Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive61

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 10 year old user with detailed information on userpage 2 Emmalina 3 Removing warnings templates 3.1 Arbitrary section break 3.2 Deletion Review 4 US midterm elections 5 Unresolved issue 6 Create account issue 7 Image dispute 7.1 (from WP:AN/I) 8 Ethicalhacker 9 Problem with user about his addition to Far Above Cayuga's Waters 10 Speedy deleting user talk pages 11 Randomness Vandalism 12 Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg 13 User:Panarjedde/appo 14 New block option 15 Help me spam 15.1 Spamming underway 15.2 Spam project? 16 Fast blanking of warnings from user talk page 17 Help at WP:CSD 18 Unblocking collateral damage assistance required 19 C.J. and C. J. 20 Indiana University Kokomo 21 List of best-selling computer and video games 22 Flowering plant 23 Moving Karnatka cities 24 Proposed indef-ban of User:SPUI 25 Vandal with grudge against William Connolley the user taking it out on the William Connolley article 26 WP:RM backlog 27 Email on "how wikipedia really works" by User:Tern 28 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi 29 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz 30 Template:Untrustworthy 31 User Page Vandalism 32 AOL vandal reverting User:Hu12's edits 33 WP:RFSL 34 Please delete 35 Unbifurcated users 36 StonedChipmunk warning templates 37 Is removal of warnings a no-no? 38 Vandalism on SCotUS page 39 History merge 40 Review a block I made on User:Bimzalazim 41 Different images with common name on wikipedia and commons 42 Quick help with some copyvio 43 www.stateuniversity.com 44 Requesting an impartial administrator's opinion 45 Whoa!! 46 Request for vandal user behaviour by Khoikhoi 47 AIV 48 Asinine behavior at RD 48.1 Community probation 48.2 Possible resolution 48.3 Another reference desk issue 48.3.1 Age of consent 49 Admin Act seems questionable 49.1 Not Free? How is that really germane? 50 Time to Test wikipedia: I need your help Please. 50.1 Why I Need Help 51 Wikipedia:Editor integrity 52 User:189.174.119.16

[edit] 10 year old user with detailed information on userpage

User:Ujjwal Krishna states where he lives and even has a photograph of himself on his userpage. This obviously comes under WP:CHILD. Thought I should bring it to someone's attention. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Not done. If I can still see the information, others can as well. Please, please, can people dealing with things like this get the process right. (1) Remove the information from immediate view; (2) Contact someone who can permanently remove the information; (3) Don't shout about it on a publically accessible noticeboard. Seriously. Shout about it publically all you like after the appropriate edits have been oversighted, but not before. In fact, someone should put a header up at the top of the page stating this: DO NOT PUBLICISE SENSITIVE ITEMS REQUIRING OVERSIGHT ACTIONS BY LINKING TO THEM. I know I'm WP:BEANing on this, but this point needs to be made forcefully. Carcharoth 05:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a wise thing to do by user, and Zscout370's action appreciated, but let's be aware that WP:CHILD is the subject of an arbitration case as to whether it has been rejected or is still proposed, or maybe even accepted. So let's be careful using it as a justification for edits. 157.191.14.26 18:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So it's at ArbCom now? Hmm..didn't know that. All I removed was just the name, where he lives, where he goes to school and the photo he used. The user wasn't blocked and I won't ask for one either. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that what is needed here is Wikipedia:Oversight? The actions taken so far have done almost nothing to protect anyone. If anything, this thread has made a problem visible and has helped reveal a potential target. The picture has been deleted though. Carcharoth 01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The information is still visible. Can someone please delete the relevant revision. Carcharoth 21:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Now dealt with. Carcharoth 02:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emmalina

So I've been going back and forth with User:JzG on this, and, while I have no doubts about his good faith in his actions and our discussion, I would very much like a neutral, uninvolved party to review what's gone on the last week and get some sort of motion on this.

Emmalina is a YouTube gal who's been the subject of multiple news stories. There were a number of AfD's, the third that was closed somewhat bizarrely as delete, and unfortunately upheld at DRV and turned into a redirect to Notable YouTube memes. When that was deleted, a second DRV occurred, with a number of people changing their positions based on the deletion. The vote count (see why DRV shouldn't be a straight vote?) was dead even, so Xoloz "played King Solomon" and left the deletion, but unprotected the redirect. Since that redirect, we had one anon try and resurrect the information outright, and a discussion was occurring before JzG decided to simply protect the redirect, essentially stopping discussion dead in its tracks.

Whether I think it's the right move to eventually keep the redirect in place is irrelevant (I think the original delete close didn't take our guidelines into effect at all), but it's obvious that consensus changed and the DRV closing reflected that. The protected redirect is helping nothing, and stifling the discussion to actually come to a consensus in light of the new events. I have no problem with rolling with what the consensus ends up coming to amongst the editors, but that would require us to be able to without this sort of intervention. I'm noting this at JzG's talk page so he can toss in his two cents, but I'd appreciate some neutral review on this. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Q. How does a protected redirect prevent further discussion?--Doc^g 14:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's stifling it. What's the point of discussion if nothing's going to come of it, for instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

But how is it 'stifling' the debate. Perhaps something or nothing will come of is - but there's no need to beggar the question.--Doc^g 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how requesting some neutral input into the action is begging the question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking for neutral input into the discussion isn't - but insisting that the protected redirect is removed prior to the conclusion of that discussion is. It doesn't need removed unless the discussion reaches that conclusion. It only needs removed now if you assuming the outcome of the discussion is to remove it - that's beggaring the question.--Doc^g 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent for interpolation.] Um, the expression is "begging the question". But "beggaring the question" is a nice eggcorn. Metamagician3000 00:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, given that I believe that he protection has effectively stifled debate, and was put in against what the DRV closing was, I disagree. Hopefully we can focus on the actual issue at hand whether than quesitoning whether I'm "beggaring the question." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

But you are still not explaining how protecting a page stifles debate. You aren't debating on the protected page, are you? The talk page isn't protected, is it? Go debate. If the result is a consensus to undo the direct then fine. If not, then the question doesn't arise. I still don't understand why you are on this page with this. If you want community input into a debate then there is RfC or DRV.--Doc^g 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that on a strictly path-of-least-resistance standpoint, you could always (1) start a discussion on the Emmalina talk page, (2) create a working copy in a sandbox off the Emmalina talk page, and (3) solicit some participation or discussion through appropriate RFCs, etc. If you end up with a well cited page in the sandbox and a consensus on the talk page to un-redirect, you'll have a much better case to re-open. TheronJ 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there already exists one in the history. The article has been through some rather bizarre discussions the last few weeks, and the sourcing and attention is in line with similar articles with similar notability (geriatric1927 comes to mind). We're actively abandoning our guidelines on this one (which we're prone to do), and I'd honestly rather see a new AfD with the lack of a notable YouTube memes article happen than the current situation - then we can ahve the protected redirect knowing it's a real consensus, and not just one person deciding they don't like the DRV result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, wacky. I can't say I wouldn't have closed the 3rd AfD as delete - in borderline cases, the admin has to use their judgment, and Deizio's judgment was delete. It looks like Xoloz's intention was to "see what happens", and what happened was the article was recreated. On the other hand, it is extremely suspect that it happened to be recreated by an anon whose only edit, ever, was to recreate the article. The main problem I have is that JzG's reprotection basically ignored process and made a spot judgment on the article's notability. He didn't explain the protection on the article talk page, and his conversation with Badlydrawnjeff is debating the notability of the article, not really explaining his action. I would be in favor of unprotecting and respecting Xoloz's DRV closure, but I think JzG's impurt would be valued here. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful, and I'd like him to give it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A very important clarification. The redirect was not to Notable Youtube memes, it was to Youtube. Deiz has explained (multiple times) that the existence of the Notable Youtube memes article played no part in the decision to delete the article [1] [2] [3]. As I have explained as well, the Notable Youtube memes article was created during the Emmalina AfD, was then AfD'ed itself almost immediately and quickly gained an overwhelming consensus to delete. This was two days before the Emmalina AfD was closed; basing the decision on the existence of Notable Youtube memes would have been very wrong, as that article was well on its way to deletion as well. WarpstarRider 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The existence of Notable YouTube memes largely contributed to how at least 3 people based their opinions at the DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rationale as stated several times: the consensus was not to have a separate article, notable YouTube memes got deleted so we should have a section on notable memes in YouTube and see where it goes. If it gets too big it can be forked. But we should stick to what is verifiable, factual information, and not fall prey to the ludicrous fandom which is so common in this kind of article. In other words, we do the same as we did with YTMND, where we leave it to their wiki to do the original research "look at this, k3wl" crap which causes so much trouble with neutrality, verifiability, sourcing and other WP policies and guidelines. And to be honest I am just the tiniest bit pissed off with endless wrangling about subjects which have no sources which meet our guidelines, which are trivially easy to find out about from the original source, which is still on the web. I did not think we were intended to be a mirror of Google or indeed YouTube. Guy 23:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing warnings templates

I have recently deleted a suite of user talk templates designed to dissuade targets from removing warnings from their user talk pages. In my opinion, the templates were collectively eligible for deletion under speedy deletion criterion number one for templates, "templates that are divisive and inflammatory". I consider them to be divisive and inflammatory for several reasons:

• The suite of templates threatens administrative consequences for removing warnings, including the protection of talk pages and the blocking of users;
• There is no consensus whatsoever on what the appropriate response should be to the removal of warnings (see Wikipedia:Removing warnings, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings and Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll);
• The suite of templates employs a stern and confrontational tone, and uses threatening language, which may be warranted when backed by strong consensus (for example, templates which warn against simple vandalism) but is not appropriate given that there is no consensus as to the appropriate generic response to removing warnings.

I invite the community's review of these actions.

As a note to users who employ these templates, I should add that given that there may be consensus about the appropriate response to removing warnings in individual cases, users should consider tailoring a message to each situation. --bainer (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this action. The warning templates have been a pernicious source of problems and disruption for so long, far outweighing any usefulnes they had to the community. When people are getting blocked for edit warring over internal templates, things have gone too far. If an editor is removing warnings in a problematic matter, a message more tailored to the situation would be more appropriate, especially because there is little agreement over what situations qualify as problematic. As to the deletion of these templates, I suggest that IAR applies in this case, if nothing else. --Slowking Man 11:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur completely. In some situations there is a carefully-crafted system for escalating warnings, to enable admins to work together to deal with a serial offender: this is a good reason for using graduated warning templates. In other cases, however, the "one size fits all" approach simply fails to meet requirements: this is an obvious example. There is no consensus as to how long people are required to keep warning templates around, even: I have even seen people advocating that such templates should never be archived to serve as a permanent record of someone's misdemeanours! HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

While this seems a 'novel interpretation' of the intent of T1 I'm not going to object because I really dislike these templates and the massive disruption surrounding the whole 'you cannot remove warnings' / 'scarlet letter' philosophy. I hope we've reached the point where there is enough consensus that this shouldn't be indiscriminately applied that removal of these 'boilerplate' templates will be uncontroversial. --CBD 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Probably a MFD would have been more appropriate in terms of process, but the reasons for deletion are compelling. Given the lack of consensus, those things were misrepresenting policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am happy that the templates are gone, especially as their existence is often used to provide a rationale for their use: "If there exist templates for this, it must be policy". A recent TFD discussion has decided to keep them, though, so this might not be uncontroversial ;-) Seriously, there is no need to have templates for this, and educating users that it is more polite not to simply blank their talk page all the time is better done by a polite handwritten note. Kusma (討論) 14:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, this TfD discussion, I think, though that was from August, and Kusma linked to October, so maybe there have been several such discussions. After further checking, the October discussion is here, and the August discussion (also linked earlier in this post) is here. Can anyone spell J-O-I-N-E-D U-P P-O-L-I-C-I-E-S? Carcharoth 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've also had the thought that there might be further debates elsewhere. These debates and the results should have been recorded on the talk pages of the templates. Can the deleting admin (thebainer) confirm that the talk page was checked for links to previous debates before the speedy deletion took place, and can any admin check the talk pages of these templates to see if there were links to the previous debates? Carcharoth 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the Google cache of the Template:Wr talk page, and it seems that the previous deletion discussions had not been noted on the talk page, or were moved to the archives of the talk page (which I have been unable to uncover - the archiving seems to have been by the 'page history' method). This is most unhelpful for anyone (eg. someone nominating for deletion) trying to find out if there have been previous deletion discussions. I am asking the closing admins for clarification of this. Carcharoth 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

After both TfD attempts, a notice was added to the talk page. The first one was removed before the google cache version was made; possibly when the second TfD began. The version in google was made during the second discussion. Eugène van der Pijll 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Grrr... I always seem to find out about the deletion discussions on these right after they close. Which is part of the problem here. The templates are beloved by the users who place them and despised by the admins who see them as violations of the harassment / edit warring / talk page and other policies. The people using them get notification of the TfDs. The admins refusing to enforce them do not. Ergo, neither of those TfD discussions reflects anything like the whole story. The fact is that these templates are abused constantly... as the regular appearance of this issue on AN & AN/I demonstrates. The idea of allowing any user to place a negative / insulting / potentially false 'warning' on the talk page of any other user and edit war to enforce its display there is (by far) the worst I've seen actively put into practice. --CBD 17:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this decision and applaud your boldness. The whole notion of harassing someone with false warnings and then punishing further when they take out the trash is ludicrous. --Cyde Weys 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether the templates are good or bad is irrelevant. The fact remains that due process had been followed, and consensus in the TfD discussion was that these templates should stay. (And it wasn't even a weak consensus: 10/3 in one discussion, 16/3 in another discussion.) Once consensus to keep has been established, templates should never be speedily deleted (likewise for articles and categories). Otherwise, what is the point of having a deletion process? If you want rid of these templates, follow due process; failing to do so is a gross abuse of power. Bluap 18:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not "never"; there is always WP:IAR. However, I agree that following due process is almost always preferrable to IAR, because it leads to less discussion. In this case, however, due process was followed, and did not result in the correct answer, so deletion was the right thing to do. Eugène van der Pijll 19:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur. I'd normally side with Bluap, but this case is special. In a normal deletion case, it's the deleting party that needs to demonstrate consensus; default in case of no consensus is to keep. But in this case, the burden of evidence must be reversed. These templates owe their existence only to the existence of the underlying policy (namely, that removing warnings is blockable). With policies, it's the proposers of a policy that need to demonstrate consensus. This consensus doesn't exist, as the debates elsewhere show; therefore, no policy, hence no justification for the templates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify that (of course) many of the people who support these templates do not intend to use them for "harassing someone with false warnings"... but Cyde is absolutely correct that this happens. Alot. And I think it is that which justifies an 'out of process' deletion. These templates are frequently used for harassment and that's something which is clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy. The users who support their use in valid cases have good intentions (though I think even then subjecting someone to this kind of treatment often only inflames the situation), but can't prevent their constant mis-use. Wanting a tool available to you for arguably legitimate reasons can't trump the fact that in so doing you also make it available for inevitable abuse. We don't pass out handguns to everyone just because some people can use them responsibly. --CBD 19:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see those templates gone. They were utterly confusing considering that there is no consensus about removing warnings. Having people reported at WP:AIV whose only "crime" is removing warnings about a questionable edit gets old very fast. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly endorse speedy of divisive, inflammatory templates routinely abused and with dishonest content to boot (misleading citations to non-existent policy). I tried hard to salvage these templates because I do think they have a point. Supporters, however, violently rejected compromise, abusing admin tools to fight off edits and comments. Every proposal to mandate these templates has failed -- 4 organized efforts. I'm not impressed that supporters mustered enough "votes" to keep on TfD; we don't decide things by voting here. Speedy criterion T1 properly applied. John Reid ° 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I also applaud's Bainer actions on this, I have seen too many edit wars over simply removing warings (which, in itself does not harm the enclyopedia) ending up with absurd situation of blocking someone for "removing a warning about removing a warning over a mis-interpreted edit." I have also seen good faith users being given warnings about a potential problem, the user resolving it swiftly on the article page but months later, when the user cleans out his page for tidyness (i.e. not selectively), another good faith user reverts him, and gives him a follow up warning. Having a good faith user get harrassed by another good faith user is not good practice, and this is exactly these templates encourage in my experience. Personally I think that the deletion was an excellent example of IAR - if due process dictates a situation that increases the likelyhood of unwarrented harrassment, then it should, and must be ignored, which is exactly what the IAR policy is meant to do. Regards, MartinRe 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

I can confirm that I saw those two TfD discussions, and I can also confirm that I disregarded them. The only argument mustered in favour of keeping the templates was that they were useful, with some users saying that this was so because the templates allowed for the convenient implementation of the policy against removing warnings (although there is no policy on this matter, indeed no consensus at all).

