Should be quick and painless that way, but there's no specific reason to circumvent the standard way is there? - Taxman ^Talk 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, as this is an adminbot. Maxim_(talk) 16:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the comment below the header about a blockbot about? Which bot is it? Stifle (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a blockbot that triggers when someone moves a page to something with HAGGER? or GRAWP in it. It shouldn't trigger with a topic header, but I feel like playing safe. :-p I've removed it for now, it's obviously haven't been triggered. :-p Maxim_(talk) 13:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is because Grawp uses Unicode, as explained above. It's unfeasible to block all permutations that involve Unicode. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'd better vote the hell out of bug 13811 then. In the the meantime, can someone please title blacklist ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿H@GGER!, ¿H@GGER! and Grawp's cock is bigger. (use .*Grawp.*)? MER-C 13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added .*Grawp.* to the titleblacklist, looks like someone is already working on the other odd character entries there. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped the numbers thing - it's just going to give him more ideas, and I might as well ask a developer to restrict moves to admins. I think now, the best course of action is to protect the FAs, as there's no need to move them, and Grawp targets them a fair bit. Maxim_(talk) 16:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Move-protecting articles and adding more filters to the titleblacklist are both a waste of time. You can blacklist thousands of variants of the word "HAGGAR" - he'll just change to another word or phrase, as he has already been doing. Move-protections on single articles that are obscure (like the number articles) will just add to the logs. Rate limiting page moves would be a good start to stop this crap - two moves per minute (article/talk) is enough for autoconfirmed users. Liberal usage of checkuser on these accounts is also a good idea. --- RockMFR 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any batch move protections. It's a waste of resources, it floods the protection logs, and it is only disruptive to legitimate contributors. While it is trivial to batch protect thousands of articles, doing so only prevents future legitimate page moves. If we protect every color, shape, country, etc., Grawp, et al. will simply pick another category (politicians, musical instruments, asteroids). Meanwhile, we've permanently harmed the wiki process. There is a very robust blacklist, as well as rate limits currently in place on page moves. There are far better solutions than locking everything down. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed Maxim's post above when I posted this. So, much of it is now irrelevant. Though, I did remember that, as far as I know, the title blacklist can be used to restrict moving while still allowing editing. So instead of 5,000 log entries, we can have one edit instead, if large-scale protection is really what is needed. It also can use custom error messages. \o/ --MZMcBride (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose any batch move protections, with the possible exception of FAs. "Numbers" as a genre of articles is really no different to "countries" or "actors"; at least FA articles are quantifiably different to the rest. SpamRegex is definitely the way to go. Happy‑melon 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unicode

I've been doing some number-crunching on character frequencies in page titles, and I've come up with some surprising results. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that I've done this right: according to my analysis, amongst all 2,500,000-some pages in the mainspace, we only use 199 distinct unicode characters. I'm having a pig of a time uploading anything meaningful on-wiki because I can't get my head around python's unicode handling, but if anyone who knows better than me can do something meaningful with the pickle string below, you can see what I'm getting at.

