It's a valid point, but it should not affect the policy. Often, a band will create their own website or myspace page, then copy its content word for word to Wikipedia. I guess we consider that other website to have its own copyright even if the same people authored the content. Maybe an expert can clarify this. YechielMan16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. The authors of the text hold the copyright and are free to license it under many different licenses if they wish, including a GFDL license which wikipedia can use). However the onus is on the poster to demonstrate copyright and if the other copy doesn't appear to be under a compatible license we need to be careful. e.g. An official release sent into OTRS. Though the easiest way is for the owner to update the source website to indicate the GFDL licensing for the section being used on wikipedia. If they do get deleted as a G12 and sufficient evidence of rights are put forward the deleting admin should be willing to undelete. --pgk17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that if we must err, it should be on the side of enforcing copyright too vigorously, because the consequences of not doing so are higher than the consequences of enforcing copyright too laxly. Natalie18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, when the person who uplaods text is the original author, but has also posted it to another site, that person can license it under the GFDL and then we are fine. But we need clear evidence that the uploader here is in fact the person with rights, and that that person has in fact relased the text (and any images) under the GFDL. We oftne asak that the other site be altered to include a GFDL notice, which establishes both points at once. Failing that, an email to the fopundation's permissions department is often requested. Such an email is usually sufficient. See Wikipedia:Copyright. DES(talk)18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If I'm reading this right, we are referring to instances where Person X wrote a Wikipedia article about (say) Band X first, and then copied it to www.BandX.com. In that case, both the Wikipedia article and the copied text at www.BandX.com are automatically released under GDFL; it doesn't matter who does the copying, as no one has rights. The content at www.BandX.com doesn't need to be specified as being released under GDFL; it is automatically released by having been on Wikipedia first; however, in this case, www.BandX.com needs to credit Wikipedia. (The person who wrote the text might find it odd that he has to credit "his" work, displayed on his web site, to a second party, but he does, of course.) If Wikipedia (or another GDFL-releasing entity) is not credited, then it's probably safe to assume that the material is undercopyright, absent proof otherwise. Herostratus20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The original post is very specifically about it being on the other site first. (As Anthony Appleyard notes, the speedy deletion criteria already warns about sites who have copied wikipedia content). But there are several misconceptions in the rest. As an author I can license my work under multiple licenses if I want. I can post it here under the GFDL which then enables others to make derivatives etc. A magazine may want to produce such a derivative but not want to be bound by the GFDL, they can arrange a different license with me for the same material, to enable them to do that, the magazine published version wouldn't be under the GFDL (Though of course anyone wanting to use my part could rely on the GFDL licensed version to make their own derivative). "as no one has rights" - the original author retains all his rights under copyright law, the GFDL licensing is the author exercising those rights. "www.BandX.com needs to credit Wikipedia" - No they need to credit the authors of the article in accordance with the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia isn't the one to be credited since the wikimedia foundation as no rights in regard the material as they have no authorship and no assignment from the author, they are merely using the material under the terms of the GFDL as anyone else could. The original author could place a copy of his own work elsewhere (just his work, not derivative content) without crediting where he posted it first (be it here or elsewhere), he has full rights, the GFDL is about the rights of others to use his work, it isn't binding the author to follow those same terms for reuse elsewhere. --pgk20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that an author may license his or her own work in different was in different places or fora. When a person copies content from a website, claiming to be the original author of the content, it is often asked that the person have the site post a GFDL release. This is partly because doing so will prove pretty clearly that the person controls the site (or that whoever does control it is OK with the upload to WP) and that the person does indeed intend to release under the GFDL. (There have been cases of people copying from their own sites and then attempting to claim that the content is copyrighted and can't be changed on wikipedia without permission. This is an obvious attempt to violate WP:OWN as well as the GFDL, but it can cause unwanted conflict and time spent dealing with the situation) The usual alternative is that the unloader send a release statement to the permissions department of the foundation asserting that s/he does have rights to the content, and agrees to release it under the GFDL on wikipedia. This email is normally to be sent from an address associated with the site, so that it serves as evidence that the person sending it did not simply make an unauthorized copy. As to what needs to be done when another site copies an article from wikipedia, the GFDL's requirement for a transparent copy of the original is often interpreted as requiring a link to the copy on wikipedia, and in any case proper attribution is better served by mentioning wikipedia as the forum in which the content was previously published, as well as crediting the specific authors (as required by the GFDL). DES(talk)23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to flog this too relentlessly, yes they could link back here in order to show where it came, I don't consider that to be "crediting" wikipedia, the original authorship needs to be credited, in the case of derivatives the GFDL (IIRC) says you need to credit at least the 5 most significant contributors (how you work that out is of course the fun). If you were merely copying an article as a one off exercise (rather than mirroring current content), the approach of merely pointing back to wikipedia maybe insufficient, we may delete the article here and all record of authorship becomes invisible, we may allow a recreation by different authors and different material, in which case the back reference becomes more confusing. Like all things if this level of detail is important for what you are doing, you need to take proper legal advice, but as already agreed from wikipedia's perspective the onus is on the editor to demonstrate the ability to use the material under the GFDL and if that isn't clear or obvious we will err on the side of caution. --pgk08:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not have the time to find them all, but this category is overfilled with CSD A1 candidates, and I cannot delete them all. I left a warning at User talk:Hedwig0407 not to create these kinds of articles anymore in the main space, and to create them in her userspace and then move them when they meet Wikipedia:Stub. Jesse Viviano03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:CSD#A1, "Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub." --Iamunknown03:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I attached the speedy tags to all of the deletable ones at about 8am (utc). Most of them are still there. You've got some work to do. MER-C09:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The bigger problem is the copyvios. The first one I looked at is one line of content and the rest a copied description, probably from the back jacket. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone look at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion_by_user as the few entries left in there are not tagged as CSD nor are they in the category when you look? I can't see how they're ending up in there unless something is transcluded that I'm somehow missing. Can someone else take a peek? - Alison☺04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it will have been the job queue backlogged, the transclusion of that subpage will have done it, when the page was deleted job queue entries get added to update the details like category ownership etc. for those pages. You can see the current length on Special:Statistics --pgk08:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else received the following offensive email?? (content not posted here for WP:BEANS reasons)
It came from KingDon9000 (talk·contribs) - who appears to have registered solely to spam people, and it contains personal attacks.
Why I got this, I have no idea. But it's not very funny, and I've just had to block the email address to prevent any further
spam from this user. --SunStar Nettalk10:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that the individual is who he claims. Mostly because the last that I checked, Don Murphy and Wikipedia made up and are now on good terms (yes, I have the e-mail, and that is not the real e-mail address).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
We're unprotecting now. Could folks please keep an eye on the page, and block any Edit warriors on sight? (Note that you can block for edit warring even when there has been no strict 3RRvio, but do be careful of what you call an edit war, nevertheless.)
Hopefully no-one will actually be editwarring, but since we're unprotecting a contentious page, you never really know for sure.
Ok, thanks. Appreciate the help, and the attention. However, I assume no one here is going to do something radical like actually find some way to propose a real compromise, or try to ameliorate some of these issues.
weird how this article keeps going around in circles, and people keep proposing all kinds of actions, but no one proposes any sort of solution, or even offers some slight objective insight on what is causing all this. Just my two cents. I know people want to stay neutral. However, I think some objective guidance might be useful. My own personal request would be (in case you asked) can someone please tell the status quo faction to occasionally let some new sub-topics in? Does that seem like a valid compromise? Please feel free to comment, of course. Thanks. --Sm890004:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone noticing that the article was unprotected that fast was most likely following this thread and knew about the repercussions of edit warring.Naconkantari04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a controversial topic at the moment. I don't even know if it is possible to stabilize the article, until the situation in the real world also stabilizes. --Kim Bruning04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
A box-like message would be far better, a comment can be easily skipped by editing a determined section. -- ReyBrujo04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Question, I don't see any edit war like behaviour from Tjsynkral? He made a single edit this evening that doesn't even seem to have been challenged by anyone. Could we get some evidence of where he was "warring" cause I apparently have missed it? This block happiness NEEDS to stop. Kyaa the Catlord04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:EW: "An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article."
I did not revert. Not once. Are we blocking users for edit warring or are we blocking them for editing? --Tjsynkral05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, point me at the edit warring that has caused these blocks? I'm seeing VALID edits and editors being blocked without reason. The blocking without valid reasoning needs to stop. Kyaa the Catlord05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Tjsynkral's edit was on a bit of the lead that's been intensively fought over the last few days, and arguably involved a tendentious misreading of the cited material. I do think the block was a bit too fast, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, these blocks are coming much too fast. This is not a good solution, especially since a number of the editors involved in the "war" are administrators and can now block anyone who edits in a way they don't agree with and have the "edit warrior" excuse to cover their behaviour. Kyaa the Catlord05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, the above pair of blocks were reviewed by Naconkantari who declined both of them. I'm sorry, I'd like to see a third party become involved in this, cause I don't see that their edits were obvious edit warring and based on the previous false blocking by Nacon I do not believe he's weighing this from a neutral POV. Kyaa the Catlord05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The edits immediately before Tjsynkral's plainly violatedWP:NPOV by taking a firm position on a controversy that different scientists disagree about.(e.g., "40%", "primary factors" vs. insert of "insignificant"). There's no comment on the talk page supporting that new conclusory evaluation of multiple points of view. That's one way to achieve stability for an article if a different standard for blocking is applied to edits that fail to adhere to the favored POV than those that do: eventually only one POV will be reflected in the article. -- THF05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I did say be careful. The article merely needs to be watched. Only block if people are clearly edit warring. --Kim Bruning04:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm gonna feel my way around here, and maybe I will make a mistake and get blocked because it seems kinda random. Sort of like Russian Roulette. But reading Dmcdevit's article, I think this is a good way to go. Even if I run into a fan blade, I agree with the decision. --Blue Tie06:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to the Dmcdevit approach (so long as there is adequate notice that 0RR applies), but I do object to the way it is being applied in the article, and apparently without repercussion. THF06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Odd, you put in POV material you know will be reverted, and you do not seek discussion of controversial language. It's a case of "Physican, heal thyself", and "Thou protesteth much." Now that I've read the above, I realize you inserted previously removed material as apparently 'revert bait', hoping that editors would not have read the discussion in this thread. Almost seems like a clever tactic, if it weren't for your good faith. --Skyemoor00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Changing "hypotheses" to "tiny minority views" into text is reverting POV as opposed to inserting it? (And there's absolutely no talk-page discussion.) I have a real concern about the double-standard being exhibited here. If there's going to be a 0RR rule, it needs to be applied evenly, and what's happening is that it's not being applied at all to the politically correct while those who wish to apply NPOV are getting blocked simply for making edits. As a result a page that already violates NPOV is getting considerably worse. THF01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
To you first question; yes. Say "other hypotheses" implies an unsupported significant minority that has not been established. Don't confuse political and pundit level of debate with the scientific process; even the sceptics admit to the overwhelming consensus. If you are attempting to establish a perception that climate change skeptic scientists are anything but a tiny minority, then you have your work cut out for you. Attempting to brand my edit as NPOV is wikilawyering, mr. attorney. --Skyemoor01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The Global warming article could act as a poster child for why the Wikipedian, any yahoo can edit the article, approach can never stabilise on certain hot-button political issues. No matter if the ratio of the science were 1000:1 favoring one direction or the other, if it serves the political and economic needs of certain folks to have the article fall the other way, then the article will be under constant editing as they try to drive its PoV in the direction favored by those who have political power or money at stake.
Short of having an actual authority-based structure in our editing process, there is no way this crisis will ever be permanently resolved as there's always a new yahoo arriving to take up where the old ones left off (or were forced to leave off).
I rather wish we had a template that said something like:
"This is an article about a politically-contentious subject and is likely to be
constantly whip-sawn between at least two irreconcilable points-of-view. In fact,
at any given moment, it may be nothing more than a complete pack of lies!"
It needn't be this way, but Wikipedia is far too tolerant of editors who make it this way.
Isn't this just a battle between the 1) scientists who insist that their ReliableSources should use the standard of "Verifiability, not truth" versus 2) others whose ReliableSources use a much weaker standard of mere "Attributability, not truth"? --Rednblu23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I estimate there might be ~3000 articles that have issues, while ~3M do not. If you look at it that way, you might think we could just ignore the problem pages. Unfortunately many of these pages often happen to be on some of the most visible issues.
We may need to work on a different set of guidelines for those ~3000 pages. (and that in turn might take some experimentation)
I don't know if you were asking me, but I'd have to say, frankly, "No". It's an information war going on out there in the real world and it's only to be expected that it spills into our little corner of "the media" as well. Control the information and you can control people's perceptions of the "truth".