On the other hand, arguments in favour of deletion included that the templates misrepresented policy (Mark), were often used in practice to harass users (AnnH) and were uncivil and sometimes used for harassment of good faith users (Kusma). These opinions by experienced and respected users were seemingly ignored in favour of a numerical assessment of the result. Moreover, the opinion of John Reid (the original creator of the templates), that the language used had changed to be "dishonest and pompous" and misrepresenting of policy, was also seemingly disregarded.

In short, the concerns which led me to consider the templates divisive and inflammatory - that they misrepresented policy, and were threatening and confrontational without the support of strong consensus - greatly outweighed the weak results of these two TfD debates, which in the light of substantial previous debate, could not be said to amount to a consensus. --bainer (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone has to say it: policy trumps consensus. Specifically, it is appropriate to disregard a consensus to keep a divisive and inflammatory template. Well done bainer. Hesperian 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you (bainer) were aware of the previous discussions. Your arguments for deletion make a lot of sense. What I'm wondering is where the people that used these templates are at the moment? Shouldn't they be complaining somewhere? Carcharoth 02:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

All these warning templates have been undeleted, unfortunately. Eugène van der Pijll 08:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll just put in a quick word in favour of the templates (in reply to Carcharoth, here are your complaints...). The main use of these is when a user is on a vandalism spree and is removing warnings as fast as they're getting them; otherwise it would be possible for a user to get nothing but test1s and not be blocked. Some vandalfighters don't check talkpage history when warning a user (probably to speed up their vandalfighting). These templates are important for speed in such cases. The problem is when they're used on old warnings to edit-war on talk pages or to keep bad-faith warnings there; but this sort of misuse (which I agree is quite prevalent) is on the same level as misuse of any other template (such as {{test1}}. Perhaps the templates should say something like 'Do not immediately remove warnings from your talk page' and explain why. --ais523 09:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The templates are not necessary for this. Every vandal-fighter who is worth his salt always checks the user's contributions link and so sees that warnings have been removed. Vandal fighters who can be fooled by warning removals are doing something wrong. Kusma (討論) 09:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is be a good example of why TFD is not determined by vote counting. I believe TheBainer's reasoning is good, and I find it unfortunate that Eagle 101 (talk · contribs) undeleted them all, apparently because he thought it was out of process. Given the strong approval given to Bainer's actions above, I am sorely tempted to delete them again, but for now I'll settle for removing the incorrect parts from the templates. >Radiant< 09:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Wr0 and Template:Wr2 appear to be okay. The rest were talking about disruption, blocks and talk page protections; I've removed those clauses, but that does make the templates appear rather empty. Maybe redirecting them to WR2 is best. >Radiant< 09:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    They may be clean in the sense that they are not threatening blocks, etc., but there existence is still predicated on the idea that users should react to the removal of warnings by adding some sort of challenge/response. To my mind that is still an undesirable escalation in conflict. In my opinion, the whole removing warnings debacle has been one of the most undesirable aspects of Wikipedia for a long time. If we are really going to address this, I would strongly encourage people to nuke the messages entirely. If removing warnings is really a problem that ever needs to be addressed, then it should be addressed through personalized attention and not through a templatized continuation of hostilities. Retaining the messages, even in a neutered form, will continue to give the impression that giving warnings about warnings is an accepted way of dealing with conflict. Dragons flight 09:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    {{Wr}} is fine now, but the level-3 and 4 warnings are no longer level 3/4 because they don't threaten blocks (can you have a 'last warning' with no method of following it up?) It may be best to do what was done with {{civil}} and stop at level 2, if this isn't a blockable offence. --ais523 09:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    • We just need something like Template:WrMeta to warn people who abuse warning removal templates, and Template:WrMetaMeta in case they remove that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For any process wonks here, if you think that the balance of arguments was to delete but the TfD was closed by votecounting rather than arguments, the correct process is to DRv the most recent TfD, arguing that it should be overturned and closed as 'delete'. --ais523 09:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong about that. The text of WP:DRV refers solely to disputed deletions... not disputed keeps. However, that said, these templates WERE deleted (as 'CSD T1') and the proper 'process wonk' response to that should have been to list them on DRV. Even though they were instead restored via wheel war I think the best move may be to set up a DRV rather than continuing the wheel war with another deletion first. As Dragons flight notes above, removing the 'higher levels' and false statements about blocking in these templates reduces the damage they do, but not significantly. The first level alone claiming that users should not remove warnings from their talk pages is all the excuse needed for edit warring / harassment to keep warnings, whether valid or not, displayed. --CBD 11:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Huh? "Deletion Review is the process to be used by editors who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate" That includes keeps. That's one of the reasons it's no longer called "votes for undeletion". >Radiant< 11:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Deletion Review is the process to be used by editors who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion" - from WP:DRV#Purpose, and I haven't even just edited the page to put it there; even the bolding is on the page. So I think keeps can be challenged just as much as deletes. --ais523 11:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See the first four paragraphs of the page... extensive commentary about overturning deletions, finding information on past deletions, et cetera. Nothing about keeps. Nor can I recall having ever seen a page which was not deleted show up on DRV. The comments quoted above about "any deletion debate" were taken by me to mean that AfD, TfD, MfD, et cetera all go through DRV rather than having separate review pages for each. If it is meant to instead imply that DRV is also used for keeps I'd think that should be mentioned somewhere else on the page... rather than the multiple clear statements about DRV being used to review deletions. --CBD 12:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed 'no consensus', endorsed 'merge', endorsed 'rename', endorsed 'merge/redirect', overturned-relisted 'no consensus', endorsed 'speedy keep', overturned-deleted 'no consensus', endorsed 'no consensus', endorsed 'speedy keep', overturned-reopened 'speedy keep', overturned-reopened 'speedy keep', endorsed 'no consensus'; these are all the examples I could find from November and October of a non-deletion on DRv (one is even a CfD rename which isn't a deletion debate at all), so I think such DRvs are reasonably common. --ais523 12:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked again at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_18#Template:Wr &c. (in which I participated). There are only three comments suggesting deletion, and one of them (Kusma's) only suggested deleting 3 and 4, leaving only John Reid's comments in favour of deletion of 1 and 2, and they suggested rewording (which has now happened) as an alternative to deletion, and the nomination. There were 16 !votes to keep, most of which can be ignored because they made no new points, but it seems reasonable to think that many users will be annoyed if these are deleted (they were probably trying to use the template and alerted by the TfD tag on the template itself). So DRv is clearly the best option; I'm going there now to ask for a relisting of the debate. --ais523 12:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the spirit of the rule is most important in this case. The world will certainly not end if we bring it to deletion review, and ignoring this "rule" (is it really a rule?) is less important than avoiding a wheel war. It can be evaluated under these circumstances. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_7 for the deletion review on these templates. --CBD 12:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If people aren't too involved in the deletion review, would this user's history be a suitable example. And can someone explain what the right process would be here? I was trying to find out the history of this user's voting in AfD discussions, and the warnings the user has received, but it is difficult to see this from the page history. Is this an example of a case where warnings shouldn't be removed? Carcharoth 14:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The massive edit warring to restore comments and then warnings about removing those comments was clearly unnecessary... though further confused by the fact that half the comment removals were made by an anon IP and thus some people were restoring because that anon shouldn't remove comments from someone else's talk... except that the anon was probably the user themself. In any case, user was properly blocked for multi-sockpuppet voting on *fDs. The edit war over whether the warnings should be displayed did nothing to improve the situation and was not the cause of the block. The fact that this practice is sometimes used to abuse 'problem' users doesn't make it any more proper or any less abusive... especially when it is just as commonly used against users who have done little or nothing wrong. --CBD 11:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it did waste my time, as I had to dig into the page history to try and find out what was going on, and even then it was not very clear. It would have been much clearer if the comments had been present in an archive. Would it have been acceptable to go through the page history and create an archive page clearly showing the talk page comments made in chronological order? I suppose one argument against that, is that it gives the impression that removal of comments hadn't been going on. It also gives the impression that later posts were added to a page full of comments, when in fact they were often added to a page with previous comments removed. If anyone could be bothered, diffs could be added to each section showing when they were removed. Carcharoth 13:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an illustration of why it's a very good idea for people leaving warning templates to clearly indicate that they have done so in their edit summary. Viewing these via the history page is the only reliable way to track edits. --bainer (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US midterm elections

As we're probably all aware the US has country-wide elections tomorrow. We're going to see a lot of partisan vandalism; at the same time, we're going to be under a microscope. Our threshold for disruption is never high, but for tomorrow I think it ought to be a lot lower. During the 2004 elections, I personally administered a 24-hour block for election-related vandalism/POV-pushing on the first offense (see User:Mackensen/Election Day). I abandoned my watchlist and simply kept an eye on Recent Changes the whole day (as some IRC regulars may recall, I didn't sleep for 24 hours).

Anyways, just a thought for the admin corps. Mackensen (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be an idea to compile a list of those pages most likely to be subject of the vandalism and POV-pushing (the main election page, pages on close elections, for the key issues, and those for candidates in closely contested races). Then the rest of us, who don't know the details, can use "related changes" for that page to act as a topic-specific watchlist. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to do the 24-hour thing again, or are you suggesting a team of 4-5 people dedicated to reverting US election vandalism take it in 5-hour shifts? And do people really read Wikipedia articles just before heading out to vote... :-) Carcharoth 17:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, heavens no ;). I'm just saying that admins should keep an especially close eye on things. If you want to emulate my example from two years back by all means, but it's your body, not mine! Finlay has a good idea there, so I'll start User:Mackensen/Election watchlist. Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:James Kemp/Representatives and User:James Kemp/Senate are two pages that may be useful to do related changes (or related watchlist) on. --Interiot 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On the plus side, we can then delete all those campaign ads masquerading as biographies, since failed candidates fail WP:BIO :-) Guy 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Or you could wait a few days, and give those interested in preserving some of the information a chance to create campaign articles (at least for notable Congressional contests, which is what I'm interested in), and put redirects in place. John Broughton | Talk 03:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, you could just block until Election day is over. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is more of a problem for presidential election years, which get everyone fired up, in addition to the including the same sorts of elections as the mid-terms. 2008 will be twice as bad as 2004 apparently was, due to the huge increase in the popularity of Wikipedia. Could be problem with politicking and userboxes too. —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unresolved issue

Can anyone deal with this? Thanks. Carcharoth 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As was said above, the relevant policy needs clarification before we can act on it (at least that's my position--someone else may disagree). Chick Bowen 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with Chick, and also, I don't see anything on the user's talk page asking him if he minds his personal info being deleted, either. Maybe it would be a good idea for someone to discuss the issues with the user there. Hiding Talk 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have deleted all the versions from the history but ZScout's better be safe than sorry Alex Bakharev 11:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Carcharoth 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Create account issue

Hi. Don't know if this is the right place to post my question, but here it is. I use user name Vayaka almost everywhere and I have registered it in some Wiki progects, but I can't rigister it in the English Wiki (Login error:The name "Vayaka" is too similar to the existing account "Nayaka". Please choose another name.) Is there a way to register nickname Vayaka?--195.210.185.5 10:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For some context, this is the AntiSpoof extension; I seem to remember from wikitech-l that an admin can get round the filter at Special:Userlogin and then email the user in question the requested account, but I'm not sure. --ais523 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this would cause any problems. Nayaka has not edited for 3 months now, only made a handful of edits, and was very close to being an spa. yandman 10:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So what should I do to register username Vayaka? Should I contact someone directly?--195.210.185.5 11:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Look on your talkpage Alex Bakharev 11:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The similar case is posted here. I have mailed the person and asked to create an account with different name. But if could be solved then please create a desired name for him and mail him. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 19:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image dispute

Hey all. Can someone look at Image:Owenpuma.jpg and settle this, please? I don't want to start blocking people for disruption, although I'm sorely tempted, as I have already made a content judgement and so shouldn't use my admin tools. User:Panarjedde and User:Kingjeff have been squabbling over various images etc, with, of course, the other one always being wrong. This image, Image:Owenpuma.jpg, was posted by Kingjeff with no status. Panarjedde immediately tagged it for deletion. I then came across it during a clearout of C:CSD. I removed the speedy tag and put the correct fair use tag on the image (I've tried before to find a free image of Owen Hargreaves - one doesn't exist at the moment). Pan is continuing to tag it for deletion and revert fair use tag, so please, someone else step in so I don't get my editor / admin wires crossed. Thanks. Proto::type 12:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done a revert, but as a non-admin, I can't block him. But if he reverts again, he's guilty of 3RR too. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue has been misrepresented. Let me explain, possibly not assuming I am wrong without knowing what happened (this is for Patstuart):

• "This image, Image:Owenpuma.jpg, was posted by Kingjeff with no status." Wrong. The image was posted by Sebas87, and had a wrong fairuse tag, which claimed it was a sporting event poster.
• "Panarjedde immediately tagged it for deletion." Wrong, the image was uploaded on 7 September, I tagged it on 6 November, not exactly "immediately".
• "Pan is continuing to tag it for deletion and revert fair use tag." We had a discussion about this tag, after Proto disputed the replaceability of the image, yet today, with no compromise reached, he unilaterally removed my tag. Only today, therefore, I reinserted the tag.