(dp0
S'\x83'
p1
I8667
sS'\x87'
p2
I5965
sS'\x8b'
p3
I836
sS'\x8f'
p4
I1127
sS'\x93'
p5
I8396
sS'\x97'
p6
I1482
sS'\x9b'
p7
I2400
sS'\x9f'
p8
I8665
sS'\xa3'
p9
I6548
sS'$'
p10
I473
sS'\xa7'
p11
I7099
sS'('
p12
I520744
sS'\xab'
p13
I6434
sS','
p14
I379569
sS'\xaf'
p15
I2412
sS'0'
p16
I228797
sS'\xb3'
p17
I19070
sS'4'
p18
I95185
sS'\xb7'
p19
I1004
sS'8'
p20
I94296
sS'\xbb'
p21
I3307
sS'\xbf'
p22
I1291
sS'@'
p23
I639
sS'\xc3'
p24
I212176
sS'D'
p25
I515283
sS'\xc7'
p26
I592
sS'H'
p27
I499030
sS'\xcb'
p28
I167
sS'L'
p29
I584949
sS'\xcf'
p30
I1197
sS'P'
p31
I643932
sS'\xd3'
p32
I40
sS'T'
p33
I678567
sS'\xd7'
p34
I2151
sS'X'
p35
I36258
sS'\xdb'
p36
I157
sS'\\'
p37
I216
sS'\xdf'
p38
I1
sS'`'
p39
I854
sS'\xe3'
p40
I4355
sS'd'
p41
I2124404
sS'\xe7'
p42
I1331
sS'h'
p43
I2232388
sS'\xeb'
p44
I256
sS'l'
p45
I3803175
sS'\xef'
p46
I631
sS'p'
p47
I1120927
sS'\xf3'
p48
I1
sS't'
p49
I4557004
sS'x'
p50
I168328
sS'\x80'
p51
I15285
sS'\x84'
p52
I3660
sS'\x88'
p53
I1712
sS'\x8c'
p54
I2876
sS'\x90'
p55
I1674
sS'\x94'
p56
I2252
sS'\x98'
p57
I1704
sS'\x9c'
p58
I1643
sS'\xa0'
p59
I4377
sS'\xa4'
p60
I9531
sS"'"
p61
I134509
sS'\xa8'
p62
I9503
sS'+'
p63
I2681
sS'\xac'
p64
I1341
sS'/'
p65
I34933
sS'\xb0'
p66
I4370
sS'3'
p67
I105181
sS'\xb4'
p68
I4774
sS'7'
p69
I89432
sS'\xb8'
p70
I7232
sS';'
p71
I322
sS'\xbc'
p72
I14927
sS'?'
p73
I4102
sS'C'
p74
I1024979
sS'\xc4'
p75
I26885
sS'G'
p76
I457896
sS'\xc8'
p77
I73
sS'K'
p78
I307749
sS'\xcc'
p79
I426
sS'O'
p80
I288226
sS'\xd0'
p81
I10714
sS'S'
p82
I1212568
sS'\xd4'
p83
I15
sS'W'
p84
I390232
sS'\xd8'
p85
I3944
sS'\xdc'
p86
I97
sS'_'
p87
I8750337
sS'\xe0'
p88
I2944
sS'c'
p89
I2123339
sS'\xe4'
p90
I873
sS'g'
p91
I1464171
sS'\xe8'
p92
I1108
sS'k'
p93
I834028
sS'\xec'
p94
I428
sS'o'
p95
I5815444
sS'\xf0'
p96
I133
sS's'
p97
I4080203
sS'w'
p98
I587026
sS'\x81'
p99
I8341
sS'\x85'
p100
I3029
sS'\x89'
p101
I4784
sS'\n'
p102
I5154485
sS'\x8d'
p103
I12888
sS'\x91'
p104
I2112
sS'\x95'
p105
I983
sS'\x99'
p106
I7269
sS'\x9d'
p107
I1168
sS'\xa1'
p108
I30193
sS'"'
p109
I12967
sS'\xa5'
p110
I3596
sS'&'
p111
I21153
sS'\xa9'
p112
I50984
sS'*'
p113
I1406
sS'\xad'
p114
I18469
sS'.'
p115
I272324
sS'\xb1'
p116
I8996
sS'2'
p117
I181510
sS'\xb5'
p118
I2106
sS'6'
p119
I91242
sS'\xb9'
p120
I2255
sS':'
p121
I44462
sS'\xbd'
p122
I3697
sS'B'
p123
I698222
sS'\xc5'
p124
I42738
sS'F'
p125
I443437
sS'\xc9'
p126
I554
sS'J'
p127
I320434
sS'\xcd'
p128
I23
sS'N'
p129
I397009
sS'\xd1'
p130
I3590
sS'R'
p131
I570863
sS'\xd5'
p132
I251
sS'V'
p133
I227065
sS'\xd9'
p134
I3031
sS'Z'
p135
I64252
sS'\xdd'
p136
I24
sS'^'
p137
I150
sS'\xe1'
p138
I2807
sS'b'
p139
I897661
sS'\xe5'
p140
I3071
sS'f'
p141
I966671
sS'\xe9'
p142
I1175
sS'j'
p143
I121495
sS'\xed'
p144
I139
sS'n'
p145
I5579897
sS'r'
p146
I5339876
sS'v'
p147
I720713
sS'z'
p148
I261690
sS'~'
p149
I723
sS'\x82'
p150
I8308
sS'\x86'
p151
I1609
sS'\x8a'
p152
I1112
sS'\x8e'
p153
I1190
sS'\x92'
p154
I935
sS'\x96'
p155
I1612
sS'\x9a'
p156
I1716
sS'\x9e'
p157
I1845
sS'!'
p158
I11489
sS'\xa2'
p159
I6904
sS'%'
p160
I187
sS'\xa6'
p161
I2937
sS')'
p162
I520239
sS'\xaa'
p163
I2770
sS'-'
p164
I397060
sS'\xae'
p165
I1795
sS'1'
p166
I278978
sS'\xb2'
p167
I2435
sS'5'
p168
I92025
sS'\xb6'
p169
I12601
sS'9'
p170
I164084
sS'\xba'
p171
I6468
sS'='
p172
I290
sS'\xbe'
p173
I3843
sS'A'
p174
I847600
sS'\xc2'
p175
I2020
sS'E'
p176
I382678
sS'\xc6'
p177
I296
sS'I'
p178
I387321
sS'\xca'
p179
I570
sS'M'
p180
I825081
sS'\xce'
p181
I4585
sS'Q'
p182
I42798
sS'\xd2'
p183
I63
sS'U'
p184
I205217
sS'\xd6'
p185
I328
sS'Y'
p186
I103946
sS'\xda'
p187
I79
sS'\xde'
p188
I69
sS'a'
p189
I7388108
sS'\xe2'
p190
I15293
sS'e'
p191
I7600450
sS'\xe6'
p192
I2052
sS'i'
p193
I6114440
sS'\xea'
p194
I124
sS'm'
p195
I1806311
sS'\xee'
p196
I41
sS'q'
p197
I69488
sS'u'
p198
I2368771
sS'y'
p199
I1303725
s.

