Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive70

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 New anti template vandal feature 2 User who repeatedly uploads untagged images 3 {{bite}} 4 Selective deletion for vandalism? 5 A petulant and totally unjustified block 6 Repeated link spamming on Phonetics 7 Image:Thomas Sowell.jpg 8 CantStandYa blocked 9 Foreign Language Wikipedia articles 10 YouTube and copyrights 11 Close poll 12 Personal attacks by JFBurton 13 Redirect Deleted? 14 Close survey of proposal 15 Deletions, a statistical review of 24 hours 16 Execution of Saddam hussein 16.1 Uber problems on execution 16.2 Rest my case 17 Gödel's incompleteness theorems 18 Just blocked Somemoron 19 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 30 20 Massive purging of YouTube links 21 Category in need of a bit of emptying 22 consensus on request to move chinese-filipino to chinese filipino 23 John Bambenek is back 24 DomBot 25 User:Khoikhoi 26 meta:Interwiki map 27 Personal attacks and death threats 28 Deletion of User talk:209.50.185.170 29 Edits of protected article Execution of Saddam Hussein 30 Corporation account 31 AfD going South, can someone keep an eye on it? 32 Petedaly 33 Check user's IP for vandalism warnings? 34 a little CYA 35 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noregia 36 Ongoing Harrassment 36.1 Block review 37 ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on Talk:Dravidian_people and on my talk page User talk:Wiki Raja 38 Rules for #wikipedia-en-admins 39 Autoblocks 40 Clue-stick application requested 41 Gaaaah! 42 Distruptive Editor has gotten away with it! 42.1 Regarding Edits To The Biological Value Article 42.2 Regarding Comments On The Talk Page of The Soy Protein Article. 42.3 Regarding Edit Summary To The Biological Value Article 43 Help deleting category 44 Other methods of blocking 45 Admin abuse 46 eleven month backlog 47 User talk page redirect? 48 Accounts uploading problematic images 49 Be ready for some POV edits to narcissism articles 50 Fraternities and sororities 50.1 Are just simple lists okay? 51 FYI 52 GNAA and Troll organization 53 ArbCom ruling on talk page removals? 53.1 Making a distinction 53.2 Why We Fight 54 Sock Puppetry, Vandalism & SPAM on Bharatanatyam page 55 ProtectionBot RFA and status 56 Images "by" User:RoboRanks 57 Requested block 58 User:67.165.216.16 59 POV edits to Animal marriage and Same-sex marriage 60 Edit war on Nebuchadnezzar II and Nebuchadrezzar II 61 db-copyvio 62 Advice requested on username 63 Reporting sockpuppets 64 Re-creation of deleted pages 65 I have a request 66 Meta admin needed 67 Funnypop12 and the Muhammad article 68 Odd user page and user behaviour 69 Article creation form? 70 Backlog at WP:RPP 71 Not sure we've got a procedure 72 User:Germanium and Walstad's conjecture 73 Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) 74 Bug or dumb admin? 75 History merge for two revisions? 76 iPhone and Apple iPhone 77 Odd image caching problem 78 History merge 79 Re: 129.7.35.194 edits 80 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalinda Gray 81 Masterlauryn (talk · contribs) using talk page as chat board, and some personal attacks 82 Personal info of children? 83 Monobooks.js 84 Category:Occitan people 85 Commons images on the Main Page 86 Linkspammer sockpuppet 87 RasputinJSvengali 88 User:HBC Searchbot 89 Full page protection review 90 re: Csetneki lace 91 Defcon indicator is not working properly... 92 Request for advice 92.1 Other parties' discussions 92.2 General suggestion 93 Can I get another read on a situation? 94 New (non) blocking capability. 95 Where cooler heads prevail 96 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Signature Shops 97 Proposed warning template series 98 Afd2 99 WP:AIV 100 Restoring the history of PAIN 101 User TheOnlyChoice 102 block review - unauthorised bot 103 More socks in Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California? 104 Massive CSD backlog 105 Template:Infobox musical artist 106 Enforced Wikibreak? 107 Vandalism 108 squidwardblock for review. 109 Billionaire bandits - a case of international murder and fraud? 110 Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets 111 Qatar autoblocked? 112 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris 113 Anyone with oversight remove the diff that was just posted? 114 Statement from Husnock on continued investigations into my activities 115 Speedy deletion of an image? 116 These two articles require name change 117 Semi-protection not blocking new accounts? 118 Brickbats this way... 119 WP:AFD 120 Please merge these articles 121 AN/I 122 Replaceable fair use

[edit] New anti template vandal feature

I just noticed that a feature which Ligulem requested last week has already been implemented. If you click 'edit' on a page and scroll down to the list of pages transcluded onto it you will now see "(protected)" or "(semi-protected)" next to those which have such status. This is a quick way of identifying any templates on the Main Page, Main Page/Tomorrow, the 'article of the day', or any other page are vulnerable to vandalism. Good job by the devs. You aren't currently logged in. --CBD 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks for pointing that out (and thanks to the developers, of course). -- Natalya 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. It woudl be even more awesome if it showed a (redirect) for those who are redirect templates so I could eliminate those (while I'm editing the page, of course, I wouldn't edit a page just to fix the redirect). Hbdragon88 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what is with User:Jmax-bot/FACount.js, why is it listed there, why can't I find the results of the include, and why is it not protected? What is it being used for and how is it included? -- Renesis (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be listing the current number of Featured Articles, so the number only has to be updated in one place to fix all places where the number is used. It is a .js even though it isn't a JavaScript for one simple reason: .js pages are effectively protected for all users except the user whose subspace it is in. Thus, Jmax-bot doesn't have to have the sysop bit to update the count, but every other user does. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Main Page it is specifically used at the bottom of the 'Today's Featured Article' section in the link to 'All XXX featured articles'. I expect alot of vandals will see that it is 'unprotected' and be very disappointed when they can't edit it. :] --CBD 11:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. That protection without needing to be a sysop idea is a smart one. Sheesh - where do people think up this stuff? -- Renesis (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It won't look that smart when the vandals work out how to use this 'feature'. It is an incredibly kludgy workaround and something else should be sorted soon. Carcharoth 04:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a significant problem - they would have to transclude one of their own js pages onto another page, and even though non-admins will not be able to remove the bad content from the js page itself, they can remove the transclusion — this doesn't seem to me as any different from regular vandalism. -- Renesis (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

True. Though I'm sure there are several other possible tricks I'll WP:BEANS here. Carcharoth 11:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Neat! I've also seen the template vandal strike talk page templates. Is there a reason for leaving these unprotected? The talk page of the current main page FAC has quite a few of them...at least semi-protection would be good in my opinion. No reason why new users would need to muck around with any of those. Gzkn 05:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User who repeatedly uploads untagged images

I was wondering what should be done about Abono para sembrar flor (talk · contribs). They have repeatedly uploaded images without providing copyright or source information and have ignored (and possibly cannot understand in this case) all messages left on their talk page. It appears as if their native language is Spanish. Right now all the images they have uploaded have been tagged for deletion unless information has been provided, and if this continues it will just create unnecessary work for admins who have to delete these images later. VegaDark 08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned him in Babelfish Spanish. I really need to practice more :(—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If the warnings do not work, I would suggest an indef. block for the user. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Spanish wasn't perfect, but it was definitely good enough to understand. :) -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{bite}}

Hey peeps. I got fed up with WP:BITing, so I created {{bite}}. Use it on those overzealous NPP individuals who mistag newbies' articles within seconds of creation. See e.g. my inaugural use of the template here in response to this. Emendations and feedback on the text of the template will be appreciated etc. The syntax is ths usual: {{subst:bite|article name}}. Thanks. - crz crztalk 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The stop sign and the "completely unacceptable" might be a little too aggressive. After all you don't want the template to break WP:BITE for the newcomers to NPP ;-) Prodego ^talk 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I don't think such a template is helpful. Even if the wording ("completely unacceptable", threatening a block) was changed to be less confrontational in tone, I think a personal note of why you disagreed with the tagging of a speedy deletion is much better than placing a template that really doesn't explain much, especially given that the person who tagged the article in the first place may be inexperienced, and the template itself may be seen as a form of biting. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A block threat too? I didn't notice that, that is a bit over the top. Prodego ^talk 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• (arg 3x edit conflict!) I already changed your wording [1] to avoid biting NP patrollers. :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 02:41Z —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 02:43Z

(edit conflicts) If this is your first template, will I be in trouble if I speedy it? I would modify some of the language in the template a bit (unless you are going to create multiple levels of warning here, which would probably be overkill). Here are my first-cut suggestions (language suggested to be deleted in strikeout, to be added in italic), I'm sure there will be some others:

"Please do not bite newcomers! Wikipedia grows by making new editors feel welcome and giving them time to learn how our website works. See WP:BITE. Your tagging of /article name/ for speedy deletion was completely unacceptable not appropriate because its author is a newbie relatively new editor and had not had time to develop the new article, or the tag was applied inappropriately page did not warrant speedy deletion, or both. Mistreating newcomers discourages them from contributing and becoming productive editors here. Repeated instances may result in a block. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions."

This template would only be appropriate in clear BITE cases. In good-faith cases, a more tailored warning should probably be used. Newyorkbrad 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(lotsa conflict) Well... Have you not seen those certain users who bite by the dozen without so much as a note? I think the eventuality of a block is not farfetched, though I've certainly never done it nor seen it done. It's been removed, regardless. - crz crztalk 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with the concept of telling the recidivist biters to ease up. I think WP:BITE when correctly applied is a great thing about this site. It's purely a question of style and wording. Newyorkbrad 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Especially to the extent that the present version contravenes WP:TJATTBDWBSI (that would be, FWIW, the Jews are trying to bring down Wikipedia by splitting infinitives). Joe 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I made it much less confrontational (perhaps too much so), so take another look. Prodego ^talk 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Awww peeps - you have emasculated my baby. Now the warnees would simply scoff at it. At least put back the hand! - crz crztalk 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an issue of irony/hypocracy - biting someone when asking them not to bite. I suppose we've inadvertently bitten Crzrussian with all the edit conflicts here, biting him when asking him not to bite when asking others not to bite, sorry about that :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 02:58Z

P.S. "new levels of meta-irony" —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 03:00Z

's ok. I am not a newb. I am unbitten. I will probably create a private text that's a lot stronger than this and use it on severe offenders. I think y'all are way too soft on these people. They are seriously the #1 bane of Wikipedia, worse than the edit warriors. n00bs are our biggest asset, and I have already heard a hundred times on and offwiki that we are regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a bureaucratic morass where good faith contributors who don't know our ways have to put up with overzealous NPP goons competing as if for first place in some perverted contest with their fancy Javascript tools. I have posted last week about WP:NPW, asking if people thought that thing was deleterious to the project overall - there were no takers. Seriously though, the problem needs solving. I've been making trouble at RfA with it for a couple of months now, but that apparently did not strike enough fear into the relevant hearts. If the crz problem-solving methods are too rough-hewn for all of you, I understand that, but then do better things yourselves, please. - crz crztalk 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

btw, does anyone know the definition of "hypocracy"? Does "rule by the lowly ones" fit? lol - crz crztalk 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Noob-biting is the number-one bane of the 'pedia? I would've said lack of sources, but maybe that's just me. Anyways, I understand where you're coming from about the NPP thingy - this automated new-page-patrol tool surprised me too. (The again, I couldn't even figure out how to install AWB once I downloaded it, so maybe I'm not one to comment on these tools.) But giving stop-hand emblazoned, robotic, and somewhat patronizing warnings to contributors who are working, in good faith, to clean up the encyclopedia isn't going to help. Why not just type them an explanation of what actions of theirs that you disagree with, direct them to the relevant policy, and save block warnings for when they haven't stopped after two or three personalized, situation-specific warnings? In short, I think the template isn't really going to work out. Picaroon 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I've said this on a couple of RfA's, but nowhere more public: as much as I agree that some of the NP patrollers think they're playing an MMORPG and are leveling up by racing each other to bad articles, is quick speedy-tagging really "biting"? If I were a newcomer who had written a blatantly deficient article, I'd like to be informed of it quickly, rather than coming back a few days later to find my one creation swept into the wastebin hours after I considered it "finished". We'd also like to see enthusiastic newbie effort going toward something productive - even a well-written and polished article about a lame garage band is still an article about a lame garage band; no sense in letting them pour more time and effort into something that is never going to pass muster. Also, obligatory general objection to talking in templates. Opabinia regalis 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly the immediate mistagging that I am worried about. "Jane is stupid" can be tagged before creation for all I care. It's good faith legitimate efforts that are getting swept up. As for refernencing, we can always fix it up over time in established articles. But without contributors we are dead. - crz crztalk 03:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the kind of biting you describe sometimes, but agree with Picaroon that it's not the "#1 bane". I think the first message should be a very friendly reminder, not a threat to block. Anyway, you're free to use stronger wording, I just wouldn't put it in a template. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 03:54Z

But there are plenty of "good-faith" but totally misguided new articles created - mostly people's garage bands, from what I've noticed. Does tagging these fall under your definition of biting? To pull a random example of the speedy queue, I doubt the creator of Phazm meant it in bad faith, but there's nothing encyclopedic about it. It was tagged 3 minutes after creation and a talk-page template was left for the author: is that a bite situation in your view? Opabinia regalis 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is having a problem with incivility in general (anyone biting anyone, not just newbies) and with oversensitivity about being bitten (Bob:You were rude - you should be blocked for always being so incivil. John:No I just disagreed with you. Tom:Well as his friend but uninvolved in this fight, I'm going to block you. ...) I'm not sure the problem is getting worse, but we certainly aren't handling it well. WAS 4.250 04:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Two things: First, repeated and unashamed WP:BITEing is disruptive. We can block for that. A personally written warning is likely to be of more help than a template, though. Second, placing obstacles in the way of patrolling and tagging new pages might well be counter-productive. It has been noted that spending too much time at The Frehose Of Crap makes one jaded. We should recommend that people take time off to do Other Stuff^TM. It is not easy to tell the difference between version 1.0 of a band vanity article and version 1.0 of a valid article, so perhaps we should soften the wording in the {{db}} class templates to point out that this is not personal. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Hahaha - crz crztalk 13:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't this a simple rehash of the perennial proposal that articles may not be deleted within a certain time period after their creation? >Radiant< 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it take like several hours before an admin even sees a speedy tagged article nowadays? Anyway stuff that really doesn't meet a CSD is still hopefully untagged by the admin. I create plenty of articles and nothing ever gets tagged for speedy deletion... create decent articles (formatted, categories, etc.) and you don't have to deal with people on the lookout for bad articles. Pretty simple. --W.marsh 14:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Herbert Saffir was tagged within 20 minutes of my re-creating it, and speedied 3 minutes after it was tagged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Looks like you lost the csd lottery then. Lame, yes, but I'm not sure there's much we can do about it. Someone has to go first. --tjstrf talk 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An incivil template is not the awnser to incivility. Part of the problem with wikipedia is TOO MANY DAMN TEMPLATES. :p Just say what you want to say. ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody drops that nasty template on me and it will be deleted without comment. Removal of garbage is not biting newbies, it's cleaning up trash and vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it can be both, I guess. People doing new page patrol should take care when deleting a page to welcome the users and try to leave a friendly and positive message (I use {{chinup}}). Pages can be trash but their creators may still have potential. You never know who's going to grow into a good contributor. Herostratus 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I got jaded doing new page patrolling, but a monh or two ago, I tagged many, many articles within a minute of creation, and yes, quite a few withing seconds and often got beat to it by others doing NPP. Apart from obvious spam, I tagged many articles with db-bio for being non-notable. Now one could argue I should wait an hour or two and come back and see if the user added more info, but the whole system of tagging gives the user a chance to say they are going to add to the article with a holdon. Sometimes admins would remove the speedy tag and change to a prod if they felt there was some doubt and I think this works well. If I have to wait an hour to check the article again, it's a no go, on a busy night I might tag 50-100 articles, and there is no way to keep a notepad of articles and wait and see if certain articles improve. If I felt that I'm going to be tagged for biting when I'm doing vandal fighting and new page patrol, I would be hesitant to bother to do the work. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many articles can and should be speedy tagged instantly, but for those where additional work may show the required notability (say, articles about bands), waiting a bit can't do much harm. However, this means that we need more people doing time-delayed new page patrol (TM), i.e. going to the new pages, moving down to the 500th or 1000th most recent raticle (some 12 hours old or so), and start digging through those. It is amazing how many of those pages are still fit for either speedy, prod, or merge... Fram 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selective deletion for vandalism?

I have a question about version deletion. WP:DGFA#Version deletion says only to do version deletion for vandalism in extreme cases like where personal information is revealed, etc. Is it a common practice? Does it have to be agreed on somewhere? If there's an article whose last 50 edits going back 6 months is nothing but simple vandalism, is it okay to delete those last 50 edits? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Generally it's seen as a waste of administrator time to delete simple vandalism. There's no real harm in leaving it around... and there are literally millions of instances of it sitting around. I mean, if you really want to I seriously doubt you'll catch any flak, but it just is a bit unusual. I don't really see the point though personally. --W.marsh 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Does it cause any GFDL issues like WP:DGFA mentions? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Not usualy... unless the vandalism was "fixed" and incorperated into the article. Otherwise, if it's just reverted it's not part of the chain of edits. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• It would be wrong to do so: a) there is no need for 'tidy' page histories (have someone use their WP:OVERREACH if really earth-endingly important) and being able to see how a page is edited is useful; b)more importantly, it also removes those edits from the editors' contribs lists. Then their editing histories and patterns cannot be seen (without admin rights) and this has obvious consequences, particularly if an admin needs to evaluate whether/when/not to apply a block. 137.222.189.198 16:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A petulant and totally unjustified block

User:InShaneee blocked me for 24 hours, accusing me of vandalism [2]. I just wanted to bring to someone's attention the fact that this was utterly untrue, and InShaneee blocked me simply because I removed a tag claiming an article for his 'paranormal' wikiproject, because the article had nothing to do with the paranormal. I found this extremely offensive and would like someone else to offer their opinion on this admin's actions. It really won't take you long at all to assess whether I vandalised anything - I've got very few edits. Special:Contributions/81.178.208.69 lists all of them (less than 10). Thanks. 81.178.208.69 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well just to note that Red Rain in Kerala does seem paranormal. You should first discuss the changes on the talk page first. — Arjun 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Eh it really doesn't look like the anon did anything but edit war with Inshanee on the talk page. InShaneee shouldn't have blocked someone he was in a dispute with, such as it was, and shouldn't have said it was a block for vandalism when it clearly wasn't. The anon should have discussed the issue rather just edit warred. But the block has expired and there's no sense crying over spilt milk, really. --W.marsh 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have discussed, if I hadn't been prevented by being blocked. The point is less whether red rain in Kerala is paranormal or not (and I don't see how organic material in comets could remotely be considered paranormal), than whether this admin acted appropriately by a) blocking someone he was in dispute with, and b) giving a dishonest reason. I think it's very patronising to talk of spilt milk, when this is not about my block but about an administrator who directly contravened policy. That's rather more important and should, I think, be taken a little bit seriously. 81.178.208.69 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the point is if the article is under the umbrella of a project your not associated with at all. InShaneee should have gotten someone else to block you, but the block was valid. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict and beaten to the punch by JS) Please keep in mind that the template you removed simply indicated the article was being watched or edited by a Wikiproject; in this case, it does NOT mean that the incident is definitively related to the paranormal or any such thing, it simply means that the Paranormal Wikiproject has agreed to contribute to the page (because of the proposed theory discussed on the article page). Removing content from talk pages while not refactoring or archiving is vandalism and you should have been blocked in my view. With that said, InShaneee should have asked another administrator to review the situation and take appropriate action. —bbatsell ¿? 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What utter rubbish. Wikipedia:Vandalism says nothing about removing things from talk pages automatically being vandalism. You obviously don't understand the policy. Did you look at my edit summaries? Did you notice that I am not the only one who doesn't agree with this wikiproject sticking their noses in? And the article was getting on just fine without 'paranormal' people getting their project onto it. It's not like anyone asked them to help, as you seem to be implying. 81.178.208.69 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate from the merits of the block, I'm concerned that this editor apparently posted the "unblock" template at 11:38 (UTC) today, no admin reviewed it, and the block remained in effect unreviewed until it expired by time at 23:34. I am wondering if there was some problem with the unblock template, or whether the requests listed in "category:requests for unblock" should be listed in time order or should have the time of the request accompanying the username/ip. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I normally review the unblocks each morning, but today I was working on my new bot. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The template isn't "broken" ... it's just that, honestly, who are these admins who are updating the What links here to {{unblock}} often? I haven't seen them. HighInBC says he reviews them once a day. That's more often than 99% of the other admins out there. --Cyde Weys 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, an admin doesn't have to check for links to the template; aren't all pending unblock requests listed at <category:Requests for unblock>? I still think it might be helpful if they could be listed in the order the request was posted, or marked with which ones have been reviewed by a previously uninvolved admin and which haven't, or something. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Explaining to 81.178.208.69 why the Wikiproject tag is no big deal is all well and good, but I'm afraid it doesn't do much to address what I'm having a rather hard time not interpreting as an abuse of the block button by InShaneee. Instead of criticizing 81.178.208.69, we should be apologizing. As far as I can see, he wasn't even warned about our policies regarding edit-warring; and to call what he did "vandalism"... well, go read Wikipedia:Vandalism if you think it might have been. It wasn't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur. Initially both this IP user and Inshanee were using Edit Summaries to discuss the issue, rather than using the talk page. That's a bad idea, but far more forgivable for a newbie than an admin. Inshanee then both warned and blocked the IP at virtually the same time - telling him that he was the only one who disagreed, and for the first time telling him that he should take it up on the discussion page. [3], [4] (I've got to wonder how the IP was supposed to do that given that he was being blocked. In any event, Inshanee hadn't followed his own advice, so it's hard to expect a newbie to know to do so.) Look, we've been over this ground before - it's "spilled milk," but I'm afraid we do need to address this incident in at least some form (particularly since it involves biting a newcomer). Just my two cents.--TheOtherBob 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note drawing InShaneee's attention to this discussion. Newyorkbrad 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Bunchofgrapes and others above. Even if it had been vandalism, this block would be wrong, and criticizing 81.178.208.69 when he takes it to the administrators' noticeboard is even more wrong. Admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard, newbies are supposed to be cut extra slack, and all editors are supposed to be warned before they're blocked, unless there's some extraordinary hurry about it. 81.178.208.69, I apologize for Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Well he did edit war rather than discuss. I don't buy that admins are never allowed to critisize new users/whatever subset of users, the new user here was acting in good faith but still sort of in the wrong and that he was edit warring. This was a situation where you expect an admin to try to help a new user understand what's going on and the need for discussion, rather than just block them and walk away. Still, if you get reverted, new user or admin, the best thing to do is post an explanation and request an answer, not just keep reverting back and arguing in edit summaries. --W.marsh 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be an increasing problem of administrator's overstepping their charge. (I expect this will be reverted simply for saying this). --FuitOfTheLoon 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are human beings. Some make mistakes once in a while. There are over 900 of them and it's unfair to characterize the good, hard-working administrators that are out there like this. --BigDT 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did just block said user. However, he's Cplot (talk · contribs), so he's used to that. Cheerio. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, well, at least you didn't revert him just for saying that. ;) --BigDT 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No good faith edit is ever vandalism. But more importantly than that ... any time we add categories or talk page headers, we need to keep things like this in mind, because they can be offensive. If you add something to a Wikiproject, you are characterizing that topic, even though that isn't necessarilly your intention. If you characterize something that is important to someone (like their religion, culture, viewpoints, etc) as something that it is not, that can be offensive and should be discussed. --BigDT 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the project template thing is getting out of hand. I have removed a project template from an article talk page[5] because I thought it was completely inappropriate to the article. -- Donald Albury 02:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! Blocking someone because edit warring over a template? What the...? No. Just plain no. Even if a person is 100% wrong according to every reliable source, you talk. You try to explain. You work with them. You listen. You do not block. I'm with the above. We draw breath only as long as we keep conversing, keep learning, keep improving. In this particular case, things are even worse. Unless there is a massive history here that the blocking administrator didn't feel like sharing, these blocks are out of line. Geogre 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't reason enough to form an RfAr, I don't know what is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