Yes, I acknowledge there is an information war. But sometimes Wikipedia policy has offered editors' insights, such as WP:NPOV, into how the editors can come to working agreements despite the information war. I am wondering if there is not some analogous policy having to do with editors' consensus and recognition that the ReliableSources themselves must use the "Verifiability, not truth" standard in reporting what is asserted in the Wikipedia page. Something similar serves as a tacit understanding among the editors on the gravity and truth pages to develop a consensus that keeps the information war merely "Attributable, not true" assertions off the page. --Rednblu17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
But you're assuming good faith, as WP:AGF requires for how we treat ordinary Wikipedian editors. But at least some of our editors aren't here to create a wonderful NPOV encyclopedia; they're here to get their content added and, often, our content deleted, and they won't rest until they've achieved their goal. I realize it busts a shibboleth to openly state that, but it's obviously true to anyone who's been editing here for a while. That's why I brought up the information warfare metaphor; it's the same principle upon which Fox news was founded.
One of the most regular edit warriors continues to do so unchecked diffdiff. What happened to blocking edit warriors? Does that only apply to people who aren't pro-global warming? If we've gone back to a free for all up to 3RR a day, then let's make that clear so that both sides can all hit their 3RR and we can be right back where we started. --Tjsynkral23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying those two edits would justify a block? I'm not certain what standard for "edit warring" is being suggested for this article. This user may have a history of which I'm unaware, but those two edits on their own don't seem too bad. CMummert · talk12:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing edit war for inclusion of the globalboiling external link on this page. One block's been handed out, but there are multiple people revert warring, can we get someone to investigate? Kyaa the Catlord13:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at it some last night and this morning. It looked like only the blocked editor went over 3RR. If people are going to be blocked for 1RR, it would be worth putting a notice to that effect on the talk page. CMummert · talk15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The standards, as I understood it, were that edit warring and reverts were going to be strictly prohibited. Under that rule Tjsynkral was blocked, even without a revert. Now reverts are happening and there is no repercussion. I do not understand what rules the page operates under. They were declared -- as a special set for that page only (and a notice put on the talk page) -- and now those special rules are not being enforced. Or perhaps enforced selectively. If no admin is going to take some responsibility for enforcing the new rules, then the page should go back to the standard wikipedia rules. I suggest that the admin's involved in this decision go and remove the special notice or else enforce it effectively. --Blue Tie16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree completelky with Blue Tie. it is not true or valid to say there is no solution to all this. There is a simple solution to this.
We need a period where all good-faith, valid, relevant and sourced edits are accepted, and permitted to becomne part of the discussion. We need a halt to constant edit wars, reverts and deletions. Part of this means not removing perfectly valid edits due to some so-called problems with minor considerations. Doing this will allow the article to function like most Wikipedia entries; occasionally in a process of change, but not just reflecting only one person's idea of what is valid and what is not. --Sm890016:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard I see a fair number of accounts that exist for no other purpose than to promote some person or company. A representative example is Uibs. This account exists to promote the Barcelona Business School, an instution of learning which the only independent source described as a one room campus that was founded by the same individual who created its accrediting body. This account blanked warnings from its user talk page repeatedly,[1][2] removed advertising and COI tags from the article under the guise of rewriting,[3] and left a rather disingenuous message at the article talk page, particularly in light of subsequent attempts to promote the institution at Wikipedia.[4]
Another example is Jeffrey Babcock, whose sole contributions to Wikipedia since June 2006 have been self-promotional. This editor has deleted warnings to his user talk page during his block and, via e-mail, has both accused me of vandalism for reverting his spam and announced his intention to violate Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets. Excerpts of his messages follow:
Your deletion of links for Jeffrey Babcock is inconsistent. There are other former personalities on the sites where I am listed who have such links. Your deletions are vandalism. Please refrain from well intentioned but misguided vandalism.
I can of course have a third party make an edit. Kind of a waste of time. You seem to be caught in a form vs function trap.
The real waste of time is supposing that such people would develop into decent Wikipedians. In light of Brad Patrick's statement on COI accounts,[5] I ask the community to support the following approach:
For obviously Conflict of interest-only accounts, first leave a message at the editor's talk page advising the person of site standards.
If the editor continues acting in a solely promotional manner, treat the account history as a sophisticated breach of Wikipedia:Vandalism and indef block.
Agreed, maybe this will cut down on the # of vanicruftisements that people who are trying to build a better encyclopedia have to deal with. SirFozzie15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
As a non-admin, I would wholeheartedly support admin action on this front. I know that no area is immune but wine articles get targeted quite a bit with these spam-only accounts and it really does get tiring. Quite a few link to Wine Library TV, which I just discovered has a Wikipedia article possibly created by a COI-SPA. AgneCheese/Wine15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Arguably, this already fits within WP:BLOCK#Indefinite_blocks: Inappropriate usernames, policy-breaching sockpuppets, and single-purpose abusive accounts that have not made significant constructive edits can be indefinitely blocked on sight, and should be noted in the block summary. Is not single purpose violation of COI, WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and WP:AUTO abusive of Wikipedia, its volunteers, and its readership? DurovaCharge!16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Do I doubt the need? By no means. But an indef block buys us at most 24 hours of autoblocked reprieve, and the spammer's back the next day with a less obvious username and no history of abuse. —Cryptic16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the single purpose soon shows itself. This is easier to spot and halt than garden variety trolling because the troll can be more flexible about methodology. We don't let the risk of future abuse deter us from necessary action. DurovaCharge!16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No, but we should be taking the right necessary action. Indef blocks are only effective against accounts that try to integrate into the community. The net effect of blocking User:Spamsalot.com is that Spamsalot.com will be re-created by User:Innocuous in four days; for COIs inserted into other articles, we don't even get that long unless the article's semiprotected. After that, even the stupidest spammer will know to create accounts in advance. The only thing that blocking an unestablished user account does is delay, often indefinitely, use of our only effective tool: page protection. —Cryptic16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I support this, but we should think about updating Template:uw-coi so it says something ominous like "Those who use Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warnings." Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I would generally support this too. In a lot of ways, spamming campaigns are worse than simple school-type vandalism, because they're tougher to detect. If someone's adding 20 lines of profanity to an article, it just gets reverted on sight, there's no valid reason for anyone to do that. There are a lot of valid reasons to add external links, so it requires more work to figure out if it's spam. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Having a simple rule that allows the blocking of COI-only accounts would give more teeth to our COI rules. Posting COI problems at WP:AN/I doesn't always give any concrete results because of the perceived complexity of these cases. If there's a simple rule, administrators would be more willing to take action. EdJohnston16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
A significant change like this should be proposed on WT:COI, not just here. Please keep in mind that such a proposal could have serious consequences in NPOV disputes. It is not uncommon for partisan editors, who may fall under the campaigning section of COI, to be involved in NPOV disputes with each other. Hopefully, both sides are more or less proportionately represented, and the article on a whole becomes neutral. WP:COI#Conflict_of_interest_in_point_of_view_disputes suggests conflicts of interest in NPOV disputes should not be brought up, in keeping with assume good faith and the principle of commenting on the content, not the editor. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. As proposed, this clarification will not be effective in such cases. Presumably these people are editing articles besides one about themselves or their organization. The statement only applies to single-purpose accounts that engage in blatant self-promotion. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Use of jargon and abbreviations made this discussion extremely difficult to follow. I have expanded most of the abbreviations. Please avoid habitual use of abbreviations to denote policies because this makes Wikipedia an extremely difficult environment to follow. At the very least, name the policy page in full (all policies have full names) when you first introduce it. --Tony Sidaway10:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A fair comment, although I doubt many of the people who populate this board need full name descriptions of every policy. What do you think of the discussion at the policy talk page? Proposed new wording met with mostly approval and a couple of articulate objections. My original request here was for community support of an interpretation I would like to apply to the blocking policy's present wording? Let's remember the main issue is more important than semantics: conflict of interest manipulation is a serious problem at this site and we need a stronger response to combat it. DurovaCharge!
(unindent) Hi! Just want to point out that accounts initially perceived as single-issue, COI accounts can sometimes work out. Can even become administrators. Best, --Shirahadasha17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Just as a note, Merging is not the same as keep. This sort of article belongs as a subsection of the mother article and at wikinews if they want it. The fact that when it was closed that a merge was refferred to as the same as a keep is a bit troubling. These unneeded articles just serve to clutter up main space. I might nom it again with a well reasoned argument for a merge and delete (redirect wouldnt be important, no one is likely to type that name into the search box. -Mask?19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Another user has requested help from me because, as he says, "I "can't" clarify sentences properly and have a touch of asperger's" (some background here and here). His contributions can require significant work to revise them and are often deleted. Can anyone suggest any help – possibly guidelines, policies or previous experience regarding users with such difficulties or support for them? I’ve already been told there is a user category for Aspergian Wikipedians by the way. Also are there guidelines or policies regarding dealing with the type of contributions he makes (other than continuous copyedits or the like)? Mutt Lunker16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Since posting the above it occurred to me that a sympathetic adopter could be helpful, so I've suggested he could request that. Also, to avoid the frustration of having his edits removed for lack of notability etc. he could (whilst continuing with appropriate contributions to Wikipedia) find another forum where the info he wants to add would be acceptable; possibly starting his own website or blog, or finding suitable third party sites (e.g. comprehensive details of shopping centres is one of his interests). I wouldn't know how to help him further with these suggestions though. Any ideas? Mutt Lunker13:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I especially like the new feature at Special:Newpages that lets you find new pages/images created by a single contributor... really helps with checking histories of suspected copyright violators. Sancho23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it considerably handier than having to delete my username from the Special:Contributions page and typing in someone I want to check on. hbdragon8823:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There have been a few changes to MediaWiki recently, mostly cosmetic ones like this, that have been on hold for a while until database schema updates could be performed on all of the live servers. Once the updates were on the new changes could come live; that's why it seems that lots is happening all at once. --bainer (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
About 100 revisions worth of changes (which is slightly unusual). If you find any bugs, please report them to BugZilla, as this is the testing period for MediaWiki 1.10alpha, which is going to be made a stable release soon. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)08:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
de:user:Lyzzy got blocked on en.wp for six months, commented to be a "spambot" (see screenshot done by her). i can assure you that she definitely is not a spambot. ;-) the admin who blocked the ip (ip-range?) did not answer her request for an unblock via mail. who can help her? how can she edit here again? --JD de{æ}17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
77.182.0.0/16 (#455265) are dynamic IP addresses that belong to 1&1, one of Germany's leading ISPs. Please unblock the range again. -- kh8019:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's about her IP range (see above). The admin unchecked the box "Block anonymous users only", so she can't edit anymore. -- kh8019:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I fixed should be anon only, I have seen some spam bots recently originating from that range. I did not receive any e-mail. (it might have been spam filtered or junk mailed by accident). If there are any other collateral from this please feel free to unblock. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)23:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
If 77.182.0.0/16 are dynamic IP addreses of one of Germany's leading ISPs, shouldn't the block not be "account creation blocked"? Where are ISP-users supposed to go to create an account? --Iamunknown23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
(3) This happened again on 20 April 2007 as I was going through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user. I found listed there a big bunch of files all in the same user's user space ((e.g. User:xxxxxx/..... or User talk:xxxxxx/.....)). Most of them were "scratch paper" template-type files which he had db-userreq tagged after he had finished work developing something, and accordingly I deleted them. But 4 of them were discussion archives with no speedy-delete tag, but yet they were listed for speedying - because they transcluded (directly or indirectly) a template which contained a speedy-delete tag, as is well known.
But those 4 archive files were still listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user after I deleted the speedy-delete-tagged templates. I went into one of them in edit mode, and at the bottom 3 of the names of transcluded templates showed as red = 404, so I recreated those 3 templates with the dummy text {{}} , and after that the 4 archive files no longer listed for speedy-deleting.
Afterwards I contacted the user, and he thanked me.
I suspect that, for speed, Wikipedia's server accesses templates (or at least commonly used short templates) not straight from the template file but from a copy in a buffer in RAM. That buffer seems to be correctly updated from the template file when the template file is written to. But likely that buffer is not cleared or blanked when the template file is deleted. As a result, accessing a deleted template file (to transclude it) results in Wikipedia'a software accessing the template's buffer and thus behaving as if the last version of the template file was still there complete with speedy-delete tag.
In case (1), likely one of his templates contained a #redirect to a file which someone later deleted, and later someone tagged that template as Category:Broken redirects for speedy deletion, and then someone deleted the template.