The fact is that Proto is removing a tag he does not like, claiming he acted as an admin until now, while he was involved in the matter since the beginning.--Panarjedde 12:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed a step in my 'recap'. Image was tagged for deletion yesterday, I was patrolling C:CSD, saw it, assessed it, removed the speedy tag, and at that point, Pan immediately retagged. Apologies if that wasn't clear. Proto::type 12:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to add that the second tag was different from the first, as you proposed a fair use license that does not apply. Even if you do not agree with me, it is clear that you were involved in the matter since its beginning, and that you were not "acting as an admin", nor the dispute is between me and Kingjeff, as you claimed to justify your tag removal.--Panarjedde 12:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (from WP:AN/I)

Hello, I have an issue with User:Proto.

I added a "Replaceable fair use" tag to Image:Owenpuma.jpg. User Proto added a "Replaceable fair use disputed" tag to the same image, and we two discussed the matter on the talk page.

Today he unilaterlly removed my tag [4]. Apart the fact I do not agree with him, when I told him not to remove tags [5], he answered me "the dispute is between you [Panarjedde] and Kingjeff; I [Proto] have been acting as an admin the whole time. At this point, I have stepped in and removed the tag, as in my judgement the fair use assertion was correct." Please note that User:Kingjeff has nothing to do with this issue, his only edit being on the image talk page ([6]), after Proto had put the dispute tag.

What should be done? Can he really remove the tag?--Panarjedde 12:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia administrators have that authority. Justin Eiler 12:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this is the official answer, let me say it is unfair that admins are allowed to use their authority in their own content dispute. At least, a third part opinion should be requested.--Panarjedde 12:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I agree with the tagging. the current tag says "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it". Note the could not be created, since of course someone could take a photo the image can be created to replace it thus is fails fair use. (This is not a unique image with the person doing a unique act, it's a simple photo of them) The fact that someone can't find a current one is irrelvant, one can be created. --pgk 12:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And as soon as a free image is available, then fair use no longer applies to this image. The current tag is poorly worded.Proto::type 12:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

When you say worded badly you mean it matches the fairuse policy "No free equivalent is available or could be created", again the "could be created", availability now is not part of the critera. Not to mention that the image is tagged incorrectly anyway it is from advert yet is tagged {{promophoto}}, which is (from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags) for publicity photographs of people or events, such as headshots or posed shots, from a press kit, also see Wikipedia:Publicity photos - an advert is not a promophoto. --pgk 12:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(The following was written before the post by pgk immediatly above)

The problem is not the content dispute (I have given my reason on the talkpage), the problem is that you removed a tag in a content dispute you were involved in, and claimed to have done it because the dispute was between me and another user, while you had just stepped in to do your admin duties.

Furthermore, I would suggest you to read WP:FU#Policy, which is an official policy of WP, which requires non-free, fair use images to be used only if "no free equivalent is available or could be created". Note it says "could be created", not "has been created".--Panarjedde 12:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Further to this the image is apparently from an advert for puma. The article to which it is attached mentions nothing about puma whatsoever, at best a fair use argument could be used for illustrating the persons association with puma but it is not being used in that way. Again the fair use policy covers this (in the counter examples) "An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses.", the fair use criteria have been significantly tightened recently and it is this sort of abuse of fair use which has prompted it. --pgk 12:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after a read of WP:FU, I see that whilst fair use could be argued. "if the image could reasonably be replaced with a free image that would provide the same value to the reader, then it is very likely to be removed and a request made for such a free image to be obtained". Note the word 'reasonably'. I have tried to find a fre photo of Hargreaves before; none exist on the net, and I don't expect to be bumping into him any time soon to take such a photo. Therefore a fair use photo is justified.

However, this image is not strictly a publicity photo (see Wikipedia:Publicity photos.) Until I read this, I thought it was. It's therefore not a suitable fair use image, let alone a free one, and so I've tagged it for deletion. Proto::type 13:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, just to note the part you quote is under the guideline section a preamble. The section explicilty marked as formal policy contains the "No free equivalent is available or could be created..." text. --pgk 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See Panarjedde, if you're going to bring up my name at least have the decentcy to invite me to the conversation. Kingjeff 01:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

??? Proto made your name, I simply answered him.--Panarjedde 01:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you are the first one on the list that I see that mentioned me. Yes, it's a quote from him. But you're not to bring me up with at least of having the respect to bring me into this. Kingjeff 01:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Post by Proto, 12:09: "Hey all. Can someone look at Image:Owenpuma.jpg and settle this, please? I don't want to start blocking people for disruption, although I'm sorely tempted, as I have already made a content judgement and so shouldn't use my admin tools. User:Panarjedde and User:Kingjeff have been squabbling over various images etc [...]". Care to stop feeling persecuted? Didn't they love you when you were young?--Panarjedde 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethicalhacker

Ethicalhacker (talk · contribs) has about 40 edits, and they're not vandalistic edits. However, I am pondering whether he/she should be blocked for user name. Thoughts? --Nlu (talk)

No, not for username in my opinion. Hacker has both positive and negative connotations, but with the Ethical tacked on, I think this is on positive side and it isn't an issue. -- JLaTondre 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm with JLaTondre; hacker isn't always a negative term; if all his edits are good, it would definitely be OK to let him be, IMHO. WP:BITE, too. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with user about his addition to Far Above Cayuga's Waters

I reverted recently an edit from an ip [7]. He commented on my talk page about it [8] which was reverted, came back as a logged in user and said pretty much the same thing [9]. Now he reinserted the edit I reverted, [10] and claims it to be legitimate [11]. Since I know nothing of this topic of Far Above Cayuga's Waters, and the user is accusing me of reverting a good edit, I want someone else to check it out. - Tutmosis 18:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The additions need to be sourced. If not, they should be removed. That article is rapidly becoming an original research nightmare. Chick Bowen 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So it didnt come as vandalism? "Cornell eats shit, Cornell eats shit, Cornell eats shit." doesn't seem like the lyrics of Cornell University. I don't wish to revert it again because this user is accusing me of a bad revert, so in my mind such a situation calls for a second user to confirm my stance. - Tutmosis 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deleting user talk pages

As a relatively new (< 1 month) admin, I am not sure whether a user talk page with comments from other users and a {{db-author}} tag added by the user qualifies for speedy deletion. I'm inclined to say no (it's not created "in error" and it has other contributors), but am curious what others think. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no, unless the user is exercising his/her right to vanish, or there are other exceptional circumstances. People would otherwise be unable to tell if anyone has complained to the user about something (ie. test templates), and it just gets to be a gigantic pain. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say how {{db-author}} is applicable if the user talk page is contributed by other users? Shyam ^(T/C) 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've often seen people try to get their user talk pages deleted via {{Db-userreq}}. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, these requests are often denied. For the most part, it is vandals/trolls/etc. trying to clear the history of various warnings and discussions. Of course we should assume good faith in all cases, and it's often a good idea to discuss a decision with other administrators, but for most cases user talk pages should remain intact. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

IIRC last time there was any real discussion on this the view was that even for users exercising their right to vanish we would simply blank the talk page, and use deletion primarily for scrubbing any personal info. The basic reasoning being as suggested above that their were some editors who were effectively leaving one week having their talk and user page deleted then returning the next, repeatedly (I perhaps exagerate on that, but you get the idea).--pgk 07:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The only time user talk pages are deleted is when the user is banned. Otherwise, simply blanking the page is enough, including for a user choosing to vanish. —Centrx→talk • 07:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randomness Vandalism

Hi, I've noticed a very high level of vandalim on Randomness, the level seems to suggest some form of vendetta, having only recently started monitoring the page I'm not aware of the history. I've just noticed a named user leaving obscene messages - without knowing if there is a history I would rather not put a vandal template particularly as I'm not exactly sure of what I'm doing. --Mike 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg

A decision is needed for this image. It's been beaten down by mainly me and Panarjedde. I essentially think it's a bad faith nomination and gaming the system(Please look at his record) and he's going on about it being replaceable and so on. Kingjeff 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to oblige this user to stop saying that my edits are bad faith ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]), gaming the system ([28] [29] [30] [31]), as well as some other nice things ([32] [33] [34])? Is the fact he is not capable of reading WP:FU policy a good reason to let him insult me every time he edits an article?--Panarjedde 00:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I can't believe someone is doing bad faith edits and nominations? Kingjeff 01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to this photo. All I'm asking is that an administrator deal with the photo and use sound judgement on this. Kingjeff 01:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it. It clearly fails the criteria for fair use. --Carnildo 07:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Panarjedde/appo

What's this? This looks like a personal attack if I ever saw one. Kingjeff 02:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A link to your userpage is not a personal attack. semper fi — Moe 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is his userpage. The other is something else. It looks to me as if he's trying to personal attack? Kingjeff 03:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there are at present no personal attacks on either page. Please read over WP:NPA so you know what a personal attack is. semper fi — Moe 03:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, it looks like he's gathering evidence for an RfC or Arbcom case. That is most definitely not a form of personal attack. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New block option

I just noticed a new option in the block screen: we can choose not to autoblock IPs used by the blocked user. Sounds like a handy tool, but of course we won't know in advanced who is using AOHell so perhaps not as handy as it first looks. Guy 00:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great, but doesn't the autoblock go poof as soon as you switch IPs anyways? Or is that just when the IP itself is directly blocked? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This should be used sparingly, otherwise most blocks will end up being meaningless ("We don't want you to edit from this account for 24 hours! But feel free to create a new one.") As we don't know who's using AOL (even the vandals who claim they are on AOL probably just want to avoid blocks), the only use for this that I see is username blocks.--Konst.able^Talk 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Can also be useful if we notice a bunch of autoblocks in the log- unblocking the username and reblocking without autoblock. Ral315 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly--it's good for username blocks. I just blocked one, and got to use the option for the first time, and it's a particularly good example: [35].

We may not use this option every day but I can see it being useful. Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, maybe it's different here, but the change on wikibooks was to allow blocking of all IPs that were used by a particular account (we didn't have that before). This tool has a great capacity for doing collateral damage, since it's essentially a step beyond "not allowing account creation"... if I understand it correctly, it means that any registered user will not be able to edit if they're using that IP, which is a serious problem for schools, AOL, etc. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

autoblocks have long been a feature of mediawiki so I would have thought applied to wikibooks as much as it did here. The new option allows you to explicitly stop autoblocks happening. Whilst you are correct there is the potential for collateral damage (the reason this option to swith off was developed), it also stops the create an account, be a m:Dick get blocked, create another account, rinse and repeat cycle. --pgk 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The checkbox is marked "Automatically block IP addresses used by this user", and refers to autoblocks, which happened automatically before. By unchecking it, autoblocks won't be placed. Ral315 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just put yet another proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Autoblock#Autoblock_bypass_proposal which people might be interested in commenting on. In short, admins would be given a third option called soft-autoblock which sits inbetween no autoblocking and full autoblocking. Under soft-autoblocking, users with a registered email address would not be blocked, unless their email address matches that of a blocked user. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help me spam

Well, I'd like to do something to bring awareness to this problem with have with youtube links. I've created some boilerplate to help "educate" the general wikipedia public on the problem with YouTube.

This template is no longer in use. Please do not delete, I'd like to save for historical purposes. ---J.S ^(T/C) 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

_{(from :User:J.smith/YT)}

I'd like some feedback on the language used and perhaps some assistance on spamming it on a few thousand article talk pages. ---J.S (t|c) 10:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Added an image. I was thinking the red hand, but this one is a little less...err...aggressive.---J.S (t|c) 10:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyedited to make it more general (Based on policy rather than "my informal research"), also added an autosig. Why don't you move it into the template name space; you may want to add a hidden category as well ("Articles whose YouTube links are in question", perhaps). (it should be subst'ed when its used, of course) and note it on Wikipedia talk:External links, where there is a big YouTube discussion. Thatcher131 13:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Spot on. A great start on removing this festering sore form the project. Guy 15:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I started a trial run. Hit the article in the first 100 link results. ---J.S (t|c) 18:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Do I get a cookie for this one? Joyous! | Talk 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming underway

Well, I've started spamming my little message and I've gotten mixed results. Nothings has happened on many articles, but It's worked where thier are active editors present.

I'd really like some help with the project. Even with AWB its gonna take a long time to hit 4000 articles. Let me know on my talk page if you want to help... My list is organised by letter... so it would be easy to split up the work. ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I may be totally ignorant here, and feel free to tell me so, but....in the time it takes to place the message, couldn't you remove the link? Joyous! | Talk 01:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not every YouTube link is unacceptable... so I'd need to review them one at a time to sort them out. 50 links would take 2 or 3 hours and we've got 4000. ---J.S (t|c) 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam project?