An arbitration case about a 24-hour IP block, no matter what the circumstances, will more-than-likely be summarily rejected by ArbCom. They gave their thoughts on a similar, yet arguably more severe, case[6], two days ago; (0/7/0/0). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just the straw that broke the camel's back. This is certainly not the first thing he's ever done, and not the worst thing - and considering that this block is so unbelievably illegitimate and wrong, that speaks to the severity of his other actions. Wheel warring, vindictive blocks, punitive blocks, edit warring, abusing AWB, calling people vandals when he disagrees with their edits, criticizing people for calling others trolls when he does it often, protecting pages to suit his wants and needs, and of course, assuming bad faith. After all of this, I cannot see how he can be allowed to be an admin. He clearly hasn't shown ANY caution after receiving an RfC, where he had many people supporting the idea that he has at least done something wrong, with many agreeing he has acted poorly as an administrator. The man thinks that his role here is to govern the lesser Wikipedians, which he has shown by his constant demands for non-admins to show him respect. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He's right; that's exactly what I think. --InShaneee 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The above comment by InShaneee is why he is soooo bad an admin, he banned me for 72 hours for the crime of incivility and not respecting him and THEN called me a Douche! The admins here must look into his history as an admin then strip him of that rank and position. PS when is he going to get his ban for calling me a douche? 72 hours is the minimum i want! Hypnosadist 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be pointed out that, contrary to statements made above, this was not a case of biting a newbie. Worldtraveller (aka 81.178.208.69) [7] has been a registered user since August of 2004. — MediaMangler 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Was it WorldTraveller? Did he know that? If so, it would have been really helpful to use the noticeboards to seek input. That's what AN/I is supposed to exist for. On-wiki, not off, and with consultation, not without, and with discussion. Geogre 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the anonymous editor in this case was me, dropping by after a few months away and wanting to do so anonymously. InShanee is not really guilty of biting a newbie, though he had no way of knowing that he wasn't, and I was guilty of making my case via edit summaries instead of on the talk page. What doesn't change, though, is that InShanee's block of me was unjustified, he used his administrating tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute, and the reason he gave for the block was dishonest. Worldtraveller 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. What he was doing could be said as attempting to bite a newbie. InShaneee could not have known that this user was not a newbie - he blocked him thinking of him as a newbie and ignoring a spotless block log (that, if this really were a newbie, would now blemished by an abusive and, let's face it, mediocre administrator). I don't blame anyone for thinking that Wikipedia is getting worse by the day - people like InShaneee ruin it for everyone but themselves. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of InShanee's interaction with the various others posting here nor why such a level of hostility has been expressed, but this attitude of "I've already made my judgement, don't bother me with facts" is troubling. The claim has been made that InShanee could not have known that he wasn't dealing with a newbie, but I don't understand how anyone could have failed to recognize it. It seems obvious to me that a newbie's first action is not going to be to assert ownership of an article to the extent of removing a project template from a talkpage without any discussion. Clearly InShanee should not have labelled the block "vandalism", but I'm not sure I see any other fault in his action. Worldtraveller, on the other hand, does not own the article simply because he wrote the original and he should not be given a pass on WP:OWN just by using an anon account. — MediaMangler 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's terribly relevant whether anyone knew whether the IP was someone old or someone new. The fact remains that this block was completely outrageous. If you can't see anything wrong other than the dishonest labelling, let me outline what I see as wrong with it:

Going through WP:BP, let's see whether the block was covered by it. Was the block to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public? No. Was it for personal attacks or making threats? No. 3RR? Not by a very long way. Was it for disruption? No, because Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, and this was a disagreement over the content, not even of an article, but of a talk page. Was it because I am a banned user? No. So, there were not any legitimate grounds to block me. Now, let's look at 'when not to block': Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Did InShaneee do that? Yes he did. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. Did InShaneee do that? Yes he did.

As has been noted, I've been here a while. In all that time this is probably the worst abuse of administrative powers I've had any direct experience of (though not nearly as bad as the outrageous block on Giano that kicked off a massively destructive chain of events). In addition, it seems to me that InShaneee treats his fellow editors with some contempt, as you can see by his assertion that he does indeed see it as his role to govern them, and he treats his fellow administrators with contempt by ignoring this discussion and conspicuously failing to justify his actions. If this isn't his first abuse of administrative tools then I think there is a problem that needs to be resolved. Worldtraveller 12:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful tossing around terms like "dishonest". Note the disparity between your own claim at the beginning of this section "I've got very few edits. Special:Contributions/81.178.208.69 lists all of them (less than 10)" and your current "I've been here awhile". I assume you simply misspoke the first time and actually meant "the account that was blocked has very few edits", just as I assume that InShanee simply made a mistake in labelling and had no intent to be inaccurate. — MediaMangler 12:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that there was no justification in the policy for the block, and given that even if there had been, InShaneee would have been prohibited by the policy from applying a block, and given that one would expect administrators to have read and understood the blocking policy quite thoroughly, I think InShaneee quite consciously ignored the policy. Not much room left for assuming good faith on his part when that much is clear, I'm afraid. I am interested to know whether you stand by your claim that there was no fault in InShaneee's actions. I'd also like to hear InShaneee's justification for the block. Oh, and by the way, in what conceivable way is removing an inappropriate tag from a talk page trying to own an article? Worldtraveller 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no fault in his actions, only that I'm not sure I see any fault. I don't feel qualified to judge how well his block complies with every jot and tittle of policy. Given WP:IAR, I'm not sure I can ever understand Wiki policy well enough to make such judgements. My concern was that those making the judgement have the full facts in hand. It is your opinion that the tag was inappropriate, several others disagree. (Frankly, if I ever experience blood-red rain falling on me, my first thoughts are likely to be about something paranormal!) You removed a tag from the talkpage of an article which you have no current intent to edit (since you claim to be on wikibreak), thereby disrupting the efforts of that project. Tagging the talkpage was simply an indication of the intent by members of that project to edit. You certainly have no right to tell the members of that project that they may not edit the article. You're free to argue that the term "paranormal" should not be associated with this article, but surely you should discuss that with those others who also choose to edit the article. — MediaMangler 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, did my explanation not help you see where fault might be percieved? If you don't feel qualified to judge whether or not the block complied with policy, then why are you participating in this discussion? Sorry to be blunt, but this forum is not to discuss what you or I think of red rain in Kerala but to discuss whether an administrator's actions were justifiable. How about sticking to talking about the merits of the administrator's actions, and stopping accusing me of trying to own things, of trying to tell people what they can edit, of disruption, and whatever other offensive and untrue accusations you might be thinking of making. Worldtraveller 15:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You asked me for my opinion of the merits of the block. I fail to see how anyone can evaluate the merits of the block without evaluating the appropriateness of the actions for which you were blocked. I tried to present my opinion of your actions in as diffident and diplomatic manner as I could. I'm sorry that still managed to offend you. In answer to your question of why I'm participating: I have long monitored these types of Wiki disagreements, since the psychology and politics involved fascinate me. When talk of "biting a newbie" first started to be discussed, if you had come forward to clarify that you were no newbie, then I would have been more than happy to remain an observer rather than a participant. If you wanted to remain anonymous then all that was needed was a simple "I'm not a newbie" in order to forestall the misconception. — MediaMangler 16:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'newbie' thing is irrelevant to the central point, which is that an administrator abused his position, contravened the policy, and gave a dishonest reason for a block designed to win the upper hand in a content dispute. Whether he thought I was new or not, the action was still wrong. There is absolutely nothing in existing policy which could justify this block, and in fact existing policy specifically precludes this type of block. And yet you can't see any fault? If you don't feel qualified to discuss whether a block complied with policy, I can't really understand why you're taking part in a discussion about whether a block complied with policy. What you seem to be doing is just slandering me, rather than offering any constructive appraisal or criticism of the administrative action under discussion. Worldtraveller 18:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that "a newbie's first action is not going to be to assert ownership of an article to the extent of removing a project template from a talkpage without any discussion." That seems to me exactly like a newbie thing to do - because they come across a template they don't agree with on a subject they feel strongly about, don't understand what the template is meant to do, and don't understand how Wikipedia works. (In this case I guess it wasn't a true newbie- and I'm not happy about being fooled - but the behavior was definitely newbie-esque.) Remember Hanlon's Razor, which could be considered a part of assuming good faith - "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." The job of an admin is to steer that "stupidity" into productive editing, not to assume malice and toss out blocks. --TheOtherBob 14:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no intent to 'fool' anyone. Just someone editing anonymously, who happened to have once edited with a username. Worldtraveller 15:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, excuse me? Only members of the WikiProject may remove the template? Isn't this a violation of WP:OWN? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the validity of the block, the fact that an admin who clearly knows his actions are being questioned hasn't offered any kind of explanation is very concerning. It shows a complete disregard for discussion and concensus - and that is worthy of desysopping, I think. --Tango 16:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's unbecoming of an administrator to simply ignore a discussion about his actions. Worldtraveller 18:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So is anything going to be done about the Douche (before you ban me, ban him as he called me that and you admins did nothing about it!) InShaneee? Or is it still one rule for wikipedians and one rule for the admins.Hypnosadist 13:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that InShaneee can do what he wants with impunity. There has been discussion about this admin's behaviour, but no-one takes action. It's one rule for admins, another for the rest of us.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been advised that Arbitration is the only way to get any enforcement of wikipedia's rules so i'm going to start putting the evidence together on my talk page could anyone who wants to help please come to my page and say hello.Hypnosadist 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated link spamming on Phonetics

The account User:Ygwnkm has been used exclusively to repost an external link to Phonetics in violation of WP:COI and WP:EL. I've left detailed edit summaries and multiple messages on the user page. I stopped reverting and another editor took up the challenge only to have it rv without comment by anonymous user Special:Contributions/58.143.172.67. I've entered the case into mediation where it was suggested I bring the case here. Not sure what to do from here. Nposs 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and given the IP a good faith spam warning. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that the anonymous editor is keeping with his consistent link spamming. I have given him a spam 2 template, and if he does it again, I would probably go report this to WP:AIV. It is more than likely that the anonymous editor and the registered account are the same. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is watching, there is a trainwreck going on at the Phonetics and Talk:Phonetics page. The linker has returned and become beligerent. He has not only repeatedly linked the site on the talk page, but now linked the talk from the external links of the article. It would be nice to end this soon. Thanks. Nposs 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the link-spammer is still at it, and has now done 4+ reverts. Any chance an admin could step in? (I'm leaving it alone for a while in the spirit of not feeding trolls, but have the feeling that this person won't ever stop until blocked.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 14:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the most recent IP for 24h. There had been previous warnings. Let's make sure the block is enforced both on any new IPs and on his original account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like 58.143.171.176 (talk · contribs) is doing the same task again. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Thomas Sowell.jpg

Not totally sure what to do about this. Twice I've marked this for deletion under {{rfu}}, and both times it was deleted. User:Ccmg has now uploaded it a third time. He never disputes it, just re-uploads it after it's deleted. I was going to tag it {{Db-repost}}, but that doesn't seem appropriate here. Can an admin give some guidance here? —Chowbok ☠ 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's a new user I suggest giving a stern warning that if it happens again, he should be blocked. And while db-repost doesn't officially apply, it might work anyway under WP:IAR. Just my lousy opinion. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the image again. We're not under any obligation to keep hosting media that we've already deleted for lack of licensing information for another week just because someone uploaded it again. Jkelly 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CantStandYa blocked

Due to his long term sock abuse, incivility, edit warring, and 3RR violations I have blocked CantStandYa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely. Back in March 2006 we blocked about 30 socks, as reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive82#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa, while leaving active one account for him to use. He abandoned that account anyway and promptly created a new set of socks that we only discovered recently (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CantStandYa). His various accounts have been blocked many times, for as long as 6 months in one case.[8] Though I expect him to make further attempts to edit he has shown that he can't be trusted to follow community polices and guidelines. -Will Beback · † · 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked?! He's been listed on WP:LTA for AGES. 68.39.174.238 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please block him for good. I almost left the project because of his stalking and incivility. Jasper23 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

At least his username is accurate ... Cyde Weys 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess Wikipedia can't stand him, either. Hbdragon88 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems like a good block, if that description and the LTA one are accurate. Thanx for cleaning up the LTA entry too. 68.39.174.238 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Language Wikipedia articles

After reading one of the later comments in this debacle of an AfD, I found this category. Browsing through the stubs in question, I reached the conclusion that very few of them satisfy WP:WEB. Is there something I'm missing (i.e. is the foundation notable enough for every one of its "children" to merit its own article)? If not, can a mass AfD be considered (for all except the most active 'pedias)? yandman 08:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, being a Wikimedia project shouldn't automatically entitle you to a Wikipedia page. There are tons of tiny wikis no where even near WP:WEB. However, might I suggest seeing if this sort of material on the history and milestones of individual minor wikis would be welcomed if transwikied to Meta? Dragons flight 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already here on meta. yandman 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While it's not much content, some of the little wiki pages do have some content not duplicated in that list (e.g. Albanian Wikipedia). So I am wondering whether it would be worth dedicating a page on meta to each project for milestones, history, etc. Dragons flight 08:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a correction, WikIran is not a Wikimedia project. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Sounds like a good idea. Anyone here who can move it all to meta before we start? I don't want the lack of a meta page to be a reason for keeping these NN articles. yandman 09:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Or we could listify it, with wikilinks to the main pages of each. We don't need to do the job of maintaining the "about" document for every language Wiki, though, and that's for sure. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How should we determine which ones should be included in the mass AfD? Maybe a first batch containing all those having less than 10k users (per the ranking at meta)? Or less than 20k articles? Or less than 50k edits? Or all three? Any otherwise notable wikis could always be undeleted (in case we find out that there's been significant coverage of one of these very small wikis). A quick strawpoll, please? yandman 12:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• My advice is to tread carefully, and be conservative. If you nominate forty articles, and four turn out to be somewhat notable, the Afd will trainwreck, with some people voting to delete all, some to delete none, but most to delete all but three, with different people selecting a different three... you see the problem. Several of these have survived previous AfDs, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urdu Wikipedia. Chinese Wikipedia is notable due to being repeatedly blocked, and ripped off by Baidu. Spanish Wikipedia is notable due to an editor revolt and fork. German Wikipedia is notable due to multiple print versions. Russian Wikipedia is notable due to winning a national prize. Polish Wikipedia may be notable due to one print version. In short, go through every single article and only include the ones which have no mention in the outside community, otherwise I strongly suspect the Afd will fail. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. I came across this AfD. Although I don't agree with the arguments given, I'm now 100% sure any attempt to apply our notability guidelines to these pages will fail horribly. yandman 14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say only mass-AfD ones that are purely stubs (Ukrainian Wikipedia, Neapolitan Wikipedia, etc) first, then put up the slightly more developed articles one by one. –  Anþony  talk  01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube and copyrights

You will remember, I think, that a group of editors set off to remove links to YouTube, requiring that before they went back in we clarified the copyright status and encyclopaedic merit of the links. This met with some resistance. There appear to be two camps now, which might be summed up as follows:

• those who believe that YouTube links should go in unless you can prove they are violating copyright
• those who believe that YouTube links should stay out unless you can prove they are not infringing copyright

Guess which group I'm in. The argument rages at Wikipedia:External links/Identifying copyrights in links, Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and various other places. It's been moved out of WP:EL/WT:EL.

WP:COPYRIGHT makes it clear that knowingly linking to infringing material is contributory infringement (also that linking to copyvios makes us look bad). Given that many YouTube vids are copyvios I don't think it's excesive to require people to clarify copyright before adding, but there is a small and committed group who are insistent that the default should be the other way round. More input required, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Guy. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit to disliking them for other reasons, namely their tendency to turn up in lame SPAMs. You might want to see the history of User:J.smith/YT for other (less legal) problems they often cause. That may or may not be helpful. 68.39.174.238 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close poll

Can someone please close the straw poll over at Pontic Greek Genocide? There has been total inactivity in the poll since Dec 27 2006. Thanks. NikoSilver 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by JFBurton

(moved from WP:AIV --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

• JFBurton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) General trolling, personal attacks on other user talk pages. User has been repeatedly warned. Fan-1967 16:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Latest edits this morning were a number of vandalism warnings ([9], [10], [11]) against users who had in fact made legitimate edits (one of these users, after the warning, then responded by vandalizing JFBurton's User Page). Fan-1967 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for a week for personal attacks and disruption. -- Merope 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect Deleted?

Can an admin please tell me why Clemson Tigers football was deleted? I believe it was a redirect that redirected to Clemson Tigers. Was the redirect deleted by someone's request so they could create an article there? If not, could it be restored please? Thank you. --MECU≈talk 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears the article was originally created as a redirect. Later someone decided to expand it into an article. After starting the editor realized that the work was redundant and put the article up for speedy deletion with a "db-author" tag. An admin then came along and carried out the requested deletion. Unfortunately, it appears the admin did not check the article's history or see that there were several incoming links to the originial redirect page. I've restored the redirect which should accomplish the original editor's intention. Thanks for pointing it out. --StuffOfInterest 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close survey of proposal

Hello, I was hoping an administrator would be willing to officially close a survey that has been idle for a few weeks now. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists sections 1-5. Thank you. -- Wikipedical 18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but administrators are not in the business of "officially closing" any discussions except where policy provides for it, as in WP:AfD discussions. I see nothing in the straw poll you link to that requires an administrator to do anything. Any user may close the poll if there is consensus to do so on the talk page. Sandstein 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. See also the proposed Wikipedia:Straw polls. Sandstein 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions, a statistical review of 24 hours

(From 1/3/2007 21:00:00 PM to 1/4/2007 21:00:00 PM)

Often the media quotes us as deleting 100s of articles a day. Well, I decided to check out those stats... I pulled up the delete log and did some searching and sorting in excel to get a general feel. Yeah, I know the numbers aren't the most reliable, but it's mildly interesting.

General

• Total actions in log: 4007
• Restores: 36
• Deletes: 3971

Namespace

• Talk: 975
• User: 101
• User_Talk: 36
• Wikipedia: 26
• Image: 625
• Category: 65
• Category_talk: 3
• Mainspace: 2146

Criteria For Speedy Delete

• CSD G1: 49
• CSD G2: 3
• CSD G3: 26
• CSD G4: 28
• CSD G5: 11
• CSD G6: 6
• CSD G7: 44
• CSD G8: 213
• CSD G9: 0
• CSD G10: 40
• CSD G11: 81

• CSD A1: 56
• CSD A2: 1
• CSD A3: 47
• CSD A5: 5
• CSD A6: 6
• CSD A7: 428

• CSD R1: 93
• CSD R2: 5
• CSD R3: 2

• CSD I1: 5
• CSD I2: 0
• CSD I3: 98
• CSD I4: 5
• CSD I5: 0
• CSD I6: 0
• CSD I7: 89
• CSD I8: 0

• CSD U1: 26

(Some of the CSD counts might be overstating... I was getting a lot of false-positives with the simple excel search)

Other searches

• "{{db": 745
• "{{delete": 74
• "CSD": 813
• "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/": 123

Top two deleters

• Teke (talk · contribs): 497
• Fang Aili (talk · contribs): 442

Does this have any deeper cosmic meaning to wikipedia? Not likely... but at-least we can tell the press people slightly better numbers. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a list of the top ten deleters? Are they all above 100 articles a day? Also - CSD A7: 428 - not surprised. I used to do some Newpage patrolling, and there was a lot of vanity articles. Hbdragon88 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Order	Name	Total
1	Teke (talk · contribs)	497
2	Fang Aili (talk · contribs)	442
3	Centrx (talk · contribs)	177
4	NawlinWiki (talk · contribs)	143
5	Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs)	140
6	Merope (talk · contribs)	137
7	Kungfuadam (talk · contribs)	128
8	Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)	126
9	Tonywalton (talk · contribs)	115
10	Shyam Bihari (talk · contribs)	103
11	Chris 73 (talk · contribs)	102
12	Angela (talk · contribs)	100

Everyone with over 100 deletes and/or restores. Took me a while to get Excel to make the counts for me. :) ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting, but in fairness I spent several hours following Meno25's user request speedy tags because of AWB talk page redirects he made. 400 of 'em. Teke ^(talk) 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While this isn't cosmic meaning, the deletion numbers do have some interesting peaks, such as the massive number of articel talk pages that get shot. Also, the large amount of user space redacting. 68.39.174.238 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

134 or so user pages... it looks to me like most of them were deleted at author's request and some of the reset were either a mix of MFD or speedy as attack pages.

Alot of CSD have article-talk pages assosciated with them. Not realy sure how much that screwed up my CSD numbers. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the "massive number of article talk pages" to which you refer are just recently-created talk pages of speedy deleted articles; often these contain only something like "don't delete!", or a copy-and-paste of the article itself, or nonsense, or a {{hangon}} explanation that wasn't satisfactory, or something like that – Gurch 17:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Execution of Saddam hussein

This guy uber or something keeps on reverting everything and does everything to his liking. Even time of death... http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/01/01/wld02.asp which has been confirmed by iraqi government, he keeps on reverting, siting his silly sources, can somebody watch over and block this guy? Also original saddam site does not have hanging video, sure, wiki is open place for source, but this creates hate and violence, this dude keeps on putting it back, this should be final appropriate version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein&diff=98515213&oldid=98514518 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.181 (talk • contribs)

Looking at the history of the page, I'm not sure what to think. You don't seem to be using the talk page to discuss this though, rather, just warring in the edit summaries. UBeR appears to be doing the same and was caution about the 3RR rule on this article a few days ago. Anyone else have thoughts about it? Metros232 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was just fully protected by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) Metros232 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Other then that, I'm not sure how the cell-phone video of Saddam's hanging counts as a "hate video"? ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I protected it due to excess reverting. Perhaps more controversially, I then removed the execution video links. I'm not sure whether this is considered OK or not, so I invite people to check William M. Connolley 23:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection is a good call. I think removing the link is too, in these particualr circumstances. Let a consensus emerge on the talk page, and then it can be linked to if that's what people want. I want to say too that the people on that page have done a good job under difficult circmustances. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. I think the question has already been answered by consensus long before Saddam was sentenced. Reswobslc 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and that's as it should be. I'm just saying let the people on the talk page talk about it and decide if they want to include it or not. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Civility or not, if the other guy accuses you of non sense how are you to react, ok, here, saddam executed at 6:10, i kept on reversing that... and also video and it needs to be reversed to this version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein&diff=98515213&oldid=98514518 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.0.85 (talk • contribs)

Take it to the article's talk page Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein and discuss it there. Metros232 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So I did, look over there, this did not give me any results, this dude kept on reversing self evident truth, 6:10 is also on the main article on saddam hussein on wiki.

http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/01/01/wld02.asp

Please. There has a been discussion on the time of execution. It is in the archive. Since I felt many people did not feel like they had to go to the archive to see previous discussions, I reopened the topic on the talk page. I've discussed that various sources say do did indeed say he died at 6:10. However, there are twice as many sources that say he died at a different time, which why I was reverting the original version of the article that stated he was executed at "approximately 06:00 local time." That is consistent with all the sources. It removed the problem of conflicting reports. Mostly 64.107.0.85 is making unsourced, irrational, or irrelevant edits. I've tried to explain to him that there have been discussions on things he is vandalizing/removing. He ignores the discussions and replaces previously discussed content with the way he, and only he, feels the way the article should reflect his own views. I believe this is a direct violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, nevermind his incivility. As for the video, this was discussed as well. ~ UBeR 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to vandal uber.

Ok, assuming I am not civil towards Uber, since he is doing his truth, fine, who cares... http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/03/africa/web.0102saddam.php OFFCIAL DEATH CERTIFICATE says 6:10., this guy has some private agenda here and I will never allow that. Video is not on original saddam page, should not be here, his links about 6am death are initial links, 6:10 was confirmed by Iraqi government. Videos like this can not be shown, except cnn version, up to the point before hanging, we do not want to create hate and mistrust and confusion, wiki must abide by its policies, people like uber have their own polocy, sure the guy is civil and all, but being civil DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT OR WRONG, And he is wrong... civil? Calling my links vandalism... check this out, wiki administrator reversed everything and ignored Uber's version...This reversal is by Sfacets, reverting Uber's vandalism... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein&diff=98511889&oldid=98511559 You can follow the history and look for sfacets edits, clearly he agreed with me on every single issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein&action=history Uber has time on his hands, but he should be closely watched by you guys. Do something right for a change...