Yes as I pointed out when this was mentioned the other day, it is all to do with the job queue, it doesn't buffer in RAM (though MYSQL might be), just follow the link and read. Any edit to the page (not just removing the now gone template) will resolve it for that page. --pgk07:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Happened to me yesterday as I was clearing the WP:CSD#G7 category & I reported it here. You just have to be careful that the page for deletion truly is tagged with {{db-owner}}. It seems to be always down to a transclusion that was itself only recently tagged and speedy-deleted - Alison☺07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Problematic external link on galaxy being added by anonymous user
An anonymous user with several different IP addresses (User:62.69.36.240, User:62.69.36.109, User:62.69.37.127, User:62.69.37.217) has been attempting to add a "bad" external link to galaxy. The external link is a problem because it resizes the windows browser, and it annoys those of us who have been maintaining the article. The link may also be spam; I have certainly never heard of the website.
Since the user clearly has multiple IP addresses, contacting him/her is difficult, as the user may not read any messages left at a specific user talk page. The user also has not noticed the note left at Talk:Galaxy or the notes that I now leave in the revert edits.
In the past, I think I encountered something that blocks the addition of external links to websites that are advertisements. Is it possible to institute that for the website that this anonymous user continues to attempt to edit?
m:Talk:Spam blacklist, but they won't list it unless it's a significant problem affecting multiple articles, usually on multiple language Wikipedias. Guy
User:62.69.36.240 has added links to the same "Space and Astronomy News" website (or possibly mirror sites) on other Wikipedia pages; see [6]. Some of these other edits have been reverted as spam. Could this be a justification for taking further action? Dr. Submillimeter12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I warned the accounts {{uw-spam2}}. If it continues, escalate up through {{uw-spam4}} and then report at WP:AIV to block. If the person evades blocks via dynamic IP after that then we'll consider blacklisting the domain. —Quarl(talk) 2007-04-23 10:47Z
How does one deal with removal of a sockpuppeteer notice? See here. I've reverted that with an edit summary with links to the appropriate sections of WP:USER#ownership... and WP:SSP#reporting.... But I have a strong feeling this won't go away. Otheus19:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's how you deal with it: Don't put a suspected sockpuppet tag on the userpage of someone who hasn't been banned for abusing sockpuppets. How would you like it if I stuck one of those tags on your page and started edit-warring over it? If you have the PROOF of him using sockpuppets abusively, then he should be banned. If you don't have the proof for that, you shouldn't be tagging him. Frise21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what it states. This is something that needs to be tempered with a little common sense. There might be thirty or forty people I suspect of being sockpuppets, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around taggging them. There are three or four people I know for a fact are using sockpuppets, but since they aren't abusing the policy I'm not going to tag them either. Edit warring on someone else's user page over a suspected sock tag is incredibly silly. If you KNOW they're abusing socks, then they can be banned. Frise22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
But the point of WP:SSP is discussion. That involves getting people who interact with the alleged sockpuppets to comment. And it doesn't say that you can tag everyone who you suspect of being a sockpuppet, it says you can tag people who you suspect of being an abusive sockpuppet, and have a SSP report open on them. -Amarkovmoo!22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit-warring over a suspected sockpuppet tag is as dumb as edit-warring over the removal of a warning. The community has come down hard on the latter, and the same conclusions reached apply to the former. - Merzbow04:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but so far, no comment on exactly how to deal with it. Do I report it to AN/I as removal of a warning? Otheus05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This has already been dealt with, but in general it might make sense to find out why the tag is supposed to be added. After all, the report is still on WP:SSP and will be dealt with decisively at some point, so a tag is not strictly necessary. —Centrx→talk • 05:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Centrix has a point. I have filed three SSP cases, and in each case, the users got fairly angry. Is that a classic guilt response? I'm not sure. But posting it on their user page didn't seem to "help" encourage "discussion". But at the same time, the community and the accused need to be aware of the suspected puppetry and case. In this case, it was resolved quickly, but in other cases, it might take quite a while. So while there is an ongoing investigation, there should be some kind of notice. Otheus06:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the notices on the user page are necessary. The suspected master + puppets should receive a notice of the case on their user talk page, which makes sure they're informed. I'll start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets to remove tagging the user pages from the steps in filing a case; anything that makes the procedure simpler and reduces futile edit warring is probably a good thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Um... warning removals don't need to be reported, because they are not actionable. If this is like warning removal, then you don't report it at all. -Amarkovmoo!05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this one... I'm not a terribly big fan of the typical user page on wikipedia, so I decided to put this image (which happens to be featured) on my userspace because I love the artist's work. I hadn't logged in for a while, and then I noticed this edit on my talk page requesting that I remove the image because it offends gay muslims (?). I would normally be quite willing to take down an image that someone found offensive, but I noticed the same user had made several edits tweaking vandalism notices I had placed [7][8]. Any thoughts? I wanted to get an outside viewpoint before I contact the user with my reply. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I admire your good faith approach to the user's message, but I'm afraid I'll have to concur with the judgement they were most likely trolling. I know that we have some Muslim editors, if any of them can figure why this image would be offensive, please do point it out. Personally, I like it. – Luna Santin (talk)10:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place to put this, please correct me if it's not. Would someone have a look at this article? The entire contents was replaced by User:CtK19 some twelve hours ago. It seems to me that this user is promoting himself on WP, and also that the article does not meet WP:NPOV. I think this edit is vandalism, be it intentional or not.Cassandra B10:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
According to a whole bunch of news websites, this guy's suing Wikimedia along with pretty much the rest of the internet. Shouldn't his page be office protected or something? Who do we notify if anyone? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, folks. King Lopez (talk·contribs) made a curious request of me: he wants to know what Special:Blockip looks like. I have the capability to make a screenshot, but I wasn't sure whether doing so was kosher or a good idea. Theoretically, there's no harm in showing him what the page looks like (and there's a screenshot of part of the blocking page at Wikitruth anyway), but something doesn't smell right about the request, so I wanted to run it by some other admins. (It seems that he asked Khoikhoi (talk·contribs) first, and Khoikhoi declined because he didn't have time.) What do y'all think about this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd probably ask them why first. Note that they were blocked 1 week in January for 'abusive sockpuppetry', so hmmm .... - Alison☺00:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's not the sekret page :P The page is released under the same licensing as all the rest, I do believe. Users without the flag just can't see the page because to access it would be for its use. I see no problem. It's something I've never considered before so I add the "I might be wrong." Teke05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Plus, the page used to list the AOL proxy blocks and others, which it no longer does. It only lists the ranges of the Canadian, UK, and US government IP blocks. Furthermore in my it's no big deal. Teke05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's GPL'd, so it's not even secret - he can go to any other site that runs MediaWiki 1.10alpha and request it there. There's no issue here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, he's not asking for checkuser results or real names or something. I have a small wiki on Mediawiki running on the machine next to me for some collaborative projects with a few friends, anyone else could do the same and find out exactly what it looks like. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
As a result of talk page spamming and forcing people to sign a memberlist at WP:PARANORMAL (which there is another one that he was unaware of), I blocked User:Reddi about 12 minutes ago for 15 minutes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Starting to nab some, but being at work, I can't get into hardcore "psycho admin with a mop of doom" mode. EVula// talk // ☯ //20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If I may say, I believe this is inappropriate. I have no way of contacting this user. The idea was that it was protected because of an "edit war", but there were only a few edits over several days in this "war". It is totally inappropriate to fully protect (not just semi) an administrator's talk page. Unfortunately, I can't complain, because his page is protected. Part Deux15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
In general, your view would be absolutely correct. In this instance, there are other reasons for this protection which unfortunately should not be discussed on-wiki. Please e-mail the user if necessary. Newyorkbrad15:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Could I have a link to the discussion? I'm not seeing how not letting us know why his page is protected could in any way harm this user.
Sorry, I didn't know about this discussion until now. My page was protected as a result of an attack I considered rather serious and the only way to protect myself was to protect my page. The protection expires after a week from the initial incident and I'm seriously hoping this is enough. If it is not, I am not sure what I will do. I considered this protection to be necessary and a last resort. Semi-protection is occasionally necessary in the short term but admins should rarely need to fully protect their page. I note, however, that I am always available via email. As to protecting that user's talk page, I still don't see a need to protect it. My involvement was limited to deciding whether or not to unblock the user. While that username was not acceptable, the word in question was bleeped out (I would not tolerate someone using the full n-word in a username) and a single unblock request only rarely is grounds for protecting the page, even if abusive. --Yamla21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk·contribs). T-man was blocked for six months after the moderation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic was deemed to have failed. I increased the block to indefinite after the user used sock puppets to evade the ban and also carried on making personal attacks. However, I have been in email contact with the user and he indicates he will not engage in such behaviour again. He also states he has not created other sock-puppet accounts since I increased the block; something I have not confirmed, taking the user at their word. I am applying good faith here and repealing the extension of the six month ban to an indefinite one. The six month ban itself expired on the 11th March, I believe, being reset after the sock puppetry was exposed. [10]HidingTalk20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I started to have a go at images in Category:Images with unknown source as of 8 April 2007 "Images in this category are potential candidates for speedy deletion under criterion I4 once this category is seven days old.". I soon found in there a succession of images that were declared by their uploaders as "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. ..." that User:Aksi great tagged for deletion {{no source}}. On looking in his user-talk page I found a discussion about images in User talk:Aksi great#Images uploaded by you, which seems to be becoming acrimonious. Anthony Appleyard15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems in order to me. Aksi feels s/he has reason to not trust the licences, has asked for further clarification and has been met by User:ParthianShot not answering the question, rather squirming out of it. The question is simple enough: "[Can you] add proper image descriptions?", but the answer is a long diatribe about why the question is improper, rather than providing the information or asking for clarification. If you don't want to delete the images based on the conversation, then leave it for somebody else or ask Aksi for clarification.
Finally I understand the strange message you left me on my talk page. There are 2 issues here. The images I tagged on 8 April, and the images uploaded by ParthianShot. As Redvers has said I have a reason to doubt the images uploaded which I tagged on the 8th. Those images look like really professional images to me. They are of a very respected politician of India and it is difficult to get such good images of a person like that. Hence I asked for a source for the images. No source has been provided by the uploader even though it is now 12 days since I tagged the images which leads me to suspect that the images were taken from some other source and are not free images. Hence we should err on the side of caution and delete those images. They can always be retrieved later if the uploader comes with proof of source. About ParthianShot, it is a different issue. The website from which he has taken the images has commited copyvios and hence all images taken from that website should be removed from wikipedia. I haven't tagged any of those images yet. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. My problem with Aksi is not the deletion of the images, but his misuse of his admin privileges. I believe that he has blocked me on basis of a private request by another user (FullStop). The matter was originally raised by another contributor ([[User talk:MedianLady), that Aski and Fullstop had to have private email exchanges regarding this matter. (Please see: [11], [12]), [13], [14], [15], [16]). However, I would greatly appreciate if someone look into this matter. Regards ← ← ParthianShot(Talk) 10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Images must have a source. Images without source information may be deleted 7 days after being tagged. That's policy. Regarding images uploaded by ParthianShot, the dituation should be discussed at Possibly unfree images to determine whether they are reliable. Regarding ParthianShot's images, he uploads images sourced to a web site that has a prominent GFDL license posted. However, that web site has been proven to post textual copyvios, therefore the accuracy of the GFDL release for the photos is also in question. Thatcher13118:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Thatcher131: ...However, that web site has been proven to post textual copyvios..! May I ask how and when it was proven? Can I see the evidence for this claim? Thanks. ← ← ParthianShot(Talk) 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Please direct all communication regarding blocking of pedophilia advocates directly to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org Fred Bauder12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.