I wonder... should I start a project to help organize the spam? ---J.S (t|c) 21:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a miniproject. ---J.S (t|c) 08:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fast blanking of warnings from user talk page

As I understand it, an IP number has no right to remove warnings, etc., from its own talk page. A the other extreme, some users in good standing routinely zap (without archiving) all discussion they regard as old, and there seem to be few complaints (answered by "Look in the page history"). But what's the policy (or what are the guidelines) on a user's fast deletion (without archiving) of warnings and adverse comment left on his/her own talk page? (Yes, sorry, I just know this has been done to death; but, hurried as I am, I can't find where.) -- Hoary 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I just came here to get advice on the same matter. The example is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.90.151.114&action=history - I have been reverting this IP's removal of warnings, but not 100% sure that he is breaking any rules. Wanted to "cover my ass" by getting another admin to take a look at it.. (it's one of those anon's that causes trouble, but nothing that is an immediate blockable offense) -- Chuq 03:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not anyones place to force users to keep comments on thier talk page if they don't want them there. If a user has read it, they can remove it. Besides, if you have warned the user, it will always be in the history of the talk page for evidence. Constant revert warring placing comments on thier talk page is more of a disruption than helping. semper fi — Moe 04:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Would this the same for anonymous IP addresses though? -- Chuq 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, theres no difference between users logged in or under an IP address. semper fi — Moe 05:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A previous discussion on this topic had the administrators who commented come to the conclusion that it was not okay to remove current warnings from a talk page. So, for example, a user who has been warned that the images they upload are missing mandatory information (such as the source) cannot remove the warning unless they've added the source information to that image. Similarly, a user currently engaged in vandalism cannot remove current warnings against vandalism. This is entirely different, however, from removing old warnings against vandalism. The consensus at the time was that a warning that was a month old was reasonable to remove but a warning just a few days old was not (unless it had been dealt with). Times in between were discretionary. If a user removes current warnings and then continues the abusive behaviour, it becomes much less reasonable to extend a presumption of good faith to that user. Also worth noting with IP pages is that it is possible for multiple users to "use" the page. In that case, it may be inappropriate to remove a comment as it may be directed to one of the people who share your IP address. Of course, the best solution in this case is to get your own account. --Yamla 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Abusive users remove very recent warnings, perhaps in the hope that (a) {{subst:test2}} will be followed by {{subst:test1}} rather than {{subst:test3}} (for example), perhaps in the hope that (b) they won't be recognized as recidivists. If it's (a), they're being treated with undue leniency; if (b), with unneeded leniency and timewasting. For example, if I notice on my first encounter with User:JoeBlowhard (fictional name) that he has made what appear to be racist comments, I may waste time on the rhetorical effort of AGF if he's removed from his talk page a series of recent warnings about racist comments. A lot of these people are quick to remove any message commenting on the removal of messages: the simplest inference (for me) is not that they want a "clean" talk page but instead that they don't want to be seen by newcomers as the kind of "contributors" (detractors) that they really are. You say: Similarly, a user currently engaged in vandalism cannot remove current warnings against vandalism: granted that people disagree over what "current" is, I think all (except the perps) would agree that it covers what's less than a week old. But is there any policy (or at least guideline) that says such a thing? I sometimes deal with truculent customers who are keen to stand up for their rights (or anyway whatever rights seem to let them continue to be a [insert contumely here]); it would be good to be able to say to them (politely, of course!) "It's not your opinion versus just mine, chum; it's yours against the policy Wikipedia:Don't screw with comments on your own talk page." -- Hoary 06:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Hoary. The problem here is rarely users removing week-old, or even day-old warnings. It's almost always vandals/trolls just doing it to try and hide (I've seen one vandal be given the "welcome" template four times over the course of the day). yandman 10:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Users also legitimately remove warnings right away when the warning is wrong. Bots give out wrong warnings sometimes. And users sometimes give out bad-faith warnings to further a dispute. In both of these cases, it's legitimate for anyone to remove the warning right away. --Interiot 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages exist to facilitate communication. Not to act as a 'rap sheet' or 'wall of shame'. That is not their purpose. Restoring warnings is thus at best edit warring, and at worst disruption or harassment. If you need to see what a person has been told before check their page and/or contribution history. If that is too difficult then get together and come up with standardized edit summaries to parallel the standardized templates... add special characters around them to make them stand out in the page history and you can have a record every bit as complete, but more concise and less disruptive. --CBD 12:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed 200%. If we do want a proper way to record "this is going on your record" issues, then it needs to have a way for good editors to address mistakes or bad-faith warnings and get them removed from their record. But that seems far too bureaucratic, so nobody has implemented such a thing yet. Regardless of whether it is ever implemented, a person's talk page is a poor stand-in for that. --Interiot 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten into the habit of using edit summaries such as {test2a} or {spam} when I stick a warning on a user talk page. -- Donald Albury 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this guideline on talk page etiquette which seems pertinent. These two sentences are particularly noteworthy: Feel free to decorate your personal pages as you see fit, but keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose. Yes, we can consult user contributions, pages histories, etc. but the usefullness of warnings and related discussion is in readily providing a context for understanding users' activity in Wikipedia - their edits and comments. Warnings tags have been designed to draw one's attention (not only the errant user's attention but others' as well) and one becomes justifiably suspicious of users who have blanked their talk pages and accompanying warnings while exhibiting edit histories of a controversial nature. It smacks of attempting to sanitize their presence on Wikipedia, and in that sense resembles sockpuppetry. Pinkville 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help at WP:CSD

There's over 150 articles, including nearly 80 images awaiting deletion. I've done 40 so far but my internet's crapping out horribly. I'd appreciate some help :) Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Down to images, but I don't trust my school's connection. I leave it in your hands. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This message shows up so often...I'm wondering if we could have some bot put a message here when the backllog is at 100+ articles, or something like that. Hbdragon88 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking collateral damage assistance required

Hello! I have received the following e-mail from Feedmelinguini:

"I have been blocked for "persistent vandalism." The full text of the message is "Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by (aeropagitica) for the following reason (see our blocking policy): persistent vandalism. Your IP address is 65.43.196.16." I am confused as to why this would occur. My changes to webpages have been primarily spelling errors, as well as an occasional substantive change. Never have I vandalized any page, and I am not sure why I have been accused of having done so. Your response is greatly appreciated."

The Talk page for this editor reveals an unblock for collateral damage on September 13. I need to know how to determine which block of mine would result in this autoblock in order to unblock and reblock allowing logged-in editors to contribute. Find the editors' IP address? (aeropagitica) 16:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, just checking the block log of 65.43.196.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shows you blocked it for persistent vandalism last week. Whois shows it's a school IP, so I unblocked and reblocked anon only for another week to round out your original block. Thatcher131 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! I wonder why I couldn't find it? (aeropagitica) 18:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you were thinking too hard. It wasn't an autoblock, just a straight IP block, and he gave you the address :) Thatcher131 18:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you searched for 65.43.196.16 in the block log, when you need to search for "User:65.43.196.16" in the blockee column. I've always wished it would search consistently in both fields. - Taxman ^Talk 19:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like the mistake! Note to self - must try to be a better admin :-) (aeropagitica) 22:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C.J. and C. J.

Not sure what to do on this one... I know that C.J. redirected to an article on gossip columnist C. J., but after a page vandalism, both pages seem to not exist. There's not a history that I can see to revert to. CMacMillan 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

C. J. was speedy deleted under WP:CSD A7. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana University Kokomo

This article is like a redirect to itself and in the history it reveals no content whatsoever and just a few pagemoves (one of which was "On Wheels"). Could an admin look through the deleted history of Indiana University Kokomo and the deleted version of the On Wheels version (it's in the history for the exact location and readd some content? semper fi — Moe 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I got it. Did I lose any of the history? Seems like it's all there. Chick Bowen 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you got it. The literal history is gone though.. semper fi — Moe 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I had some cache problems, but once I cleared it the good history reappeared. I restored 24 version, so there should be 24. Chick Bowen 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of best-selling computer and video games

Any administrator around willing to wade in ankle-deep mud? List of best-selling computer and video games has been a battlefield for some time, and most (if not all) tries to calm both users down have failed. I don't want to send someone from Wikipedia:Third opinion there, he would be eaten alive. If not for the 3RR, the article history would be right now HUGE. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just get someone from third here and report it if "he gets eaten alive". An admin who would get into the dispute won't be able to block anyone because admins aren't supposed to block people or protect pages in disputes that they are involved in. Hbdragon88 22:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone arguing for "WhiteMinority"'s point, besides himself? It looks pretty well consensus-ized to the other side. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm arguing for WhiteMinority's point. Also in the Wikiproject Computer and Video Games disccusion discussion there were a couple of users, notably User:A Man In Black who argued that the links should not be removed. Dionyseus 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okeedokee. It's just hard to wade through all of that :/ -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think AMiB has ever argued in defense of vgcharts. He simply made sure that there was a discussion before people started removing the links left right and centre. -- Steel 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my intention was not getting an admin blocking the users, but instead to keep an eye on that page. During the last months the article has advanced very little, because most of the revisions are either adding or removing VGCharts. I am pretty neutral about this issue (I think both sides are right), but it is just too much a pain to review the different versions to see if a valid reference was deleted in the middle of the reverts. -- ReyBrujo 02:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flowering plant

The Flowering plant page is a big blank, not just blanked text, but blanked everything except for a single line on the very top saying java text blah blah. What is this? All the other pages look like Wikipedia pages. Oh well, I tried to edit it and it worked. Maybe some is drastically wrong with the bot that did the last edit, though? Or something. KP Botany 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Probably just a brief Wikipedia software hiccup. --Carnildo 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine now, I was able to edit it by looking at my watchlist and picking an older version, then editing the latest without accessing the article page directly. Yup, probably a hiccup, but one I'd never seen before. --KP Botany 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Karnatka cities

Should we put a stop to this? There certainly wasn't any non-Indian input, or if there was, it wasn't advertised, and it's certainly in opposition to policy. While we're at it, why don't we move India to Bharat? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, policy is that bold moves are fine as long as no one objects, but people have, so yes, I think the discussion you link to is not sufficient consensus. It also seems weird in that the official name changes have not taken place yet, as far as I've heard. If the government of India calls it Bangalore, and most English speakers call it Bangalore, then it should probably be at Bangalore. So yeah, they should run it through WP:RM, and consensus will probably go the other way, I suspect. Chick Bowen 05:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed indef-ban of User:SPUI

This user appears to have left in early October. His only edits since then have been to SQUIDWARD pages and violate 3RR. He has also been blocked many, many times before. At one point I would not have wanted him to be indefbanned, since many of his edits were good. However now he is no longer making good edits, and seems to eant to leave the community anyway.Drennleberrn 20:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI contributes in his own special way. And you seem to have only registered in the past week. How is it that you know so much about SPUI?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The edits with 'squidward' edit summaries and those which led to the 3RR violation were all perfectly valid changes. Thus, your statement that "he is no longer making good edits" is simply false. Nothing in SPUI's recent behaviour comes anywhere remotely near requiring a community ban. --CBD 11:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a motion at the ArbCom to ban him for a year. See WP:RfArb#SPUI. Carcharoth 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal with grudge against William Connolley the user taking it out on the William Connolley article

User:MarkThomas appears to have taken it upon himself to vandalize the William Connolley article in retribution for an earlier block dealt to him by the administrator User:William M. Connolley.

These actions have mostly included blanking ([36], [37], [38], [39], [40]), but also included some simple nonsense vandalism such as [41] and [42]. He also gave 2 rather WP:POINTed talk page suggestions here and here, and bragged about his earlier vandalism [43]. His edit summaries have also generally be insults against Connolley.

During a short period in which he was not actively damaging the page, another user (with a similar name pattern) conveniently emerged to continue his vandalism ([44], [45]) Mark Thomas also ignored a vandalism warning left to him by another user[46] and threatened to report me for 3RR violation for reverting his vandalism [47].

I request User:MarkThomas be blocked for disruption, vandalism, and most likely personal attacks as well. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.--MONGO 12:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed one of his talk page comments as particularly abusive as well, per Wikipedia:remove personal attacks.. A check of the article history reveals that the user only started to edit this article, after his original 3rr imposed by Connolley had expired. Morwen - Talk 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And you can add Appeals to Jimbo[48] and talk page trolling[49] to the list of misdeeds. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And to top it all off, I've filed an WP:RFCU case on him for his abusive sockpuppet assistant User: Sarah Williams here. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 12:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser has come back, with no surprises. further ban evasion has been made. I propose to give User:MarkThomas and his sockpuppets an indefinite community ban, until such time as they admit to abusive sockpuppetry and promise to stop. [The comment here was particularly unacceptable. Would this seem sensible to others? Morwen - Talk 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Methinks this an acceptable solution; or at least a long ban (e.g., 3-4 weeks). If he admits he did wrong and apologizes, then he's let back in. But until then, a community ban seems acceptable. The 3-4 weeks might be enough, though, to get him to think about his conduct, and reconsider in the future.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading misogynist comment makes me reconsider. Perhaps a community ban is better until he admits contrition. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that comment on my talk page, actually. I love the way he plays the sexist card at me for no good reason. Also, I think that his creation of additional sock User:DecadentAdminAttacker proves he's not particularly repentant. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think his present behaviour is so out of the pale it cannot really be tolerated. This is not to preclude that he can stop at any time. However, an indef block at this stage may just further inflame the grudge and lose all hope of redemption. Shall we see how he is over next couple of days and do this if needed? Morwen - Talk 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is only really one question to be answered here, which is: do we think this user is likely to calm down and resume making good edits? If we do, then we should ban him, as a community act, from the William Connolley article, and possibly place him on civility parole. If we think that he is never going to reform then we should show him the door. I lean to the former view myself. Either way, he can challenge a community sanction via ArbCom and we can restrict by block any disruption in the mean time. Guy 14:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable approach. Morwen - Talk 16:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This does not look like your routine frustrated POV-pusher, so I've left a note on his Talk advising that, if he has a beef with William, he take it to dispute resolution rather than waging war. I suspect he will calm down when he returns. I am not sure whether we should press for an apology, probably not worth it. Guy 18:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you examined the disputed edits he made at George Galloway? The checkuser case above has links to them. They do seem incompatible with WP:BLP. Morwen - Talk 19:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM backlog

The backlog at WP:RM is now really big, and a helping hand would be welcome. I don't have much time myself at the moment though. Duja► 09:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll get on it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email on "how wikipedia really works" by User:Tern

Did anyone else recently receive a lengthy (ranting) e-mail from a person claiming to be Tern (talk · contribs) with the subject linke "how wikipedia really works"? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not me but i suggest you use a spam filter if you got it and ignore the issue. I see that this issue has been taking a long time. Zscout370 was the first to block his account on August 2005. -- Szvest 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Ugh. I blanked his Talk, since it was one long diatribe. Clearly this person is unfamiliar with the old adage "when you are in a deep hole, stop digging". Guy 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and any related article which contains poorly sourced controversial material are placed on article probation. The material in dispute between Vivaldi and Arbustoo has been determined to be controversial material which does not have an adequate source. They are warned to avoid edit warring and encouraged to edit the articles in dispute appropriately.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't click the link yet but... is this saying articles can be placed on probation? The idea has very great merit but huge implications for Wikipedia. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been used since July; see Wikipedia:Article probation. Melchoir 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof, if I needed it, of just how distracted I've been in that period. A wikibreak or better medical science are required! Thanks Melchoir! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't mention it, I didn't know about this thing either before today. It's pretty rare. Melchoir 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on revert parole. They are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, they are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on probation for one year. They may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All blocks and bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 06:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Untrustworthy

It needs to be speedy deleted because it's a protected deleted page from over a year ago, created with the old method of adding mediawiki:noarticletext. Mediawiki:noarticletext used to be substed but in this case it wasn't. Therefore it confused me when it appeared in what links here for Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. I couldn't find any other instances of pages protected against deletion in this way with a quick google search, but they could be out there. Graham87 10:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the transclusion from User:Stevey7788/Red1 and User talk:Georgia guy/Archive 1. Kavadi carrier 10:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Got rid of page. Morwen - Talk 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems there were also a lot of articles and user pages that were created with {{subst:MediaWiki:noarticletext}} . Perhaps an old bug that has now been fixed? I've marked many of them for speedy deletion or blanked them as appropriate. Graham87 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Page Vandalism