Well, which one is it? Which link is correct? This claims that Saddam was pronounced dead at 6:10, and that he died at 6:00. Meanwhile, This claims in passing that Saddam was hanged at 6:10. (This could mean the time when the hanging was over, and when he was already dead for some time, or, as you claim, the time when the hanging started.) You provided the first link yourself, now read the article that you linked to:

"It was very quick. He died right away," an official witness told Reuters, adding that the body was left to hang for 10 minutes and he was pronounced dead at 6:10 a.m. (0310 GMT). [emphasis mine]

Also, please stop cycling issues. One moment you speak of the time issue, then someone responds to that, then you talk about the appropriateness of the videos, then someone responds to that; then you repeat. This is not a healthy way to go about either issue. Please answer specific arguments that those who are against you make, rather than flitting from issue to issue. I apologize if I am not assessing your actions correctly. (And note that I am talking about your actions, not your intentions.) Furthermore, if one issue were resolved before going on to the other, that would be ideal. Gracenotes^T § 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you 64.107.220.181. I understand your concerns. But without the a source to official document that states his death at a certain time, it would be imprudent to to cite a specific time based on one or even two reports. You have one or two sources that really do say he died at 6:10 or 6:05 (you can't make up your mind). However, for each of those, there just as many that say he died at a DIFFERENT time. Your source does not say "the official death record by the Iraqi government for Saddam Hussein is 6:10." No, it say "he died at 6:10." So now it is a case of he says she says (hearsay). Why? Because other sources say he died at exactly 6:00, others say before 6:00, some say 6:07. It ranges. It's best to say approximately 6:00, because, that, we can all agree on. As for the video, I respect your concern. However, I, and the rest who gave their consensus on the discussion page, feel the video does not "promote hate." It's an accurate and historical representation of the occurrences of December 30, 2006. If you do not wish to view the video (which was described factually and accurately so that one may understand what they were going to watch), then please do not click on the link. However, your opinion of the video should not deter deserving readers and editors of Wikipedia if they do not agree with you. Wikipedia makes that clear in various policies. ~ UBeR 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? —Pilotguy (ptt) 02:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, like i said on saddam execution talk, we can put official cnn video, not illegal, ugly and tormenting, it does promote hate, you remind me of that iraqi puppet who said now that saddam is dead we can reunite, lol. Sunnis are really suffering. However, on talk page i also gave other links that proves he died at 6:10, also other sources say he was on the rope 5 minutes, it says died at 6:05, pronounced dead 6:10, so, even if he was on the rope 20 days, but pronounced dead at a certain time, that is what counts. And by doing the video, wiki promotes hate. No censorship? Then I can put just about everything and say... hey this is rape in action, see the blood and screams, mutilation, etc... I can say, well, I am only explaining how it's done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.3.118 (talk • contribs)

I'm more inclined to believe that seeing him die in a grisly manner would be more likely to invoke sympathy and dampen hate though vindication. Either way, it's irrelevant. The video is encyclopedic as the TOPIC and because of the press it's gotten it should have it's own sub-article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uber and 64 dude are arguing, but i did put important links back, and under saddam execution I put warning sign. Fair enough?64 was right, good links removed by uber and his supporters.

[edit] Uber problems on execution

What is difference between admi noticeboard and incident report?

Whoever put the warning is right, i can live with that in front of links. Too many blood thirty people here...

Ok, this guy has a way with words and keeps on pointing to something on talk page, God knows what, but I added few simple words and I can live with that now, somebody did it yesterday. Viewer discretion advised. Also important links which have been here, which administrator stefans himself reverted to, have been under attack. I do not see anything wrong with that, especially saddam's last hours, again, I am calling on administrators to ban uber from screwing up this site. It is self evident this guy has self interest on this site, he keeps on spending hours and hours on it, reverting, sure he is polite, because he knows he will not last long here. Administrators, many times make a mistake, when somebody goes ranting, they side with the other guy, but again, you may be uncivil, but you are still correct, that does not change fact or anything else, there is no doubt in my mind this dude has personal interest, the way he is defending himself, the time he puts into this clearly says something. For example sfacets reversed a good website that uber reversed... (cur) (last) 21:52, 4 January 2007 Sfacets (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 98501627 by UBeR (talk) The Times of India is spam?) There are other contles examples and I suggest good administrators start doing something for a change. The above, sfacets, reverted uber's vandalism. <small?

I think the above users may be a sock puppet for another IP user banned yesterday. He uses the paragraph tag, speaks English in a characteristic way, has the same positions and arguments, and never signs his posts. I will go look up the prior banned user's IP and report back. --Hab baH 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not have to look far. The prior banned user commented above. Per his Talk page (User talk:66.99.3.118), the 24-hour ban is not supposed to be up until 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) --Hab baH 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, address the problem of ugly execution video, not the ban. I mean, you look really bad if you can not reply. fcc clearly states the rules, of course does not apply to wiki, but still, it's logical to use them.

You can report me all you want hab bah, bah to you, i asked you to look over the page, live video of execution, imagine little girl or boy watching, then what, you can ban me, but that does not stop me nor the truth. No, I am not suck puppet, you should not be allowed as an administrator, since all of you vote to show ugly video, ok, i agree, let it be shown, BUT NO WARNING, fcc clearly says warnings are a must in certain situations...

[edit] Rest my case

This user sfacets left this reply to uber's talk page and if some of you can read, check it out...

No Personal attacks

With regards to your comments on Talk:Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein#External_Links_.26_Spam.3F: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sfacets 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I only state the facts. Sorry. I dictate my External Links edits per Wikipedia's policy. ~ UBeR 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Does the policy also cover calling other editors idiots? Comment on the edits, not the editor. Sfacets 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case, again i can agree on many things, but showing ungly videos, shame on you all who support this.

Again, sfacets wanted to include few links, but people like uber keep on arguing and i have to be scapegoat. Also, voting poll on talk page lasted 12 hours, just great, I rest my case, justly.

[edit] Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Someone want to take a look at the edit war going on here? It's all pretty much Greek to me. Fan-1967 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Germanium appears to be attempting to edit war blatant original research into the article and has been blocked for 31 hours. I'm going to check his contribs (of which he has less than 100) to see whether an indefblock is warranted. -- Steel 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to the block Steel... Certainly "trollish" behavior: user was copying people's edit summaries when he reverted. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just AFD'ed one of his contributions. You blocked him one minute after he removed the Prod. Blatant OR. Fan-1967 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression of a college freshman who has just discovered that math isn't what his high-school teachers said it was, or one who smoked too much pot over winter break. He's probably redeemable, but not yet. Perhaps he should be told to go away, read Russell's Principia, then come back. Argyriou (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the IP's he's used support that. Early December he was posting from school, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. Today's edits show Charter Communications in St. Louis. He does have the absolute assuredness which only a freshman or sophomore can manage. I love his view of Reliable Sources on his User page. Fan-1967 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on whether to see what happens after the block expires or just indef him now as a throwaway troll account. -- Steel 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest giving a stern warning (well, I guess the block is a stern warning) and give them one more chance. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's been here several times before. I was leaning towards giving him another chance before but now I don't think it's worth it. -- Steel 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that I earlier deleted The irony of truth by guess who? He recreated it an User:NawlinWiki deleted it again. Both times it was deleted for the patent nonsense it was. I know a fair deal about Godel's theorems and I'm afraid Germanium's additions are not only blatant original research but quite unsupported in Godel's work or any know version of math. Gwernol 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but Gwernol, he's really and truely an expert on the subject of the theory of everything and the reason is because he has made an amazing discovery that is so profound you can't even imagine. Modest too, by the looks of it. -- Steel 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WOW. That is priceless. I'm tempted to save that one for posterity. -- Fan-1967 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So, its Germanium, aka Archetype? As long as it's not Plutonium, aka Archimedes... -- 131.111.8.98 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just blocked Somemoron

I've blocked Somemoron (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for an indefinite period of time. Please feel free to review the contributions of this account and adjust block parameters as necessary. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 30

I need a backup closer for some discussion which I nominated or in which I participated, while I'm reading through Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Child Wikipedians. Note that Brendan Alcorn (talk · contribs) has commented on most discussions during the day but no other edits outside DRV. Thanks, trialsanderrors 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

/* hangs head */ You're just mocking me now, aren't you? - brenneman 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? ~ trialsanderrors 01:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was tongue in cheek: While the pseudo-debate is lengthy and sadly devoid of much actual thoughtful exchange, the results sticks out like a dog's: It stays deleted. I won't grouse any further about it. - brenneman 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The result sticks out only if we're counting heads and not arguments. DRV is about the process, and isn't another CfD. If we're judging arguments, the "keep deleted" people have none at present - the deletion was wrong. Another CfD would almost certainly occur, and if the activity at DRV is any indication, a deletion would be forthcoming, but it would at least be legitimate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? There's not a single reason to keep this article been given at DRV. I think you have that the wrong way round. The DRV shows that the CfD got the consensus of Wikipedians wrong and Cyde got it right.--Doc^g 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was one argument given: That it provides a way for people to co-ordinate editing activities in the same way that other user-definition categories do. That's a very small benefit, admitted, it's simply that the stated risk of predation was never discussed rationally, so if we're measuring arguments I'd have to agree with Jeff. The real issue was never presented, though, that there is a reputatinal risk in having this category. Since on-wiki we can't seem to get our brains to engage with the facts, neither should I expect someone looking to savage the Founation for not "protecting children" to be rational. - brenneman 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and I (pleasantly) got my first ever hate-mail retraction following this bit of wiki-drama. - 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I see that we couldn't come up with a legitimate close. Whatever works, I suppose. How stupid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What, pray tell, is illegitimate about it? That it didn't end the way you wanted it to? --Cyde Weys 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you got your way and you get to play on a different field than the rest of us. Congrats. Maybe the rest of us will be as lucky someday. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean, what part of DRV procedure wasn't properly followed? --Cyde Weys 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the recent harping I've been making, I should know better than to take the bait now. Punching out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's brilliant. I ask you to provide evidence for your assertions, but apparently doing so is now considered baiting. It's gonna be awfully hard having any sort of discussion with you. --Cyde Weys 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you guys are holding coffeeklatsch here while I done my work. What about closing the remaining debates? ~ trialsanderrors 03:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the DRV felt more like Undelete because Cyde did it! Common sense is always superior to process and policy wonking. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive purging of YouTube links

Special:Contributions/J.smith: A shitload of "Rm links to suspected copy-vio or otherwise inappropriate links per WP:NOT, WP:EL & WP:C using AWB"

Now, I'm fine with dubious YouTube links being removed. However, the edit that brought my attention [12] removed a perfectly valid movie: a small clip demonstrating the exact glitch being described.

I think this is a bit extreme, but I'd rather get some other opinions before doing a whole-sale revert of the edits on articles I'm unfamiliar with. Thoughts? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, halting temperately per-request. First of all, please assume a little good faith on my part... I'm not blindly removing links. :) Mortal Kombat II is a copyrighted game and the vid on YouTube would be in violation of that copyright. WP:C prohibits us from linking to copyvio material. Are there any further objections? Can I get back to work? :) ---J.S ^(T/C)

(edit conflict)It comes down to the extremly shakey condition of copyrights on YouTube. See, uploaders release their videos up under something similar to GNU, but the problem is, that the video is alreadly copyrighted and not in fact their video. I'm not exactly a full expert on this, but that is what my understanding so far is. Yanksox 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the TOS for YouTube requires the uploader to agree that they own the image. But, they do very little to enforce it, and they require the actual copyright owner to request the video to be taken down. ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really wouldn't consider a video showcasing a video game's gameplay to be a copyright violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The game is copyrighted and the video is being distributed without permission. What else would you call it? ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

EVula, it is a flagrant copyvio, you're not even allowed to talk about NFL games without the NFL's permission, techinically. Yanksox 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats more of a trademarking issue Yanksox :) ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

EVula seems to have stopped editing... If anyone has any further objections let me know on my talk page so I notice immediately. ---J.S ^(T/C) 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm hopelessly addicted to sleep sometimes. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yanksox - if I remember my TV watching days correctly, it's "expressed written permission" from the NFL to rebroadcast, reshow, etc. in any method. Hbdragon88 06:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The video adds nothing, in my view, and the copyright is clearly questionable. Is there no similar (but better) video on the game manufacturer's website? Guy (Help!) 09:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The video, by itself, isn't much, but considering the article was talking about the very move that is shown in the clip, I'm not sure how it "adds nothing". The chances of an official video being posted by Midway (the manufacturer) is non-existant; not only is it a game long past its prime, but it is an easter egg that is available only on one console (Sega Genesis). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you removed two links from the Mitsubishi Delica article which, if you'd watched them, are clearly posted by users/owners and not copyvios. I don't like YouTube myself but, until there's a concrete policy from WP blocking the URL, I don't think AWB is an appropriate way to remove these links. --DeLarge 09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's more that the majority of YouTubes have copyright issues, so all are being removed for discussion. If copyright is unambiguously clean, the links can go back in. It's not easy to do this sort of thing on literally thousands of articles (over 10,000 at one point) without using som,ething like AWB. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DeLarge, I didn't remove those for copyright concerns. I actually spent quite a bit of time thinking of those and decided that they added little value to the article. If you wish to put them back I won't make an issue of it, but I do feel they are a violation of WP:NOT. ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, other then simply making the actual possess less tedious, AWB is not changing anything about how I do things. The use of AWB is literally irrelevant. I still need to read the context, cleanup the mess that AWB leaves behind, and make a manual approve each one. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Attention! You all may wish to see below, #meta:Interwiki map, which allows interwiki links to YouTube, much like interlanguage links. 68.39.174.238 04:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category in need of a bit of emptying

Category:Presumed GFDL images is full of orphaned images. On the basis that WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, I'd think this category needs some emptying.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] consensus on request to move chinese-filipino to chinese filipino

Requested move from Chinese-Filipino → Chinese Filipino has reached a consensus. Request assistance in moving the page. Thank you. { PMGOMEZ } 06:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Martinp23 12:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Bambenek is back

He just wrote an article for MercatorNet laying into Wikipedia...

How much did his vanity bio getting whacked play into it you think? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. A. Bambenek (3rd nomination) -- Narciblog 06:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A User claiming to be Bambenek demanded that the article be deleted. Probably because he couldn't control the content. Unless the User was an imposter. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus the article wasn't written by him to begin with, but by another user with an axe to grind. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DomBot

DomBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) appears to be running tasks outside its assigned function: tagging a category for deletion [13], listing a cfd [14], reverting non-vandal edits [15] and leaving messages on user talk pages [16].I request a review of dombot's behaviour. Tim! 07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like Chidom (talk · contribs) was simply logged into his bot account, which is approved to do CFD related work. Obviously, this violates WP:BOT, but I really doubt this is a serious issue. AWB can stay logged into Internet Explorer, which may explain the difficulty. I'd suggest addressing it with him on his talk page (which you did) before bringing the issue here. alphachimp 08:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In this vein, I've left a message on the talk page of DomBot in case Childom comes back but is still logged into the DomBot account. This is why I use a virtual PC for AWB :) (and the fact I'm on Vista...). Martinp23 11:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok this has all been sorted out between Chidom and me. Tim! 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Khoikhoi

That's funny if you get a warning! from an admin [17] in language other than english on English Wikipedia. I suggest add some more information about this project's language on administrators reading list. Hessam 09:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hessam, I answered to your request on my own talkpage; I suggest we keep it there for the moment. No reason for big drama, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] meta:Interwiki map

I just found out about this page. It allows us to make external links with a syntax such as Google:elephant. However, the list contains over a hundred of sites that can be linked like this, most of which wouldn't even remotely qualify as either a reliable source or an external link - such as third-party wikis with very few edits. The links don't seem to show up in Special:Linksearches either. This is far too easily abused for linkspamming purposes; I think the list is due for some heavy cleaning. See also this thread. >Radiant< 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Surprize to the above thread-ers, YouTube is on the list! youtube:XUh3797GHJFG! 68.39.174.238 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and death threats

I noticed something while checking the Muslim article history to see the linkspamming going on. It involves these three users:

• Nehpetskenawi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Teddierx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ChinChonWon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ShowerGel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

From what I can see Teddierx told Nehpetskenawi to refrain from editing Muslim, "because of your limited mental abilities, anything you wish to add will be indistinguishable from vandalism." He also told User:ChinChonWon on his talk page that "our records have detected that You are a shi'ite. Since the majority of Shi'ites are black, you have been blocked permanently from our encyclopedia, just in case." ChinChonWon then retaliated, telling Teddierx "Please stop vandalising the USER PAGE! Otherwise, I will CHOP OFF YOUR HEAD!" He also posted on ShowerGel's talk page with the message "WARNING. YOU ARE TOO WIKITARDED TO CONTRIBUTE. YOU ARE A WIKITOSSPOT. THANK YOU" in large letters.

ShowerGel also faked being Teddierx, and also faked that that user was faking being WikiAdministrator, as well as Netsnipe on his own talk page here.

I'm asking the administrators to take a look at this, because I'm confused about whats going on, and maybe a CheckUser is called for? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well. I indef blocked Teddierx for impersonating Can't sleep, clown will eat me and Netsnipe, blatant personal attacks and disruption. I gave ChinChonWon and ShowerGel {{npa4im}} warnings and will monitor their activities. Nehpetskenawi doesn't appear to be involved, except as a victim of their puerile behavior. If another admin wants to overturn my block on Teddierx (he wasn't properly warned, I suppose), feel free to do so. I have absolutely no tolerance for people pretending to be other users. I don't know that a checkuser is necessary, though: my guess is that the three involved know each other off Wikipedia, and may even be all on the same school IP. -- Merope 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the indef block, Merope. Impersonating multiple admins is not acceptable. Gwernol 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest all administrators add the page to their Watchlist so they could spot the vandalism better. Isn't there an indefinite block consequence for administrator impersonations? --WTGDMan1986 (D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams) 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response from the admins. This is the first time I've posted on here about something else that I've seen happening. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just noticed that Nehpetskenawi was blocked indef for vandalism on December 20th, in case that changes anything here. 24.50.211.226 06:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (not signed in Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me))

[edit] Deletion of User talk:209.50.185.170

Could someone delete page User talk:209.50.185.170 per CSD G7 please ? I am the only editor, and I made a mistake when leaving a warning. I have removed it in the meantime, but don't want the user to read "You have new messages" and get to the new empty page — same reason why I don't want to tag it for speedy deletion and confuse someone. Thanks, Schutz 14:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Merope ! Schutz 14:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of protected article Execution of Saddam Hussein

Can someone please explain why multiple administrators are continuing to edit the protected article Execution of Saddam Hussein in clear violation of the protection policy? Martinp23, Zscout370, WhisperToMe, and William M. Connolley continue to make non-trivial edits while the page is protected. If this were only one or maybe two admins involved I'd be happy to take this to their respective Talk pages but this is getting completely out of hand. I think it's time for other admins to step in and remedy these blatant violations of established policy. --ElKevbo 14:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to explain to me how the edit I made was not non-trivial (ie - it was clearly a trivial edit). Here's the diff. ZScout370, with his impeccable understanding of the relevant laws, was removing fair use images. William M Connolley was remvoing the links to the execution videos premsumably as per (an interpretation of) WP:BRDC (without the revert, but in order to get a consensus and avoid an edit war), in order to form a really clear consensus on the talk page (which has happened). WhisperToMe entered a fair paragraph on a recent event related to the execution, improving the article - I don't think that he really had to discuss the issue first - it was an undebateable paragraph not related to the previous edit war. Martinp23 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about your edit and ZScout. However, I completely disagree with your characterization of William and WhisperToMe's edits. It's underhanded for admins to edit protected articles in all but the most non-trivial and legally required ways. --ElKevbo 15:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardly - I'm sure you'll agree that it ultimately falls to admins to keep protected articles up to date (hence Whisper's edit) and to resolve dispute (hence William's protection and edits (all in a very short time period - it's fair to say that what WMC did was in the course of WP:DR, probably after a 3RR report at WP:AN/3, and he was trying to let the dust settle and get some debate)). Martinp23 15:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree to that. This isn't the "Admin Wikipedia." It belongs to all of its editors. If an article is in such contention that it needs to be protected then all users, admins included, should respect that. I agree that it's not black-and-white and there are clearly instances when an article should be updated, particularly when major events occur. But for an admin to make any other edits gives the appearance of abuse of power. As admins you should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. --ElKevbo 15:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - hence why we have as many mechanisms in place to allow edits from non-admins during the harmful spell of protection. WhisperToMe's edit was not controversial, and has only imporved the Wiki. It is regretful that, due to a content dispute, other editors couldn't add to it, but I'ms ure you'll agree that that edit only improved the article, and that it was perfectly within WhisperToMe's right to make. If protection was meant to restrict admins from editing, then it would (or we'd have another article locking feature). As it is, admins were !voted into being by the community, and are expected to show the ability to only make edits to protected articles which are uncontroversial or blatantly neccessary. As far as I'm concerned, WMC's edits immeidately after he protected can be easily ocnsidered to have occured before he protected, in the course of consensus building (which is what admins do). First, he wiped the slate clean by remving (most of) the links (I cleaned up the bit he left behind later) and then started a poll on the talk page, and discussion. This is the best way to deal with edit wars. You can also review the protection policy, should you wish. Martinp23 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing trivial ElKevbo. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I don't understand your remark. Can you please clarify? --ElKevbo 15:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing trivial about that. The video will be back if you just read the talk page. William removal of the video (as it is a controversial video) was a cautionary edit waiting for the voting to end. The addition of WhisperToMe is encyclopaedic and not harmful. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the video or why the article was protected - those are separate issues. What I am discussion is the protection of an article and subsequent edits made by administrators. Wikipedia is not a two-tier system where administrators get to roam free on protected articles while us mere editors only get to sit and watch. It's not even so much the particular edits that were made as the principle of admins making unnecessary edits to protected articles. If the edits were not that important, why can't those admins wait to make the edits when the article is unprotected like regular editors? It's an abuse of power.

I'm not saying it's the end of the world but it's clearly unethical and should be addressed. I am asking that the practice be stopped and the admins involved should be told, "Hey, cut it out" to their fellow admins. --ElKevbo 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We have the {{Edit protected}} template for non-admins to request edits to protected pages. If they are uncontroversial and unrelated to the dispute, requests are usually granted. Ordinary editors are not forced to simply sit and watch and admins are not given free roam. -- Steel 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know that. I still maintain that what has occurred was in very poor taste. I understand that apparently I am in the minority and that saddens me as I view this issue as a matter of integrity and transparency.