Recently, while on vandal patrol I noticed that someone from an anonymous IP had created the article Trans Thane Creek in the articles talk space rather than the article space. I assume that the article's creation was in good faith as it seems benign, so I moved the article info to the appropriate spot. Only problem is I could not move the edit history (as found in Talk:Trans Thane Creek), I worry that anyone seeking information on that subject may try to contact me for clarification. I didn't write this article, just did a minor fix and moved it; I don't know anything about the subject. - HammerHeadHuman(talk)(work)07:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The prod tag puts it in the correct category, and an admin will get to it in due time. There is no need to duplicate the request here. CMummert · talk13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't dispute the prod. If this were a music site with less stringent sourcing requirements, it would be a clear keep. Although I found it a useful and interesting article I don't think it belongs here. (Writing this on the assumption that nobody else has disputed the prod since I wrote). --kingboyk13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry :-), I just nommed it for AfD, I think it would be better to get a greater consensus before deleting, maybe someone will find some better sources. Ryan Postlethwaite14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the prod tag? It was tagged for the correct amount of time, nobody took issue with it, now it's supposed to be deleted (I think). I don't get it. I was going to list it at AfD originally but the AfD page says it should be prodded first. This place is confusing... :-O I don't think it's right to give special treatment to this just cuz you like it or something. The Parsnip!14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, I contested the prod, I don't feel this article should be deleted without getting further comments into it, I may be wrong and it may be speedily deleted, but the prod still had 5 hours to go, you can still comment on the AfD. I'm not giving special treatment and I resent that accusation. Ryan Postlethwaite14:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I thought it said the prod was expired. Why do you think it needs more comments? If it's not notable then it's not notable. Anyway, whatever. I voted delete at Afd. The Parsnip!14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
When you prod an article, the reason that the deletion is not done automatically when the tag expires is to give one more chance for a human to review it. If there is doubt that the deletion would be uncontested, it is perfectly appropriate to change to AFD, and there is some element of discretion in the process. Now that the prod is contested, the page shouldn't be speedily deleted. (Note that I have had nothing to do with that page except to comment here). CMummert · talk14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I just believe it's best to give people chance to review this with an attempt to find some sources for it, I've found a couple of ones already, but let's take this to the AfD page now, not here. Ryan Postlethwaite14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As he was requested to do, this user has proven his identity with the OTRS department. Don't know what you want to do with this, but I thought I'll report it... --Mbimmler15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This issue hasn't been receiving much attention so I thought I would bring it up here. Whenever you receive a new message the orange "You have new messages bar" should show up but it does not under an IP address or it malfunctions and stays stuck. So for all those who revert vandalism, the warnings being posted on IP talk pages may not be received because the messages bar doesn't show up. To confirm this, just test it out yourself. Send a message to your IP address and see if you receive it logged out. This issue only affects IP addresses. -- Hdt83Chat01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't work for me, and hasn't done so in a while (I've been testing with my uni IP address). What's worse is that I blocked the IP as a test for a few hours, and the orange bar only came up when I looked at the block message. – Rianaऋ01:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I tested it as well, and it didn't come up. I recall an incident early on in my administrative career where I blocked an IP, and then the IP requested unblocking because he/she didn't know that he/she was getting warned on the IP's talk page. Maybe they had the same problem. // Sean William01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just tonight a similar thing has started happening to me. My issue is that the messages bar shows up in white and not that unattractive, yet highly visable, orange color. So if I wasn't used to the way pages should look (article text starting at a certain point down the page and such), I might just not even notice that it's there. And yes, this is while I'm logged in. Dismas|(talk)05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Dismas, I suspect that you have an entirely different problem; try bypassing your cache. --ais523 11:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Request for two AFDs to be closed by the same admin
Is there any way I can get two AFDs to be closed by the same administrator? One of the noms is on a single article, while the other nom is on multiple articles. Both of these should've been combined into one AFD, but were not. Both of these have been open for four or five days, so merging the two discussions now would be impractical. Many people cross-posted on both of these, and I don't want the points brought up on one to be missed by the one who closes the other. Regards, Tuxide06:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I just went through Category:Screenshots of web pages and deleted over 20 images that were tagged with {{web-screenshot}} but which were actually just pictures someone found on a web page. There are a LOT more that need deleting: I only got through the As. There may be a way to help avert this problem with better wording at the Mediawiki interface or the tag wording, too. Mangojuicetalk14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Some speedy-deletes are contested with {{hangon}}, and a long argument develops on its talk page. An example is Clacket Lane, which was speedied {{db-band}} at 06:31, 23 April 2007 and (at date) more than a screenful of closely-typed inconclusive arguing (4109 bytes) has been put in its talk page. When that happens, the delete is no longer de facto speedy. What would be the legality of removing the speedy-delete tag, and any hangon tag, and putting a prod tag in instead? Or turning it into an AfD and cut-and-pasting the arguing into its AfD discussion page? Anthony Appleyard18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Since prod is supposed to be for uncontested deletions, in these casaes there is obviously a contest, so i would say that AfD was the way to go. I see no objection to copying part of the reason from the DB tag into the AfD nom, but the nominator would probably want to exapand on the stock tag text. DES(talk)18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I would not advise cutinng and pasting other people's comments into a new AfD, Instead add a pointer to the previous discussion in the AfD, and perhaps one to the AfD on the talk page. DES(talk)18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It would really depend on why the speedy is contested. In most situations, an AfD would be appropriate, but if it was contested simply because it did not meet any criteria (they are intentionally specific) a PROD wouldn't necessarily be wrong. For example, if an article about a person asserts notability but no sources are available anywhere to actually prove notability, a PROD may work, in theory. However, it is likely that the user will simply remove the tag. Mr.Z-mantalk¢19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Generally, if a speedy is contested, and the objection is legitimate, I would take it straight to AFD and link (but not copy) any relevant discussions. I think that's what DES said. YechielMan19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the situation. I have changed speedies into prods before, where no one disputed the speedy tag (and often the article was the original author's only edit and they're never heard from again), but where the article does assert notability but I can't find a thing to support it, or otherwise doesn't meet any speedy criteria. On the other hand, {{hangon}} is not the "this won't be speedied" tag-if it's still unquestionably a speedy, it will be speedied. If it's a borderline case and someone's actively contesting the deletion, probably best to just take it to AfD, if after listening to them you still believe deletion is warranted. And of course, sometimes they'll make a good enough case, or be able to direct you to some sources, so that that's not even necessary! SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man has a point. If soemone contests the speedy in the saense that it should not be deleted at all, prod is a poor idea. But if soemone says "Yes, this ought to be delted, but it does not fit any of the speedy criteria, then converting a db tag into a prod tag may be a good idea, and I have done this myself on several occasions. But the original poster specified that a hangon tag had been used, so thre was substantive, not merely procedural, objection to the speedy. in that case i wouldn't use prod. DES(talk)20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Noah30 keeps removing text (12345) from the Kosovo article (which is on probation) even though the text has two references, one of which Noah rejects as POV (from the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts) and the other one is a book published in Germany. Could someone please tell him to stop removing referenced text from this fragile article? --GOD OF JUSTICE20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a concerted vandal attack going on, but it took me 6 edit conflicts to get my report in. About 20 items in the list. Anchoress02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This user was blocked July 2006 for various things. I have deleted the talk page several times as they seem to want to use it for a blog and linking to their myspace. Today though they asked for a block review. I declined to unblock based on the fact they said it's a role account and the implied legal threat. Of course I could be reading too much into what they said so others might want to review it as well. I'll advise the blocking admin, Tony Sidaway, about this. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)11:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Shared account ("giving passwords away" is shared in my book), edit summaries like "I'm just here to piss on stuff. Particularly, on Jimbo Wales", implied legal threats, regardless of their excuse just now ... I think it should stay declined. - Alison☺11:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the talk page - given the rant and the links to myspace and email, and I have protected the page. Feel free to revert me, no hard feelings, I just think that this block was very much justified and Wikipedia does not have a need for users like these, especially as they state they don't intent to edit ever again. There's always the unblock list if they truly want to have their block reviewed, so that's not a reason to let them edit that talk page in this case. --JoanneB16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - I don't remember all the details of the original blocking - but I do recall this user was bad news.--Docg16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse too. Just for background, this was previously a good account (under a different name) until about a year or so ago, when the user suddenly either freaked out or really gave up his access to somebody else. Ever since then it's been only trolling. If the original user ever wished to return to actual editing, he'd have silently created a new account by now. Fut.Perf.☼16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Cambridge Bay Weather and Doc Glasgow encountered the user months after the user was already blocked, when the user was claiming to be multiple users and using the talk page for sundry purposes. However, all this came after the block. The user was never suspected of being "multiple users" till it claimed to be so after being blocked. The user was blocked for two offensive edit summaries, quite simply. I can go back and discuss the details. All this talk of "multiple users" and this morning's "legal threat" (Mark Geragos posting on the talk page) are after the fact. 68.126.248.1821:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I would support an unblock, if the user promises not to troll or use his userspace inappropriately. As Fut.Perf. pointed out, this was a good user, and I think we should give him another chance. Khoikhoi22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm the user :) and I promise not to "Save" any inappropriate edits anywhere in Wikipedia if I am unblocked. 98% of the bad edits came after I was blocked. And there was no sockpuppetry (ever) or vandalism of articles (besides my User Page and User Talk Page) since then, and classifying those edits as vandalism is controversial. I have not started a new account since I was blocked on July 26th 2006. I don't need sockpuppet charges. 68.126.248.1822:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The two offensive edit summaries: the one referring to Jimmy and another one which you will find in the initial User talk:Winona Gone Shopping, an edit summary made on July 24th, 25th, or 26th. For no reason, I stated (addressing no one, and there was no talk of anyone banning me for anything, it was out of the blue): "Here is my death threat: permanently ban me and I will kill you. Your move, tough guy." This was not addressed to anyone. It was a "silly" threat, as noted. Those two edit summaries are the reason why i was blocked. If I hadn't made those edit summaries I would not be blocked now unless I did something else later. 68.126.248.1823:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
JoanneB, I restored the page for now. I think it's important that others see the odd style that comes from that user or users.
Winona, I knew about you well before your blocking but saw no need to comment at that time. As to what you did in the past that had nothing to do with my declining to unblock you. It was because you said that the password had been passed on to you by Alexander. Who knows how many others he passed that on to. I thought I saw an implied legal threat but I wasn't sure so I brought the matter here.
I understand your concern better now. If I had passed on the password to a friend, then he could have passed it on to who knows who and the account would be unreliable. 68.126.248.1800:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they're all the same person. What happened after the block IMO is not as important as what happened to initiate the block (two edit summaries). And what happened after never exceeded some bizarre edits to (my)Userspace. I apologize for claiming to be more than one person, but I have friends/fans in MySpace who want to believe that I'm Winona Ryder (officially I am not, I assure you) and I know they check up on my activity in Wikipedia because they have told me so. It's "funny" that in MySpace they believe I'm Winona claiming to be Alex while in Wikipedia most believe I'm Alex, perhaps having shared his password. It's all one user. All the edits in my Userspace are not the issue of my block. Unblocked or not I'll refrain from them. My MySpace was quite busy before, the hugest Winona in MySpace till I had to reduce hundreds and hundreds of "friends" because of time constraints. If you search "Winona Ryder" in MySpace, I am the only one. If you search Angelina Jolie, you get like 50 different pages. I'm so unpoopular after the Saks Fifth Avenue scandal :-) gotta go, thanks for your time 68.126.248.1800:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I find the overreactions, belief in multiple users, protectiveness of Jimbo Wales and general ******** here to be very interesting. However, how am I going to change my Username if I am blocked? 68.126.248.1806:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in being unblocked only so I could change my username, then I can be blocked again for those two earth-shattering edit summaries, for which I have already apologized. I mean, what do you think I'm going to do if I get unblocked? I no longer agree with the GFDL license so I don't want to (but I might) edit; I assure you no one has the password except me. If people beyond my control have the password, why would I request the account to be unblocked? 68.126.248.1806:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you just want a name change and then leave, can you e-mail one of the bureaucrats from your account and request a name change through that channel? We'll take care of the userspace pages afterwards. Fut.Perf.☼12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I would settle for that, at least for the forseeable future. Thanks! At first I created the MySpace profile with the same name (in the URl) as my username in Wikipedia to show the identity of the two. But now since I no longer use the Wikipedia account yet I'm still using the same URL in MySpace I want to begin disconnecting the two. Not because I am worried of any serious troubles: I am not impersonating Winona Ryder. I always say that I'm not her. If they don't always believe me that's not my fault. In fact, I may possibly (I can't verify this because Wikipedia is too wide open) be in contact with people who know her, and my page has been up for so long and it is so noticeable (being the only one with that display name) that it is quite likely she knows about it and would have sent an ICBM if she really had an issue with it. I have had another profile deleted under mysterious circumstances which was probably the result of somone taking issue with what I was doing. Anyway, a google search readily shows to people that there probably is a connection between the WGS in MySpace and the WGS in Wikipedia (and I am well aware that a google search will also bring up this page). Changing my username in Wikipedia will help to tone down the connection. 69.224.231.2319:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Should I just log in and send the emails or should I get confirmation that this suggestion is possible ? Once I log in, my IP will be blocked till it changes again. 69.224.231.2319:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Merely logging in shouldn't trigger an autoblock. You can log in and go to people's userpages and use the e-mail function. Give them a link to this discussion. I can't guarantee they'll fulfil the request, but I don't really see why they wouldn't. Fut.Perf.☼19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I forgot. You have to log in and attempt to edit a page, then your IP will be blocked. Thanks for the welcome. 69.224.231.2322:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the theory of multiple users may have some truth to it. I just received orders from Operation Necronomique: "WGS" has served her purpose after 9 months. She gave birth to...something in the fourth dimension. That MySpace was discontinued. This edit will probably be reverted, however I think this whole section should be removed now that we have discussed the problem and resolved it? Thanks anyway. 69.224.231.2309:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this the place to tell admins if DYK is backlogged and you need an admin to clear the backlog?