Please look up to see my userpage being vandalized by an anonymous IP 203.171.70.136 and block it so that he does not go on to vandalize others involved in similar projects as that appears to be the intent here! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk ·  contribs) 13:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This should be reported at WP:AIV, you could always inform at any admin by poking them at their talk pages. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP has not vandalised since 11 hours ago (02:32 UTC). And it wasn't warned at all - talk page is still a redlink. Kavadi carrier 13:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL vandal reverting User:Hu12's edits

Need some help with this, an AOL vandal has been repeatedly reverting many of User:Hu12's edits, and it's quite aggravating to me, as I'm sure it must be to him (ex. diffs: [50], [51], [52], [53]). It's quite likely the spammer is the same as had posted personal information on my userpage from AOL, and was noted as likely through a checkuser here to be the since banned User:EinsteinEdits. As both myself and Hu12 reverted and repeatedly warned this user for his linkspam, and this vandalism started soon after that (and I know, personally, that I haven't done anything that might antagonize anyone here recently), it seems obvious to me that it's the same person doing it. I had been liaising with User:Kylu on this problem (see some messages on her talk page regarding this situation here, however it appears she has gone on Wikibreak. So I figure it's high time I come here, and ask for others to keep an eye on this AOL vandal, and especially Hu12's contributions, since they seem to be getting reverted on a daily basis. Thanks. -- SonicAD (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a thebookstandard.com-related effort. El_C 06:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, he'd been doing it before he reverted anything having to do with that website. See [54] [55], [56], and especially this, as this vandal has repeatedly reverted (probably more than any other of the pages he's reverted) Tickle Me Elmo, which User:EinsteinEdits repeatedly spammed with www.tmx-elmo.org . -- SonicAD (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I stand collected. El_C 13:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This aol proxy Vandal, in addition to what SonicAD has mentioned, has also threatened Pilotguy,by blanking his talk page and leaving this [57], resulting from the revision here. This vandal has been well doccumented, more background can be found in the following locations; [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] and [63]. Most recently has vandalized these pages; [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. Hu12 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

More.. [72], [73] Hu12 19:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Copying this section back from the archive, as it looks to be continuing... [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79] -- SonicAD (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

continues... [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] Hu12 18:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

more: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. Please SOMEONE help. -- SonicAD (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

69.132.107.59 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) just roared through My and Gdo01's contribs. could someone black list tmx-elmo.org and cocaine-drink.com. these are the sites he spams, every time its reverted any one involed gets vandalized. Hu12 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFSL

I have written a proposal for a hybrid between RfC, Arbcom and the Community Ban and named it WP:RFSL. It is intended to be an RFC with teeth (or faster Arbcom that works be Admins not by Arbitrators or Community ban with discussions). What do you think? Will it work? Can it be abused? Alex Bakharev 09:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not an expert at RfCs, though... What is an "RfC with teeth"? If during an RfC strong remedies are proposed and endorsed by a substantial number of editors, I don't see why such strong measures from a regular RfC couldn't be enforced. So, if regular RfCs have no teeth it's because nobody proposes or endorses stringent messures. A regular RfC has the advantage over this new RfS proposal that the decision-making isn't limited to admins. I don't particularly like the idea of giving admins a role akin to an "arbcom-at-large" or "ad-hoc arbcom". On the other hand, this is what sometimes happens anyway at WP:AN/I, so maybe this could be seen as a formalization of an existing informal process... There's also the timing question. New ArbCom elections are upcoming: why not wait and see whether the newly constituted ArbCom manages to work more speditively? Lupo 10:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing? Durova^Charge! 15:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to dovetail with Wikipedia:Community sanction a new policy written to document our recent community probations. I mention on the talk page that user conduct RFCs can be a starting place for community sanctions. I did so because currently a RFC has a motion for community santions. FloNight 21:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Both WP:DE and Wikipedia:Community sanction are very good policies, IMHO. The policies are new maybe we should see if they will work. I was thinking among other thinks about some cases like WP:AN/I#HOTR_Again there many admins insist on permaban, but some does not agree. In that case some structured way to deal with the problem faster then through arbcom may help. Also if there was a process to have a consensus solution for the chronic revert wars (like "if we allowed to name Moldavian language as Romanian language?", "if Category:Genocide suitable for Holodomor", "when it is appropriate to use word liberate", etc it would be a breeze. Alex Bakharev 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What new ground would this proposal cover? If there's a lot of overlap then it may be more effective to propose this as an addition to some existing guideline. Durova^Charge! 03:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is a good point. I'd say it overlaps a lot with Wikipedia:Community sanction, so I've put on a merge tag. >Radiant< 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that they will combine well. The Community sanction policy is written to reflect the new practices that have emerged over the last few months. It is flexible with no particular way to reach consensus for community sanctions. WP:RFSL does not describe a current community practice. It appears to be a more rigid process than the community wants to use. Instead I think that user conduct RFCs will be a spring board for community sanctions in some instances. Overtime when this happens we can document it with policy. Thoughts? FloNight 15:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think RFSL is too process-heavy. The problem with RFC (or one of the potential problems) is that if there is consensus that an editor's behavior is a problem but the editor doesn't agree, there is no enforcement mechanism but to take it to Arbitration. Rather than adding yet another step in the dispute resolution process, Community sanction becomes the enforcement mechanism for RFC. When there is strong consensus that action needs to be taken, the participants can bring their case here. I expect that once it becomes more widely known that admins are willing to enforce article bans, revert paroles, and so on, there will be a lot less dead-end RFCs. Thatcher131 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus the fact that as Flo says, Community sanction is something we are already willing to do, RFSL is an eniterly new thing which will likely attract a lot of debate if we try to implement it. Thatcher131 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually WP:DE links RfC to community sanctions, although only in cases where uninvolved editors form the consensus. Is that the difference here? 72.199.30.31 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

At that moment I put the proposal to get feedback and start a sort of brainstorming not to seek the immediate adoption of the proposal.

(de-indent) I dislike this idea. Administrators and regular editors are NOT different classes of users here and the opinion of an administrator is not intrinsically worth more then that of a user. ---J.S (t|c) 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which idea? I'm starting to lose the thread here. Thatcher131 19:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Still there are processes like Community Ban there administrators as a whole acts as committee. I was trying just to put some formal process into it. Alex Bakharev 00:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like a clear explanation of this proposal's unique purpose. No disrespect, Alex. It just seems that a couple of recent guidelines cover pretty much the same ground. Durova^Charge! 04:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very least I'm going to remove the merge tag from Wikipedia:Community sanction, since it is too early to consider merging a description of what we already do with an entirely new proposed process. Thatcher131 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• By "merge" I do not mean "cut/paste everything from one page onto the other" but something like "add the best parts of the proposal onto the already mostly accepted page". >Radiant< 09:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. My concern is that one describes what the community is already doing and the other is proposing a fairly rigid new process. I do not think that they mix that well for that reason even though they do overlap. As we find our way with community sacnctions I've tried to carefully follow the community lead here instead of getting ahead. Waiting for the community to use the authority that we had newly recognized on this page in discussions before introducing it. Doing it this way was key to successful introduction of Wikipedia:Community sanction, I think. FloNight 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please delete

Would someone please delete the redirect Medical assistant so I can move the Medical Assistant (MA) article to that title? -THB 17:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I made the move too. Can you clean up a few of the articles that link to Medical Assistant (MA)? I see this has already been done in the past and somebody moved it from Medical assistant to Medical Assistant (MA) without much justification. Oh well. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for your (extra!) help! -THB 19:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Making a similar request here: can an admin remove the redirect RPG Maker so the RPG Maker Series article can be moved to that space? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 18:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can any admin help me with this? I still can't move the page until the "RPG Maker" redirect is deleted. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbifurcated users

Have a look at these two sets of contribs: [91], [92]. See the references to the so-called "fashion freedom" movement, links to Gaultier's "Bravehearts" show, edits to High-heeled shoe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). And of course the "mug" bit (including adding the phrase "unbifurcated garments" to skirt and dress). The user is not banned, and there is no suggestion of block evasion, but it's not just me, ius it, this is the same guy? This [93] represents a POV-push of course. Guy 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They certainly look the same to me, right down to their user pages. The latter account supports the former account in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dr1819. Somewhat unexpectedly, Mugaliens claims to be more moderate than Dr1819. Either that's for show, or the user is honestly interested in making a fresh start. I don't know if his contributions uphold such an interest... Melchoir 23:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(after ec) My impression is that they are different people who both happen to have the same interest. Dr1819 has a pretty distinctive style of interaction, which I don't see the traces of in Mugaliens's postings. Also, Dr1819 has some strong interests unrelated to unbifurcation, and Mugaliens doesn't seem to share them (although I confess I haven't gone through all his contribs). FreplySpang 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(after looking more closely) Hm, I take it back, Mugaliens does seem to be a network engineer who is interested in aviation, much like Dr1819. They could be the same guy. But it's fine with me if he wants to make a fresh, more moderate start. FreplySpang 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed now: he's edit warring over links to kiltmen.com and inserted the word "unbifurcated" in skirt and dress. Guy 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here we go again. It's all about bias and fashion nazism, nothign to do with WP:EL and removing linkspam. Obviously. Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mugaliens, his article RfC. Guy 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StonedChipmunk warning templates

Is it just me, or are most of these templates problematic? At best they seem unnecessarily confrontational. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just you. I suggest that this editor may need a little help. He's using these user templates rather freely. John Reid ° 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

They're fairly confrontational, but I don't necessarily think they're bad. I'd just suggest he's careful when using them (a lot like {{blatantvandal}}. Alphachimp 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on him. He means well. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#Wikipedia_vandal_control. --Guinnog 11:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The images are really inflammatory. Official warning templates only have images (and a single stop hand sign) for the fourth level. Talk about having "grumpy users" scare off a newcomer. I'd be scared off if someone tuck a big-ass stop sign or something on my talk page, especially on a first-level warning. Hbdragon88 03:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is removal of warnings a no-no?

On WP:PAIN, Durova states that there is no consensus for considering it improper when a user removes warnings from their talk page. If so, this comes as news to me. Where is/was this discussed?

Atlant 15:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the thread above. pschemp | talk 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting MER-C, "here, here and here". yandman 15:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references.

Atlant 15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Basically, Durova is correct. While some RC patrollers are inconvenienced by warning removal and would like it to be a blockable offence, to my knowledge there are no admins who will actually block for this (as opposed to repeating the behavior that caused a warning in the first place, which obviously is bad). (Radiant) 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

THats funny. I got bollocked for removing warnings not long ago. Has the rule changed?--Light current 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Pretty much. More specifically, a group of people discussed it and found consensus for forbidding talk page warnings; but as they started acting on that and drew attention from others, people outside that group tended to disagree, and it started to become clear that the consensus of the group did not match the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole. (Radiant) 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"and it started to become clear that the consensus of the group did not match the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole" - sorry, that just made me giggle a bit. Clearly a larger structural problem... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone is removing warnings and then continues to misbehave, then admins are free to take appropriate action. On occasions this might include replacing the warnings - but as a norm assmming good faith demands we assume the person has read and understood and wished to start again. Of course that assumption is easily rebutted if the misbehavious continues. However, {{Wr0}} seems to be nothing but an assumption of bad faith - if someoen removes warnings it looks to me more like they HAVE read them.--Doc^g 16:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I spend most of my administrative time at WP:PAIN and WP:RFI maybe I should explain my take on this more clearly. From the way I've read the threads on this debate, I just don't have authority to block in direct response to warning removals. I wish the community would back me in extreme cases such as when administrator warnings get blanked less than a day after they were posted. So as it is I don't block for that, but people who remove valid warnings almost always earn a block for established policy violations soon afterward. So I weigh the removal along with other factors when I decide how long to block them. Durova^Charge! 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on SCotUS page

Some one please fix the US Supreme Court Page: someone has inserted racist commentary and insulting photos. Sorry about my format, but this is the only way I know how to edit a page and its important this is fixed soon

It's being/been fixed.

Atlant 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History merge

Would appreciate if someone could merge the histories of

• The Hits Album up to and including the "15:10, 2 March 2006 DJ HEAVEN" edit, and
• Hits (compilation series)

Basically, DJ HEAVEN made a cut-and-paste dupe article which ended up becoming the "main" article. Yes, I know that was a bad idea...

Please note that (a) The current version of The Hits Album is an automatic redirect, and (b) There is a different the hits album article (note capitalisation; that is a redirect only).

Fourohfour 15:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Done. (Radiant) 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review a block I made on User:Bimzalazim

Hi. Perhaps the community should review a block I recently made on Bimzalazim (talk · contribs). I blocked user as a sock of Fakir005 (talk · contribs). Back story is archived at AN/I here.

In a nutshell, Fakir005's only edits and intents on WP was to improperly edit the Zedo, ad serving and related pages. After Fakir005 was blocked for disruption (not by me), s/he made threats of switching IPs to continue these efforts [94]. Shortly thereafter, ad serving was again vandalized in similar fashion by Bimzalazim [95]. The content & tone of this vandalism was similar to Fakir, it was the vandals first and only edit, and the username was obviously chosen as a derivative of my username. All these factors led me to the conclusion that Bimzalazim was a sock of Fakir attempting to continue the vandalism.

It seems Bimzalazim is e-mailing various admins (including myself) accusing me of being a sock/shill of Zedo and demanding to be unblocked. I don't agree, but perhaps it should be reviewed. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was mailed. I asked if Bimzalazim hade previously edited as Fakir005. I'm still awaiting a reply. Charles Matthews 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have indefblocked that account just for the username. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I've received the e-mail as well, and I too would have indefblocked the account just for the username. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I too received the email. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 16:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I received the email also. I think probably Bimzalazim should be indefinitely blocked and I support the block on Fakir005. Seems to be no disagreement here other than from the person who has been blocked. --Yamla 16:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I received an email as well, which led me to ask ZimZalaBim about it (which ultimately led to this discussion). As I told ZimZalaBin, I would have allowed more edits before reaching his conclusion although I dont necessarily disagree with his conclusion. What is particularly suspicious is the edit mentioned above: [96] (although this was removed from the Fakir005's talk page so I didnt read it previously). It seems that you all are looking into this matter (& awaiting replys from Bimzalazim), so I'll leave it to you. However, I dont think that the chosen username is grounds for blocking in itself, pace a few of the opinions above. – ishwar  (speak) 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad there's support for my block. Would it be acceptable for me to remove this libelous comment [97] at User talk:Bimzalazim that User:Ish ishwar restored?