Unless someone has something novel to add to this conversation I'm going to drop it and move on. I've raised the issue and that was my primary intent. After all, <sarcasm>it's not my fault that ya'll are wrong</sarcasm>. :) --ElKevbo 15:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true ElKevbo and i do agree w/ you but we can use common sense and avoid clashes. The important is that all edits were made in good faith to enhance wikipedia and not to take advantage of the situation. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I hold admins to a higher standard and I expect them to use their powers with sensitivity and care. Like Spiderman! --ElKevbo 15:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you were a real comic book geek you'd know that it's Spider-Man. --Cyde Weys 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it an admin standard Cyde? ;) -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's my desysopped then. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 16:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bah! Another example of admin ignorance of Wikipedia policy and standards! I demand a recall! :)

(No, I'm not a comic book geek. I read *real* books.) --ElKevbo 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job I made a point of avoiding that recall thing then :-P --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 16:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you threaten to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, though? Guy (Help!) 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, everyone knows about that, so instead I threatened to climb Mount Fuji dressed like Diana, Princess of Wales. That's not covered under WP:NCR, is it? (No banning me please, for this attempt at WikiHumor? :D) SirFozzie 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article protected? The event in question happened very recently, and interest in writing the article is only going to wane over time. We shouldn't be shutting it down to all but admin editing. --Cyde Weys 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dunno, but I know why William removed the links - one of them is a Google Video upload with the upload comment Originally posted as a link on the Something Awful forums, I saved and uploaded it to google video before it died.. Per WP:COPYRIGHT we do no link to material which blatantly infringes copyright. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All is in the talk page guys. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I've just unprotected it William M. Connolley 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you knowingly violated Wikipedia policy with respect to the Execution of Saddam Hussein page, as explained below. --Hab baH 08:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia policy for protecting a page says: "Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice." After protecting the page, the administrator edited the protected page twice: (1) once to remove content he did not agree with and (2) once to add a protected page notice. Removing the content he did not agree with after the page was protected is a clear violation of the protecting page policy. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy for protecting a page says: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." The given reason for the post-page protection editing was to remove content the administrator said possessed "excess tastelessness." As an administrator, William M. Connolley should be expected to act in accordance with Wikipedia policy. He should not involve himself in edit disputes if he is going to protect a page. Or he should not protect a page if he is going to involve himself in edit disputes. I am relatively new here, but I am disappointed that violating explicit Wikipedia policy appears to be okay in some circumstances. --Hab baH 08:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the last thing we need is for admins to step in and fix lame edit wars, isn't it? Much better to do nothing whatsoever to facilitate resolution and just stand back and watch the shouting. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 11:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corporation account

Just a heads up to ask if an admin or advanced editor can keep an eye on RaxcoSoftware (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). It appears to be an account created by a 'representative' of Raxco Software corporation, makers of the product PerfectDisk. Their only contributions are to that article and its image, as well as this edit to Help desk which reveals their identity as Sherry Murray of Raxco Software. Now there's not rule or even guideline about companies keeping an eye on the article about themselves, but then there's diffs (and paragraphs) like this. I've given a generic advertising (should that have been NN?) warning on their talk page, but I was wondering if anyone could come up with a template similar to {{SharedIP}} for a registered user that appears to be representing a company who may have POV/advertising related interests on Wikipedia. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:USERNAME supports blocking the account. "Usernames that promote a company or website" and "Unique trademarked names". -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I block corp accounts all the time under WP:USERNAME. I usually wait until they spam once, but then POW with the blocking stick. -- Merope 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What about RealPlayer (talk • contribs • count)? She's been around for quite awhile... Hbdragon88 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking - per the user page, RealPlayer isn't a corporate account but rather someone who needed a user name and just picked that one. --TheOtherBob 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Tempoarily equated product with corporation. Hbdragon88 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD going South, can someone keep an eye on it?

The Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Wills (wrestling) has gone south fairly quickly with off-wiki canvassing for votes, and vandalism both pro and con deletion. Need an admin to keep an eye on it if possible. SirFozzie 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got an eye on it. I gave Joker a final warning about vandalism. I've elected not to semi it quite yet though. I'm putting a {{not a ballot}} tag on the discussion. Metros232 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He was just blocked by another admin for 28 days. Hopefully that'll stop some of it. Metros232 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've got it on my watchlist. I've added unsigned comments where necessary. Cleaned it up as best I can. Joker is blocked. I think the discussion should be fine now for awhile and I'll check in on it every so often. Metros232 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've snowed the debate as delete. Deletion review is over to the left if anyone disagrees. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that it is totally outrageous that this afd has ended like it did. No consensus was reached, and yet it gets deleted. It went on for 3 days, and not a week like originally promised. WP:SNOW makes no sense since consensus was not reached at that point. I am certain that this will end up in deletion review soon and that the article be restored to its former glory. This is totally sick. Booshakla 02:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In cases where it is pretty clear that the consensus is one way or another, especially where off-wiki campaigning happens, ending the debate early may be appropriate. I have no opinion on this particular case, as I haven't looked at it at all, but it's not uncommon. Ral315 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Booshakla, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place to plead your case. Either way, your opinion was the only one given from a valid wikipedia editor and you presented no evidence in your comments. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petedaly

A little complex for AIV. Petedaly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) creates articles that are copy/paste from government website, repeatedly removing or vandalizing AFD notices and AFD discussion, removing (but otherwise ignoring) warnings from Talk page. Fan-1967 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Annnnnnd blocked. Man, I am kicking ass and taking names today. (Serious answer: I'll continue to monitor the situation.) -- Merope 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check user's IP for vandalism warnings?

User:MastaBaba just told me that I labeled some of their edits as vandalism, but no such warnings exist in their user account. I just started using Vandal Proof, so I'm a little concerned that I might have reverted legitimate edits they made while not logged in. Can an admin check the IP MastaBaba is using and see if I left any vandalism warnings there? Thanks. --Matthew 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Normal admins cannot see the IP that exists under the username. You'd need someone with Checkuser privlege, and I'm not sure whether this is something they would handle or not. I'd say see if MastaBaba can give you some context first. Syrthiss 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait for MastaBaba to respond. --Matthew 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we wouldn't. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I figured, but didn't want to speak for you. ;) Syrthiss 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask MastaBaba to point you to the warnings - ideally to diffs, but failing that, to the places where you supposedly left the warnings. Argyriou (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a little CYA

Mayhaps the article version seen here can be deleted, and the posting user's ip looked into? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a stern warning on the users' talk page, but have not blocked them. If they make any more edits of this type then a block should be the result. I am firmly against censorship, but the content of this site is clearly illegal in Florida. Requests for the removal are dealt with via the oversight procedure - see WP:RFO. 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noregia

This AfD page has been tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G5 (created by banned user). Is this really appropriate? I would have thought that the proper thing to do is to close the AfD as speedy keep. --Derlay 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what we have been told to do for the various pages created by the various User:JB196 Sockpuppets. if I and others are doing it wrong (there was about seven or eight closed today alone), let me know (would have appreciated a message, btw, but I have this thing on my watch list right now, anyway :)) SirFozzie 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the section of the ANI board where the proceedure is to revert prods and speedy delete AfD's (unless I misunderstood) SirFozzie 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JB196. Thryduulf 02:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

All edits by banned users should be reverted or deleted as appropriate. I see no reason for AfDs to be any different. --Tango 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• See the speedy keep guidelines for the clarification that G5 does apply. Yeah I know, WP:SK to find out about speedy deletions is not the most obvious thing to do... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing Harrassment

My last two complaints about this user have gone unnoticed, however Messenger2010 (talk · contribs) continues to vandalize and post fake WR templates on my talk page. This user has a 4 month history of sockpuppeteering, vandalism and disruption of Wikipedia, and there is also evidence to suggest that this editor, using a sockpuppet, has also deliberately falsified evidence to discredit an editor in good standing by falsely accusing admin Glen S (talk · contribs) of sending death threats. See here [18] for details. This user further continues to waste Wikipedia resources by canvassing an uninvolved third party admin (aeropagitica) (talk · contribs) to "watch" my page in case I remove any of this nonsense. Meanwhile, the user does not make any other meaningful contributions to Wikipedia, except to leave behind a long list of (blocked) sockpuppets. [19] At minimum this is a case of harrassment. Normally I'd ignore this troll, however they have involved other uninvolved admins, and now further action is required. Thanks. Yankees76 06:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review

Based on a review of the past behaviour of Messenger2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) I have blocked indefinitely. Apart form the sockpuppetry and other nonsense, this user appears to be here for the primary purpose of causing trouble. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed. I was looking at this very late last night but didn't want to do anything until I was fresher. Thatcher131 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated. Thank you. Just an FYI, but the user is requesting an unblock. Yankees76 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on Talk:Dravidian_people and on my talk page User talk:Wiki Raja

• (taken to User talk:Wiki Raja/ARYAN818) Guy (Help!) 10:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for #wikipedia-en-admins

Well, guidelines. But ones to take seriously, using the good judgement that led to you being picked for admin. The topic currently reads:

• Topic for #wikipedia-en-admins is: Please do not release logs, although there have been public leaks. Please comport yourself in a manner becoming to an admin. Imagine the person you're talking about reading what you're saying. Be civil even in the third person to complete dicks^W^Wthe troublesome. Be excellent to one another.
• Topic for #wikipedia-en-admins set by DavidGerard at Fri Jan 5 23:30:56 2007

Even if the person you despise most on all of Wikimedia is there ... please treat it as a working channel with chat - David Gerard 10:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, as an irc n00b, how do I get an invite to join? Guy (Help!) 11:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Um ... someone has to tell chanserv that you're allowed to ask chanserv to invite you ... then some magic happens ... Ask JamesF ;-D - David Gerard 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

James_F, Shanel, mindspillage, and Essjay are a few that can get you in. —Pilotguy (ptt) 14:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:IRC Tutorial for n00bs, but you'll only end up with a fetish for Chanserv like like one of the d00ds on IRC. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblocks

Either the toolserver is down or I'm doing something wrong. Is there any other way to find autoblocks? Guy (Help!) 12:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? The autoblock tool worked for me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the event that the autoblock tool does go down (which happens from time to time), autoblocks show up on the IPblocklist. A ctrl + F for the blocked account will find any active autoblocks. -- Steel 17:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clue-stick application requested

Could I ask an admin to take a look at the contributions of User:Tabanddavillon, and perhaps leave a polite "stop buggering around" note for them? I've been babysitting a high school article (silly me); this editor has done nothing but vandalize at that article (and once on toothpick as a vacation, I guess). Several warning templates on their page, but the vandalism isn't rapid enough for AIV. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked. I couldn't find a single edit that wasn't vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That should quiet down my watchlist a little bit. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaaaah!

A while back, a single-purpose account created dozens of very short articles on "hexspeak" numbers like 0xDECAFBAD. They were deleted. They came back as redirects to Hexspeak. They were deleted. They are now back again, as the series 0xDECAFBAD and others (see the navbox). Virtually the entire contents of these articles seems to be identical from one to the next. What to do? Guy (Help!) 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Hexspeak those that are mentioned in the article, so they're logical redirs, and redirects are cheap. Redirect the rest to Magic number (programming). Eugène van der Pijll 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started to go ahead and do this, but it appears that the editor (BlakeCS (talk · contribs)) is unhappy with me doing so. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If all problems could be solved this easily... It seems that you have convinced him, as he redirected some himself now. [20] [21] -- Eugène van der Pijll 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distruptive Editor has gotten away with it!

[edit] Regarding Edits To The Biological Value Article

Removed content with references from an article is consider vamdalism.

[edit] Regarding Comments On The Talk Page of The Soy Protein Article.

Comments like this is inappropiate. Saying another editor is "unbalanced" should result in Yankees76 being blocked.

[edit] Regarding Edit Summary To The Biological Value Article

Falsely accuses another editor of vandalism. Cheers --Stinger21 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution, second door on the left down the corridor. Linked to [22] above. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious sockpuppet of Messenger2010, indef blocked accordingly. Thatcher131 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help deleting category

I've been working for a few days to clean out the old Wikipedians in Esperanza category, which has been part of the CFD backlog for a while. Some of the category tags were extremely hard to root out due to the complexity of some userpages. However, I've gotten it down to just two left: this and this. They're both protected, so an admin will have to manually remove the tag. Then the category will be depopulated and the backlog will be cleared. Thanks in advance! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. (aeropagitica) 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, can you delete the category now that its done? See here. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CAT deleted. Viridae^Talk 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other methods of blocking

Sorry for the potential WP:BEANS issue here, but are there other kinds of blocks - meta-blocks or the like - that would be standing between me and the following attempts to unblock? (all one user BTW) [23] [24].

The user has posted an image of their block message [25]. Other admins have intervened in the past to no avail.

I'd just like to buy a clue at this point. Anybody? ⇨REDVEЯS 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's blocked because it is an open proxy. Jkelly 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is blocked by the Mediawiki software. Note how "Proxy blocker" never blocked anything according to the logs. See m:Proxy blocking Prodego ^talk 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin abuse

Where are wikipedians ment to report Admins who are not acting properly (See the actions of Inshaneee above in the "A petulant and totally unjustified block") so that they are punished and stopped? This admin has acted badly for the last 3 months to my knowledge and from his archive hes always been this way.Hypnosadist 23:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See requests for comment and, more generally, the dispute resolution process. —bbatsell ¿? 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We have had the RFC and nothing has changed, mostly in my opinion because he has never been punished in any way.Hypnosadist 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RFCs have no mechanism for punishment. Please see the dispute resolution link I posted to see what comes after RFC. If the actions of the user in question are significant enough, then a request for arbitration may be in order. —bbatsell ¿? 23:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actions regarding both blocking or de-sysopping, or any other such action are preventative, not punative. There is no punishing anywhere, let alone an RFC. Crimsone 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you have to prevent him abuseing his power, so bans arn't punative, lol.Hypnosadist 00:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So its just arbitration left then, i'll start contacting people to build the case but i hope this is not as much as a waste of time as all the steps so far.Hypnosadist 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eleven month backlog

So, apparently there's this "fair use review" process, that's supposed to be handled at Category:Fair use review requested. A glance at one of the items in the backlog, Image:Seinfeld1.jpg, shows it's been tagged since February. Maybe it is fairuse. Maybe not. But apparently nobody has checked. I'm bringing this up because I have found some dubious fairuse-tagged images I want reviewed, but I don't know where to take them. Obviously dropping them into that hole isn't going to do any good. Is there a live process anywhere? — coelacan talk — 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk page redirect?

Is redirecting your talk page to an article's talk page allowed? One Night In Hackney 02:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It was a page move of his talk page to the main talkspace. I have replaced it where it belongs. Viridae^Talk 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accounts uploading problematic images

At what threshold are such accounts blocked? Does such a threshold exist? --HappyCamper 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Common sense on a per case basis I believe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef block for the most severe cases or when previous blocks didn't work, but use maybe 48 hours for the first block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to give canonical examples, but I have seen quite a few users with pages like this. It does not make sense to sanction accounts which continually upload images which are eventually deleted I think. --HappyCamper 04:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be ready for some POV edits to narcissism articles

Hi folks, apologies for the long post. The following is a chopped-down letter sent by a "Sam Vaknin" to some of his mailing lists... the general gist of it is that we can expect several POV edits to List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder, Narcissism (psychology), and Narcissistic personality disorder. Some would be good, but I think we should put these three articles under greater scrutiny for a little while. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

... BUT

There is something you can do.

The Wikipedia entries for Narcissism (Psychology) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder are laughable and contain numerous inaccuracies, urban legends and utter nonsense.

Some parts of the entries are borrowed verbatim from my work (without attribution or credit, without my permission, and despite numerous protests and notices of copyright infringement issued by my publisher). But about 60% of the text require urgent revisions or outright deletion.

Anyone can edit the entries. All you have to do is click on the edit button in the upper navigation bar of the article. You can change the text, add external links, add references to literature, citations, and anything else you deem relevant. I encourage to give it a try.

Click on these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_further_reading_on_narcissism_and_narcissistic_personality_disorder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_%28psychology%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Have a great year!

Sam Vaknin

--Deathphoenix ʕ 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• If the article really is based mostly on a copyvio we should reduce it to a stub and just start over. --W.marsh 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's assuming it's true. If it is, I'd agree, but I'd like to see what portion of our text he feels is copyvio before we start stubbifying it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, he may mean that 60% he agrees with so assumes is based on his work :-) Guy (Help!) 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from these diffs, most of the complainant's work has been expunged from the articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissism_%28psychology%29&diff=98281543&oldid=30605408

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=98238115&oldid=34362845

mostly on the grounds that it was neither accurate, cited nor verifiable, and replaced by accurate, verifiable text instead from a number of sources.

I have personally asked the poster, on more than one occasion, to specify any text he feel is in copyvio and I will, remove it (which he cannot do himself as he is on indefinate ban for repeated sockpuppetry see User:Samvak) I have yet to recieve an answer. --Zeraeph 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just blanked a small section of Narcissism (psychology) [26] that he might claim was a copyvio (see [27], though he reposted it himself after it was blanked due to copyright concerns [28]. It seems best to blank it, partly for the sake of peace and quiet and partly with the intention of re-writing it in a properly cited and verified form. It is the only possible copyvio I can find in any of these articles --Zeraeph 06:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

At a slight tangent to this, there was an (apparently unrelated) edit on Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder [29] that I am really uncomfortable with in many different ways. ‎It seems racist and anti semitic as well as being a gratuitious attack on Sam Vaknin. That cannot be helpful and is contrary to [30].

I made the mistake of responding, if very mildly and civilly (I was shell-shocked by that degree of anti-semitism and did not like to leave it unremarked) but I am now wondering if it might be possible for the whole offensive remark and the responses to it (myself and an AOL anon) to be permanently deleted? It's just so nasty that I don't like leaving it there. --Zeraeph 11:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How ironic that this series of edits would befall narcissism-related artcles. Savidan 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fraternities and sororities

What do you all think of the massive amounts of external links that are contained in a traditional Wikipedia fraternity or sorority article such as Delta Sigma Pi, Alpha Kappa Psi, Phi Kappa Psi, or Alpha Epsilon Pi? Is this appropriate at all? I posted this to WT:EL a month ago and get a few responses Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_11#Fraternities_and_sororities. I just removed the lists at Delta Sigma Pi [31] and registered a whopping (-23,730) on the removal according to the big bold red numbers on my watchlist (now, granted, that was a large table and I'm sure the fact it was a table added to the size of it). I figure I should probably get a little bit more of input on this before I go any further with such large removals.

I believe that they are unacceptable under WP:NOT as they are collections of external links used to formulate a directory of chapters. It encourages each chapter to post their own link and, for large organizations, that could mean 100+ schools. Thoughts? Metros232 02:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Donald Albury 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not what external links are for. EL should be limited to articles that are clearly justified. The national chapter for instance. I don't think any individual chapters could justify a link, unless perhaps there is something extraordinary about them that is 3rd party verifiable. - Taxman ^Talk 02:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, those are not valid. We used to have chapters writing breathless articles about themselves. They'd go to VfD (it was back then), and the advice was always, either put it in the college or just delete it. So now it seems that they're linking from their national frat/sororities. That's better, but it's still unacceptable. The chapters have plenty of linking-to from the national organizations' own web pages and their colleges' web pages. They don't need to be page rank boosting with us. Geogre 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While we're talking about these, there are also articles for the sub groups of the organisations. I had a quick hand at fighting back the bloat with redirects, but appeared to be going it alone and was mostly reverted. - brenneman 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Beta Theta Pi Chapters}}

I appreciate the feedback so far and hopefully will lay my hand at removing a lot of these sometime tomorrow. What is the thought on the lists in general? Is it only to have a list of the chapters without external links? Beta Theta Pi (as shown in the template above that Aaron Brenneman just provided, has a full list of their chapters on their article but no external links for them. Should lists like that go as well as those with external links? Metros232 03:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I note that the (few) bluelinks in that template are redirects to the main article. I don't think we need articles on each individual fraternity chapter; for most of them there is little to say beyond what it says in the main frat article. I think this template should be removed. >Radiant< 12:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It really seems excessive still, to me. I know it's harmless to have a list of "all chapters of X," but it's only harmless until people treat it like the infamous (and a pox eternally be upon it) List of high schools and argue that the presence on the list means that there should be an article on every one. I.e. lists are sometimes used in circular logic to argue that there must be an article on each item on the list. Therefore, I still maintain that the national organization's web page is linked from the article on the national organization, and that should serve sufficiently for anyone seeking chapters. If the chapters don't achieve fame/standing outside of their campus communities, then they're not encyclopedic, in my view, in a list or an article. Geogre 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Per this discussion, I have nominated the template for deletion. Metros232 14:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I did about a dozen or so so far. A good tool to see articles on frats and sororities is to look at {{North-American Interfraternity Conference}} or Category:North-American Interfraternity Conference. I did basically the bottom two rows of the template. I'm going to take a break for now if anyone wants to step in to continue. Metros232 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If anything the {{Beta Theta Pi Chapters}} should go. Individual chapter articles of national/international fraternities are completely unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider for individual chapters. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Beta_Theta_Pi_Chapters. The template was nominated yesterday for deletion. Metros232 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are just simple lists okay?

• I think we should draw the line at a list of chapters without external links. It is encyclopedic to have a list of what colleges and universities have these organizations, because that is what the organization is all about. When it is a fraternity/sorority with a lot of chapters, a list page is appropriate. However, I don't think external links to the chapter websites or articles about the chapters is appropriate. --rogerd 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's entirely relevant to the existence and mission of the organization in question (fraternity) to be associated with colleges. How else would one illustrate this without using a list? The external links thing, I agree with, we can get rid of those. But a link to the Wikipedia articles about the colleges themselves is appropriate. --Htmlism (talk · contr) 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• This has been brought up here a few times and at my talk page User_talk:Metros232#Fraternity_Chapter_deletion.28s.29. It appears the consensus is beginning to form that the links are to be removed but simple lists are okay, is that what I'm seeing? Metros232 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the reasons for removing the links (though I don't agree), but there should be a list of chapters. These are the most important aspect of any national fraternity/sorority. Greek organizations measure their size by the number of chapters and initiates as well.

I'm opposed to the inclusion of a list because 1) WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and 2) I believe that this would be listcruft; having a list for the sake of a list. If the individual chapter in particular is important, it would go in the history section. Otherwise, people will probably find a list individual chapters on the fraternities' home page or something. Hbdragon88 23:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I still think that the organizations themselves bear the burden of telling people where they are, not us. An encyclopedic account of the organization should discuss the organization, rather than list all of its accomplishments (placement of chapters), in my view. After all, we would not want to have a list of all the places where a business was located, nor a corporation, nor a non-profit philanthropic organization. Secondly, the lists can be used to justify the re-emergence of individual articles, and six months from now people may have forgotten the present consensus or simply be nodding off on the issue. I have nothing against these organizations, but I don't think a list of each chapter would be appropriate for anything, including Recording for the Blind or American Heart Association. Geogre 05:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus
• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Day_2_Assignment:_Edit_Wikipedia
• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Day_3_Assignment_-_Participate_in_Wikipedia_Dispute_Resolution

WAS 4.250 12:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• LOL! Looked at in succession that way, it makes it look like their edits are bound to be disputed :-) I have no real problem with educated people being encouraged to learn about and participate in this project. The critiques of their edits are good - many standard newbie errors pointed out. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a little suspiscious of "TheWayThingsWork" here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Group_6_Dispute_Results 68.39.174.238 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA and Troll organization

A reference to them is constantly being readded to Troll organization under "notable troll organizations", but since this ref has been removed from the GNAA disambig page and the page has been locked to prevent it from being readded, I have continued to remove it, because if the administration agrees that it doesn't even deserve to be referenced there, then it certainly doesn't anywhere else. I'm concerned that it may be worthy of a reference, as many have said it is, and that the admins are against this because it is viewed as feeding the trolls. I hate trolls as much as the next guy, but if it IS notable enough to merit a reference, then it should be given one, trolls or not.--Azer Red Si? 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, it should be added. The fact that we have an article about GNAA is food enough to justify having it listed at troll organization. We can't add more fuel than having an article about GNAA, unless we make it featured and put it in the main page... *shudders* -- ReyBrujo 20:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we rid of that article as unverifiable? --Spartaz 20:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you are right. I thought Jimbo had said something about not putting it into AFD until 2007, thought it would not be nominated until this year. -- ReyBrujo 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

& DRV agreed. In which case we don't need to mention it unless it get references and is verifiable - something the main article found very hard to do properly which was why is was deleted in the end.Spartaz 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that there is no verifiable information about them, especially not to verify their notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Fruit Basket as a vandal only account. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it strange that American Nihilist Underground Society is an acceptable as an article and has been subjected to a number of AfDs, but GNAA is not. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I checked the sources, none of them actually address the subject in detail. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • You can AfD it if you think it does not meet inclusion standards. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom ruling on talk page removals?