I asked on ANI, but was referred here. Ironically, the backlog was cleared a few minutes after I posted on ANI, but I'd just like to know for future reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaypoh (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps the best way is to contact one or more of the admin participants listed at DYK; several provide the times at which they are likely to be available in order that you might know whom to contact straightaway. Appending {{Adminbacklog}} should also work, although I, for one, don't think there's anything particularly wrong with one's posting at ANI should there be a significant backup and should DYK not have been updated for 8+ hours. Joe19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope I don't have to post to the talk pages of 10 admins to get the DYK backlog cleared. I'd rather make one post on a noticeboard. Besides saving time, it would encourage more admins to get involved in DYK. Will admins read the {{adminbacklog}} tag? --Kaypoh07:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The understanding of "abuse" and admin misbehavior
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I apologize for using this forum, but I'm not sure where else to present these concerns for general admin attention. WP:WARN has a tag that is described as being for the purposes of warning a user for a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse." This comment relates primarily to the term "abuse" as WP:WARN comprehends it; I apologize if it's kind of long, but I hope it's neverthless concise.
Although WP:Warn uses the term "abuse," it does not define that term, there is no policy "WP:Abuse," and the term is not defined in any canonical wikipedia policy of which I'm aware. And if it is not a defined term of art at Wikipedia, its use at WP:WARN, surely, must be understood in light of its ordinary meaning. See Plain Meaning Rule. That being the case, "abuse" cannot be in use as a wikipedian term of art - at least, not in any sense where admins should be able to sanction and criticize users for construing WP:Warn's use of the term in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the term "abuse."
As I understand it, "abuse" is clearly be a separate concept to "vandalism"; if it were not, it would be redundant to have a tag for abuse distinct from the five-levels of tagging available for vandalism at WP:WARN. This understanding finds support in WP:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse:
WP:Vandalism does not include "abuse" within its definition of vandalism ("Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"). To the contrary: it explicitly lists "Vandalism" as a 'subset of the broader category of "abuse," of which it provides several other examples.
Implitly, Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse reinforces the premise that "abuse" is a separate concept to "vandalism": it "is a page intended to hold information describing editors or IPs who should be known by as many users as possible to aid in detecting and defeating their policy violations." That clearly implies an understanding of "abuse" as being "policy violations" generally, not the violation of the vandalism policy specifically.
And of course, WP provides separate fora for reporting "abuse" generally and vandalism specifically. Compare Wikipedia:Abuse reports with Wikipedia:AIV.
My concern is that I've been upbraided and accused by several admins today,[17][18] for allegedly misusing the {{Uw-longterm}} tag, a tag that WP:WARN declares unambiguously to be for the purposes of warning a user for a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse." The conduct which I warned the user for was not vandalism, but serial abuse of the minor edit tag over a period of three years. That, to me, seemed to be by definition a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse," and because I was under the understanding that when a user has engaged in conduct falling within the scope of two or more warnings, they should be served with all applicable warnings - in this case {{Uw-minor}} ("Incorrect use of minor edits check box") and {{Uw-longterm}} ("Long term pattern of abuse") - I added both warnings to the user's talk page.
When the user reacted that s/he was not in violation of policy, I took the issue to ANI for a determination. There was no substantive dispute there that the user had indeed been abusing the minor edit tag. (The only dispute of any kind was a semantic objection as to whether it constituted "abuse", in contradistinction to "misuse" or some other term, but that of course goes to the heart of the point: WP:WARN has no definition of the term "abuse.") However, several admins criticized me because the template that accompanies the warning tag was worded in a fashion that was excessively harsh for the kind of abuse at issue. There's certainly something to that point: the template warns that "This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated." This, of course, is why I discussed the difference between abuse and vandalism at some length at the beginning of this posting: the template speaks as if it were a Level 4im warning for vandalism. But that isn't the purpose for which WP:WARN clearly says it should be used: WP:WARN clearly and unambiguously says that the {{Uw-longterm}} tag warns a user for a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse." There clearly exists a mismatch between the purpose for which AP:WARN advertises the tag and the text of the template.
Thus, I am totally at a loss to see how the admins' beef is not with the wording of the template, or the wording of WP:WARN, rather than me, and I am totally at a loss why several admins have repeatedly insisted that I was "out of line" (and words to the same effect) to use the {{Uw-longterm}} tag to warn a user for conduct that all bar the user agree falls squarely within the the conduct WP:WARN says the tag should be used for. I had understood the purpose of the warning templates as being not to save me keystrokes, but to standardize the formal warning process; so understood, it strikes me as irrelevant what the template says: what matters is whether the conduct at issue merits the warning that WP:WARN says the tag conveys, a fortiori when (as here) the tag has only a single level of warning, rather than multiple levels from which I would choose the most appropriate for the conduct at issue.
I've since been told that I was "technically reading it correctly, but reading it wrong in spirit"[19] - if that's correct, then I've been attacked not because I read the rules wrong, but because the rules are badly drafted or/or inadequately explained by WP:WARN, in that they fail to properly convey in writing their intent. That being so, the conduct of several admins today has been little short of obnoxious. Even to the extent wikipedia is a community, it's a geographically-diverse community communicating through a textual medium. Where is this supposed "spirit" documented? Of necessity, any rules used to govern the community must be written down somewhere, otherwise how the heck is any user supposed to know what the rules are? It might be one thing for a kind of wikipedian common-law to finesse the fine points of the formal rules, but it's absolutely astonishing to be told that there is a wikipedian common-law totally at odds with the formal rules and policies, and that a user can be hung from them when it so takes an admin's fancy. That is an invitation to completely arbitrary administrative action.
In view of all this, I have two points to raise. Firstly and more importantly, I feel that if WP:WARN is going to use the term "abuse," that term should be either defined in the article itself or a policy such as WP:Abuse, or else admins should accept in good faith a user who understands the term "abuse" as comprehended by WP:Warn to mean "abuse" as that term is ordinarily used. And second (and more personally), I feel very much aggreived that several admins have mistreated me by accusing me of bad faith, of misunderstanding and misusing policy generally and the {{Uw-longterm}} tag specifically, notwithstanding that I've used those things in accordance with my good-faith understanding of them which has turned out to comply with them as they are written. When I asked for clarification on what exactly I did wrong, I ran into insults and in one case, what I took to be a threat. Indeed, User:Autocracy is the only admin who responded who actually took the time to try and understand what I was saying.[20] I appreciate User:Autocracy's doing so, but the reactions from user:Theresa Knott and User:AKMask in particular were unwarranted, unreasonable, unduly hostile, in total violation of the letter and spirit of WP:AGF, and strike me as being conduct unbecoming an admin. Simon Dodd02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, templates exist basically as a convenience. If there's any wording in a template that you don't understand or agree with, you should probably use your own words (or a different template.) You told the user "Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated" and "The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." Whether you did that using a template or typing it yourself is basically immaterial. It does seem a bit over the top to call misuse of the minor edit flag as "vandalizing a page". Herostratus03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding of it is completely backwards to how I had understood it. I didn't tell the user that "Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated" - I formally warned them that they were serially abusing a wikipedia tool by using the tag WP:WARN provides for the purpose of formally warning a user for abuse (and abuse is distinct from vandalism, as I explained above at considerable length).
As I understand the purpose of the WP:WARN templates, they are part of the formal disciplinary mechanism at WP. When I've asked at WP:AN for a user to be banned before, I've been told that I can't make that kind of request until I've gone through the formal warning process of WP:WARN. So my understanding of the WP:WARN tags is this: if a user violates something for which they could be formally warned per WP:WARN, they should be appropriately tagged. If multiple tags apply to their conduct, multiple tags should be used. (If any of that understanding is wrong, it not only isn't contradicted by any stated policy I'm aware of, it is refuted by very strong implication in WP:WARN.) Both of the tags I used applied to the conduct at issue, so I used both. In a formal warning of violating WP policy, I had thought, what matters is whether the conduct falls within the scope of the warning; it's of no more relevance, as I see it, that the wording of {{Uw-longterm}} seems to me to be excessively harsh (and maybe even inapt for the violation WP:WARN says it should be used) than it is that the wording of {{Uw-minor}} seems excessively milquetoast. As I see it, that isn't a determination for me to make. I determined the user violated WP policy; WP decided how big a deal it considers such a violation to be, and assigns text comensurate to how big a deal it is to the warning template.Simon Dodd03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the message you gave. It included this content (from the {{Uw-longterm}} template):
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You did tell the user that "Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated." You also threatened that they would be blocked. Maybe you didn't intend to say that, but that's what you said, because apparently you neglected to read the template before using it. --bainer (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just because part of the template uses the term "long term pattern of abuse", does not mean it fits all instances of abuses when the rest of the template refers to vandalism. If you would like to start a WP:Abuse and even make templates for that, I'd even jump in to help construct it, but until then, use your own words or use the correct template, not just the one with the few words that convey your thoughts. CASCADIAHowl/Trail04:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding of it is completely backwards to how I had understood it.
This hit's the nail on the head. You are in fact understanding the templates completely backwards from everyone else. They are not a formal system that you have to use. They are a shortcut to typing, nothing more. If you cannot find a template that says what you want to say then you just go ahead and say it normally. Now it is true, as you said on my talk page, that admins will not block a vandal unless they have been warned first, but they do not have to be warned via a template. People just use them for convenience. Perhaps your misunderstanding comes from statements like "I will not block unless the user has received at a least a level three warning". Admins do say this sort of thing all the time but that again is just a convenience, do not take the words literally. The admin doesn't mean "I have to see a level three of higher template on the page", they mean "The user must have been warned that if they continue what they are doing they will be blocked". You can do it via a template, or you can write your own warning, either way, if they have been warned, they have been warned. I hope this clears the matter up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn05:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: changes to WP:WARN, proposal of WP:Abuse
I'm going to split this into a subsection, because it covers a series of changes I think that can and ought to be discussed from my beef with preceding admin actions.
Per User:Cascadia, I have proposed WP:Abuse. I've also made changes at WP:WARN that attempt to bring the text into accordance with what is being advanced as its "spirit." (I reiterate that it is preposterous in a written medium that a user can be adminlynched for following the letter of a policy at the expense of its supposed (and unwritten) "spirit"). I appreciate contributions and assistance on this, as I've never proposed a policy before; indeed, I wasn't aware that users have any right to modify policy or propose new policy. As noted below, I've incorporated Theresa's understanding of templates into the main text of WP:WARN; I've also created appropriate warning tags. My original plan was to change {{Uw-longterm}} to {{Uw-longtermvandalism}} and create {{Uw-longtermabuse}}, but realizing that {{Uw-longterm}} is probably in use all over WP, I contented myself with changing the description of {{Uw-longterm}} at WP:WARN to reflect what I'm now told is its actual purpose (long term vandalism), creating {{Uw-longtermabuse}} and labelling it appropriately. The new template reads:
If what Theresa says above is correct, that was previously inadequately conveyed in written policy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that what Theresa says is the common-law understanding is completely at odds with the actual text. I have updated WP:WARN - coped and pasted from Theresa's comment - to make clear the purpose of templates. Wikipedia exists in a written medium; my misunderstanding came from taking written policy as it was written. Where there is ambiguity, as there clearly was here, Admins should presume good faith (which Theresa did not, in my view) as long as the user's understanding is reasonably consistent with the ordinary meaning of the policy's text, except where its terms are defined elsewhere in policy, a point I have also included in the WP:Abuse proposed policy.Simon Dodd13:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That is utterly reprehensible. I make a good faith effort to try and fix an identified problem, and your first reaction is to nominate it for deletion. Combined with your threat the other day, we can safely say you're now well into the exception to WP:AGF.Simon Dodd14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The understanding I had formed from reading the policies (WP:Blocking and WP:WARN in particular) and from previously attempting to get a user blocked was that while users could be informally warned on their talk page, there was a formal warning process, WP:WARN formed its core, and that admins would not block a user until the formal warning process had been observed. That policy made a great deal of sense, but this whole issue arose because a template WP:WARN advanced for abuse was too harshly-worded for warning a user for abuse rather than vandalism. The several changes I've proposed this morning seek to clarify the purpose of warning templates, to better-tailor the text of the templates to their purpose, and to clarify how policy terms generally and "abuse" in particular are to be construed by users and admins. This is a good-faith effort to try and protect other users from the kind of treatment I got yesterday. It's completely irrational and unreasonable to ask users to conform their behavior to policy if the policy the admins will enforce is other than what is in the written policy.Simon Dodd14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, were you trying to get a user blocked because he missapplied the minor edit tag? Is that why you want to put some sort of "official template" on his talk page? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No. The story there is that s/he'd irritated me with her/his attitude at an article we disagreed with the content of. During that edit war, I noticed that s/he kept signing his edits as "minor edits" which they plainly weren't. I resolved the edit war problem by requesting (and getting) page protection, which I regarded as the end of that matter. But I wanted to tell her/him to quit with the minor edit tags, and because I was irritated with her/him, I wasn't in any mood to cut them a break - they were plainly violating WP policy, so I skipped directly to (what I thought was) the formal WP:WARN system. As I keep trying to explain, my understanding - right, wrong or otherwise - was that when you use the WP:WARN tags, you use all those which apply. My understanding - right, wrong or otherwise - was that when using the WP:WARN tags, the point is the violation that the tag is provided for, not the text of the tag.