I restored the removed comment because it helped to inform me and potential others about the situation. As you probably know, removing personal attacks is controversial here. If something is particularly offensive, portions of the the comment can removed while leaving the rest visible for others. – ishwar  (speak) 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I received yet another email from Bimzalazim, again falsely claiming he has been blocked for calling Zedo an adware and claiming that ZimZalaBim is crooked and on the Zedo payroll. I responded pointing out the falsehoods and asking yet again if the user is really claiming he and Fakir005 are different people, pointing out that we can check to be sure. I suspect if I get any further emails from this person, I'll simply reply asking for the person to state under oath that he and Fakir005 are different people. Without that, there's really no benefit to continue responding. --Yamla 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I received another message from Bimzalazim, but no firm statement whether or not the accounts, Bimzalazim and Fakir005, were related. My response was as follows: "You have made no sworn statement that Bimzalazim and Fakir005 are unrelated accounts. I need you to state whether these two accounts are related or not. Until you do that, please do not email me further." The user did ask that both accounts were immediately unblocked, however, which strongly implies that Bimzalazim is indeed a sockpuppet of Fakir005. --Yamla 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just received another message from this user, once again refusing to make any statement as to how the two accounts are related. This time threatening to make legal threats against me (sort of a meta-violation, though not a direct violation of WP:LEGAL). My response was to tell the user to stop emailing me unless willing to state how the two accounts are related. --Yamla 21:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I was first notified of Fakri005's edits on Zedo by User:DoGooderJohnnyD on October 9 [98]. (And I'm not currently on anyone's payroll, unfortunately). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Man, I would love to be on someone's payroll to do my Wikipedia work. howcheng {chat} 21:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I notified you of Fakir005's non-NPOV edits because you had a comment on that user's talk page reminding them of the WP NPOV policy. I never received any such comment on my talk page when I created my login, so I assumed this was in response to some sort of non-NPOV activity. I decided to notify you directly since you were probably already familiar with Fakir005's activity. I certainly find watching this whole process fascinating. Keep up the good work, everyone. --DoGooderJohnnyD 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like this was handled very reasonably but I do have one small suggestion. For future reference, I do not think users should be requested to provide statements "under oath" or "sworn" statements. We have no authority to be administering or demanding oaths and using that language carries a suggestion of legalism that we generally try to avoid. Just a thought. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the user has now admitted to using abusive sockpuppets and plans to withdraw the legal threat. Just a heads-up. Newyorkbrad, I see your point. Do you believe it would be acceptable to ask a user to promise rather than swear? I am not trying to imply any legally binding statements, what I'm trying to ask is a sort of "swear" like kids make on the school yard. That is, "yes, I've thought about it and I do assert that the following statement is true." Does the term, "promise", carry sufficient connotation without the underlying legal implications? If someone swore and then we proved later they were lying, I'd be disappointed and believe it would show they are acting in bad faith, but obviously I would never launch legal action or anything. If "promise" does not serve, any other wording that you think would work? I find that occasionally I do need some sort of statement from a person in order for me to look at unblocking them or otherwise working on their behalf. --Yamla 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Promise" or "definitely state" sound okay to me. Newyorkbrad 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was away for a bit, and have just retrieved another e-mail from Bimzalazim (sent about 3 hours ago) calling me "a crooked Adminstrator taking this job only because you are promoting Zedo as an Adserver and raking in Millions..." and asserting that "You are a sock puppet of Zedo" etc, etc. For the record, I have absolutely no connection to Zedo or any other adware company, and as far as I know, no one in my family or close circle of friends has any connection to Zedo or any other adware company. As noted above, another editor pointed out the vandalism at the Zedo article to me a month ago, and that's how I got involved. I'm not a sock for anyone, and I honestly don't give a (bleep) about this particular company.

It also appears that User:Fakir005 has retracted the legal threats that got that user blocked [99]. I've left a message for the blocking admin (User:MONGO) of that fact. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock him due to his legal threats on wiki and to me personally in email. If another admin wishes to review and do the unblocking, then that's up to them. He made it clear in an email to me that he intended to seek legal options, so I can't imagine why we would unblock him, but again, if another admin wants to unblock and monitor, that's up to them.--MONGO 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO. The unblock request seems either insincere or incorrect: the claim that he couldn't even view his talk page due to protection is wrong. And he even made abusive edits to the page after the block, most notably this threat to evade the block itself [100]. There is no evidence to conclude he would "have settled the matter then and there on 7 November, 2006". (And I have yet to see any public admission from Fakir005 of using "abusive sockpuppets" as Yamla hoped above.) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And I (who just unblocked him) agree with both MONGO and ZZB — but if my A of GF is proven wrong, we will reblock him and the case will be closed forever, since he will have used up more than his share of chances. A loon who rants about how we're making millions by promoting adware is hardly likely to maintain a low profile, is he? (Oh, and since you are raking in millions, can I get a loan?) ➥the Epopt 01:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I just did a little cleanup on the Zedo article, so I should be getting another royalty check soon. :) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different images with common name on wikipedia and commons

I am unable to deal with the images which have common name on wikipedia and commons. Here is one case involving images, Image:Betty Blythe.jpg, Image:Betty Blythe1.jpg and Image:Betty Blythe.jpg. I want to replace Image:Betty Blythe1.jpg with Image:Betty Blythe.jpg. How could it be done? Shyam ^(T/C) 17:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Tag commons:Image:Betty Blythe.jpg with {{nsd}}, which it needs, and problem solved (in roughly a week). Jkelly 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, done:). But if we take a general case, when there are two fifferent images with same name on different project (commons and other than commons) then how the problem could be solved. Then we need to change the image name on the project other than commons? Shyam ^(T/C) 18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no real easy way to rename image files. One can reupload an image to Commons (or to a local project) with a more descriptive name less likely to cause conflicts and tag the original as a duplicate for deletion. The movie poster image, for instance, could really stand to be renamed "Betty Blythe 1921 movie poster" or something of the sort. The point being that the conflict can be resolved by renaming at either Commons or the local project, but it is a bit of a hassle, especially if one doesn't have admin tools. Jkelly 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a case, an admin please delete the image without replacing the image with redundant file because other files links to the Image:Beethoven.jpg. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 18:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Done. Jkelly 18:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Betty Blythe1.jpg is by Nickolas Muray and is almost certainly not public domain. Chick Bowen 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick help with some copyvio

Mynameiscurtis (talk · contribs) is creating several articles, all with copyrighted text (good faith, no doubt). I informed him about once, and tagged several as speedy copyvio, but since I am leaving, I would like some administrator to check his other contributions for more copyvio, speedy delete them under G12, and to answer his questions if he has some. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.stateuniversity.com

I don't know how to do this, but I thought someone might: This site posted links in wikipedia for many of the pages listed on their site. Over 100 schools on their site and they are continuing to add more. 59.145.233.130, 59.95.66.173, 59.95.70.60, 74.134.246.13, 59.95.70.84, 59.145.233.130, 58.68.79.5 These are just a few of the IP's involved. It currently has 68 insertions in Wikipedia.

Also, this site is also connected with these others, many of which were added along with stateuniversity.com:

• www.encyclopedia.jrank.org
• www.madehow.com
• www.referenceforbusiness.com
• www.nationsencyclopedia.com
• www.everyculture.com

They keep switching ip's to break the pattern. Any help/advice would definitely be appreciated.

Stealthound 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone should blacklist those addresses if they keep evading possible bans. Hbdragon88 23:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

All affected pages are seen at Special:Linksearch, so you can get rid of the ones you think are unnecessary. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to request blacklisting, you may do so here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting an impartial administrator's opinion

I had posted this on the talk page for Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention on Monday, but I realize that's probably not an oft-visited page, and probably not an appropriate place for the following request, so I've cut and pasted it here. Thanks to anyone who can take the time to look this over. --JohnDBuell 01:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I've been involved in a (mostly civil) dispute over the title of History of the board game Monopoly for a couple of weeks. Multiple proposals were made, initially, for a possible new title, but only two proposals looked to have support: leaving the title alone, or moving the article to History of Monopoly (game) to line up with the main article's title at Monopoly (game). I narrowed the discussion, which has been mentioned at RFC, down to those two options, and it still appears mostly deadlocked, with 11 total votes, and one more vote for the move than for leaving the article at its present title. I don't want to say "Hey, no consensus, I'm leaving it" because that might cause negative feelings, but I'm not sure what SHOULD be said. I'm not asking for a ruling, I'd just like someone who has NOT been involved with this article at all or its dispute to come to the talk page and say "No consensus, leave it," or "One vote more is enough, move it," or "Wait a bit longer and see if one option winds up with more votes than the other." The last thing I want to see is a war start up moving the article back and forth between multiple titles. If I'm in the wrong place, feel free to come chat with me on my talk page. Thanks very much. --JohnDBuell 19:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whoa!!

What's with the sudden flooding on [[101]]? There used to be only around 3 at a time!! Fredil 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 86.129.142.159 (talk · contribs) is either running a bot or is him/herself placing the g8 tags on all the image talk articles without an image. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for vandal user behaviour by Khoikhoi

Could the administation take an independent look for the following reversal of useful and pertinent contributions at the Mustafa Kemal Ataturk site please? It is very difficult for me not to interpret the revision by Khoikhoi as disrespectful vandalism. More I studied his log history at various article related to the Turkish subjects and prior bans for the same disruptive behaviour, more concerned I became. Could someone help revert the edits he damaged and request him to be more respectful to others' work? Thank you.

(cur) (last) 16:06, 10 November 2006 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) (rv to last version by me) (what last revision? this is a whole sale deletion and vandalism, is it not?) (cur) (last) 14:59, 10 November 2006 Incir (Talk | contribs) (→External links) (cur) (last) 14:26, 10 November 2006 88.242.84.98 (Talk) (→See also) (cur) (last) 06:19, 10 November 2006 71.162.66.250 (Talk) (→An Overview in A Nutshell) (cur) (last) 05:59, 10 November 2006 71.162.66.250 (Talk) (→International relations)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.66.25 (talk • contribs) .

Could you give some examples of some of his other issues? He undoubtably has a lot of reversions because he's a vandal fighter, but if he's acting badly in other places, some other examples would be helpful. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This looks like the most significant change made by User:Khoikhoi. At a glance and without knowing the subject, I'd say this was a perfectly reasonable revert of an unnecessary addition of duplicate and WP:POV material, but someone else should confirm this judgement. Gwernol 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(to anon) Perhaps you could try discussing things with me first before jumping to the conclusion that I'm a vandal? That would be nice.

BTW, now the anon is spamming talk pages of Turkish users. Khoikhoi 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you send him a quick message, Khoikhoi? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that would work. Khoikhoi 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

WP:AIV has been sitting stale for about 2.5 hours now. It's getting rather full. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Khoikhoi 04:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Me and Luna Luna and I got it all. Khoikhoi 05:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asinine behavior at RD

Anyone else want to try to convince the clowns at the RD that, for example, this thread is completely inappropriate? Before wading in you might want to review the history at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and user talk:Light current. I've tried to be way more than reasonable, but apparently have only managed to piss them off. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blanked the section (see my last edit in the history) and left a note at Light current's talk page. JoshuaZ 05:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference desk Humanities gets trolled consistently by the please-talk-to-me set ("blacks are stupid," "jews run everything," "women are stupid," "anyone who believes in God is stupid," "anyone who doesn't believe in God is damned"), but the volunteers have lately been giving head to the needy clowns way too often. There isn't much to do but offer up stern reminders and then hope that they take the advice. As volunteers, there isn't much coercive that can be done to or about them, nor should anything more really be necessary. Geogre 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User Light current is not a random troll on the reference desk. He regularly abuses it, askes inappropriate questions and answers serious questions with jokes. Someone really should keep an eye on his, its childish behaviour such as this that seriously hiders the usefulness of that part of the project. pschemp | talk 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What pompous nonsense! Give examples of inappropriate questions. Look at the ratio of serious answers to jokey ones. Why are you picking on me. Other people use the RDs. Why didnt you also remove the preceding comment by StuRat eh?--Light current 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat has been nearly as bad in the past, just not this time. You both need to think before you type. pschemp | talk 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is your personal interpretation of the posts. The posts happened to serious. THe problem with applying your own rules is that they aren't WP rules. You are acting as censor, judge jury and (possibly) executioner. That is not the function of an admin. That is not the spirit of WP. Deletion of other peoples that do not attack anyone is censorship. This is the slippery slope of which I have warned: I dont like you, so Im going to remove any of your posts to which I take a dislike.And if you argue about it, Ill block you!

All your actions need to be backed up by written WP poilices. Just using the term disruption is a cop out. I could say you were being disruptive by removing parts of a thread. And I ask you again: How is that thread disruptive to WP? --Light current 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. Just tonight we have more inanity and crude jokes that could be offensive to those not "in" on them. If these editors continue, I'm going to block them. Their actions are disruptive and offensive. pschemp | talk 03:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I told you that is NOT a joke. Its a short discussion on skid marks that should not offend anyone. Tell everyone how these posts disrupt anything. I would think VERY carefully before I took unjustified and unsustainable actions. I get the impression now that Im being Wikistalked by pschemp. Please desist.--Light current 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously how many people need to tell you to knock it off for you to listen? - Taxman ^Talk 06:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am listening. So far I have heard a few admins tel me they dont like my jokes. Knock what off? What am I being accused of?

I am not trying to be offensive to anyone and thread was serious. You must come up with a violation of some rule. Otherwise you are just making up policies to suit yourselves. Please tell me specifically where I am violating policy.--Light current 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop rules lawyering. You don't need to be violating policies to not be helpful. Seriously, you've been asked multiple multiple times. When there are several conversations I can think of asking you to stop a behavior, those conversations are all wasted time that could be saved by you just stopping the behavior. So enough already. - Taxman ^Talk 19:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So are you going to tell me what rules Ive broken or not? Or which behaviour to stop. Do you mean stop posting anything anywhere? If not, please be specific so we can all learn to abide by the consensus rules. 'Not being helpful' can be applied to anyone who does nothing. THey are not helping at all! What you are saying is much more than that, but what exactly is it that I do that is disrupting WP?--Light current 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See below. - Taxman ^Talk 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you broke the civility rules (referring to someone's Mother is out of bounds). Second, from one of Wikipedia's official policy pages: Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. \-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit referring to someoness mother. I didnt know that was disallowed. I cant see this particular bit on not being allowed to mention peoples relatives in WP:Civility: perhaps you could point it out to me? It was not intended to be an offensive referral. I apologise if anyones or their mother was offended. Most people who live at home have their mother do their washing, so I see no disrespect in mentioning that she would not throw out underwear for that reason (anb action suggested in the previous post).