Can someone point me to the recent ArbCom decision where they ruled that users may remove notices or warnings from their talk pages, as a removal is seen as an acknowledgement that the notice/warning was read? There seems to be a lot of confusion over this matter. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Apparently, I understood that notices of vandalism and the like were to be archived, not deleted. I seem to have misunderstood this. --Kukini 23:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh bother. A Arbcom doesn't make policy rulings, the community does. B There is a long running discussion somewhere (I'll try and find a link) between vandal fighters, who insist that removal of warnings is itself vandalism and a blockable offense, and editors who disagree. C In many many discussions on this page, I have never seen an admin actually willing to block a user for removing a talk page warning. (If you get blocked for it, the debate over whether it is a blockable offense is rather moot.) D The warning removal templates have all been deleted after MfD determined that removing warnings was not by itself a warnable or blockable offense. Thatcher131 23:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kukini 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links:

• Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings
• This noticeboard discussion with a good overview of the situation by CBD.
• Additional discussions here, here, here, and here. Thatcher131 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When I said "ruled," I was referring to a ruling in a specific case - and I would like to have that link, since it's been mentioned a few times recently on AN/I. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As Thatcher131 said, the ArbCom doesn't make policy rulings, so you aren't going to get a link to somewhere that they "ruled" on this. The most recent widespread community consensus on the matter can be found here. --CBD 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, replace "ruled" with "said." By focusing on one word, you're both missing the thrust of my question (not to mention assuming that I'm a bit of a dolt, which is rather annoying - this ain't my first rodeo). Several people on AN/I referred to a recent ArbCom case where one ancillary point made by the arbitrators was that removing talk page comments or warnings wasn't a blockable offense (I believe, but I may be mis-stating that). I'd like to see that case. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see that case very much as well, if it exists, but Thatcher131 and I may be the only two users other than the arbitrators who have read every word the ArbCom has written for the past several months, so if neither of us remembers such a case, either the person who remembered seeing such a decision may be mistaken and/or any such statement may be older and/or not prominent in the decision. I've also just checked the page that summarizes all ArbCom decisions and I don't see any reference to this topic, one way or the other, although that page generally is limited to discussing the remedies portion of each decision rather than the principles applied or findings found. If I come across any discussion of this issue in an ArbCom case I will be sure to let you know. Newyorkbrad 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, Brad, even I don't read every word. It doesn't ring a bell, and it would probably be a side comment on one of the evidence talk or workshop pages, rather than part of a final decision. Thatcher131 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I know you hang on AN/I as well - you don't recall this being cited at least once and I believe twice within the last 2-3 weeks? (The case could be old, for all I know, but it only came to my attention recently.) It sounded as if the ArbCom statement was a side-comment on a larger case; now I'm really kicking myself for not bookmarking it or linking to it on my userpage. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the statement on AN/I that there was such a case, but I've looked for the case twice now, unsuccessfully. Thatcher's probably right that if there was anything, it was a side comment rather than a central point of the case. As I said, if I come across anything I'll let you know. You might also post on the talk page for requests for arbitration at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, which the arbitrators probably read, and see if any of them remember anything. Newyorkbrad 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been cases where removing warnings was cited as part of a larger pattern of incivility and disruption. Perhaps that is what people are thinking of. If there is a case that directly deals with response to removing warning itself (aside from a larger context of disruption), I've never seen it. Dragons flight 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right, but the removal of warnings was singled out as something that wasn't prohibited or wasn't blockable. (I did read this - I'm not crazy). It was absolutely not the main issue in the case I'm thinking of. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I recall in an earlier dispute, if someone removes a warning from their talk page, it is acceptable to do so as it indicates that they have been warned before. However, when it comes to IP talk pages, I am not sure, but my opinion is that they should stay. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do somewhat recall the ArbCom convering or at least discussing something like this sometime ago (note that I'm speaking from my experience as a user, as I've only been on the committee a week or so now :-) ), but perhaps it was an offhand comment by one of the Arbitrators and not something official? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely for IP talk pages they ought to stay so RC patrollers know that they have been warned before. The warning templates were deleted because a more direct approach is needed; inserting a boilerplate when one is removing warnings is not the answer. —Pilotguy (ptt) 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen some users archive everything but warnings which they remove. It becomes very hard to correct repetitive misbehaviour when they are hidden away like this. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But...users with user names may delete the notices without archiving them, right? --Kukini 00:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my concern as well, HighINBC. --Kukini 00:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

IP vs logged in user is irrelevant. The only purpose warnings serve is to help the user understand Wikipedia procedures. If they remove the warning they've seen it and it has accomplished its purpose. Re-adding a warning after the user has removed it is edit warring and in some cases harassment. --CBD 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. That is the primary purpose of warnings, but they are also helpful in spotting a pattern of behavior from a particular editor. —bbatsell ¿? 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Although this issue has been discussed in various forums, I don't recall having seen any ArbCom decision discussing the issue. Had there been such a decision, I am sure it would have been mentioned by someone in the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings and its predecessors. Newyorkbrad 00:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I bet I can make a bot that goes through a talk page history and points out which revisions have warnings. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about one that tallies warnings by category? "This user has received 4 {{test}} warnings (highest was {{test3}}), 2 {{npa}} warnings, and 0 {{seriously}} warnings." I think that's the info I'd want to have if I was on a user talk page and facing the warn/block decision tree. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a bot, at least for IP accounts would make RC Patrolling much easier and cleaner! --Kukini 00:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am picturing a full report, with statistics at the top, and each warning with appearance and removal revisions. It will find all templated warnings and a few key words like legal threat etc... I am already working on the basics. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Where will this bot output be? Since there is no consensus that removing warnings is prohibited, any report a bot posted to a user talk page can be just as easily removed. Thatcher131 00:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be protected, or the bot could have subpages. Perhaps it could be a bot run only on an admin's request? | Mr. Darcy talk 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I will probably run it offline, you go to a page on my server, enter the name, it will make a report. A bit like interiot's tool. It will only read Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How's your bandwidth? And you may have a problem with server loads depending on how many queries you run. But that'll be up to the bot approval group. Thatcher131 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

With Special:Export I can download the page with entire history with one http request, a long talk page history will only be a few megs(like downloading and image). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I obviously don't know about your hosting capacity (although I can help you out there if you need it), but I'd recommend caching results. I.e., the first time a report on a specific user is requested, you download everything via Special:Export, parse it, store the positive results in a database, and add a notation in your database showing the last time a report was run on that user, so that future reports would only have to parse changes since that last change. Although I'm sure you've already thought of that and have already written it :) —bbatsell ¿? 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about adding a JS tool so that it can overlay the results in a box on the user's talk page upon request? —bbatsell ¿? 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would probably support virtually any bot proposal from User:HighInBC after seeing the wonderful work being done by his AIV bot that debuted this week. On the other hand, I can think of at least one mild negative to this proposal, which is that the bot would have no way of distinguishing between valid warnings, borderline ones, and bogus ones. For example, users who revert vandalism will occasionally get a warning suspecting that their edits are vandalism, either because removing a large amount of bad text triggers a bot warning, or because of a near-edit-conflict triggering a revert to a bad version. Right now, when that happens, the affected user figures out what happened, adjusts any mistake that might have been made, deletes or archives the warning, and forgets about it. If the existence of the warning were recorded "on the user's permanent record", then a bad warning might be taken much more seriously. The number of bad-faith warnings designed just to impair an editor's reputation might also increase. I can also imagine that soon enough, someone would run this bot on the account of every RfA candidate, for example. I don't know whether these concerns outweigh the positive potential of this bot but food for thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

True, the bot will make that very clear, and post links to the revision's that the warning was added and when the warning was removed, this should be enough for the reviewer to find context. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That alleviates some of the concern, although even so, it could still magnify the effect of trivial disputes and increase some people's desire to leave a "templated" warning rather than a tailor-made one, so it will count as an "official warning." The bot is a great idea if used properly but we will see whether it is. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The permanent record already exists, this is just a search engine. No bot can solve the folly of man(gee that is kinda poetic). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

THis bot idea, it's a joke, right?--Doc^g 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No joke. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "official" about the warning templates. More, there should not be anything "official" about the warning templates. They are no better or worse than the judgment of the editor who applies the template, and they are no better and probably worse than a hand-written message. Now. Use of a bot like the one you are describing would enshrine the warning templates as being official in nature. That would be a bad thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Enshrined? That is a bit of a stretch, just a search engine. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If the search-engine were to achieve widespread use, we'd be forced to cater to its expectations, no? "Hmm... I could leave a hand-written message asking them nicely to stop, or... no, I better not, the search engine won't pick it up!" This is already a problem with the rules listed at WP:AIV. We shouldn't be extending the problem. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This potential problem is ill defined, and hypothetical. What's more, user talk page histories are GFDL and anyone is welcome to index them in any way. Wikipedia is built on transparency, the problems you are talking about are something you need to take up with people (potentially)misusing the information the bot provides. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making a legalistic point. Obviously you or anyone else could write such a thing. But I believe such a search engine is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. So I thought I would discuss why I believed that with the guy, you, who is currently talking about writing it. If you then want to fall back on "there are no rules against writing this", I, I... really don't know what to say! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intent to fall back onto a "there are no rules against writing this" argument. I think my point about the potential problem being ill defined, and hypothetical is more of the meat of my last statement. I simply do not believe having easier access to an accurate history of a talk page is going to cause more harm than good. My point regarding GFDL is that if someone wanted to do this for pointed purposes there is nothing stopping them, so why not put it in the hands of the good guys too? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Legal schmegal, it's a bad idea. The data you'd get would be worthless in at least two senses. First, as we have been amply arguing all over the place, removing a warning is not indicative of abuse or not of abuse. It depends. Second, all you'd find out is that an action occurred, and not by whom. Additionally, -bots are stupid. They can't tell friend from foe, nor can they tell when a person is cleaning out a nest of [disreputable group here] and committing online sepuku. Finally, if such a bot were to be run, I know that I'd be happy to issue myself as many warnings as I could, just for grins. That would dilute the data considerably, of course, but that would be the point. Finally, there is simply no need for the thing. The "history" tab is available to us all. We don't need another area where -bots enable people to ignore subtlety and nuance and context. Geogre 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First, while removing warning may not be a problem, finding removed warnings can help you determine if it is a problem or not. Secondly, the tool will know who made the change and refer me to the diff where it was added, and removed. It is not supposed to provide a single answer but a series of links to help investigation. Lastly, if you gave yourself a bunch of warnings(hypothetically I assume) to confound an investigation, that would be pointy. I am really writing it for my own use, if other wish to use it I will make it available. I am always coding this kind of thing for myself, just thought I would share. Geez, it is just another way of looking at the same history, no one is letting the tool make the final judgement. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making a distinction

I do think we need to make a distinction between regular users and blatant IP vandals. Warnings to regular users are usually about content disputes, and escalating the situation by edit warring over warnings never helps. IP vandals shouldn't get the same consideration. I'm not particularly interested in assuming good faith with someone who posts 'XXX IS A PEDERAST over and over again. Thatcher131 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless you know that the IP is static, you can't assume that the remover is the vandal. We've had complaints of innocents with mobile IPs who log on, see yellow boxes - find accusations of vandalism, remove them and then get slapped. Talk pages are there for the benefit of the user, not the convenience of the vandal fighter. Blanking messages should always be permitted. If they immediately vandalise again, then block.--Doc^g 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no arbitration ruling on warnings. Obviously if someone removes a warning from his own talk page it can be assumed that he has noticed it. Which is the purpose of the warning. If you want to make a permanent notice about continued problems with an editor, and you've reached this point, an RfC is the thing to do. Not squabbling about whether or not you are entitled to maintain a permanent record of your displeasure on his talk page. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What if someone, say a different IP user, removes the warning on another IP user's talk page? I have seen this happen before. I have, up to today, considered such behavior vandalism. Perhaps I have erred in this assumption? --Kukini 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't vandal fighters use page histories? If I suspect there might be anything misleading about a page, I go straight to the page history, and if I uncover lots of removals, I then investigate further. Carcharoth 02:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, if I received a warning I wanted to remove, I would leave links behind on the talk page, pointing at the diff that added it, and the diff that removed it. Kind of like archiving to page history, rather than archiving to a visible archive. Archiving to page history also has the advantage of the links not showing up in "what links here" or in Google searches, and the page not being categorised, but you can still pull out a view of what the page looked like if you want to. Carcharoth 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• The history tab is available for all, and removal is simply an act without value. If I put a warning on an IP, then realized that it was AOL and removed it, there would be a warning removal that was a correction. If a new user goes around insisting that the Trojans attacked Athens in The Iliad and I revert him, I darn sure better be able to remove a warning, template, or box he puts on my talk page. These "warnings" are brainless by themselves: they're templates, and therefore they should only be used in the first place when you think that the account being communicated with is anonymous and unresponsive. If it's a user, an actual editor who is here most days, who talks and goes back to things, then a damn template does no damn good. If it's a user, you owe him or her an actual attempt to communicate. We began using these blasted templates merely for the hit and run vandals and substub scribblers, not for any form of resolution. Personally, I think that all long time contributors should instantly remove any template warning and demand, instead, an actual explanation with attendant listening. Geogre 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with this bot is that it encourages those users who think that the best way to resolve a dispute is attacking people who disagree with them. If a warning template becomes part of a permanent record against someone (which this implies) that's an incentive to give warning templates to people in dispute against you, so that you can later argue that said person has a history of being disruptive. >Radiant< 12:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why We Fight

...each other. It seems to me that templates of all sorts do not require, at present, consensus or even agreement before they are placed. Therefore, anyone can put any template any place. Because there is no reasoning necessary for putting a "clean this up" tag or a "this should be merged" or "vandal" tag, we end up with arguments after the placement instead of before. Because there is no necessary reasoning ahead of time, we can't have any idea whether the placement is apt or not. If we could be sure that every warning template of any sort were placed on the basis of solid agreement, then we could see the removal of a warning as a bad act. Also, we could then counsel the person so tagged to accept the template/tag meekly. However, when anyone can put any tag on anything without demonstrating advanced reasoning, there is no particular inherent value to it. All it means at present is, "One person disliked or wanted to highlight something." That's why the answer to all of the argument is, I'm afraid, "it depends." Geogre 14:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppetry, Vandalism & SPAM on Bharatanatyam page

Hello,

I would like to bring to your attention of the recent activity on the Bharatanatyam page. Some of the users once in a while will take off information from the site such as the origins of the dance from Tamil Nadu, also some of the historical mentionings of the dance in Tamil literature. There seems to be some kind of POV advocacy which pops up once in a while. Also, there are some users whom are posting links to advertisements. Furthermore, I have noticed that these users do not have their own user name page. Below are the following user names which have been involved in such activity:

• User:Jayajaya (note: possible sock puppetry)
• User:Anitaa (note: deletes information which has already been cited, adding POVs)
• User:61.247.253.102 (note: warned 3 times for spamming, and blacklisted on wikipedia)
• User:Sangeeeeta (note: possible sock puppetry)
• User:Sakthi24 (note: previously warned for spamming)
• User:Bluegurl0095 (note: possible sock puppetry)
• User:SadirAttam (note: this one actually admits avertizing on wikipedia - User talk:SadirAttam

I have also posted messages on the Talk:Bharatanatyam page after each incident. Much work has been put into this topic with cited sources. This continuous POV editing, deletions, and Spamming does not help the article one bit and is becoming a nuisance. Hopefully this will stop.

Wiki Raja 06:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Posted identically at ANI. Suggest that any replies go there so that discussion can be in one place. Newyorkbrad 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So, in the future, should I post on ANI? Regards.

Wiki Raja 08:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

One or the other (if it doesn't belong in one of the other noticeboards listed at the top of the page), depending on the nature of the problem, but not both, please. -- Donald Albury 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ProtectionBot RFA and status

Per Betacommand's demand, I have shut down the ProtectionBot script running on my admin account and filed an RFA for ProtectionBot. Though I consider RFA a suboptimal tool for addressing this issue, I am prepared to accept that some members of this community will recognize nothing less. However, I would like to renew my general request that ProtectionBot be allowed to continuing running on my account during the RFA. Should the dozens of support votes at BRFA somehow vanish, I will gladly shut it down, but given the nature of the issue being addressed I feel the delay will unnecessarily expose Wikipedia to additional vandalism merely for the sake of process. Dragons flight 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a bureacrat, I see no need for someone who is already an admin to do anything beyond the normal bot request procedure. Raul654 09:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, another bureaucrat (Essjay) has spoken at length disagreeing with you. Dragons flight 10:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So can someone confirm they will be taking care of protections, or watching for unprotected stuff, while the RfA is running. That is the important thing. Carcharoth 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support continuing to run ProtectionBot during the 7-day RfA period, at least on the same basis as the trial was operated. I had posted an inquiry on current status to the RfA talkpage and on the bot approval page, before seeing this thread, and will leave them to see if we can gather a consensus to do that. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, talk about running it while the RFA is pending is going on here - Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 02:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images "by" User:RoboRanks

Today I have deleted several imagevios uploaded by RoboRanks (talk · contribs). They were found on different websites, all tagged with {{PD-self}}. (1 2 3 4 5) I'm inclined to think that most if not all images uploaded by RoboRanks are copyright violations. Of course, the guy may be a photographer travelling all over the world with specific interest for the Somali people, but given five blatant copyvios it's hard to beleive this.

So, any opinions on the actions to take? Delete all images, warn or block user? Conscious 11:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all images and final warning to user, I suggest. Tyrenius 13:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

These user's images are definitely questionable. It would be quite remarkable if images like Image:Somalipeople.jpg and Image:Somalipeople.jpg were taken by this user. I would support deleting all the PD-self images he has uploaded. - SimonP 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest checking for Primetimery. 68.39.174.238 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested block

Could someone please permanently block me (link). //Dirak 11:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The blocking policy specifically prohibits using blocks to enforce Wikibreaks or other leaves of absence from Wikipedia. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 14:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a wikibreak enforcer somewhere, but can't find it around... -- ReyBrujo 15:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Pretty neat, never used it myself though since I know the ways around it. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 15:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In future, don't ask here, just vandalise a few pages and let procedure take its course. Seriously, getting yourself blocked a bad idea; you might want to come back some day – Gurch 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I can't get the Wikibreak code to work, as evidenced by my editing here. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 15:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because I'm a total dunce. I changed code comments rather than actual code. You can sooooo tell I've not been revising my Java over Christmas. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 15:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we all sure the Wikibreak code still works? I really can't get it to work. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just, er, not edit Wikipedia? Or are you really so addicted you can't tear yourself away? You may wish to seek professional help if that is the case – Gurch 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just testing it. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just mail me your computer, I will guard it till you want it back. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I read through CrnaGora (talk • contribs • count) last contributions. I think that these blocks should be granted just to prevent this waste of resources and time. Hbdragon88 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:67.165.216.16

I'd be grateful if someone could look in on 67.165.216.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (who apparently is probably a mock-puppet of User:Primetime. I was alerted to his behaviour at World Book Encyclopedia, where he's been heatedly defending a very PoV version of the article. His response to attempts to reason with him have been unhelpful. After an explanation at the Talk page, I added {{NPOV}} to the article, made some minor copy-editing edits and added a couple of {{facts}}s. he's now simply reverting that, and started stalking my edits, peppering one article randomly with {{fact}}, and blanking another and replacing it with a copyvio notice. I suspect that he just needs blocking, though obviously I can't do that. At the very least, though, a warning from someone else might help. thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm close to 100% sure that's User:Primetime. Compare [32] with his final comment on his original talk page [33] -- if the other similarities, as well as the geographical location of the IP, don't convince you. Passes the duck test, I'd say. Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "I already have a mother", together with the plaintive paranoia combined with aggression (though that's all too common), suggest that they're the same person. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link to the LTA page for anyone else reading this thread. I blocked the IP for 24h (seems dynamic, but anyone feel free to change the time). Antandrus (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly Primetime, based on the fact that it's a previous IP he used, that all the contributions are in his fields of interest, and that he exhibits the combativeness of Primetime. I'm going to change the block to a month. -Will Beback · † · 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support such extension of block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits to Animal marriage and Same-sex marriage

Hi, not sure if this is the right place for this, but User:137.22.25.150 has been inserting some strange statements into these articles. I reverted twice on Animal marriage, thinking it was vandalism. Now I'm not sure exactly how to proceed. Some help is needed. Thanks. Robotman1974 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the edits on Animal marriage are unsourced, so unless the anon comes up with something to back them up, they're probably not appropriate. I'd say that's not a very good lead sentence, either. The SSM edits, I'm not sure about - looks like there's some discussion regarding the link there, so maybe take that one to the talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on Nebuchadnezzar II and Nebuchadrezzar II

Disagreement on what the King's name is and which should redirect to which, has been going back and forth for several versions now. (Article content has "Nebuchadnezzar", and title seems to have been at various versions of that since creation.) There are a whole bunch of other redirects that may need to be checked once this one's settled. Fan-1967 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected. Ral315 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] db-copyvio

Hello. I hope this is the right place to ask this. I'm jonesing to go on a mass deletion of inappropriate images from {{software-screenshot}} and its descendants. My main concern is that there are literally hundreds of images that are tagged as fair-use images but are not being used in the encyclopedia as such. I'd like to expedite the process of deleting these images by using {{db-copyvio}}, with a focus on three areas:

• Google Earth screen captures that are not used in the Google Earth article
• Pictures of people and places that were probably taken as screen captures from web sites
• Images tagged with copyleft licenses where it is clearly inappropriate (i.e. where someone is claiming GFDL on a screenshot that consists entirely of copyrighted software)

If an administrator with some experience in matters of image copyrights can comment on whether going straight to db-copyvio is the right thing to do, or if there's another path I should follow, I will appreciate the insight. Thanks! -/- Warren 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I symphatise with your project, but as a matter of policy, I'd venture the opinion that under the current structure of WP:CSD, WP:CSD#I6 or WP:CSD#I7 override WP:CSD#G12 in cases where either could be applied. This is because WP:CSD#I6 and WP:CSD#I7, which deal with images only, are the more specific rules. In other words, if WP:CSD#G12 could be applied in cases where the criteria of WP:CSD#I6 and WP:CSD#I7 are met, these latter criteria would be superfluous and would not need to be enumerated at all. Yet they are still on the books, and so must have some meaning. That's why I think that you should delete screenshots per WP:CSD#I6 if they are tagged as fair use but miss a rationale, or per WP:CSD#I7 if they are obviously falsely tagged as GFDL. Sandstein 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are images that are clearly Google Earth screencaptures used to illustrate something other than Google Earth, then they should probably be deleted. (as long as they're clearly google earth, and not from a similar-looking but free source like WorldWind). --Interiot 22:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice requested on username

I notice User:Merkinmuffly and left a username warning on the user's talk page. Merkinmuffly has replied on my talk page with the following:

You flagged my username (Merkinmuffly) as inappropriate. I read the article on inappropriate usernames and I agree that this name could fall under that heading. However my intention was not to reference the slang terms but rather the character of Merkin Muffley from the film Dr. Strangelove. Which, admittedly, itself refers to the slang terms. Anyway, I'm fond the of name (and the film) and it's served me well as a username for several sites, since it seems rarely to be taken. I'm wondering if you're personally offended by it or just noticed it as part of some kind of automatic flagging. If so, is there any chance we can wait to see if someone is genuinely offended by it before we force the name change? For what it's worth, in my experience, the people who know what merkin means usually know who "Merkin Muffley" is, too.Merkinmuffly 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As the user appears to have chosen the name in good faith and is asking nicely, I've come here to ask the opinion of others. -- Donald Albury 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names is the place for username discussions. -- JLaTondre 01:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Their good faith and niceness certainly does play in their favor. Perhaps looking at past similar examples might help (though at WP:RFCN). -- Natalya 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Without actually looking at RFCN, I had the impression that was cases where the user had not responded to the request to change the name. I'll move this to there. -- Donald Albury 02:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting sockpuppets

CrnaGora (talk • contribs • count) has decided to leave Wikipedia, and on his page he has left a list of all of his sockpuppets. Here they are:

• User:Editman9000
• User:Emperor of Europe
• User:Europa22
• User:Gaius Julius Caesar
• User:God of Chaos
• User:Milan B.
• User:Mongora
• User:Montenegrin Serb
• User:Ottoman Sultan
• User:Piroman
• User:Pravi Gusinjac
• User:The True Garfield
• User:VZDSL

Just thought you would want to know.--CJ King 02:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a great way to get totally unrelated people banned. Is there any evidence these are actual socks? Superm401 - Talk 09:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-creation of deleted pages

What's the policy for users re-creating a page of theirs that was deleted? If several months have passed, does that change anything? I'm particularly concerned about Mama Zogbé, deleted in September and re-created today. I've been in a long dispute with this user and do not want to take any action myself, so thought I'd mention it here. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was speedy deleted then it is generally okay(though may still be speedy deletable for the same or other reasons). But if it was deleted due to an AfD then WP:CSD#G4 comes into play. Failing meeting speedy deletion criteria, you can nominate it for WP:AfD if you feel it needs to be deleted. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{db-repost}}. If it's generally the same text it will likely be deleted. Hbdragon88 02:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's now deleted. You can tell them to go to WP:DRV if they wish to overturn a deletion. Of course, if an article is deleted for lack of content, you can simply go ahead and write a better one without need for any process. >Radiant< 12:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's back up Yet Again - I (re-)tagged it as {{db-repost}}, but someone with the magic bits should salt it. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