I can't imagine any admin banning someone for such a relatively minor infraction of WP policy, no matter how longstanding (for the same reason, I thought the wording of the template for such a violation was pretty harsh and inapt, but again, as I keep saying, within my understanding of what the WP:WARN templates are for and how they're used, I didn't think that was any of my business). I just wanted them to stop abusing the minor edit tag, and I had understood that a prerequisite to requesting any kind of admin intervention (i.e., in this case, reporting them at AN/I and having an admin tell them to stop abusing the minor edit tag), if they wouldn't stop of their own volition (and of course that's precisely what happened), was to first use the WP:WARN templates.
Now, my understanding of this process is apparently wrong, Theresa. But for any policy that is enforceable against users, there must be a way that a reasonable user of ordinary intelligence can discover what the rules are. The problem here wasn't that I didn't understand what the specific template said, it was that I was mislead by WP's written policy and previous replies by admins in blocking requests as to what the purpose of using the WP:WARN templates is. Now, you must surely see that there's only two possible ways that a user can discover that mistake: (a) if it's written somewhere in WP policy, or (b) if they get it wrong ("wrong" being defined by common practice) and an admin tells them so.
An appropriate response by the admins at AN/I would have been something like what an admin has subsequently put on my talk page.[21] What he wrote there is perfectly lucid and reasonable. But it isn't in any written canonical WP policy document that I'm aware of. That left only one way I could find that out: to get it wrong and be told so. If one of the admins at AN/I had responded the way Ben responded on my talk page, that would have been fair and reasonable. But that isn't what happened: you guys formed a lynch mob and started hurling insults and threats at me. At no point did any of you grasp that you were trying to hang me from an understanding of WP policy which is not only not embodied in any written policy, but in fact cuts against the very strong insinuations of several written policies, not the least of which being WP:WARN itself. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for me to feel pretty aggreived by the way you guys conducted yourselves.Simon Dodd15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to aggrevate you. The truth of the matter is that i was absolutely flabbergasted by what you said, and couldn't believe that you would post a template on a user's talk page without reading it first, and then couldn't believe that you wouldn't remove the template as soon as you saw what it said. You are quick to critisize the behaviour of several admins but perhaps less eager to examine your own behaviour. The first piece of advice given to you was pretty polite. Yet instead of following it you argued. When admins could not believe their ears and argued back you accused them of attacking you. When several admins chime in and state that you were wrong you accused them of being a lynch mob. Be assured, no one is trying to hang you. Personally I just want you to stop. Oh yes and go and remove that template. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You are quick to criticize the behaviour of several admins but perhaps less eager to examine your own behaviour.
That's because my "behavior" can only be considered unreasonable if one accepts the predicate that users should somehow "just know" when WP policy doesn't mean what it actually says. And in any event, of course admins are and should be held to a higher standard than regular users: you guys are supposed to know what the policy actually is, and when users are misapprehending it, you're supposed to help them get it right by explaining why the policy doesn't mean what it says. You chose not to do that - you chose to be insulting and reprimanding. I've explained above - for the umpteenth time, it seems - why I didn't remove the template when I saw what it said, so I'm not going to reiterate that in response to your repetated incredulity that I accepted the template as it was.
Furthermore, your description of what happened at AN/I is way off, Theresa. You wrote: "[t]he first piece of advice given to you was pretty polite. Yet instead of following it you argued. When admins could not believe their ears and argued back you accused them of attacking you." That isn't what happened. I reported the infraction, and the "first piece of advice given to" me was that (a) my "concern about the 'minor' tag was correct" but that (b) the template I'd used was too strong. I replied politely - and in good humor, hence the ;) emoticon concluding that comment - to explain why I'd used that template. And at that point, Theresa, someone jumped down my throat and accused me of bad faith, writing "Oh come on! Pull the other one. Is there something we don't know about here." That's the comment that escalated the situation, Theresa, and it was yours. And when I tried to politely explain myself to you, you responded by calling me "way of of line." Other admins piled on. And you don't see why I feel like y'all formed a lynch mob? Are you serious? Simon Dodd16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OK let's stop this right now. I apologise if my remarks came across as overly harsh. I'm pretty thicked skinned myself and assume others are the same. I found it amazing that you didn't remove the warning as soon as you saw it, but that is done now. What I would like you to do now though is to remove the warning. I will remove it myself if you refuse but it would look so much better if you did it. Again I am sorry if I upset you, should have been more tactful. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Given the sheer amount of text Simon has now generated on at least five forums over this trivial matter, I'd not be astonished if some admin stepped in at this point and blocked for disruption. Fut.Perf.☼15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I would hope that users evaluate that comment in light of your threat towards me yesterday, [22] (Theresa, at least, was just insulting - she didn't stoop any lower than that), and in light of your profoundly bad-faith nomination of the category I had just created for deletion without any kind of discussion here or anywhere else, and without the common courtesy of notifying me that you'd proposed it for deletion. Simon Dodd16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"several written policies, not the least of which being WP:WARN itself" - WP:WARN is not (and was not) described as policy anywhere at all - it is simply a system of templates to be used as users see fit. The fact that after it was reorganised it suggested that {{longterm}} was for something other than vandalism is unfortunate, but that is the only problem. The only important "policy" here is "Don't leave a message unless you have read it and mean everything it says. JPD (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that you say that "[t]he only important 'policy' here is 'Don't leave a message unless you have read it and mean everything it says,'" yet don't cite any policy document that says that. Where was it written - so that ordinary users could avail themselves of the knowledge - this time yesterday that the WP:WARN templates are just intended to save keystrokes, and shouldn't be used unless the user agrees with every word of the text? What policy states that policy, JPD? Simon Dodd16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I have received an e-mail query from an ArbCom-banned editor about whether this person may submit comments via e-mail to a user conduct RFC. I know proxy editing isn't allowable, but is proxy commentary an exception? Please advise. DurovaCharge!19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't see the differentiation myself. If they are banned that means they can't participate in the project. --pgk19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That is, to be sure, quite clear under WP:BAN. Nevertheless, I can't imagine that anyone would object profoundly were one to relay constructive (or at least non-disruptive) comments. There are those who construe BAN so strictly as to prevent a banned user's partaking of the project of any way, even a rather propitious one, but I'm not at all sure, the explicit language of BAN notwithstanding, that there is a consensus for such view. If the comments, or, really, any edits a banned user requests to be made by proxy, legitimately advance the goals of the project, I can't see that excluding them would particularly benefit us; seems like one case in which invoking IAR might be appropriate. Joe19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And who decides if the comments are useful in advancing the goal of the project? If there are conflicting views in an RFC then I'm sure one group will see the views of that banned editor as non-constructive. If there aren't conflicting views they add nothing. If you actively invite banned editors to participate in some way, surely that is undermining the purpose of the ban in the first place (and I would hope if it's got to the stage of banning someone there are significant issues with that individual) --pgk20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: I'm not actively inviting anyone. I've received a polite request and want to know whether it's appropriate to fulfill the request. DurovaCharge!20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As above, I would disagree regardless, but the easiest thing would seem to be to post a request for clarification at WP:RFAr to see if the arbitrators intended the ban to prevent participation in RFCs. I'll also note WP:BAN states the intent is "Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban". That certainly seems to preclude any involvement. --pgk20:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration routinely involve banned editors emailing admins and administrators to post comments and rebuttals. This overly tight look at WP:BAN is rediculous. If the comments add something, raise the level of debate or bring a new point, then its WP:IAR time. -Mask?22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
RFC is meant to address an editor's behavior to prevent future disruption. A banned user (whether for one year or indef) will not be in conflict with any other editor any time soon, and there can be little productive purpose to adding a banned user's comments to an RFC other than revenge or getting even. Further, there is every likelihood that the subject or outside commenters will reply to the banned user, neccessitating another round of procy contributions. I strongly suggest that the committee intends bans to be bans. Thatcher13102:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I may have worded it badly, but I intended something as below without the 'own them as your own' part. Good ideas are good ideas, and I wont cripple the project by refusing to listen to a good idea just because the persons been an ass. Doesnt mean we accept them into the fold and bans are meaningless, just that we need to be willing to here all voices. -Mask?06:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In general, if a banned user asks you to make proxy edits, take a look at the suggested edits. If you agree with them, make them, but own them as your own. If you disagree with them, or don't care about them, don't. A banned user is banned. They have no further rights to participate here. And they were banned for a reason. The time to have engaged in dispute resolution was before they got banned. Don't make edits because you think the banned user should be allowed to do so, but only if they would be deemed helpful by an unbanned user; you take responsibility for them. Dmcdevit·t02:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I would think it appropriate if the RFC was about the user in question. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges, and this extends to privileges of engaging in discussion. But if there is an open RFC about a user who is banned, then I do not think it inappropriate for the user to have at least some comments posted; just because someone is banned, they don't become free targets.