Assuming that I've actually got that analysis right (I can publish the source code too if anyone wants to check it, it's only about fifteen lines), implementing a brutal regex into the titleblacklist (and spamregex blacklist when we finally get it) isn't going to be nearly as difficult as we suspected. Happy‑melon 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

one way to reverse pickle and have pywiki save them to a sandbox one character on a line. β^_command 17:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, one of us seems to have made some mistake, since I count 6617 distinct characters in mainspace titles. Here's a breakdown by Unicode block (made using Perl, Unicode::CharName and the database dump from March 25):

But yes, one could certainly turn this list into a big regexp, especially if one was to ignore the CJK ranges and perhaps make some other simplifications. Note that I've already added some regexps to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that should disallow most mixed-script titles, which should help a little. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, that list includes single-character titles, which are whitelisted anyway. Excluding those reduces it to 4179 characters (most of them still CJK ideographs):

I also have a complete list of the actual characters at User:Ilmari Karonen/Mainspacechars. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Again

• 25Robert25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

*sigh* Better update the blockbots, this one slipped through (all the characters are "HAGGER" + 1). I'd preemptively add "HAGGER" + any number from 1 to 25. Checkuser requested. MER-C 11:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think after people threatened to take the blockbot operators to ArbCom, they stopped running them. Mr.Z-man 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding an entry to {{watchlist-notice}} about Wikipedia 1.0 assessment scale survey

Would it be inappropriate to add a message about a survey regarding changes in the WP1.0 assessment scale to {{watchlist-notice}}? After all, the scale affects more than 1.25 million articles... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading over the voting, the part of the proposal saying "People involved in the discussion here vote on the changes proposed." popped out. But then later in the discussion, there is the talk of publicizing it. If the goal is to get as many editors involved in the vote, not just those who have been discussing it, then it doesn't seem like a bad idea. It does affect a lot of articles. -- Natalya 15:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Height}}

There is an error on this template and the template is premenantly protected and needs an administrator to fix theproblem. Please can an admininstrator oblige in fixing the error on the template.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you specify what is wrong and how you need it fixed? I don't see the error on a brief look at that template. I'll be here for a bit, and can edit it as needed. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The results column of the template for the botom entry reads in red writiing "Error: please specify only imperial or only metric units". This is what specifically needs fixings.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No that's correct - it's supposed to do that if you mix imperial & metric measurements. — iridescent 15:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Agreed, it's supposed to throw the error - it goes from Meters to Feet/Inches, and from Feet/Inches to Meters - it can't do both at once, thus the error. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection error

Hi; a page was marked as protected on RPP [32], and given the protected tag [33], but not actually protected. Could someone please oblige? Thanks :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Hope that'll stem 'em off!! —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Volunteers for the Wikipedia Fraud Protection Unit Доверяй, но проверяй.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved.

you win, I give up. BVande (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen false information in Wikipedia. Before I used to let to go since I was too busy.

We need to put a stop to this. We should tabulate fake information and see who is doing it. BVande (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit BVande (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Breathless defenses (ZOMG! False information!) of new bureaucracies (We're really going to fill out a report for every insertion of false information so that someone might investigate more thoroughly? And we're going to have a "Chief of Unit" and "Deputy Chief of Unit" to assist in reporting and investigation?) are almost always unpersuasive. This seems redundant to several other more streamlined processes and should be shuttered in short order. 68.249.4.205 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the IP edit?