SALTed it, and left note on the talk page for the re-creator with a note about DRV. Syrthiss 15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They recreated it as a section on the talk page, and I've removed it again. Syrthiss 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They recreated it again as a section on the talk page, and I've removed it yet again and protected the talk page. Syrthiss 14:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have a request

Is there an oversight who would like to listen to my problems? Sergeant Gerzi 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but there are admins like me who might read them if you post here. Superm401 - Talk 09:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want an edit to be oversighted, see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Don't post requests on that page, but use the email link to contact the oversight mailing list – Gurch 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meta admin needed

A meta admin is requested to look over Wikipedia:Interwiki map, a page for discussing pruning of the m:interwiki map. Other users are of course welcome to comment; specifically, the list of mappings is very long and contains many mappings to sites we do not generally accept as external links. >Radiant< 10:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funnypop12 and the Muhammad article

Funnypop12 is insisting on removing all the images of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. In an edit summary he mentioned that he believed that the images that we have there are actually images of Persian kings, and not of Muhammad. However, when asked to substantiate his opinion, he has refused to respond. Several editors has again and again asked him to reply to the questions on the articles talk page, but has refused to do so, and has ignored these requests and questions. Funnypop12's only reply has been to revert again and again, usually without any edit summary. The fact that he refuses to explain himself, and the fact that he keeps reverting without any edit summaries, has made the situation quite difficult for the other editors of that article. I request that an Admin now do something to change the current, unacceptable situation. -- Karl Meier 10:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please consider dispute resolution or request page protection. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you want us to use dispute resolution dealing with a guy that refuses to respond, and instead continue to revert without any edit summaries? Anyway, there is already a mediation going on regarding this article, and Funnypop12 ignores any request to participate there or on the talk page. As for page protection, I don't see why the other editors of the article should be prevented from editing it. Funnypop12 is the only editor that is clearly disruptive there. -- Karl Meier 10:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you are basically doing the same thing, removing well-sourced material over and over again from the very same article. --Aminz 10:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are now supporting a guy that is reverting without using any edit summaries, and who is refusing to explain himself. That is quite interesting Aminz... As for your "well-sourced material", my problem with it is that you are presenting it in a way that is shouting a message at the reader. But that is another issue, that is properly more suitable for another type of dispute resolution. -- Karl Meier 10:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a Wikipedia:Single purpose account. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And based on the first edits that he made, there has been several editors guessing that it might be the sock puppet of a more experienced user. -- Karl Meier 11:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest WP:RFCU. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I already did that. It was refused as I didn't knew exactly who the user behind the possible sock puppet is. The reply was that check user is not for fishing. -- Karl Meier 11:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That user might be a sockpuppet or might not since the edit is removing the picture of Muhammad which everybody can do. As far as I know this issue is not settled down yet and there is a mediation over it. As I said before, I don't see your edits to be much different than that user's. --Aminz 11:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Funnypop12 is most likely a sock of banned User:BhaiSaab. However, it's not improbable that it's a sock of either User:ALM scientist or User:BostonMA both of whom are edit warring to remove Muhammad's images. Regardless of the puppetmaster, Funnypop12 is an abusive sockpuppet created for the sole purpose of edit warring. Beit Or 11:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be or not. --Aminz 11:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of throwing blanket accusations here, Beit Or, prove that it is a sockpuppet. Such accusations might be considered as personal attacks. Be careful. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than guessing who might be behind this account, I believe we should work on getting the problem solved. Fact is that he refuses to respond to the questions that several editors have asked him, and fact is that he continue reverting without caring to explain himself properly. Nearly Headless Nick, what do you think we should do about this? As he refuses to respond to any messages on his talk page, on the articles talk page or elsewhere, I believe that dispute resolution isn't a useful option. -- Karl Meier 11:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If he's non-responsive, mediation is out, but RFC is certainly in. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd user page and user behaviour

Hi. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post, but I think it's the best place. Please take a look at this user page and also the user's edit history. User:Bunchofgrapes has asked him to desist from spamming, but as well as the edit behaviour, the user page is worrisome. --Dweller 11:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious SPA, he's using WP to get signatures on a petition about himself, and canvassing. No useful contribs. I've blanked his user page for now, it should probably be deleted. >Radiant< 12:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Patrick Haseldine is a curious mix of WP:SOAP and flannel. I considered AfDing it but there might, under the layers of trivia (do we really need a whole paragraph saying how he wrote the Nulabour and they told him to get lost?), be a valid subject. I'd bet Actual Money that the anon who created and did most of the work on this is Haseldine himself, and I wonder about the identity of Phase1 (talk · contribs) and Phase4 (talk · contribs), but that's because I'm a nasty suspicious bastard. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• The user says on his user page that he's Patrick Haseldine. I've posted a note about observing WP:COI on his talk page. John Broughton | Talk 14:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article creation form?

This is the first time I've seen this, and I can't find any sign of it around the help pages, so I am curious what the hell it is: Click edit on Heat capacity rate -- it's clear that the user who created this page did so by filling out some kind of form. Does such a form exist? I've never seen one. The advice given is not bad or wrong, but I did not know such a thing existed (and if it does, the form contents should probably not be in the article, right?) Thoughts? Dina 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this was copied from the form for Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which is for people who want to propose articles being created without registering and dealing with any other issues themselves. See, for example, [34]. —Centrx→talk • 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, got it. I'll go clean it up. Thanks Dina 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the form - or if you will, the wizard, is here: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Introduction. John Broughton | Talk 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at WP:RPP

I've been contacted by a user who says there's a backog at WP:RPP. Could anyone more familiar with this process work on it? Conscious 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The backlog has been alleviated. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Conscious 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure we've got a procedure

Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Categories_for_deletion -- Can this section be closed because of rethinking... (read quickly)

Xpost clarification from Commander Keane

I don't think it's any big deal, but the issue was raised that revising the CFD proposal as I did this afternoon perhaps ought be cause for restarting the discussion. Trouble is I don't know that I have any authority to unilaterally say delete it and start a discussion under the new modified proposal which effectively adds one category leaving the subject cat alone save for clarification editting.

   That would be fine except since posting, a half-a dozen others have agreed with my original (less informed) thinking.

   OTOH, we're sort of switching horses mid-stream if left alone. Either way, unless there is a procedural precedent to close the current discussion, someone could get their nose out of joint. Hence the alert and question on AN. If that's not clear on either WP:AN or my talk, I don't know how to make the point better. Examining the linked CFD should clarify it upon inspection. I guess I'll post this to AN as well. Best regards // FrankB 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Original request

This message below Xposted fm Here on My talk, as I'm not sure there is a standard procedure to cover this. Note: That linked section is tagged with {{helpme}}.

   Sub-title: Convinced by the two contrary votes or 'Whoops!' (Your choice! <g>)

   Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Categories_for_deletion

   Two editors have suggested the current section be closed and restarted for this date, with my revised proposal of this afternoon. (Here on My talk and on that CFD discussion -- comments by User:Jc37)

   Unfortunately, there was a strong current in accord with my original suggestion, which for consistency in category naming practices, now seems to need adjusted, in effect withdrawing my own nomination, which I did via an edit a while back. The contention is that the new section is now too complicated, this violates procedure, or both. Sigh.

Assuming you all can reach a consensus on how to handle this then... Per the (above) suggestion at Fabartus#Thanks_for_your_notification. and that made recently on the section bottom Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Categories_for_deletion can we get an appropriate close out, link to the revised and re-dated discussion per this suggestion and that left on that CFD talk, or other such measures that are appropriate to keep the admin tracking straight.

   Or do we let this original proposal ride, etcetera, including my revised proposal or would it be best to leave both proposals as necessary and let the spam notification have time to work to see if others change their vote or comment. (Waiting with bated breath on your collective wisdom! <g>)

   A 'Good Courtesy Complication': Since I contacted all parties who had signed the text one way or the other, if the current discussion section is closed, please leave a link to the new section and page dated today, etc.

    As the one suggestion points out, changing the proposal due to my brain fart in line with the better proposal seems in order... as does simplifying it for the novice. On the other hand, this tangles the rules up more than a little. Suggestions and resolution please. Whomever closes this out, there is also a {{helpme}} on that talk page section, as speed seems to be a good idea. Best regards // FrankB 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Germanium and Walstad's conjecture

User:Germanium creates and re-creates nonsensical Walstad's conjecture; please SALT! Also this user adds nonsensical edits to other articles, including Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Everything, something must be done! -- 131.111.8.99 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also remove link to Walstad's conjecture from Theory of everything: can't do it myself as it is sprotected. -- 131.111.8.99 02:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Germanium is indefblocked, and I'm going to remove the link now (if it hasn't been already). The block should remove any need to salt - if someone recreates it in the near future, they'll be blocked as a sock of Germanium. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs)

Henchman 2000 keeps putting back unencyclopedic lists to the Mario Party articles with the only reason being "all the other Mario Party articles have a list of minigames". [35]. After I removed some unencyclopedic things from the articles, he left a somewhat incivil message on my talk page [36], to which I replied. [37] He seemed to have ignored this message, as he is still adding the info back to the articles. What sort of action should be taken here? –Llama man^{sign here} 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see it looks like he has stopped. If it happens again try explaining on why you removed the links. The user is probably inexperienced and doesn't know what should and shouldn't be placed in articles. — Arjun 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in this case you need this to explain to a new user. Henchman seems (from my contact with him/her) to be a positive contributor, that may just need a little guidance to get started here. Prodego ^talk 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to explain it some more. –Llama man^{sign here} 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I have. If he/she continues, perhaps someone else could explain it to Henchman? –Llama man^{sign here} 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow... this was pretty incivil. Would someone else please explain this situation to him/her? He/she seems to believe that encyclopedias should contain "every molecule of information", and even nominated WP:CRUFT for deletion. He/she (why can't think language have a singular unisex pronoun?) doesn't seem to be believing anything I say, so that's I request that someone else explain it, as I really don't want to get into an edit war over this. –Llama man^{sign here} 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have warned him :) — Arjun 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And threatening to edit war is probably not the best of ideas. Metros232 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He/she apologized for being uncivil, but keeps insisting that the minigames list be added back to the articles. Shouldn't Henchman at least start a topic on the talk page to get a consensus? –Llama man^{sign here} 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the most recent talk page edit that states that Henchman2000 will continue to add the list until (he) gets (his) way isn't very productive either. Metros232 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...so what exactly should be done here? –Llama man^{sign here} 20:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well another user seems to have set up a discussion for consensus at [Talk:Mario_Party_7#Consensus]] so I suggest you add your thoughts there. In the meantime, I'll leave a kind word or two at Henchman2000's talk page to remind him what consensus is and that things are done just because one person wants things his way. Metros232 20:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bug or dumb admin?

Something odd happened last night and I'm trying to figure out if I hit a bug, found odd but expected behavior, or if I was just brain dead. I noticed that the very first edit for Douglas Bradford Oliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had unacceptable material in the edit summary. The page had a total of four edits so it seemed pretty straight forward to delete the page and restore just the last three edits. After I did this, I went back in and was surprised to find all of the edit summaries still in place. After deleting the page again I restored just the last edit. Still, four edit summaries shown, but I couldn't see the details in the edits. This would be OK accept that the problem information was in the edit summary itself. At that point I found out that the user had been indef-blocked for a vandalism spree so I just deleted the page and called it done.

Being that I don't want to expirement with creating, editing, and deleting pages to recreate the behavior, can someone plesae tell me if this is normal? If it is normal, how do we remove edit summaries that have issues? Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 12:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you were seeing the history as it was chached in your web browser. You have to force a reload or clear your cache. Thatcher131 12:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Several times. Now, I did a standard "F5" refresh instead of a "CTRL-F5". Hopefully that wasn't an issue. Usually I've only had to use CTRL-F5 when there are sub-pages (such as js or css files) which need reloading. --StuffOfInterest 12:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Typically I find I have to do a junk edit to the article for the history to reflect the removed edits. Syrthiss 12:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi SOI, sometimes the servers need time to catch up; if you wait five minutes and clear your browser cache, then you shouldn't be able to see the deleted edit summaries anymore. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

One edit to the article should fix the history. When I do history merges, I typically only get half the history after the restore, then use rollback on my last edit (the move), and get the full history. Kusma (討論) 13:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, SOI, it's not your fault. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, it's genetic. :) --StuffOfInterest 17:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the page history being shown correctly after fixing a cut and paste move, or deleting and restoring to get rid of a specific revision. If you click on the button to change the history page to show only 20 revisions (or anything that you hadn't used before), it'll show the history correctly. - Bobet 18:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lost History Bug is its name. Teke ^(talk) 03:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History merge for two revisions?

I just noticed Bio-Hazard Battle and Bio-hazard Battle existed at the same time, but were merged today. The article is now in the former link, but the history in the later. I am thinking about deleting the Bio-Hazard Battle and moving Bio-hazard Battle there. Anyone think a history merge is better (there are apparently two revisions at the later that are not in the former)? I am at work, that is why I have time to ask. If you want to do anything, just do it :) -- ReyBrujo 18:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete it, just turn it into a redirect. And move the history to wherever the final article ends up. --Cyde Weys 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So, delete Bio-hazard Battle and move Bio-Hazard Battle there. But then those two revisions would be lost for users. For that, I would restore the revisions to the final article. Or move Bio-hazard Battle to a temporary location... -- ReyBrujo 20:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fixing it. What to do is move Bio-hazard Battle to Bio-Hazard Battle, and approved deletion of the old article. Then restore the page history, leaving out the Cut'n'Paste revisions when restoring. Then revert to appropriate edit. Teke ^(talk) 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's done. It can be moved to Bio-hazard Battle if you'd like, I'm not sure on the actual title of the game. Page histories are concurrent now for whatever name it ends up under. Teke ^(talk) 23:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone and Apple iPhone

Need a hand here. I already fully protected Apple iPhone as a redirect to iPhone, but people are converting the iPhone article into a redirect to the others. There must be a history merge between both articles at a late date. -- ReyBrujo 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have merged the histories Alex Bakharev 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd image caching problem

Hi, not sure where to take this. If you look at Jodie Foster, you'll note that the main image is different from Image:Jodie Foster (1989).jpg. What happened was that somebody overwrote the original "victory sign" image on Commons with a headshot. This was reverted after a few days, but we still have the headshot on the page (even though you get the correct image when you click on it). I assumed this was some weird caching thing that would go away eventually but it's been this way since October. Can the image be regenerated somehow? —Chowbok ☠ 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. Jkelly 21:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History merge

I am reqeusting that the page Michael Chaturantabut be restored. I tagged it for {{db-histmerge}}, but the admin outright deleted it instead of merging the two histories together. The page histories of the above-mentioned article at Mike Chat need to be merged together, as the former was redirected into the latter by cut-and-paste. Then, can someone move the page to Michael Chaturantabut? That's his full name and it should be used over the nickname. Hbdragon88 00:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This should be sorted out. The histories overlapped, so a history merge doesn't make much sense; I've moved the article's main history to Michael Chaturantabut, though, and the history of the two-line article that was there to Mike Chat. —Cryptic 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 129.7.35.194 edits

Discussion posted by user evading block closed. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
AS the AN/I page is locked I can't post anything there but this disturbs me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:129.7.35.194 I reviewed the edits in question and while the edit summaries get ugly, this looks more like a user coming to us, doing the right thing, correcting a factual inaccuracy, and getting stomped at by "Lakes", a user who seems to believe he has some ownership of professional wrestling-related topics. The edit made by 129.7.35.194 was in fact the more factually accurate; a DDT maneuver is the result whenever the head is "immobilised" (in a head, face, or chin lock) prior to the action of driving the opponent to the canvas. Therefore, the "Double Underhook Facebuster", while under the name Facebuster, is really a DDT maneuver. Lakes didn't pay any attention to the edits and called this "vandalism", whereupon a number of administrators decided to hold a beatdown contest to see who could attack the anonymous IP more. If I have to, I'll take this to wikien-l and Jimbo. Lakes and the administrators in question were clearly in the wrong to behave as they did here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.178.235.28 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC). Well i have looked at your edits and the fact is that though your argument to move the section has ground it was placed there because in wrestling terminology the move is considered a facebuster. These overlaps occasionally happen and in the case of this move depending on how well it is performed (as in if the head stays clinched inbetween the legs or comes loose) places it under two different terms... the fact of the matter is the move is best known as a facebuster and every istance of its use is linked there. There is no just reason to move it to DDT esspecially as another move known as a double underhook DDT already exists. Please dont take offence it just isnt a viable move --- Paulley 01:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC) A content dispute, no? Not vandalism. Thus, it falls under 3RR. Hbdragon88 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Right, a content dispute, but multiple administrators insisted on calling it vandalism anyways, and we still have people like Paulley trying to make wikipedia less than accurate which is vandalism.

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalinda Gray

The subject of the above article has emailed me, as a contributer to the discussion, asking for the matter to be closed and her article deleted as soon as possible. She was a new user unaware of policies, and is a concerned that some improper comments as to her achievements might show up in an internet search. I've edited the discussion to remove the comments. I believe the AfD can be closed per WP:SNOW --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer leaving other editors' comments as they wrote them, and replacing the whole AfD with "This page has been blanked for courtesy" or words to that effect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was only going off AfD etiquette "Do not make derogatory comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor." Apologies if I was out of line. Would you blank the page as above, so that it is seen to be done by an admin, thanks. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not blank the discussion, but I have left a note in the user's talk page (where he has apparently been contacted by the subject herself). Hopefully he won't do that anymore. -- ReyBrujo 05:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what {{Afd-privacy}} is for. 68.39.174.238 07:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I speedied it. The author had requested speedy deletion ({{db-author}} before KillerChihuahua reverted it. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masterlauryn (talk · contribs) using talk page as chat board, and some personal attacks

was just checking back as this user had made some personal attacks against me (see my talk page still currently there). Seems to be engaged in using their talk page as a chat page, I've seen that in the past here and people seem to frown on it. Some of it going on here too User_talk:Tink10152.--Crossmr 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember from a similar situation, if a user is only contributing on their user talks and never to the project that person's user and user talks should be deleted. A former example on ANI cited User:Naruto2.0 had the user and user talk page deleted because of their lack of contributions outside of those pages. The relevant discussion is here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page deleted and replaced with a warning. Went through the contributions and found 2 other users using wikipedia in a similar manner, deleted one talk page (leaving the same warning) and left the other with a warning (there was one case of contribution to the encyclopedia). Viridae^Talk 07:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually, the same extends to the userpage, as was also brought up by the older situation, as Masterlauryn's primacy of edits is on his own user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal info of children?

I admit I haven't been following the hoo-hah over WP:CHILD, so forgive the ignorant questions:

While going through a bunch of userfied pages to PROD, I keep coming across those of users who've only made one or two edits, but which say things like "Timmy Tugboat, born April 1, 1993. I like Ninja Turtles", with varying levels of detail but most definitely including birthdates (actual examples include this minimal one and this maximal one). Should these be blanked? Deleted? Should minimal ones be simply ignored? --Calton | Talk 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The original policy was modeled on Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which relates to children under the age of 13. Both of those examples identify as being 14. The minimal one would be fine for a child of any age; I'm not sure where the maximal one would fit under our current policies. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fine, assume that the birthdates are post-1993: what then? --Calton | Talk 06:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that one would request oversight, but I must admit that I'm not entirely sure. Snoutwood 06:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That second one looks like a perfect example of what gets killed on WP:MFD as a misuse of userspace. Have you considered nominating it? --tjstrf talk 06:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I put a {{prod}} tag on it, which I would have regardless of the age issue. I don't tag obvious or ambiguous user pages like the first example, hence the questions. --Calton | Talk 07:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A case could be made that the page meets the requirements for point #1 on WP:RFO. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monobooks.js

This is User:Patchouli. I have copied the wrong code into my User:Patchouli/monobook.js; as a result, I can't log into to my account to edit WP. Can someone go and revert my last edit at User:Patchouli/monobook.js?--71.107.232.168 07:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 07:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Patchouli 07:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Occitan people

A while ago this category came up for renaming, and was being discussed, with the possibility of deletion. Grcampbell (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) depopulated the category completely (its subsequent emptiness led to at least one participant in the debate supporting deletion). I repopulated it; Grcampbell reverted my attempts for a while, but (despite his managing to get me a 3RR block) I finally managed to get the thing done. The debate was finished, the category was kept and renamed. he's now busy depopulating it again.

I have no doubt that the category has been wrongly applied in at least some cases, but the aggression and single-mindedness with which this user is removing all trace of it suggests to me a political motive. Could someone knowledgeable in this field have a look, and at least set my mind at rest?

Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No political motivation in the removal of this category applied to people erroneously either then or now, as previously my actions were carried out after discussion on French talk pages and when the category was tagged for speedy renaming, not deletion. The way this category was/is applied to everyone from the south of France, regardless of ethnicity or linguistic abilities could have been politically motivated. I have left it on people from Languedoc-Roussillon and Midi-Pyrénées, esp. from before the mass migration of people. However, as I was under the impression that information on wikipedia had to be verifiable, the removal should be done unless it can be verified that these people are occitan. An example of how this category was misused is on Olinde Rodrigues, a Spanish Jewish banker, not an occitan. Unless the facts can be verified, one should err on the cautious, especially with living people. On another note, what Mel Etitis has failed to purposely mention (for whatever reason is anyones guess), is that I have been filling up the appropiate sub-categories with verified occitan people. --Bob 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't deliberately fail to mention it; I didn't know. The way that categories work is that it's only possible to monitor their contents for articles on one's watchlist. The ones that you removed are on my watchlist, from when I repopulated the category, the ones that you've added aren't.

Still, thank you for clearing up the matter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a cup of AGF all around, for Bob and Mel. :) Syrthiss 16:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still not convinced. User:Grcampbell's depopulation of the category is too single-minded for me to be comfortable. Although he usually doesn't explain his removal of the category (merely saying that it's inappropriate), he occasionally lets slip that it's because there's no evidence that the person in question spoke Occitan. In other words, he's operating from the position that Occitan people are only those who speak the language. I take that to be a personal view, doubtless held by many others, probably a majority view, but not uncontroversial, and not to be simply assumed when taking unilateral decisions about the appropriateness of categories.

Few people here are interested in the matter, and so I doubt that anything will be done (I'm certainly not going to go into this without support; his aggressive response last time makes it clear that it would be an unpleasant waste of time), but I'll still put myself on record as being worried by his actions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet again you assume bad faith. I have been adding people to this category e.g. Joseph Canteloube, Philippa of Toulouse, creating articles suitable for this category (Beatritz de Dia) as well as removing those that are inappropriate (Olinde Rodrigues). Due to mass migration during the 17th/18th/19th centuries, as well as the French Revolution/World Wars the precise ancestry of the people in question is unstated on wikipedia. That is, of course, if we are operating under the verifiability clause of wikipedia. What do you think? Verifiability or POV? Personally, I would opt for the former, especially on living people articles, if you don't like this modus operandi, I guess you should speak to Jimbo. --Bob 17:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons images on the Main Page

Okay, let's review this because I have had to fix this no less than three times in the past week.