After *quite* a bit of work, I am proud to announce CSD AutoReason. After installing, it gives you a drop down box of all the CSD criteria when deleting a page. Also, it links to them, so it provides a link for those not sure was csd g1 means. Hope you all enjoy ^demon[omg plz]21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a neat bit of coding, thanks for taking the time to do the work! Will test it out now as it looks to be operating ok from the code in my monobook. (aeropagitica)22:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea, but it didn't seem to do anything for me. And yes I ddi bypass my cache and even purge the wiki cache for my monobook.js. I tried several varations as can be seen here. no luck. DES(talk)22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is considering using this for real deletions on English Wikipedia, could I persuade you to think twice about it? Isn't it better to take a few seconds writing, in English, your own justification for deletion? --Tony Sidaway17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the reason. If I'm writing out a speedy deletion reason by hand, it's likely to be something like WP:CSD#G1 (and possibly with a word or two like 'nonsense' on the end). The CSD are meant to be clear-cut, and default deletion reasons are going to help improve this (more or less the same reason why there are templates for user warnings). Some things shouldn't have default reasons, though (WP:IAR deletions are an obvious example, and arguably prod deletion should say something more specific than 'expired prod'). I'm not at all convinced writing out reasons for CSD deletion would generate anything better than a default reason (can you think of an example where it would and the article is within the letter of the CSD criteria? I've excluded the case where the application of the criterion is an appropriate stretch and you want to explain it).--ais523 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering the fact that this auto-generates pretty much exactly what I would write otherwise, I don't see what the problem. When I'm clearing out an image backlog (where all of them are going to be the same criteria), I'll still copy/paste my summary, but when just clearing out CAT:CSD where the articles have different codes, this can be very handy. EVula// talk // ☯ //18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I am now using this for pretty much every deletion i make. I do however, often add details to the reason beyond the standard reson from the script, this just sames me re-typing the basics that are always the same. It also ensures that the reason contaisn a proper link to policy. Look at my recent deletions and see if the tool has improved my delete reasons or harmed them. DES(talk)18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please can you go and speak to the user before bringing it here? And what if by some chance this user is actually called Tom Green? Ryan Postlethwaite14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of Tom Green, and would think it's such a generic name to be not a problem unless he's actually claiming to be a notable Tom Green (if you see what I mean). If he is claiming such, then he needs to verify his identity via OTRS I believe. --kingboyk16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that there's more than one Tom Green in the world - unless he claims to be the notable one, I don't think that we need to take any action. If he does make such claims, then his identity should be verified by OTRS, if needs be. Martinp2316:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Problem is that the policy states you cant use your real name if someone else who has your real name is famous. Tom Green has had multiple movies, tv shows, and currently hosts the only live video podcast on the internet. This isn't kosher, needs to be changed. -Mask?16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, if it's a generic name, (which in my opinion Tom Green is) then we tend to assume good faith with it, it's in policy to stop BLP issues and such. If the user starts editing Tom Green then there may be an issue, until then, it's fine. Ryan Postlethwaite16:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
With a weekly schedule and callers. You can download it later, too, but he streams it live when it happens. It's led to some.... interesting moments. I only found the site after Alex talked about it in relation to... gah, forget the name, that one singer guys show... Lynchworld! there we go. -Mask?16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agreee. His user page states that he is 21 years old -- that alone probably establishes that he is not claiming to be the notable podcaster. DES(talk)17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, also his talk page explains "If you were looking for Tom Green, the Canadian comedian, whose real first name is actually Michael, you want this article: Tom Green." Addhoc17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, after I've been shown the commoness of the name, and him disavowing that hes any of the famous ones, I think my earlier reaction was a bit harsh. -Mask?20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted two fairly unpleasant unreferenced additions at Broseley, see diff 1 & diff 2. The user Mike Yates 07 (talk • contribs) contacted me to ask how to get the info into the articles, and I replied. I have now received another message in which the user claims that his account was used without his permission (diff), and asking that the edits be deleted from the history. I'm not sure if this qualifies for deletion/oversight, but could someone advise the user? Thanks, Mr Stephen17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Edits in the history can only be deleted through oversight. These now-reverted edits were simple vandalism and don't qualify for deletion under the oversight policy. No action required or possible here, I think. Sandstein18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Technically you can delete specific revisions, it's just not oversighted (which hides it even from admins). To delete a specific revision, delete the page, then restore all but the revision(s) you want. ^demon[omg plz]19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're of course correct. Goes to show that even what we mean by deletion is a somewhat relative concept. Of course, there's no point in deleting simple vandal edits, either. Having the diffs available to all will be useful if Mike Yates 07's track record is ever in the need of examination. Sandstein19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A new user (User:BlueEarth) and some problems with the recreation of deleted content
I originally assumed good faith with this person and just thought that he did not understand that his articles were inappropriate, but he appears to be unwilling to accept this. If he continues to recreate these articles, his actions will become disruptive. At this point, I think that administrator intervention may be needed. Dr. Submillimeter19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
An editor nominated a chess opening variant article for deletion which was about to be merged into a larger article on the parent opening per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess. I have now implemented the merge (here), and redirected all the other variant articles to the main one. However, I don't want to redirect the nominated article with the AfD tag still on it. Could an admin close the AfD as redundant so I can do this, and then the nom can start an RfD on it if he still wishes to delete it (I wouldn't oppose this, it's a fairly unlikely search term)? I don't want to do a non-admin close on it as an involved party. EliminatorJRTalk01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There are 8 revisions in the history. That history should technically be preserved somewhere under the GFDL, even if the redirect was considered not needed. Carcharoth01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's fine to leave it as it is - the main thing is to close the redundant AfD so I can actually convert the article into a redirect - thanks. EliminatorJRTalk02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not just you, but neither have edited in a month. Certainly they are seemingly vandalistic/nonsense throwaway accounts, so I'm not going to block them because I do policy wonk when contributions are that old. But I will watch for further contributions. Thanks, Calton. Teke04:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, open proxies are and should be blocked on a regular basis. There seems to be a strong consensus that anonymous editing from Tor nodes should be blocked. I usually see account creation likewise disabled. From what I've seen, though, there doesn't seem to be consensus on the "anon only" block option -- some admins block all users, others block only IP users, and I frequently see Tor blocks reconfigured one way or the other. As a community, do we have any particular preference, here? Blocking anons and registration seem to be unanimously agreed upon, it's only blocking accounts that seems to be a sticking point. I haven't seen any arguments or upset feelings over this, and don't have a particularly strong opinion, myself, but figured it couldn't hurt to discuss. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk)06:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that a lot of good wikipedians use Tor. I am thinking about installing it myself, but I am worried about this. I support soft blocks only, because then a vandal would have to register over a regular connection. If they got blocked, their main IP would be autoed, so I support soft blocks. mrholybrain's talk12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser has repeatedly found abusive sockpuppets editing through soft-blocked tor proxies. Anyone smart enough to use tor is smart enough to find an ublocked IP to create a sockfarm and age it, then edit through tor. Hardblocked tor users can edit through the secure server. Thatcher13115:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As previously, soft blocks aren't so soft and have their own implications for use. These are anonymous open proxies by any other name and should be treated as such. --pgk18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think, and have long advocated, that Tor should be anon-only+account creation blocked, but anonymous edits should be permitted. We should also automate this, and for gods-sake we should only block edits from exit nodes, not middle nodes. If you're able to find an unblocked IP to create the sockfarm you'd also be able to find an unblocked IP to use the sock farm. I don't see how we can claim to respect users privacy but we will aggressively block any method a user could use to actually achieve said privacy in a strong way. --Gmaxwell18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I block tor exit nodes as a full block (everything on). So NOT anon only, and account creation disabled. I don't believe we don't guarantee privacy, and these are just open proxies. Prodegotalk20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies."[23] As TOR proxies are clearly anonymous, I believe the official Wikimedia policy is to block them with a hard block. Certainly, these proxies are widely abused by bannedsockpuppeteers such as Verdict (talk·contribs) and only a hard block would stop that. --Yamla20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Users in China frequently can only edit through TOR. Thus, hardblocking TOR could increase the systemic bias problem.
TOR can protect good editors from having their IP collected and published offsite when they forget to log in.
In case the Wikimedia Foundation receives a subpoena, TOR can protect good-faith editors who accidentally inserted libel.
I should admit that I have a conflict of interest here - If all (or almost, more likely) TOR exit nodes are blocked, I will have to leave Wikipedia.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The Problem With TOR is that although in theory it's a fantastically nice idea, in practice it's overwhelmingly a firehose of sewage. I'm not sure how to solve this. But there's good reason TOR nodes are shot on sight possibly more assiduously than other open proxies - David Gerard11:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This page was deleted by Thebainer (as far as I know, without consensus), and I believe it to be very useful. I don't think this was the correct action (should have been an MFD, which was never announced on the page and therefore probably was not done), but I'd like to know your opinions. · AndonicOTalk15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is neither a rant nor a hoax: There is a big media company on the Gnutella network that parsed our list of usernames and now abuses the good names of Wikipedia's administrators. It makes it look as if these people commit an illegal activity, which may be particularly objectionable for those who registered under their real names.
If you want a few faked names, timestamps, and the IPs of those search results that say "FreplySpang offers an illegal copy of Petula Clark's Downtown" for example, I can provide them.
There's not much really you can do, except forward details to the Foundation and see if they can take action., and perhaps email the users affected by this and let them know someone is pretending to be them online The boards here are focused inward towards WP, not outwards. SirFozzie20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that those aren't the actual administrators? I assure you that the cabal is fond of Petula Clark; we invited her to sing at last month's potluck in London. Ral315»20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I hoped perhaps there was someone here who could push it "further up" to the Foundation. You'd have to e-mail pretty much all of the admins, remember, their business model is flooding the network with fakes. Seems to me like organized libel and identity theft. 84.129.131.8721:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Theres no real need, they'd sue based on IP, not name. And im pretty sure no admins going to care. Id imagine all of them spend time on the networks. Perhaps moved on to bittorrent from gnutella, but still. -Mask?22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's safe to say that none of the admins will get sued. Still, I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation can be quite amused when another company takes the rather unique and identifiable name of their Chief Technology Officer (along with all the other admin names), and publishes search results that imply he's commiting some big-style copyright infringement. 84.129.176.2310:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you give more information about what's going on? I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that if you search on the names of Wikipedia administrators a lot of fake file hits on the Gnutella P2P network will show up? --Cyde Weys00:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Cyde, from what he's saying apparently that Wikipedia Editor Names (whether a nom de plume, or if you registered under your real name, that name) show up on various searches by someone apparently attempting to poison/Entrap P2P networks. Not being into that kinda stuff, I can't tell you if it's true, or if it's not. SirFozzie00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. You enter a query for any major artist or title in a Gnutella client such as Shareaza, and you're likely to get results back saying those files are shared by hundreds of people named like Wikipedia's administrators. If anyone wants to confirm it, they're currently still active (far as I can tell only on the Gnutella2 network).
It's not just another petty ad-ware porn spammer. It must be organized by one of the BIG "media protection" companies that have servers all over the world. MediaDefender, MediaSentry, Overpeer and their ilk. Only a few could generate such large amounts of traffic.
Hey, could this be some twisted revenge plot? Was an article for one of those companies recently deleted by an administrator? 84.129.176.2310:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(dons the tinfoil-padded radar hat and the Conspiracy Scope Goggles) Uh, most record companies fulfill corporate notability criteria and stand pretty firmly on the undeletable side. I find it possible, if extremely extremely far-fetched, that this could be some (deleted) small label's retribution, but it'd take enormous amounts of lunacy to orchestrate this sort of stuff. Simpler explanation: Some RIAA-hugging anti-piracy company tech answered the question "where the heck do I get a list of bogus user names?" by going to Wikipedia:List of administrators. Then he told his boss, "It's not like anyone will notice or anything". =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think we've found the evil mastermind behind it all: one of those results today was at 12:43 from 89.101.72.66 for "14- Uptown Girl_128_lame_cbr[www.torrentazos.com].mp3" - shared by "JimboWales". 84.129.143.22812:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
One might find something out by filing abuse reports with timestamp and IP to the service providers that hosted them. Or, one could just start with the 'usual suspects', [25] or [26] perhaps, and give them an official call asking if they happen to "know" something. Of course they won't, but maybe that's enough to make it stop, all of a sudden... 84.129.176.8516:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I came across a request to have an autoblock removed on User talk:Pikminlover, and just before I granted the request, I noticed this user has suffered multiple autoblocks. I've outlined the issue briefly on the talk page, but it seems this user is engaging in sockpuppetry in order to vandalize using one account, then revert and report the vandal account with the first. On four occasions, a user who is blocked as a result of Pikminlover's reverts/AIV reports has resulted in an autoblock on Pikminlover's account. Seems a little too much of a coincidence. I've declined the request for now, but would appreciate another set of eyes. - auburnpilottalk05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks suspicious to me - even if h tends to use public IP addresses/proxies, reporting the user shouldn't tend to cause his IP address to get the autoblock. There are lots of IP addresses autoblocked, and the probability that his gets autoblocked every time he reports a vandal is so slim that I would probably open a WP:SSP report about him. OdMishehu10:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, (1) this is an 11-year old kid (at least that's what they say), (2) most of the other accounts that where then blocked previously had friendly contact with his account (wrote on each other's talkpage etc.) So either this is some sock vandalism game, or a bunch of kids at school. Fut.Perf.☼10:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My original thought was that it might be a couple of kids bored at school, but the IP addresses don't appear to trace back to a school [27][28][29][30]. Unless I'm missing something, they all appear to be fairly static addresses for a home and/or business. - auburnpilottalk17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, User:Smeagal, myself and a few other editors are currently discussing the reliability of some information and the source of that information on the Metalocalypse article. My concern is that Smeagal is threatening on his talk page that he and other 'roadies' (his words) from a Metalocalypse message board will continue to re-add the information, regardless of the discussion outcome and with disregard for wikipedia policies. I was wondering if an admin could have a quiet word with him about this? DarkSaber2k17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not quite this forum but WP:AN/I is possibly better. I've told him that canvassing people to keep adding information can be disruptive and making the threat can be harassment - and that constantly spamming the link can be considered spam. But it seems like a content dispute and dispute resolution is your friend. x42bn6Talk18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you can assist me?. I created a page last year describing the conviction and eventual reprieve of William Herbert Wallace (that is the name of the page) for the murder of his wife in England in 1931. (I also created ones for Florence Maybrick and The Cameo Murder)
+ Since I did this, another contributor has added a a footnote which is incorrect, has no substance in fact and is simply his theory. The Wallace case is an internationally known mystery and no other person has ever been convicted of the crime. The footnote cites a theory by a Keith Andrews, who decribes himself as a criminologist and author. An exhaustive search of the internet has not turned up any published work by this person and he description of himself as a criminologist applies in the same way it might to anyonw who has read a book on crime.