I dont see how that comment in any way interferes with creating an encyclopedia. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Neither do I see how it attempts to explore the viability of anarchic communities. But again maybe you are reading something into it that wasnt there. I again restate that this thread was a serious one on how to remove skid marks from underware. 8-((--Light current 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering you've been asked so many times to stop your unhelpful behavior it's rather disingenuous to ask for specifics again. How about in general stop using Wikipedia as a discussion forum? Stop rules lawyering and stop making wasted edits. Stop arguing just to argue as you're doing here. And yes, that is what you're doing because you've been told so many times, you already know what behaviour is expected. If you still claim you don't, you should be able to go find out easily enough. - Taxman ^Talk 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can determine from all the criticisim (in the absence of specifics) is that some Admins would like to gag me completely.--Light current 13:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community probation

Why are we wasting time on this? I propose we apply a Wikipedia:Community sanction and ban Light current and StuRat from the reference desks for an appropriate period of time (perhaps 2 weeks to start), to be enforced by appropriate blocks. Thatcher131 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting what reason? If its funny comments, yould better ban all the other joking RD editors as well so that it doesnt appear to be discrimination. Also you will need to change the rules so that any form of joking on RDs is banned.--Light current 21:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of Light's edits seem to be acceptable and he seems to have actually answered serious questions with serious answers on some occasions. I suggest for now simply strong caution to use the reference desk primarily for what it is designed for. While joking may be acceptable under some circumstances, they should be kept to a minimum. JoshuaZ 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, as far as I've seen, has been incredibly informative on the RDs. He's also been more serious recently, even if he's not stone-serious I havn't noticed anything that could be construed as disruptive since the last time this was brought up with him. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

THank you Joshua for that sensible comment. 8-) I agree to do that and if you look at my replies over the last week or so, you will in fact see that the amount of foolish silly replies from me has markedly diminished.

Also some people may have noticed that I am in fact trying to form a set of guidelines for posting on the RDs. This process was going quite well until the present distraction. Also remember that a great deal (the majority) of silliness is initiated by silly questions from unknown users who do not sign their posts. Guidelines on how to deal with trolling or stupid questions will also need top be developed. I think this procedure is far better than leaving judgement upto individuals as to whether a particular post is offensive, silly, tolling etc. That is one reason I proposed that it should take the agreement of 2 editors before any post was removed from the Rds(except in cases of blatant violiation of WP:Civi, WP:BITE etc.).In fact maybe the last guideline to add to the 3 I have already formulated would be:

While joking may be acceptable under some circumstances, it should be kept to a minimum.

8-)--Light current 21:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

May I make a comment about LightCurrent? This is my observation after several months of interaction.

1. I believe this is a good-faith editor, and I don't think strict/punitive remedies are necessary or desirable.
2. I think his problems stem from two sources: a) I believe he is truly, genuinely incapable of recognising the line between appropriate and inappropriate humour/comments. That, IMO, is why he is pushing for rules and regs on this matter; I think he invests a lot of emotion into his work on WP and it causes him a great deal of anxiety to have uncertainty/ambiguity v/v its reception. Compounding that is that b) he has no faith in the community at large to guide him in matters of appropriate communication. I believe it causes him great anxiety to feel 'at the mercy' of a bunch of people.
3. I believe he has a problem with authority, and that extends not only to Administrators, but in fact to anyone who offers feedback or concrit, however mild, on his contributions or behaviour. Note that for a couple of months, he had a header on his userpage reading something like, 'Barnstars from my friends, blocks from my enemies'. He can't recognise when a critical observation or inhibiting action is taken against him in good faith, or to be helpful. Such actions automatically make the perpetrator an enemy.
4. I think the only reasonable solution is if an editor can be found who has community trust and common sense, and who would be willing to mentor/mediate, and from whom LightCurrent would actually accept concrit and gentle guidance. I do not know if such a person exists, because I have seen numerous instances of LC reject and pillory even the gentlest, most well-meaning guidance. OR, we just accept the status quo. Because in my observation any comment or attempted intervention from the community at large generates a firestorm of conflict that LC and a couple of other editors latch onto, to the detriment of the community. Anchoress 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a very good summary and I dont think I can disagree with any part of it. I am particularly impressed with the fourth suggestion as I do find that reasoned argument works better with me than threats or critisism. Also yes if we did have rules and reg, everyone including me would know where the line was. I am the first to admit it when I have been shown to be wrong as past evidence shows. I thank Anchoress for taking the time to do this personality analysis. 8-)--Light current 22:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its dead on. However it isn't the community's place to legislate or make insanely detailed rules for behaviour because you are incapable of understanding what is over the line. In fact, I know you are capable because you replaced the original offensive post with one that is slightly better, so that's evidence your brain works, you just aren't using it most of the time. Find someone to help you. Maybe SCZenz will do it since he thinks that the people who posted here are so abusive. pschemp | talk 12:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(The last sentence misunderstands the context of the message it links, and misrepresents my position. Please see my note on pschemp's talk page. -- SCZenz 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Well really I cant quite see the difference apart from the wording being more formal (less colloquiall). Perhaps its colloquiall language that gets your goat? Unfortunately, if you keep it a secret as to what offended you, no one will know what to avoid in the future. Also, I bet that what offended you was not the same thing as what offended some other commenters. But of course we wont know until everyone is specific about what exactly is offensive of wher exactly the line is drawn.

Anyway why do you object to having some rules on the RDs. You seem to quote your own versions of the existing rules often enough when it suits you. I wouldnt say the people posting here are abusive. Some are however seem agressive and hostile as if their very existence were being threatened. Is that your reason?--Light current 12:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a babysitting service. pschemp | talk 13:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why act as a baby sitter? And please do not remove my posts. You are acting outside your authority.--Light current 13:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove any post made by you to this thread. Please remove your paranoid hat. pschemp | talk 17:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible resolution

After discussions with Light current and pschemp, I will be working personally with Light current on this stuff. This would be something like the mentorship suggested above; I hope to come to some understanding with him on what's appropriate for the reference desk, and on how to handle disputes about such issues in the future. If there are further problems that I miss, I would appreciate being informed of the situation and being given the chance to take the first try at handling the issue through discussion. -- SCZenz 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, SCZenz and don't hesitate to ask for help with anything if you need it.... thanks for agreeing to take this on. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He wont need any! 8-|--Light current 17:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another reference desk issue

While people in this thread are discussing the Reference Desk, I'd like to ask whether I am the only one who finds this thread inappropriate? It's partly because I happened to have noticed elsewhere the self-identified age of one of the participants in the thread (a reason why I increasingly try to keep tabs on that sort of thing - sometimes it is helpful to know the age of the people you are talking with), but also because in general the way the original question was phrased might well be something that would be considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. Carcharoth 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I would prefer to see it deleted as inappropriate to the reference desk— not for exactly the reasons you cite, but on the grounds that it is not a science question, and indeed not a question that we could factually answer in any meaningful way. -- SCZenz 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with both -- this seems way beyond what the RD is intended for. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I too would agree that I personally find this thread disturbing and worrying nad not at all to my taste. However I will strongly defend its retention as it appears not to break any current guidelines and many people will not find it objectionable. If people want to ban this sort of discussion, then a guidelines on sexual acts or use of certain language on RD should be drafted. This is a very good example of the point about censoship that I have been trying to make the past few days. People keep on saying that WP is not censored. REmoval of this thread without backup from existing guidelines will prove that this is not the case. If you cut this, whats next? 8-(--Light current 08:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually agreeing with Light current here. It isn't an unreasonable question to ask in of itself. I find the practice a bit gross myself but that isn't a reason to censor it. In fact, this is a good example of the desk being used for what it is supposed to be used for. A question was asked and it was answered with pointers to the relevant Wikipedia articles. JoshuaZ 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and I usually don't bring up age issues, as many people around here don't divulge their age, but it is with questions like this that I suddenly find myself drawing back and thinking, "hang on, I (and many other people) would talk differently about this topic if I (or they) were aware of the age of the people reading and posting in the thread." I have no problem with children reading encyclopedic articles about such topics, as the articles can be presented neutrally, but on these topics the tone of the discussions are more subjective and need to be tailored to the age of the people asking the questions. To be quite clear, it is not the self-identified age of the original questioner I am worried about, it is the self-identified (on their user page) age of one the participants in the thread. About the relevance of the question to the Reference Desk. It is always possible to slide around a question and try and make it relevant, but it is quite clear the original poster wasn't asking about the subjects people changed the thread into. Carcharoth 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Are these people under 16? If not whats the prob? You can have sex at 16 (ie whilst still a minor) here. And I assume that includes all forms of legal sex however perverted an individual might think. I believe a*** sex between opposite sexes is legal in the UK presently. I believe also that at one time not long ago it was not. So the question was in fact refering to legal activities (in UK at least)

So what you are implying is that it was not the original question that should be disallowed, but one ore more of the responses for veering off topic? Is that right? But of course in the absence of guidelines to the contrary, all respondents semm to have acted preoperly 8-)--Light current 15:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the people responding to that thread self-identifies as 12 years old. I didn't want to have to say that quite so bluntly, as I thought I'd made it clear above that looking at the user pages of the people involved in the thread would have made clear my concerns. I'm not saying that such questions should be avoided, but that people involved should remember that, by Wikipedia's very nature, minors (self-identified or otherwise) may be reading and even participating in such threads. And it is not the type of sex involved that worries me, more the whole idea of people in that thread discussing sex as if they were talking to adults, but probably not realising that one of the people in the thread was 12 years old. Carcharoth 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the age. However, if the respondents are aware that the OP may be asking about illegal activities, surely that is covered somewhere in the guidelines or policies? If not, the respondent should point out the legality of the activity and in any case refuse to aid and abet someone in commiting a crime! Knowledge in it self is not evil. Its how you use it--Light current 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But this is not what I was talking about. I am merely wondering whether the people participating in that discussion would have said things differently if they had been aware of the ages of the people involved in the dicussion (not the original poster). Not whether the activities or discussion of said activities are illegal. My position is that people should remember the "I don't know how old this user is" thing, and remember this when they find themselves talking about whatever they personally feel to be 'adult' material. This only applies to discussions, because minors reading Wikipedia are the responsibility of their guardians (who should be aware that Wikipedia has material not suitable for minors). When you are directly corresponding with someone on a talk page or at the reference desk, it is important to check whether that user has self-identified their age, because if you would act differently towards someone of that age if they were standing in front of you, you should do the same online. If they don't self-identify their age, then no problem. Just remember that you don't know their age. Carcharoth 16:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think WP RD has a duty to refer the OP (however old they are) to the answers they are seeking. Discussion of the nicities of the subject is not required. WP is not censored for minors! Do you think it should be. 8-? For instance:

Q: what is anal sex?

A: See anal sex is all thats needed. 8-)--Light current 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at what I wrote, you will see that I wrote above: "I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors". Given that, why are you now turning round and trying to tell me this?

Now, your example is a simple RD question and answer. The problem comes when people post questions like "how to I get my girlfriend to do XYZ?", and people reply "practice safe sex", when they should reply "we don't answer questions like that" (plus, "practice safe sex" if they want to say that).

But again, this is going away from my point (ie. going off-topic), which is: Wikipedians in general (including those at the Reference Desk) need to remember that unless they are told otherwise, the user they are talking to could be a minor, so self-regulate yourself as you would if talking to someone face-to-face. This is not just the OP in a thread (which is what you are focussing on for some reason), but any anonymous person on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 17:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well its interesting you should bring up such a point. THis very problem is dealt with in the first of my proposed guidelies: Address the question, not the questioner. ie the question should be answered in a matter of fact way referring to our pages on the subject where we have them. THe RD editors should not actually be 'talking' to anyone. 8-)--Light current 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of consent

This can be as low as 14 years in some parts of Europe! [102]--Light current 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So? You are going off-topic. Carcharoth 16:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No its completely pertinent to the above discussion. If the age of consent is 14 where they live and they ask any question about sex, its legal and therefore proper to give factual replies! 8-)--Light current 16:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point. I've said several times above that it is not the age of the OP I was worried about (the OP in fact only gave the age of his girlfriend). It was the age of one of the participants in the thread I was trying to get people to consider. So yes, you were going off-topic (which is not to say that that is a bad thing). Carcharoth 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ive just looked and I cant see any evidence of any of the respondents stating their ages. They could have been removed I suppose.--Light current 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah respondents in the thread! Not participants in the act! I see. Well we cant stop minors from viewing or responding on threads. THe only way to do this is to have a censored version of WP for minors. I suggested this before Juniorpedia or some such name.--Light current 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the answers given in the case, are dangerously close to giving medical advice, which really bothers me and moreover one respondent is nearly suggesting the guy just do stuff to his girlfriend without asking her or discussing it. I can't wait to hear the case where "the guys on Wikipedia told me to do it." is used as a rape defense. The question is problematic and so are the answers. pschemp | talk 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So whats the answer? Block 'em all? Also Carcharoth was worried about one of the participants being only 12. What about our 12 year old admins: are they immune from this sort of material?--Light current 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean: should we really have admins who are below the age of consent? Never mind the age of majority or 'key of the door' age.--Light current 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You totally missed my point. I'm not talking about age at all. I'm talking about the legal ramifications of giving advice. pschemp | talk 17:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well my opinion is that we shouldnt be giving out advice. Either legal, medical, financial, sexual or personal other than to seek help from the appropriate experts! 9-)--Light current 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Act seems questionable

Can someone please review the precipitous action by Admin Carnildo on a fair use image deleted before the time limit, so far as I can see. I've been away and am still extremly busy, but what seemed to be some edit warring I looked in on as a Member's Advocate has me scratching my head as the image policies seem to now be applied contrary to common sense and way, way beyond legal needs.