When an image from Wikimedia Commons is on the Main Page, you have two options: (a) protect the image both here and on Wikimedia Commons or (b) download the image from Commons and then upload it locally (and then protect, copy image info over). All admins are at least capable of doing the second option on their own, so please let's get this down so we don't have anymore of the shock image vandalism on the Main Page that we have had in the past month. -- tariqabjotu 19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be demanding a {{shrubbery}} to request that the spadework be done by the preparation gnomes. The image can be PRODed on creation, after all. Then the protectionbot (other shrubbeires notwithstanding) will be able to do their funky thing. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand a word of what you said. Could you rephrase that, without the lingo? -- tariqabjotu 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get it either, but I suspect it has something to do with another thing we may need to check at WP:FAC - that the work is done in advance - but I don't know what that work is. I still can't speak Fair use or Images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. let me get out my JzG-English translator. "I don't think it would be asking too much that the basic work on the article be done beforehand (ie, the image be uploaded locally), so the bot (barring any other issues), can protect the article from the main page vandal." Hope this helps. SirFozzie 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand what he means. I don't think ProtectionBot (I'm assuming that that is the bot mentioned?) is relevant to the discussion here: if it passes and runs, then the bot would take care of all of this, except for the deletion of the image (it would tag the image for speedy deletion instead.) However, for right now, while we don't have a bot, administrators need to pay careful attention to images on the Main Page and used from Wikimedia Commons. Protecting the image description page here, without protection on Commons, will not suffice; the image must be uploaded locally and then protected. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• For a protection to work, we need the image uploaded here. We can't protect a non-existing image and if we don't upload it here, someone else can upload an image with the same name and overwrite the commons one. Only option b works, hence the c-uploaded template. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's not true, according to several Wikipedia instructions regarding this topic; option (a) does work. Protecting the image on Commons and the image description page on the English Wikipedia prevents non-sysops from uploading a new image locally under the same name and tampering with the image description page. -- tariqabjotu 17:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I definitely don't speak images, Fair Use, or bot. If this ultimately means we need to start asking that images be local (I guess that means, not commons?) on FAC, will someone post a note at the talk page of WP:FAC? Over my head, over and out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing has changed recently, so here is no need to comment at WP:FAC. -- tariqabjotu 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• What I meant was, it would be reasonable to ask those who do the Wikignoming (i.e. spade work) of preparing the day's FA, to make local copies of the images, so the bot can protect them. Which was what SirFozzie said. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspammer sockpuppet

Is anyone available to block repeat vandal and linkspammer User:Neurosurgery (and likely sockpuppet for repeat spammer User:Lifeinneurosurgery? He's back on the Neurosurgery page (several times since being warned.) Nposs 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RasputinJSvengali

This user appears to have a history of contentious editing, but I noticed one thing recently that make me suspect that he is the sockpuppet of an indef blocked user.

He added a link to a deleted article, Saintsteven, see [38]. As it was a red link I was curious and checked the deletion log and found the AfD, where it appears the article was created by the subject Quadmona (talk · contribs), who ended up getting indef blocked for repeated vandalism. I know it's not much to go on and probably doesn't merit blocking at this time, but it might be a good idea if someone were to keep an eye on this user. He seems to have been doing some edit warring on Kurt Cobain last month as well. Jefferson Anderson 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's Saintstephen.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See also the history of Targ the impossible. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:HBC Searchbot

• Current source and search patterns.

I am bringing this up here because there was some resistance when I first mentioned the idea See "ArbCom ruling on talk page removals". This is a bot that will search through each revision of a talk page history and report when it finds certain patterns. I currently have 213 user page templates programed in as patterns.

The bot will report the name of the pattern found(ie: Template:3RR), and the date/time of each occurrence of it being removed or added and a diff to that occurrence.

The report will emphasize that the existence of a warning does not mean an infraction necessarily occurred. It will urge the reader to examine the context of the warning and will provide diffs to aid in that effort. I am posting here to find a clear consensus before I proceed to make a bot approval request.

I have not chosen the form of the final report yet. There are several option from my point of view:

1. A user could place a tag such as {{User:HBC Searchbot/scan|HighInBC}} on a blank page and the bot would replace it with a report on HighInBC.
2. A user could place a tag such as {{User:HBC Searchbot/scan|HighInBC}} on their own userpage, my bot would remove the tag and e-mail the report the user.
3. The bot could run on a separate server outside of the Wikipedia interface. I can provide this server not problem.

What do people think of this bot, and how should I proceed? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Because presense or absense of such templates has a tenuous relationship with policy, I feel the report itself is best kept off wiki. So, not #1. Of 2 and 3, 3 feels like a more natural interface, if you have the resources to do it. Dragons flight 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I don't really have a good sense whether it would be used in a productive way or not. Dragons flight 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say I have given first warnings to users before only to later find they were well aware of these rules, having seen and removed a warning. Anyone using this bot will still have to present diffs to evidence when making an argument, and if those diffs are blindly taken out of context, that will be evident. It is just like looking through the contribution history. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could have a feature to ignore warnings by indef-banned users. I can't tell you how many times I've been warned by a malicious user. That being said, I do think it's helpful: community consensus has agreed that users can remove warnings mostly because anybody can go through the page history. This bot will simply do that manually. I don't see a problem with that - I even have some warnings on my own history (outside the vandalous ones) that I wouldn't mind if someone saw. -Patstuart^talk|edits 23:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a blatant vandal warning in my history, it was placed accidentally, then removed by the same person. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the toolserver be a better place for this? It seems tedious/wasteful to make edits to a page to receive a report via email. -- Renesis (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be a fine place for it. I also have a server of my own. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, toolserver... would... be best. Place.---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting punctuation, was that a Shatner pause? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It was my brain stalling. Sorry, I'm going to take it in for an oil change soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J.smith (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Full page protection review

List of Virtual Dungeon monsters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There's been a couple of disputes, first over the notability of this article and then about the number of images (50+) in the article. I removed them twice, restored by an anonymous user twice. Yukichigai (talk · contribs) concurs with the anonymous users and restores the image. A Man In Black (talk · contribs) (per my request to look over the article) also removes the images. The war escalated today with a near 3RR violation. AMIB reverted back to the non-images version and and then protected the page. I would like a neutral admin to review this situation and decide whether it should be protected or not and if an admin should protect the page he/she is involved in. Hbdragon88 03:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I see AMIB protecting his own version of article, which is not acceptable. But, I couldn't agree more with what he did there. Fair use is a non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia. However, AMIB should have got an un-involved administrator to protect the page, and should not have used the roll-back tool to remove contentious edits. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Csetneki lace

Csetneki lace is a copyvio of http://www.csetnekicsipke.hu/indexen.htm. How do I proceed with this? Lmblackjack21 13:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion ({{db-copyvio}}). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance > Copyright violations > {{copyvio}} and attach to page in question. Now done. (aeropagitica) 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defcon indicator is not working properly...

Right now, Zsinj's and Herostratus's versions of the WikiDefcon are stuck on level 1, and the info wont change either. Could someone go over and take a look at it? Cheers! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While you were typing that, I reverted vandalism on User:Zsinj/Wdefcon. I'll just go and check Herostratus' version... --ais523 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Now fixed. As Template:Wdefcon is sprotected, maybe it's worth a semi on some of the more popular pages to be transcluded on it? --ais523 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for advice

At the moment, I'd like to just get some feedback and ideas. I'm unfortunately involved in what has been a rather long running situation.

It started, innocently enough, when I came upon an article which I thought would be interesting to clean up. Over the past year it has had various clean-up tags, including that it was too much like a list. So with my enjoyment to organize, I thought I would dive in and do a ReOrg of the page, and hopefully broaden it into an article instead of merely lists.

It "almost" was going smoothly, until I moved a few of the references to the disambiguation page of the same name, which brought other wikipedians who disagreed with several changes.

A lengthy discussion of whether wiktionary links should be on a page, whether real-life or fictional should have more prevalence (I felt both equally, either in the same article or in separate articles), and on, and on. A large amount of information was split (before I arrived to the page) to a list already, and I split more to a related page.

The trouble is that those who would dispute a change never were willing to offer references for such arguement, and later admitted that they weren't interested in doing so far various reasons.

And it's continued on and on.

Much of the discussion has been about semantics, but lately, since I've attempted several times at compromising, I performed various page creations, splits, and mergers, at the request of others. The discussion has devolved into where the redirects should point to, and what names of redirects are more accurate, and where should the original page history reside.

So now we come to my Request for advice. You'll note I haven't mentioned any persons, nor the pages involved. I would like some general advice for such situations.

What should I do?

I feel like I'm being attacked consistantly for trying to uphold what I presume are correct policies and guidelines and such, by those who would seem to not know understand such policies.

Of course, it is entirely possible that I'm the one misunderstanding as well. (Sigh @ "the right version".)

On one hand I would like to just "walk away", from the situation, but on the other, this should be resolved "correctly" due to possible GDFL concerns.

I think the greatest problem so far is the lack of input from "outside" opinion.

So this is what I am asking now. (To quote Jonny 5: "need input".)

I am very hesitant to raise this to the next level (mediation or arbitration), because, honestly, I think it would reflect rather badly on those who have been involved, since I honestly think that their only real mistake besides what some might call rather aggressive "POV pushing", is a misunderstanding of policies or even how some features of Wikipedia work. Though it's becoming tiresome, I'll discount their various attacks on me at this point, if it only should bring some sort of resolution.

So anyway, let me bring my rambling request to a close:

What should I do now? - jc37 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Summarise that in 50 words or less :P Viridae^Talk 08:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is to do with the vast morass of articles, redirects, and dab pages associated with Wizard. As far as I can tell, the main discussion is at Talk:List of wizards in fantasy. This is just a note to clarifiy the situation, I am entirely uninvolved with the debate. Tevildo 12:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was involved, but after one of the participants objected to the way I was trying to handle it (I was initially approached on my talk page by jc37 to comment on the issues), I've withdrawn. There is a half-hearted attempt to list the pages at User:Carcharoth/Analysis of the page history of Wikipedia Magic pages, and I'm about to attempt to trace the edit history of a sample piece of text to demonstrate the issues. Carcharoth 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I intentionally didn't post where and what and who. (Anyone who understands reading edit contributions could have found out the info if interested.) I wasn't asking about comment for the specific problems (else I would have posted on WP:AN/I), though of course such comment is always welcome, and perhaps is just what the situations needs...

However, what I was hoping for was for others to offer advice on "such a situation". Ask questions for clarification, etc. That is (I presume) one of the functions of the admin noticeboard (this page)? I think in any situation, it's can be nice to get advice from others.

For the specific incident, I left a note on User:Essjay's talk page, which I suppose I could cross post to WP:AN/I. But as I mentioned above, I was/am hesitant to go higher in the dispute resolution route, because I don't think it will reflect well on the others involved. (And perhaps I should apologise to Carcharoth for including him. He shouldn't have been subject to such as he was. Though I do thank him for his assitance thus far : )

Anyway, the request still stands... What do you (plural) think I should do now? - jc37 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand - and I (and others) would like to help. But I think the problem is that the answer to all of that is "it depends." It depends on the context, the other people involved, the specific things that have been said, etc. I don't think that, without knowing more, I can give you advice on what to do when you just generally feel attacked and think other people are wrong on an issue, but can't get them to listen to you. (Other than to take a deep breath, relax, and remember that it's just an online encyclopedia - and if a page ends up "wrong," there probably aren't any GDFL issues you need to worry about.) --TheOtherBob 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. (I've even given a similar response, saying "it depends", myself : )

And I have to admit, it felt kinda odd reading "...just generally feel attacked and think other people are wrong on an issue, but can't get them to listen to you." Depending on the context, it could mean that the person in question (me in this case) is "POV pushing", or it could mean that those whom he's discussing with are, or both. So I guess it is necessary to give specific instances. I have to admit, after almost a year of discussions, this whole thing is really starting to feel wearisome.

Well for now, since I still would rather not (yet) elevate/escalate/whatever this. Let me ask this way. Would anyone willing please read over Talk:List of wizards in fantasy, and let me know if in some way I have been uncivil, or whatever else I'm being accused of? From my perspective, I think I haven't been, but I would welcome more opinions. (I'm also somewhat concerned about the copy/paste/merge/split/etc issues, which may or may not be GDFL concerns, but I suppose we can wait on that for now.) Note that to understand some of the discussion, you may need to go through the edit history of that page and of Wizard, comparing times to edits. (I don't know if or how "UTC" may confuse this.) Basically a sort of talkpage-specific Editor review. I don't suggest that you add to the discussion there (though obviously anyone is welcome to) as of yet, if because I don't wish others to be on the receiving end of the vitriol that Carcharoth unfortunately received. I believe in the idea of "many eyes", and I think that probably this has just been a situation where there haven't been enough "eyes".

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other parties' discussions

For what it is worth, I wandered over to User_talk:Goldfritha (one of the parties to the ongoing dispute), intending to leave a message, and found this conversation with User:Dreadlocke, the other party to the dispute. I'm really not quite sure what to make of it all. Opinions from others would be welcomed. Carcharoth 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, wow. I saw the lower discussion on the talk page, but hadn't noticed that one. From where I sit, it (commentary about WP:OR) seems to be congruent to the relationship of WP:AGF and WP:AAGF... (If that makes sense)... I agree with Carcharoth, other opinions would be welcomed. - jc37 12:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Which raises the general question of where such things can be discussed. They were talking on a user talk page, maybe not realising that those pages, like all Wikipedia pages, are publically viewable. Discussion shouldn't be stifled, but equally discussing someone behind their backs (like they were doing, and like I am doing here) feels wrong as well. How does this all tie in with WP:AGF and WP:DR? Carcharoth 15:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, initially I intended that this discussion just be advice to me as to what to do next. I don't think that that was/is behind anyone's backs. Nor do I think that posting on this noticeboard to be that either. However, since this may have gone a bit beyond my initial intention, perhaps the discussion should move? Especially considering User talk:Goldfritha#Wizard (fantasy) (as noted by Carcharoth, above); and now I find this, and noting the orginal header to the post. I'm guessing that the user selected this admin due to this, which follows up on the discussion in which they wish for a "sympathetic admin". (I honestly don't know if User:InShaneee would or would not be. I'm not certain if I've ever seen the username before?) I also am concerned since there are several flat-out untruths in the request. I think I'm past the presuming good faith question of "What should I do now?" On top of all the rest, misrepresenting the truth in order to push a personal agenda is enough, I think. My question now is: where to next? to WP:AN/I? to WP:3O as initially suggested by User:Essjay? to Mediation (per WP:DR)? or just straight to arbitration? When I mentioned this discussion to him, Essjay suggested that I wait some here to see what you all said first, so I think I'll do that for now. - jc37 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Any further thoughts, comments? - jc37 21:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General suggestion

Just a general suggestion as to how this might be progressed: Both sides should put together, in a neutral venue (that is, away from the contentious talk pages) a brief summary of (a) what they consider the major problems with the current situation are, and (b) how they think these problems should be resolved, without (at that stage) ventilating their critisisms of their opponent's actions. This should, at least, enable a neutral observer to form an opinion without having to wade through the current mass of argument. Tevildo 07:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

On one hand I have no problem with that (It's kinda what I've tried to do, but we keep getting sidetracked.) My only question would be "where".

On the other hand, to explain, might require explaining past events (likely lengthily). I think a summary of "how we got here", might be necessary to figure out "what do we do now". (Which is kinda why my initial request at the top of this thread, while stream-of-consciousness, wasn't the "50 words or less"...) But if that isn't a concern then, I suppose "off we go". Does anyone else have any ideas as well? At this point, supplementary suggestions are welcome : ) - jc37 08:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it to RFC if you need a neutral venue, setting up a subpage of the appropriate talk page to summarise either side, and linking to that from RFC. And looking at it, I think you should consider getting a mediator in as well. This looks like a content dispute, and needs to go through the dispute resolution process. Hiding Talk 16:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I've noted the accusations at WP:AN/I, but I still wish to WP:AGF (foolish though it may seem at this stage, I don't know...), so I'm waiting to comment for a bit to see if the editor actually corrects the errors.

I'm really starting to feel that User:Carcharoth is not far from wrong about this (at this stage) possibly being fodder for WP:LAME. If it turns out to be, I'd be honoured if User:Radiant did the honours of adding it (I hope he reads that in the tenor in which it was meant : ) - And you and Carcharoth armed with trouts : ) - I'm sure I deserve it for allowing this to go on for almost a year... - jc37 22:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I get another read on a situation?

An editor Router (talk • contribs • count), whose first edit was June 2006 to Farmers Insurance was adding a criticism section and a link to famersinsurancesucks.com, is making me suspicious. I encountered him at the Farmers Insurance article during an edit war over users removing the criticism (among other things). As far as I could tell from my looking at his contributions, it seems most of his edits revolved around trying to keep whateversucks.com and criticism sections in articles (Farmers, Zurich, Paypal). He's been warned before that wikipedia is not a soapbox, but still seems committed to the criticism and sucks.com pages. He looks very much like a SPA.

Can I get some others to take a look? Syrthiss 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:70.103.176.242 is worth looking at, he (R) gave them a "blatantvandal" warning for removing a paragraph with their links in it. 68.39.174.238 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect that may just be Router notloggedin. :) Syrthiss 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Wait, that one looks like they were removing the Mormons4justice stuff and explaining to router about removing edits. You sure you picked the right ip out of the bunch? There was one that added the suck.com site earlier than june. Syrthiss 12:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He just looked interesting to me. 68.39.174.238 07:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the copy was a copyvio off Framers promotional material and job ads, and removed. A chunk more was non-neutral in presentation and fixed. See Talk:Farmers Insurance Group. The article will need careful watching to ensure it does indeed become a neutral article on the company. There are breachers of WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:RS on the horizons..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FT2. Syrthiss 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New (non) blocking capability.

Our friends the developers have implemented a new feature which allows an account to be given a permission indicating that they should not be subject to blocks on their IP address. Currently this new permission is set for... us. All sysops are now immune to IP blocks. If you use the same IP/range as a vandal the IP can now be blocked for all users... except you. This sort of capability might also be useful in cases where a few legitimate users have the same IP as alot of vandals (schools come to mind). Currently, so far as I know, there is no interface for setting / removing the permission, but I expect that's being explored. --CBD 11:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neat!--Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Massively neat! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Neato! --Syrthiss 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a good feature for admins. I don't think it's a good idea to hand it out to other people. It would just become another form of the repeatedly rejected "Trusted User" proposal. If we ever do decide to create a trusted user group, it would be good to give it this permission, but I doubt that will happen any time soon. --Tango 13:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope you are wrong about this, and that this permission is opened widely in the near future. It is annoying to get autoblocked, but what is more annoying is that you cannot fix the situation without revealing personal information. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I and many other trusted users have no desire to use admin tools; but one step at a time Wikipedia is creating admins as a special class not to be blocked even if they do things nonadmins would be blocked for. The constant drumbeat that "admin" = "trusted user" is problematic. WAS 4.250 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please (re-)read the details. This change has nothing to do with a block on an admin's registered account. Rather, if an IP address is blocked, an admin can continue to use that IP address - for example, at a school. This change has nothing to do with privileges; it's about keeping a scarce resource (admin time) from being inadvertently reduced. John Broughton | Talk 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean? "scarce resource (admin time)". What about scarce resource (non-admin time)? Double-standard. Our not having admin tools does not make our time worth less. WAS 4.250 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WAS, that's unjustified. Prior to this change IP blocks impacted everyone using that IP. A way to prevent that was developed. The developers could not set this prevention code for everyone because that would have given vandals free reign. They also had not yet built an interface to set it on one user at a time... or determined who should have access to such an interface. So they set it for admins on the assumption that there are no admin vandals. Nothing has been taken away from non admins. Indeed, we are discussing how this capability can safely be rolled out to help non-admins. It is not a 'double standard' to recognize the fact that vandals don't remain admins while the collection of non-admin accounts contains some users who are vandals... that's a single standard. This capability will be given to 'non-vandals who need to get around IP blocks'. That standard applies to all admins. It also applies to many individual users, and will be so used when the capability to set it on a case by case basis has been built. Yeesh. --CBD 11:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, admins can still be blocked... you just have to block their account directly rather than blocking their IP and having it automatically impact them. --CBD 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For instance, admins regularly get blocked as a result of AOL blocks, but I thought this problem was solved with the AO-only block? This flag is still useful, of course, for blocks when admins forget to set the AO flag, but I don't think that's a common mistake nowadays. Nonetheless, a useful feature! --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What about trusted nonadmins who get blocked? WAS 4.250 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a bit redundant with 'anonymous only' blocks. The difference is that if there is alot of anon vandalism and registered sockpuppets from an IP/range you could go ahead and block everyone and then give this flag to the few legitimate users. --CBD 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Could perhaps longstanding users with reasonable edit counts request this kind of flag? For example, I often edit from TJHSST, which is behind one of the FCPS proxies. Every time there's an IP block because of some kid having "fun" with a page or the like, I'm autoblocked. This kind of flag would not confer any advantage--any user could still be blocked by an admin. 151.188.16.20 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC) — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine this was designed with the idea that you apply it to someone's account if an IP block is affecting them. It's not a "trusted user" thing, because trusted users that are on static IP addresses will never get this assigned to them... they don't need it. Awesome idea. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Trusted use" does not equal "user on static IP address". Take it as a rule of thumb that every time an admin is mistakenly blocked at least one trusted content contributing user is block and thus discouraged and content is lost and sometimes a user is lost. And to formalize this insult by automagically making admins immune is just one more difference in editing experience causing a difference in perceptions and a divide in the community. Belittling the mistaken blocking of trusted non-admins is a mistake. WAS 4.250 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Very true. Perhaps it could simply be done on request for anyone with this problem, with similar qualifications as those to use AutoWikiBrowser. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with class wars. It can be handed out to users who are actually being affected by autoblocks, and who are in good standing. This is not another way to class users, so don't worry about that. It is just a tool to make our life easier. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: does the new flag mean that they cannot be IP/address-blocked, but that account-blocking works as usual? In which case, what are the criteria that will be applied, for non-admins who would benefit from this, to be flagged like this, in order not to be affected by IP/range blocks? That sounds like a policy-type decision. Is there any clear communal feeling about the concept? Alternatively, is there any robust reason why non-admins in good standing should as a blanket rule not be allowed to request this regardless? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where cooler heads prevail

I would like to ask that some neutral parties calm down the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock in particular the discussion about ip addresses coming out of Dubai. I have to admit the case against Husnock is pretty strong but there also really does appear to be a number of shared ip addresses and possibly public computer labs where these messages are coming from, giving rise to the unrefutable issue that these could indeed be separate people. Discussions about their motivations is moot, there is little way to know why anyone surfs a particular webpage. There is starting to grow concern that all of these ip addresses are being labeled as either being Husnock himself or being persons manipulated by Husnock. One person even went so far as to say he would assume all posts from the address were Husnock unless the people contacted him to say they weren't. This appears to have greatly upset one relatively new user who posted to the page and then was called a sockpuppet of Husnock without much basis. Maybe people just need to be kindler and gentler and not jump to conclusions. Husnock's own webpage says he is gone from the site and he hasn't edited in weeks. The main purpose of this message to make sure these ip ranges don't get blocked as they are used by dozens of people. Just need some help from neutral parties. -213.42.2.27 17:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As no one has said anything about blocking these IP ranges I would suggest that it might be wise for 'uninvolved' anonymous contributors to stop involving themselves in this matter. --CBD 18:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. An amazing coincidence that all of these 'uninvolved' anons and at least one new account (Pahuskahey (talk · contribs)) write in a very similar cadence, share very similar interests (Starfleet ranks), etc. The personal attacks against other parties in the case aren't helping also. - Merzbow 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also amazingly coincidental how all of them knew to immediately go to the talk page of Husnock's arbitration case, and nowhere else. Proto::► 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By editing the case pages, you involve yourself. Just cut it out. Thatcher131 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

thing is, if (Pahuskahey (talk · contribs)) is a sock (seems likely - normal feeble stories about sharing an office, lab, being in the area etc), I'm a little concerned about the pictures on his userpage. --Charlesknight 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact they have the embedded strings "Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company" and "Copyright 2002 - 2003 Apple Computer Inc., all rights reserved." is a bit of a giveaway as to who made them. Morwen - Talk 10:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about drawing that conclusion. The thumbnail images created by iPhoto from my own personal photos contain the string "Copyright 1998 - 2003 Apple Computer Inc", and are 240 x 180, the same size as the Gdaughter picture. (Don't know why the difference in dates, perhaps an earlier or later version of iPhoto?) Other photos on my hard drive contain copyright strings to Adobe. It is possible the images were merely edited with Apple and HP software. Thatcher131 13:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If any arbitrators are reading here, the "Husnock" case has a Proposed Decision draft up for voting now (there are some comments about the decision on its talkpage as well). It's a relatively straightforward case, and it would be a Good Thing if it could be voted on and closed out before whatever is happening goes on much longer; what's happening now is not a good situation for anyone. Newyorkbrad 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to speak to an Admin who is familar with this case via email. --Charlesknight 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Signature Shops

I'd like to bring this to admins' attention. Tyrenius 08:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How does this need admin attention? It looks like a normal MfD with no obvious problems. The result also does not seem to matter very much in the grand scheme of things. Kusma (討論) 08:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean the conduct of the MfD, but the spread of massive signatures, which have been the cause of admin attention in the past. Tyrenius 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But of course they have! They've been the majority of voters in WP:RfA (and still largely are)! :-) NikoSilver 10:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Very much the minority. There is now a cottage industry turning out 4 or 5 line sigs, which make the edit box hard to read and cumulatively add up to a lot of unnecessary code. See WP:SIG#Length. Tyrenius 11:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sigs there are ridiculous. There are some long enough to be blocked for disruption, noone wants half the page obscured with sig code. Viridae^Talk 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we just ask the devs to reduce maximum signature length? >Radiant< 14:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah-hem... You mean like this, like this, like this, like this, or like this? :-) NikoSilver 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Radiant, your (quite perceptive I must admit) sig's code can be reduced:

• Before: >Radiant< (190 chars)
• After:>Radiant< (186 chars)

4 characters is not the end of the world, but that's what I've been specializing into lately. NikoSilver 14:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Shrinking_signature a bit ago, but I don't think you posted there--any chance you could find a way to shrink my sig even more? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• What about this: Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs There aren't any visible changes apart from to the slash. (Does this mean we're going to have to delete the Admin's Noticeboard as a sig shop now?) --ais523 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  I have a 1440x900 resolution, and Dark Shikari's signature still takes up four lines. That's, frankly, ridiculous. Proto::► 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  6 lines on a low res screen. Tyrenius 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah that is a lot of code, consider removing the talk link and contribs link. Also worth noting is that long sigs make it extremely hard to edit a talk page. Arjun 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite, here's some help from the (self-proclaimed:) expert:

Before (by ais523): Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs (356 chars)

After: Dark•Shikari^[T][C] (229 chars, and a nice blue fading, instead of the random inconsistent one)

You might as well remove the link to your contributions (-42 chars) to shorten it even furhter:

Dark•Shikari^[T] (187 chars - barely acceptable per WP:SIG)

Take my advice and use the latter. Very few are interested in contribs, and when they are, they just visit your page first anyway where it's already linked! (because the userpage is supposed to be the place where you find details about other users).