I agree with IP. Too bureaucratic. If you see "fraudulent information", BVande, remove it. Or source it. Or bring it to a forum/talkpage for discussion. I don't believe we need yet another "forum". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Look again, the office holders were removed BEFORE your complaint. If a sneaky vandal puts bad information instead of blanking pages, nobody knows about it. This board will help fight it. If you say "just remove it" then why not end all blocking and just fix vandalism, don't block vandals. I think my idea is good. There is no bureaucracy. If errors are just honest mistakes, then we'll see. If an editor has lots of wrong information, then we will know about it, not let it ruin wikipedia. Bottom line: If you don't like it, don't help out. BVande (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What if we find out that the editor involved made 50 bad edits? This way we know. We AGF but verify. Доверяй, но проверяй. The famous Russian phrase "Trust, but verify". BVande (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you really just warn a long-term editor for a likely typo/innocent mistake he made in 2005?? This is Item #1 in Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit. If this is how you envision this working, then count me out too. --barneca (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this seems like useless process wonkery (Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy and all), it would seem to largely duplicate WP:CVU and WP:LTA. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you come across someone who has inserted bad info into an article is it easier to a) write a report for the fraud unit or b) check the user contributions of the editor to see if there's a pattern. Anyone with experience in this area on the wiki will always do the latter. Your first suspected "fraud" was an allegedly mistaken insertion of a person's age as 4, not 5, in a paragraph which otherwise was exemplary. This suggests to me that you do not even know what fraud is. With the best will in the world, your unit will not fly, because there are easier and less bureaucratic methods of investigation already available to us. I strongly suspect you are not very experienced in the mediawiki environment and have not grasped the fact that there are facilities - e.g. for enabling a users pattern of edits to be tracked - which render your unit redundant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Listed at MFD Nakon 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You win. I give up. BVande (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• You've been here 8 days. MickMacNee (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• And apparently, User:Art LaPella is an administrator [34] MickMacNee (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In fairness we only have BVande's word that Art is an admin. But the whole real name / drivers license check seems weird to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Art is an admin, but what does it matter whether Art is an admin or how long BVande has been here? J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 15 May 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] User rights

What's all this Special/?User rights lark? Am I to assume there are wikipedia admins that exist who do not have to be members of :Cat:Administrators ? MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators do not have to place themselves in that category, and it is unreliable anyway- non-admins can and have placed themselves in it. However, checking the userrights is guaranteed to reliably tell you whether the user is an admin or not. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not something that a non-admin can seen. What is the procedure for determining if a person is an admin, if one is not an admin?

(timely e/c)Ah right. Lets go back to Newbie 101 then, what is the cast iron method to find out if a user is an admin, as I have apparently been labouring under a misinterpretation around here thus far. MickMacNee (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can find out using Special:ListUser, it isn't limited to admins. When you use that special page (listed under "Special pages" in the right hand column) you can see the various rights: accountcreator, rollbacker, founder, admin, checkuser, steward, ipblock-exempt and anything I might be missing. Avruch ^T 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed userrights could be seen by non-admins, but not modified. Should have used listusers. Tired... Bed time... J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the magic page [35]. What a pain in the ass, why not just make cat:admin compulsory, and ban for abuse? MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be instruction creep. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is probably useless since I'm not pointing you in the right direction, but I know I've recently seen someone say they have a little thing they put in their monobook.js or .css that makes the signatures of admins do something; turn radioactive pink, or flash, or upside down, or maybe just be in bold, or something. If someone sees this and knows what I'm talking about, providing a link for MickMacNee would be good karma. --barneca (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts#Discussions there's an "Admin highlighter" script. -- Kesh (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, quickest way to use this: go to your monobook.js and copy & paste importScript('User:Ais523/adminrights.js'); there. Be sure to flush your cash, and it should start working. -- Kesh (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Depositing 10 quatloos in Kesh's karmic account. --barneca (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! … wait, what's the conversion rate on a quatloo? -- Kesh (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But watch out for people who have given their signatures a blue background. Thincat (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to change the background color by putting .ais523_adminrights_admin {background-color: #<hex color code goes here> !important} to your monobook.css page. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all very clever... right up to the point at which Ais523 changes their script, and all your accounts march off and destroy Tokyo <munches popcorn> SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)