   See Part-II of User_talk:Carnildo#Missing_information. This is the section in /Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion-- which also seems to be part edit war. Thanks // FrankB 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo is absolutely right. This guy is not a recluse, and it would be quite possible to get a free use image of him. Better to use no image than one that violates fair use. -- Steel 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Carnildo here the fair use policy is pretty clear your suggestion on User_talk:Carnildo "Yeah, I'm going to hop a plane and go hunt the guy down for a Pic? So how many hundreds do you think I'll spend" misses the mark the policy says "No free equivalent is available or could be created" not "could be create cheaply by the person currently wanting to use the image". And your comment "You seem to be forgetting the mission—a world class information source", seems to be missing the very significant part of the mission - the "free" bit. --pgk 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I echo others' approval of this deletion, and would also point out that by clear consensus as well as with the authorization of the foundation, "legal needs" is not the issue. We want an image policy that's consistent with our article policy, which is that GFDL or public domain is the norm and relying on fair use a rare exception. Chick Bowen 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, of course, with the deletion. But I have a question: I often come across "fair use" images that aren't even close to being fair use. For example: Image:Axis porcinus.jpg: "This is fair use, because it's the only picture of this animal that I could find." (paraphrased). What should I do about these? Should I just delete these images, or is there a tag {{not-fair-use-please-delete}} that I can put on the image and just forget about it? I don't want to have to: put a tag on it that I cannot remember, notify the original uploader, AND add the image to a page like WP:PUI. It's such a clear violation of our FU policy that I'm not going to jump through that many hoops. Eugène van der Pijll 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that clearing up this kind of thing is needlessly buraucratic. There's always {{Fair use replace}}, but in this case I doubt anyone would object to an out of process speedy. -- Steel 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone. Let's consider it a test case and see what happens. Chick Bowen 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy it, or stick {{Replaceable fair use}} on it if you want to give it a seven-day stay of execution. --Carnildo 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that template was what I was looking for. It seems that images tagged with that template will be looked at and deleted in a reasonable time, which is what I wanted. Eugène van der Pijll 11:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Free? How is that really germane?

• This strict constructionist interpretation of an 'ideal goal' in a work in progress is really baffling to me from the standpoint of quality of the product and respect for other editor's time and interests. Do keep in mind, if an editor is interested in a topic, there are tens of thousands of readers who are likely to be looking in and appreciative.
  
     So happens I'd briefed the uploader by email on how to obtain a free image sans a costly flight, but this unecessary rush to delete material before it can be replaced only makes our articles poorer to my way of thinking—a case of throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water.
  
     Would that most of you champions of the rule of 'free' should consider that this 'noble goal' is a mirror of an ideal that the English wikipedia be portable to several hundreds of relatively minor cultures, not a legal need—so there is no reason to rush to delete such (save perhaps anal retentativeness and an over indulgence in unnecessary and in this case harmful rules worship).
  
     To my mind, unnecessarily removing any good-faith content, perhaps especially pics (the old saw: 'A picture speaks a thousand words' certainly applies in cases like this! <g>), just diminishes and devalues the overall results and quality we are (all? hopefully) trying to obtain. Never mind that properly attributed publicity pics are something the theoretically harmed owner will cheer us on doing to include, when such 'harm' is added, this gets beyond ridiculous into the realm of stupid and self-defeating.
  
     I suppose we ought to follow the logical extension and start speedy-deleting book and magazine cover art too... to be consistant and logical, so we can all look ourselves in the mirror without regrets. Not!
  
     In sum, that idealistic introductory paragraph is self-defeating and inconsistant in WP:FUC, and I'd really respect you all better if you were thinking of the big picture, not some trivial idealistic non-need that cannot be satified perfectly given books, et. al. Please focus on the content and the user-reader, not editorial policies, making your decisions as admins 'easier' by blindly following bad voting results (We ALL should know how this kind of guideline twist happens. This one needs undone, clearly.) rooted in such inconsistancy, and the product will benefit greatly from all the time you free up undoing good things other editors add towards a better project. You could take all that energy and (shudder at the unthinkable!) have some time to add some content yourselves instead of indulging in the endless morrass of wiki-politics mistaking such time as being productive. They are at best supportive, not steps forward in-and-of themselves; I applaud your contribution that way, but please do keep that in mind whilst executing the office. (Yuck on this useless messaging!) Best regards, imho, that policy needs an enema and practial face-lift edit. I may just email Jimbo on this slanted interpretation. This is one more spill over from lack of top down direction and uniformity of policy. Cheers to you all! // FrankB 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh>. We've been over this a million times. Please do e-mail Jimbo; a lot of our recent push to cut down on fair use images that aren't really fair use comes from him and from the Foundation. Chick Bowen 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In Frank's email to me, his primary concern seemed to be that he felt that I had been wishy washy about handing down decrees. Ok, that is normally a fair enough criticism of me, but it is my style, and a style that has served us well. But in further investigating the case, it became clear that his real concern is that policy is firmly against him in this case.--Jimbo Wales 21:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jimbo -- I have no dog in this hunt, so really don't care which consistent policy is followed, so far as it is logically consistent—after eight years as a taxi dad, I really hope I never ever see another soccer game, so there is no 'my side', just a wrong thing here. There are too many nitpicky criteria to keep track of around here as it is, without illogical inconsistency— that's challanging enough as it is. As in my reply email, you can either disallow fair use or allow it. Not both. Have a good weekend all! // FrankB 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, this is not the place to debate policy. Admins just carry out policy, we don't determine it. You'll have to take your case to WT:FUC. Personally, I think banning fair use altogether is inevitable and should happen, but that we'll probably have to live with a wishy-washy policy during the transitional period. Chick Bowen 06:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what 'case' I have, but agree this (WP:AN) is certainly now not the venue, though was for the inital request. As I replied to Jimbo by email, it should be all Fair Use or none. I had nothing on the table on this, save it seemed nonsensically inconsistent, and still is to me.

   Apparently, whilst I was off-wiki dealing with RL, this was policy promongulated. But Kudos to Jimbo for growing a spine and actually doing some managing and setting a policy! That was quite a shock to realize! Maybe we're in for better days and our productivity will improve, should he keep on that tack! Do another Jimbo!

   One things certain... The banner template for 'Policy' really needs to be much better differentiated from the 'guidelines' box. After three years or so, I just overlook most of them for the text and they are way too similar! If you follow most of the thread(s), no one pointed out my error when I said 'guideline' (including a couple of user talks) so I didn't know I'd had egg on face until I was drafting my email reply to Jimbo last night. My premise above is clearly we were discussing a guideline... I've been in favor of more top-down managing for a long, long, long while!
   Best regards to all. This discussion now clearly all belongs elsewhere. // FrankB 15:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to Test wikipedia: I need your help Please.

I need help regarding AFD of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(second_nomination). We always say that AFD is NOT A VOTE. We say many big things like comments during AFD matter a lot. I want to test how much true it is. I wish to have a non-Jew and non-Muslim group of Admins. A group that have NO conflict of interest and I wish that admin-group close this AFD after reading both side views. I think last admin was not neutral. I ask you to help me so that this time it does not happened. I wish if someone read the whole AFD debate page and decide without any previous affiliations that what should be done. Do you think what I am requesting from you is valid and can I get that? Am I asking for too much? --- ابراهيم 14:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking too much? Yes, I'm afraid. To say that you think that the last admin was not neutral (and then not back it up with any diffs) seems to violate WP:AGF, especially because myself and others believe that the closing admin made the right call. Try and remember that the admin (Ezeu) has been made an admin by the community, not by some random chance. The likelyhood, therefore, is that the community trusts Ezeu's judgement, and trusts that he is able to close a simple AfD. However, seeing as you want a comment from someone who is neither Jewish or Muslim, here it is: Close the AfD as no consensus, default to keep. Hope this helps. Thε Halo ^Θ 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you give above mentioned comments after reading the on going AFD with open mind and care? Why you think it should be keep what reasons your support? --- ابراهيم 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I neither think the article should be kept or deleted. However, looking at the AfD, it is clear to me that the is no consensus to delete the article, and when this happens, the article is kept. Anyway, it is not time for the AfD to close yet (it opened on the 9th of November), so there is no reason to seek an admin to close this discussion yet. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked the same question from Ezeu he NEVER replied back and that is how I lose my good faith towards him. How could my holiest place first-Kaba could be changed by some freaky travel/News websites references and all the hadiths/Quran and other sources could be nullified. How could all the Islamic scholars should be forgotten and our third holiest side should be changed by Non-Muslims. How OIC should be neglected? You and your admin Ezeu cannot be wrong but all of Muslim fighting for their third holiest site are liers and we Muslim do not know it but you and Ezeu know it. Ezeu said it is NOT A VOTE and it depends on arguments. Please give me your arguments please ? Why I am lier and my parent, we all Muslim, our all scholars, our families. Why? Tell me? what are your reason to KEEP. -- ابراهيم 19:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, try to calm down. I, and no one else, have never called you a lier. Secondly, this is not a discussion on wheather the article is correct in what it says or not. If the article is not correct, change the information, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. I suggest you read WP:AFD. Thirdly, and finally, even if I thought the article should be deleted, that wouldn't mean I would delete it, as there are opinions to both keep and delete this article. An Admin's job is not to choose how is right in an AfD discussion. It is to see what consenus has been met, and abide by the communities decission. This issue needs no admin action for now, so I suggest to you that you don't worry about, go and edit somewhere else, and the community will decide what to do with the article. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Then it is a VOTE. Say it is a vote. Say the we should count the votes and decided. Say that your argument does not matter and we do not care ever how strong those argument could be we will still ONLY count the vote. Then also Ezeu should not said that it is Not a vote. --- ابراهيم 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Read Consensus decision-making. Consensus is key to Wikipedia. But, please, as I say, try to relax. I'm sure things will sort themselves out. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ezeu said to me AFD is not a vote. There were many good arguments to keep, and to delete. Merely counting votes is not the way AFDs are decided. I ask him which arguments you are talking about. He NEVER replied back. I lost my good faith towards him. You came in supporting him and strongly talking against me. I guess that at that time you have not even had read what is going on the AFD. I asked you give me your reasons to support that admin Ezeu if AFD is not depended on vote only but you are declined replying back with argument. I was NOT here to discuss Ezeu at all. Hence forget about him and forget about you too. I am here for finding 2-3 admin that could close this AFD after reading all the arguments. Those admins should have no prior affiliation with this topic (not Jew, Not Muslim). I need those admin BEFORE CLOSIND DATE OF THIS AFD. So that they can close it after reading arguments. When ever I use the word of VOTE some people start writing against me (see the AFD). Then I say okay arguments but then people like your do not listen. --- ابراهيم 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ibraheem (providing I read the Arabic in your signature correctly), please know that no one is trying to attack you, or to cause you trouble. The Halo was trying to explain the general AfD process, and why the result of the last AfD was what it was, regardless of any biases that might have been seen. It's really best not to type in caps, as it comes across as shouting, and is kind of anti-productive to the situation. Just as you think that he has not read up on the AfD discussion, you should read what he has said to you, as it's very applicable. Thanks, and feel free to ask any questions, -- Natalya 20:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone is nice with me I reply back nicely. If someone reply in bold then I make my latter capital too. --- ابراهيم 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahim is right about how AfDs are closed. It is not always the apparent keep or delete comments that decide whether or not an article should be kept but it is also the strength of the arguments on both sides of the issue. I believe Ibrahim is hopeful that an admin or group of admins will take this fact to heart and not merely count the calls for keep or delete in the AfD discussion. (→Netscott) 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I Need Help

Currently the AFD in question is only Jews vs. Muslims battle ground "mainly". People who are neutral are in minority. Al-Aqsa Mosque is located in Israel capital. Muslims claims it is our third holiest site according to our Hadith and Quran. Hence a person who declares himself a Jew created this article denying this Muslim claim . It will remain in non-consensus with respect to votes always. Hence you need to read the arguments and decided to keep or delete it. See most of the votes on Keep are from people who openly say themselves Jews and most of the votes in delete are from those who are Muslims. Hence either wikipedia policies are not good enough or you admins are not implementing it rightly. I just tried to illustrate my point clearly while doing that if you feel I become anti-semantic (which I am not at all) and you feel like banning me. Then so be it. After this AFD keep I will start hating wikipedia from deep of my heart anyway. --- ابراهيم 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry to continue discussion here) - ALM, could you possibly provide some specific examples of where the article is not good? I am starting to see what you mean about a POV fork. The problem is that the article should be included on Wikipedia. But given the heavy Muslim opposition, I'm a little skeptical about how it's written. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not discuss it here because I am here to find few admins. I have told many times in AFD. Go are read and I know where you stand. --- ابراهيم 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is speedy keep after two day. All our arguments for two day are wasted. --- ابراهيم 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Editor integrity

A proposed guideline is in development to address some gaps in the Wikipedia namespace. Currently Wikipedia:Plagiarism redirects to Wikipedia:Citing sources, which contains only one sentence about plagiarism. Related content at Wikipedia:Copyrights presumes that the reader already knows how to recognize copyright violations. Due to Wikipedia's lack of some clear statement on the subject, a good number of editors proceed in ignorance and leave problems for the rest of us to clean up. Wikipedia:Editor honesty is intended to be a straightforward practical guideline: the equivalent of a university academic honesty policy. The current draft proposal is very rough and could use input from administrators and experienced editors. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have issues with the name and subsequently the content. If you want to educate people about plagiarism, make a policy at WP:Plagiarism. However, writing a policy requiring people to be honest at all times is too general and tremendously unenforceable. I can just see any factual mistake someone makes resulting in people accusing them of being dishonest, and this would be very bad. Mistakes don't just happen to newbies either. You need to narrow the scope to address plagiarism specifically and leave the rest of the general lecture on moral behaviour out. pschemp | talk 00:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree with Pschemp on this one. I, for one, was comparing it side-by-side with Arizona State's Academic Integrity Policy, and saw that this page was pretty close to our needs. Also, the proposed draft gives what I consider to be adequate leeway to good faith new editors, and the adequate punishment to Primetime-like users. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Its the good faith old editors I'm concerned about. I don't think it gives adequate leeway to them. pschemp | talk 03:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Then change the name to Wikipedia:Editor integrity? I'd have no problem with that. I also like the idea of using existing university policies as models. Obviously they'd need adaptation to Wikipedia's specific purpose. Truth in advertising here: the current version is very rough. We're looking for help to get this right. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor integrity is better. I realise its really rough, but if you use a word like honesty, people will latch on to it and start making it a sin to be accused of, just like the word civility. Remember, that if it gets adopted, whatever you choose will become the new meme to throw at people in disputes. Like I said before, I still think the focus is too broad and that older good faith editors will get caught in it, but I realise it is a work in progress. It is a good start. The plagiarism section is good. I'm just not sure we need the others. (But I'm weird.) pschemp | talk 03:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The specific sections I drafted are the ones about appropriate use of citations. They all point to recurrent problems I've seen such as subsequent edits that ruin the integrity of an existing citation. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed the name. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:189.174.119.16

(I listed the user at WP:AIV, but he/she was removed without reasoning so I am posting it here as it states in the guidelines.) Can someone take care of this user? This user made 50+ non-english edits to Higuera de Zaragoza, did it after receiving a test4 today, and seems to always stop before he/she breaks 3RR, or right after he/she breaks 3RR. I think it's time for a block? I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 00:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly vandalism per se, but it's certainly annoying. I've semi-protected the article, which ought to take care of it. Would someone mind translating my warning here into Spanish? Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)