I also lightened your background a notch, to facilitate readers with vision problems.

PS. I really enjoyed ais523's last comment! Now you got one more reason to delete WP:AN! :-) NikoSilver 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the new version... made some slight modifications to lose another 6 characters, lets see if it works. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 11:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from my talk for reference:

I'm afraid 3 digit color codes are not compatible with <font color="#..."> (only with <span style="color:#...">). What you see is an illusion, as the middle two colors err to black. However, if you do like it like that, then we can indeed blacken them and shorten it even further (by losing the middle color code):

—Dark•Shikari^[T] (157 chars -same result!)

Like it? I even darkened your background back to what you had originally, since black and dark blue letters provide adequate contrast for people with vision problems! NikoSilver 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Short version

Go vote for Bug 8458

Long version

Discussions are ongoing at VPr, VPt, and WP:SIG, which has a fairly concise list of arguments for and against custom/long sigs.

Basic summary: There are 1300 character (16 line) sigs out there, and we need to put a stop to it.

A hard limit of 200 250 characters has been suggested by numerous people. (Even the most colorful sigs (such as from >Radiant< and The Transhumanist   ) are less than 200 characters.)

A more drastic solution suggested by Zoe in the VPr thread and agreed to by a few so far, is to disable raw sigs entirely, but offer the option to add a "user talk" link after one's username in the default sig. E.g. ~~~ creates either Username OR Username · talk

This is all quickly becoming a perennial proposal, and should probably get centralized somewhere soon?

Disclosure: I'm quite strongly opposed to the use of colored/complex sigs, and tend to treat them as a possible warning sign of patience being required with their owner…</mini-rant>(and of course I don't mean you! ... ;-P —Quiddity 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that a purely technical approach is not the solution, because people can easily use JavaScript injection to continue using a signature of arbitrary length. You'd think this would be rare, but it's not. Awhile back one of the Esperanzians figured it out in bookmarklet form and it spread through that community. I echo support for a policy-focused solution that prohibits signatures that are greater than a certain length. --Cyde Weys 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too, but there isn't any reason not o restrict it technically too. My proposal is for 250 chars, as I feel it will filter out most of the monstrosities, while still allowing for a case-by-case evaluation of the remaining. We must also have objective, rather than subjective criteria in eg. color combinations (there have to be specific color-charts for reference re "people with vision problems"). Finally, I feel that this discussion should be concentrated in ONE place (rather than 1, 2,3 persistently spammed campaigns, plus my MfDd subpage where people are beating a dead horse coz I haven't had a new client since last October). It's really unfair that some people's personal dissatisfaction with the current WP:SIG guideline's limitations is broken on my subpage (which never violated WP:SIG of its time since I found out about it -quite early). NikoSilver 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Is there a "convenient" number to suggest for programming reasons (such as 255/6), or is that irrelevant these days? Also, I don't think that [talk] should be able to be enabled in preferences. It pretty much does away with the idea that a userpage is the "frontpage" for a user. (Everyone will click "talk" first.) Though I wonder what would be lost if we did away with userpages and had only user talk pages... - jc37 08:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From a programming standpoint, there's no special benefit to any number in this circumstance, other than that every number is slightly worse than the number less than it. The best number would probably be something nice and round, that humans are used to, like, say, 200, 150, etc. --Cyde Weys 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed warning template series

First off, if this isn't the right page to post this I apologize (and would appreciate a nudge in the right direction.) I've noticed that a very large percentage of the vandalism done to WP takes the form of gay bashing or has some sexual component. That's no surprise, of course, given the number of lonely, pathetic teens out there with computers, but what I would like to suggest is that a series of vandalism templates be written that address that type of vandalism specifically AND that they should to some extent deride the vandal. "Your comments to <Article X> have been removed because they were deemed unhelpful and indicative of your tragic sexual confusion rather than the article itself. If you would like to contribute more constructively you are welcome to do so, but regardless of any such participation, here are a few wikipedia pages that you might want to look at:" and then a list of pages dealing with repressed homosexuality or various exhibitionistic/vandal related issues. A series of such templates should exist just like the other levels of warnings. (The aforementioned one might be, say, level 2.) While this might be seen as a joke, I am serious that something like that would be both amusing to WP participants and a more effective method of dealing with these very sad, sad people. Geeman 22:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, don't give them a list of articles for them to vandalize!  :) We could point them to Wikipedia:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So, we sent vandals for 'diversity awareness training? That's some idea.--Doc^g 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting we start a practice of suggesting to kids posting silly insults (that they likely just use at school) that they might be repressed homosexuals and have a "tragic sexual confusion"? This is ridiculous; what sounds like your personal vendetta does not belong here. -- Renesis (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, calm down! User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I've taken what is meant to be funny the wrong way, then sorry. I didn't see any signs of humor, though. (And my point is only that the suggestion that there should actually be a template with wording anything like the above, if serious, is way out of line) -- Renesis (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this is about me all of a sudden, I feel obliged to say that I don't have any personal vendetta. I'm just looking for a response to vandals that will not be completely ineffectual--which it is pretty clear the current system is. When dealing with vandals who add material like (a modest example) "Ernest Miller Hemingway had a huge dick and was born on..." a response that such a comment indicates a personal problem on the part of the vandal is IMO perfectly reasonable. The current list of templates do absolutely nothing to deter such comments. Something more direct might have at least some chance of making the vandal go away (or, at least, wander off to some cyberspace location where their motives aren't revealed.) If that strikes you as being over the line then all I can say is that it is a very modest response to some very crude vandalism, and I'm looking for something more aggressive than the current, very passive, system. Geeman 08:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Geeman, I can see you're well intentioned, but I don't know if you've ever done counter-vandalism. Quite frankly, these editors vandalize because they can, and it's stupid, and it's fun, and they know it. Just imagine a concerned parent walking by and telling kids to "stop being so profane, it's rude" - the reaction would only be laughter. Giving them a warning about their homophobic behavior will probably do worse than good (believe me, I've tried {{obscene}}, and we might as well scream at them "Don't shove beans up your nose!"). The only solution I find that might be helpful is Zoe's: it's a humorous way of saying, "you're not the first one to think you're funny"). - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

We should not forget that most kids entering puberty are actually sexually confused, since very few people develop exclusively heterosexual sexualities, but are wrongly led to believe that "it's either one or the other".

Still, Wikipedia is not the place for them to come to terms with where they lie on the spectrum of sexual identity. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we just leave them a {{test2}} with the note "That's not funny and it makes you look like a fool"? They aren't spamming pages with the word fag because they need sensitivity training, they're doing it because their infantile sense of humour finds it funny. --tjstrf talk 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, I do think vandals who post gay bashing material are dealing with their own repressed homosexuality, but that's not really the point. Maybe this wasn't particularly clear, but the repressed homosexuals are just one form of vandalism that I'm talking about here. Vandals who just put the word "Pussy!" in the text somewhere would get the same template warning.

I'm also not suggesting anything like sensitivity training. If anything, the opposite. My point is that we should call them on the root of their motivation in a series of vandal warning templates which indicate that not only has the vandal clearly shown his sad mental state to the world, but call him on it in a way shines the light back on them. It would be an interesting tactic to also direct them to pages that they would be more interested in vandalizing. Coralling them, if you will, into areas where their efforts will be more easily monitored.... And if we do so in a way that makes it amusing for the person who posts warning messages then all the better.

I'm not really surprised that something like {{obscene}} template would not work. It's practically a reward. A template that says, in effect, "your vandalism indicates you're sexually confused" doesn't congratulate the vandal. It turns the issue around on them. Geeman 04:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No. —Centrx→talk • 04:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, I say respectfully, that Centrx has it quite right. FWIW, {{obscene}} is now at TfD; the discussion seems to track quite closely with that supra. Joe 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, it can't be good for our response to "Brad Pitt is gay ha ha ha" to be "No, you are." Even if we use more words to say it. FreplySpang 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afd2

Could someone please fix {{afd2}} per my editprotected request there? It's broken at the moment, and messing up newly-created AfDs. --ais523 14:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed now; thanks, crzrussian! --ais523 17:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Can somone please give a hand at WP:AIV Rettetast 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Rettetast 17:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring the history of PAIN

It seems to me that the history of WP:PAIN ought to be kept for those who link to diffs regarding the page. I don't personally have a particular use for the history, but it seems it could be useful in some way sometime in the future. Any thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 22:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, it was my understanding the page will just get redirected. Agathoclea 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That was the outcome when the discussion was first closed, but it was reopened and the final decision was simply Shut down. --Edokter (Talk) 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Restore the edit history and protect - I suspect that at least one diff in there may be used in an upcoming Arbitration case (possibly), and even so, like what Wikipedia:Esperanza did is best. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why protect it? Is there any reason non-admins should be unable to make edits? Picaroon 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To stop people posting there accidentally? Once it's finalised, there is no further need to edit it. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• What precisely is the need to restore an archive of accusations of nastiness, especially given the strong majority in the MFD that wanted it deleted? The arbcom can view the deleted history if they need it (which I seriously doubt, and which I wouldn't assume unless an arbiter actually says so). People wanted the ruleset kept in history so they could learn from what didn't work out, not the archives of accusations. Likewise, with Esperanza, the most troubling bits were the membership roster and the hierarchy, both of which were deleted and salted. >Radiant< 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Deletion should be used to archive things. Seriously. Please can someone nag a developer to get a clear verdict on whether the deleted pages part of the database should really be used as an archive. On a wider issue, admins seem to use deleted pages as a way to hide things that shouldn't be viewed in public. Isn't that what the ability to delete or oversight items from a page history was meant to do? If there is a need to have protected archives, where page history is preserved but only viewable by admins, then that should be requested from the developers. Carcharoth 11:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not at all saying that deletion should be used to archive things (but rather, that it is fallacious to claim it should be kept because the arbcom might hypothetically at some point need to see it). I am saying that the outcome of the MFD debate was to archive the process, and delete the archive of accusations. >Radiant< 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User TheOnlyChoice

Take a look here. Special:Contributions/TheOnlyChoice Hardly and edits and most are nominating articles for deletion. Also advertising AFDs. The use of detailed edit summaries in each edit suggests experience on other accounts. Anomo 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] block review - unauthorised bot

A4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as notified on WP:AIV was running an unauthorised interwikibot. I blocked indef with a talkpage message to place an unblock request, once the bot is shut down. Agathoclea 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More socks in Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California?

See this for an example of DP121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) edits. In fact those and some on the talk page are all of his edits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. That's Ericsaindon2 who was just community banned somewhere on WP:ANI or here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive CSD backlog

Can a bunch of admins stick their heads in at CAT:CSD and take a wack at some speedy deletions? We're facing 415+ images and articles right now. Metros232 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

170 or so now. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox musical artist

This template needs fixing, but is protected. It's currently not resizing images. See Bruce Springsteen for an example of the problem. exolon 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I will talk with people around. Note that by default it uses the 250px size, so removing the size works. I am not sure if this behaviour is on purpose (so that everyone leaves that field blank) or not; I will ask. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforced Wikibreak?

I'm not quite sure if this is where I ask this question. Oh well. Anyway, I feel that I need an enforced Wikibreak to get me away from wikipedia to write a paper. However, it has been clear that Wikipedia frowns on block-enforced Wikibreaks. Is there any other alternative? (Or am I wrong about block-enforced Wikibreaks?) NOTE: If this is in the wrong place, please point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance, PTO 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer is what you're looking for. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't read the talk page :) Arjun 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go ahead and fade out for the rest of the month. :D. Cheers, PTO 04:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I have noticed a loophole for potential vandalism (involving categories). It would seem a good idea not to say what it is in public (I think I have email enabled). roundhouse 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There are probably several such loopholes. Your discretion is creditable. By all means email me your idea if you think I can help and you think it's important, but I may not get back to you straight away as I am {{busy}} just now. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] squidwardblock for review.

See here Agathoclea 11:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No-brainer. Curiously, the article this user nominated for deletion appears to have been attacked by Squidward. Morwen - Talk 12:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - that brings us to this comment, but I have no idea where that editor got the IP-Information from to compare. Agathoclea 12:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billionaire bandits - a case of international murder and fraud?

This article alerted me to these edits of the articles:Patokh Chodiev, Alferon Management, Alexander Mashkevich, and Alijan Ibragimov. I reverted to the best referenced versions, but have not double checked the actual items cited. WAS 4.250 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets

This page is backlogged to the point of behing overwhelmed. Reports dating back to early November are going unanswered.

I think the whole system needs overhauling, as at the moment such cases are far too complex and confusing for us to look at anyway. In the meantime, I wonder if we should put an amnesty on all unanswered cases from November and December and call the page temporarily dead? The current system is impossible to work as it is an impossible call for admins to make. --Robdurbar 10:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a proposal to completely overhaul the way these are delt with (or at least begin an overhauling) at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets policy overhaul. Please contribute, as I want to create a system that we can deal with efficiently. --Robdurbar 10:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, these are backlogged - I am starting with the oldest - from November! They take a while. I've never closed any before, so please be kind. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qatar autoblocked?

The Qatar IP address is requesting unblock. It's not blocked directly. If it really is autoblocked, why isn't it on the autoblock exemption list yet? – Gurch 13:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Qatar was vandalizing yesterday. I know I didn't block them, but it's possible some sort of blocking activity took place during the (North American) daytime.

Atlant 14:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've seen Qatar launch some vicious personal attacks. And I'm not sure it understands WP:RS either. --Cyde Weys 14:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I released the autoblock. Friday blocked a vandal account who happened to be editing from Qatar. Syrthiss 14:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. How do we go about getting it on the autoblock exemption list? It's already on the list of "sensitive IP addresses", I'm surprised it wasn't added yet – Gurch 14:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That I don't know. :( Syrthiss 14:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins can do it by editing MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist. --ais523 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now that's certainly a sensible solution; how come nobody told us earlier? --Cyde Weys 14:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there wasn't a press statement. :P Teke ^(talk) 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

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

195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user [39]. 195.82.106.244 is placed on Probation. He may be banned from editing any article which he disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing, especially that relying on inadequately sourced original research. Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is placed on article probation. The principals in this matter are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Should any user violate a ban imposed under the terms of this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone with oversight remove the diff that was just posted?

Someone thought it would be a good idea to do a minor update, and throw the name, phone#, email address etcetera into the summary. Trying to slip it through I guess. SirFozzie 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like the Oversight folks took care of business SirFozzie 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement from Husnock on continued investigations into my activities

Gang, there are apparently a lot of pages with my name on it and a continued investigation into my activities. I want nothing further to do with this site. I also haven't edited since December but there is a tremendous amount of people who have posted that I am active under various names and ip addresses. None of this is true. There is also hounding going on of various users who are living in the same part of the world where I was in December. One user has been targeted and flat out harassed with accusations of being a sockpuppet. This needs to stop and those who are doing it should offer their sincere apologies since these are innocent people who either wanted to help me or were totally uninvolved. I am leaving Wikipedia to devote myself to professional publications. It was a good site, but there were simply too many people with hidden agendas and there appears to be a growing segment who want to harass and threaten rather than edit and help. Goodbye and best to everyone. -Husnock 20:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to stop this now - ask admin to blank your sock. You do not have email enabled so I cannot discuss this with you off board but your actions here are at the stage where they could have serious real world ramifications for you (I don't want to get into the detail because this could actually make matters worse - think SERIOUSLY about what you are doing, your career and where you are, think about the trail you are leaving on this board with those two accounts). Delete the sock, ask admin to delete your real world picture connected to this HUSNOCK account, get a new account and edit without trying further attention to yourself. I cannot say how strongly I recommend this action to you. --Charlesknight 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Husnock has done, however people may feel about him, making threats against him and his career is uncalled for. Husnock's past activites do not give others a license to bash. Thats how I feel.

I have to agree with Charles. See the ArbCom case, I did my best to be fair to Husnock and so did others, but this crap really does not help anyone and is certainly not going to make matters any better. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what the Right To Vanish is for. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above, and once again, if there are any arbitrators reading here, I strongly urge that the Arbitration Committee get Husnock's case voted on and closed. Newyorkbrad 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hell yes. Before he digs the hole any deeper. Guy (Help!) 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please trace the ip address of that statement above, if for no other reason to prove that it is not me. Husnock has stated over and over again he is not in the UAE but posts coming out of here are constantly being said to be him. A trace of his post should clear this up. We all should just leave him alone since he says he is gone from this site and not bother others for their associations with him. The statment above about serious real world ramifications sounds very sinister, Husnock has done nothing and doesnt deserve that. Thank you. -Pahuskahey 04:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Husnock (and I refuse to play this game that Pahuskahey is someone one) it's not me suggesting that I'm about to do something sinister but I want you to consider the following - you are not the only member of the miltary or with connections to the miltary who reads those boards. I don't want to go into the detail on the public board for the sake of making it worse - but your stories (especially as Pashuskahey) have so many holes in them they are dismantled with very little investigation. Your problem is that while this seems like a fun game at the moment, you are currently leaving a trail of evidence that (unless that's a lie as well) shows you are a military officer who likes to pretend to have a dead son who died in active service. Am I going to follow that up in the real world? of course I'm not, but that does not mean that someone else is not, and you are riding your luck when it's pretty easy to get hold of a real life photo of yourself. I was one of the other people who checked the dead son stories (it's complete lies and husnock makes it easy to catch him but again I'd rather not discuss that on a public board for fear of making it worse). That is why I suggested you got your own photo deleted.

Again I really suggest you use your right to vanish and start again with a new name (but leave out all the nonsense associated with the Pahuskahey account). That is my last word on the matter unless I am asked to make a contribution. If you want to self-destruct in public that's your business. --Charlesknight 10:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of an image?

This image was created by a vandal, and I'm not sure how to tag it for speedy? Could someone delete this? Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jkelly 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] These two articles require name change

Hello. I found two articles that are incorrectly named when they were created and now need to have their names adjusted.

• Latif pedram, when this article was created the P in pedram was not capitalized by accident. So the p needs to be capitalized to a P.

• Bamyan City, this article is incorrectly named as city. Bamyan is not a city, it is more of a village. In Afghanistan it is simply referred to as Bamyan, while the province is called Bamyan Province. Please the discussion on that article. So this article needs to be changed to simply Bamyan.

That is all. Thank you. Behnam 04:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Did Latif Pedram. I love unobstructed moves. Hbdragon88 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said earlier; I've moved Bamyan City to Bamyan. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection not blocking new accounts?

Back on January 5, Anime was granted semi-protection on the count of heavy vandalism by anonymous IPs. While this stopped almost all of the vandalism, it doesn't appear to prevent vandalism from throwaway accounts who can still edit after registering the account. The two instances of vandalism by new accounts on Anime are [40][41]. --Farix (Talk)

Those were the first edits from those accounts, but they were not new. Once was registered a month before the edit, the other over a week before. Fan-1967 04:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, they are "sleepers". Can anything be done about them other wait and watch for one to vandalize a page, then report it? --Farix (Talk) 04:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Hundreds of usernames are created weekly. And most are never used. So it's impossible to judge. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Try speaking with a someone with m:checkuser rights to see if something can be done. Cowman109^Talk 16:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brickbats this way...

I've reduced the protection level of Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America to semi-protected. I have no doubt that this is a very unpopular decision and will be regarded as a bad move. I do this because people whose judgement I respect were appalled at the idea that the talk page was salted, and I found that I agreed with them. Obviously an article cannot exist under the present conditions, but if someone wants to try and develop sources on the talk page that seems a proper enough exercise. If it becomes a den of trolling and disruption it can always be protected again. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, I think allowing talk pages to develop, even on deleted or salted articles, is a good thing. As long as we've got enough eyeballs on it, I don't see how this is a problem. Friday (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mack, its the right thing to do. Just gotta keep an eye on it and be ready to lock it down again if trouble brews. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 09:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I will begin removing comments from that page instantly when it devolves into an "attack admins" page which it was when last deleted. If the attacks persist, I will begin making blocks. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I'm watching the page as well. Mackensen (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AFD

• The template for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Derrick is on the AFD front page for some reason. I can't find a reason for it, and it even appears in edit histories predating it. JuJube 13:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I just figured it out; he edited Template:Cent. The nom's edits seem to be a bit suspicious. JuJube 13:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article was an A7 speedy candidate before blanking, anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please merge these articles

Hi, Someone has cut-and-pasted material from Zyman Institute of Brand Science to The Institute of Brand Science to reflect the name change, instead of using the proper move mechanism.

Can someone please restore the article history on The Institute of Brand Science to reflect its former history at Zyman Institute of Brand Science, but keep it at its new location (remembering to move the talk page from ZIBS to TIBS as well). Thanks. Fourohfour 15:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. works collaboratively with its sponsors, other universities, research organizations, and its corporate members to devise cross-disciplinary solutions for managing real world problems in brand strategy - deletion is too good for this text. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How about, that's a direct copyvio of [42] (under How We Do It)? Sure, it's in quotes, but an entire paragraph? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

I just semi-protected AN/I (check the history to see why), but I'm logging off now. Would someone unprotect in a while? Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use

Replaceable fair use images from January 2-6 2007 has a grand backlog of 515 images to evaluate. It looks kind of disconcerting to see on J. K. Rowling that this image will be deleted on 1-10-07 and it's already 1-14-07. Hbdragon88 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the image deletions have fallen behind. I'm seeing in the neighborhood of 60 images each in the 'no source' and 'no license' categories for each day to be reviewed and deleted, and I'm finding that I can't review more than one day's worth in one of those categories in a given day. I find reviewing 'replaceable fair use' images even more trying and time consuming. We need more admins helping there. -- Donald Albury 11:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It would help if some of the cleanup crew were to record their investigations on the image pages, then any admin could speedily delete them without having to do a lot of work verifying. I have to say that I find images the most taxing part of CAT:CSD, much as Donald states above. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, on the plus side, by looking at the contribs of one uploader I found a whole batch that had been speedied as fair use violations and then re-uploaded with {{PD-release}}, which is very clearly not supported by the source url, so I warned that user. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)