+ His theory is without any foundation and leaves a reader with the impression that the murder is now solved. This is not correct as the murder happened in 1931 and all those involved are most likely dead. Andrews cannot claim to have solved the murder because, in the absence of a signed confession ever coming to light, it is unlikely ever to be resolved. This addition therefore is untrue. I have attempted to remove the last two lines of the article, that I was very satisfied with but the page is protected. If Andrews wished to expound his theory, and that is all it is and is ever likely to be, then he should have created a page of his own rather than altered mine. I would like the page to be "unprotected" so that I can remove this incorrect addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophymalophy (talk • contribs) 15:00, April 25, 2007
Note that the article now says that the case is unsolvd, but that Andrews believes in a particular solution. Note also that Keith Andrews (criminologist) cites published work about this theory, as well as other published work both by and about Andrews. It is surely true to say that Andrews "belives" a solution when he has published arguemts for it. DES(talk)17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speakign, no, but most users view "their" user page as, in a sense "theirs" and WP:USER suggests that edits to soemone else's user page agaist that user's wishes should only be done in rare an exceptional circumstances (such as if the page is violating policy). Simialrly, if a parson is draftign a template or policy proposal or the like as a subpage of his or her user page, and askes others to refrain from editing until a stable version is ready, that request will normally be acceded to, again barring policy violations or the like. Not an absolute right of ownership, but much closer than anywhere else on wikipedia. DES(talk)01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated Keith Andrews (criminologist) for deletion as an obvious vanity piece with no external sources to establish notability (and only 35 Google hits, of which most seem to be either his own or Wikipedia). Guy (Help!) 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocked apologetic user seems to be forgotten about by admins
Administrator Jkelly came to my talk page on 9 April and asked my help in cleaning up a copyright mess. He directed me to a section of this noticeboard which has since been archived. Orbicle(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) had committed numerous copyright violations. Gmaxwell created a list of articles Orbicle had created here, and several of us went through those articles, googling sentences, looking for statstically unlikely phrases, etc. A lot of violations were found, but many of the articles/stubs/disambiguation pages were clean. While we were looking through them, Zscout370 blocked Orbicle indefinitely.
In some cases, when I was checking articles, even when I couldn't find any plagiarism by googling, I felt it was better to reword them a little, and sometimes I removed unsourced statements. This led to one of my edits being challenged, on a page about some opera, so, since several of the articles I was checking were about operas, I left a note of explanation at the Opera WikiProject talk page. There was some discussion there, and people felt that it would be over harsh to leave Orbicle blocked forever if he agreed to respect our copyright policy in future. Some of those people posted at his talk page, and at the admin noticeboard. Orbicle put an unblock template on his talk page; the request was reviewed and declined by Irishguy, who wrote, "We are still working on cleaning it all out."
When the cleanup was finished, I hoped that Orbicle would be unblocked. However, I think that administrators simply forgot about him. He had not attempted to to replace the unblock template. He did in fact post an apology and request without reusing the template. I suggested to him that linking to m:Avoid copyright paranoia was not the best way of requesting an unblock, and he removed the link.
Antandrus had said (at the Opera WikiProject talk page) that he'd unblock Orbicle himself if Orbicle promised not to do any more copyvios, and helped us to find the violations. (By the time Orbicle's request for unblocking had been made an rejected, the cleanup was almost finished.) Although Antandrus had said that, I felt that it would be courteous to make the request directly to Zscout370, as it was he who had placed the block. I made a request on Zscout's talk page on 17 April.[32] I kept the page on my watchlist, but there was no reply. On 20 April, I posted that I didn't want to nag, but was there any chance he'd consider it. Again, there was nothing — not even a refusal.[33]
Today, Orbicle posted on his talk page again, apologising once more, promising to be more careful, and saying that he would gladly have helped clean up the mess if he hadn't been blocked. See here.
I don't think there's a danger that he'll do the same thing again, so I really think someone should be willing to give him another chance. I fully uphold the Foundation's copyright policy, and applaud the administrators who work so hard to enforce it. But I think that once there's no longer any danger to the project, it seems rather merciless to keep him blocked forever. When going through his edits, I saw quite a lot of good work, and I am sure he was motivated by a wish to improve the encyclopaedia, and didn't fully realise that copying and pasting a synopsis of a book from Amazon's website, or a list of facts but with identical wording is not acceptable. ElinorD(talk)14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I do love when the Admin noticeboard is actually used for something that involves admins. Based on the vouching seen, I'm unblocking. --Golbez14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I was going to leave a message on their talk page (because they also reverted one of my own valid edits without explanation), but I can't even work out why they're doing it. Vandalism? Some bot going haywire? Some other reason? Could an experienced admin have a look at this, thanks. Pufnstuf20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, according to this, this user must think that any major edit (byte number in bold) is vandalism. Someone may want to take the time to explain how to RC Patrol. --24.136.230.3821:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please take the time, he is my best friend and I can't let him get blocked. I think that we should have someone teach him the basics of RC patrol. --Pupster21Talk To Me23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't really feel to go throught the whole dispute resolution process for what I felt was a pretty straight-forward case of edit warring against consensus.
I brought this hear because this isn't exactly an established user trying to add content that is in a grey area of inclusion, but a user who refuses to discuss their inclusion of content against consensus, reverts others removing the content and is now resorting to sockpuppetry (I know IP's aren't exactly users, but the IP is acting like they aren't the same person.) Even a stern warning from someone with the ability to block the user would be nice to either get the user try to reach consensus or stop altogether. Paul Cyr23:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
He has continually added POV and irrelevant, fan-page trivia, and we've worked with his edits on a bit-by-bit basis and have encouraged him to read Wikipedia policies. Sometimes it works, other times he misconstrues them to a point that he argued it was OK to link to blatantly sales-oriented, commercial sites.
He has finally stepped over the line today by reinserting part of version of the article that in early March, by a consensus of several editors, was rejected.
This is the only thing he does on Wikipedia. We've negotiated, we've discussed, and we did a RfC that he now chooses to ignore. Please, please, please help. At wit's end. What steps do we take now? --Tenebrae03:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The website in question has a copyright page [34] that makes the license clear - it's a creative commons license. That isn't compatible with WP because we don't rerelease our work under a creative commons license. CMummert · talk00:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
CC-by is compatible with GFDL in one direction, as far as I remember. CC-by-SA isn't compatible in either direction, CC-by-SA prohibits the addition of terms to the licence, and the GFDL insists that we keep track of various information which CC-by-SA doesn't, among other things. The Commons uploads are fine because we never claim that the images are GFDL and merely aggregate them with GFDL work. --ais523 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The first revision of Image:TeacTopCassetteDeck.jpg looks like it was accidentally uploaded by a user and contains an image of their family. The uploader is a banned sockpuppet of a banned user, but just the same I think it would be best to delete the revision. I didn't know the process to use since the whole image doesn't need to be deleted, just the first revision. Please point me in the right direction if this is not the correct place to report this. Thanks in advance. --Dual Freq16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I recently gave 207.144.70.66 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) a six month block due to its extensive block log (it now has nine blocks including my block) and filed an abuse report on it. When I was filing the abuse report, I noticed a huge backlog there. Since I have finals coming, I cannot help there. Even if I did not have finals, I would not be the best choice to help in that project because my Asperger Syndrome causes me to stick my foot in my mouth from time to time. Could other people with loads of free time please help in clearing the backlog? It seems that the backlog tag there is being ignored. Thanks. Jesse Viviano17:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
in line with discussions at WT:BLP in respect of the default in deletion debates, and noting Doc's comment in the deletion debate for Jeffrey St. Clair, I would like to suggest a variant of the {{prod}} tag as follows:
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 14 days. (This template was added: 25 November 2024.)
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please improve the article so that it is acceptable according to the policy on biographies of living individuals.
Nominator: Please remember to notify the author(s) of this article via their user talk page using:
I support this. I've long supported the notion that unsourced articles should be nuked, not pushed into the backlogs saying "we'll fix it eventually." Oftentimes it's the BLPs that are the worst, so I think something like this would help to clean things up a bit. ^demon19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It might be nice to alert the Bio WikiProject to this (I'll do it). Personally, I emphatically support. We have well over 100,000 BLPs, most of them unsourced and many of them on the margins of notability. --kingboyk19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely support easier nuking of unsourced BLPs. But... up until now, PROD has been based on unanimous consensus for deletion, which is why people have accepted it. One objection kills a PROD. This proposal, now, will introduce ambiguity and discussions. Who decides whether an article has sufficient, reliable, and independent sources that warrant the tag's removal? One admin? All editors by normal consensus? People are bound to disagree, revert, edit-war over this tag's addition or removal. At which point, why not have a normal AfD in the first place, which is at least a well-established and well-understood process? If we want to make it easier to get rid of WP:BLP issues, a cautious expansion of WP:CSD might be easier in terms of process. Sandstein19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the wording, this tag should only be removed if the article is sourced, and editors get 14 days to do it. The "deleting" admin would have to decide whether the article passes muster or not. If the tag gets removed before then, it's probably incumbent on the original tagger or anybody else who notices it to check the article, and if they disagree, send it to AFD. Just like {{prod}} then, but with a longer grace period and an "only remove if sourced rule". I like it! --kingboyk19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. The onus should be on the BLP writer to provide sourcing and evidence of notability. If neither of these requirements is met, I don't see why we should keep the defective BLP. -- ChrisO19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of WP:BEANS, I would hope the deleting admin would go back a few revisions to make sure a vandal hasn't removed sourcing from the article before prodding it (ala JB196) SirFozzie20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say we don't need a special tag for this, and if the tag is removed it can always be sent to Articles for deletion. I don't support the idea of only allowing the tag to be removed conditionally, because that's a recipe for the very kind of tussle that proposed deletion is supposed to circumvent. --Tony Sidaway20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The point of this proposal, as I understand it, is to create a new deletion criterion, which is "BLP article with no sources". The existing prod won't do because it does not have this criterion. The new tag would be stronger than AFD because it does not require agreement to delete, only agreement that there are no sources. Note I am not arguing in favor, just explaining my opinion of what is being proposed. CMummert · talk20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There need to be sharp criteria for what "doesn't cite its sources" means. If it means there are absolutely zero references or external links, then I would support this, but with a 21 day or 31 day window instead of 14 days. When the reliability of sources or thoroughness of sourcing needs to be evaluated, AFD is more appropriate. CMummert · talk20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
AFD would have to be the final arbiter where there are disputes, but given the potential numbers involved it would be good to avoid that forum wherever possible. --kingboyk20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If AFD is to be the arbiter of disputes, there is little or no difference to the old PROD, except that the new one takes longer. The crucial issue remains: who decides whether the article has proper sources, i.e. whether it should (not) be deleted? If the community decides, AfD is maybe a more appropriate forum. If one admin decides, we're actually facing a new WP:CSD, some of which already have complicated time requirements, etc. Not that I would be against this, it's more a matter of how we structure it. Sandstein20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The community deciding on each and every case could bog down the system. Do we trust admins enough to let one admin decide if an article is adequately sourced? I doubt it. If my summary is correct, that only leaves something like prod, or an entirely new system. --kingboyk20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If the criteria are made explicit, the admin will not have to exercise a great deal of discretion in most cases. CMummert · talk20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
How about a CSD along the lines of "a BLP that lacks reliable independent sources for its substantial claims, and has been tagged to that effect for at least 7 days?" Whether or not we need a special tag for this or whether {{unsourced}} etc. suffice seems to be more of an ancillary question. Sandstein 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC) -- If discussion turns out to be required after the fact, WP:DRV would be the place. Sandstein20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If the closing admin has to read sources to decide if the delete tag is valid, then it's not a "speedy" delete - it's a plan for backlog. CMummert · talk20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't stand in the way of the bio prod idea. It looks like a move in the right direction, with an appropriate grace period. --Tony Sidaway20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be an excellent idea, and would clear the bureaucracy surrounding the deletion of unsourced articles at AFD. Clearly, the criteria would need to be well-defined, but I would trust a single admin to do the deletion, having already been nommed by an editor. What are the current rules about deletion of NN/unsourced articles - can they be deleted unilaterally? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RHB (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
There is a speedy deletion criteria for articles that do not assert notability, but no speedy criteria for articles that assert notability but have no references. Lack of references is a content issue, while deleting an article involves much more than the current content. CMummert · talk23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
BLP states: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced" but is every unsourced statement automatically "contentious"? I'm still on the fence about this. I would support the very long time period (21+ days) and I would make notifying the creator/major contributor mandatory for this. The point is to get articles improved, the creator is most likely to have sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
For those who agree that unsourced BLPs should go, but who do not agree with a new PROD/CSD, it basically boils down to you thinking that they should all go through AFD. What if every unsourced BLP was mass-nommed at AFD? ^demon[omg plz]00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It would go down in flames because AFD is for deletion, not for cleanup. I'm assuming that the BLPs are not marginally notable and would otherwise pass our WP:N test. hbdragon8800:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The new CSD criterium should be applied only to the articles created after some cut-out date (say after May 1 2007) otherwise we would create a backlog of thousands of valid BLP stubs. I would support A9 for the BLP articles having no sources no external links whatsever. Everything at least partially sourced should go through Prods/AfD Alex Bakharev01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced claims about living people are already deletable on sight; eventualism doesn't apply to BLP articles. A BLP with no sources isn't a valid stub. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Was that really the intent of the policy (that there can be no unsourced BP stubs)? It certainly doesn't say that explicitly, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. CMummert · talk02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I did some cleanup of a random selection of articles from User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs a while back and found somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of the articles marked as {{unreferenced}} actually did have at least one reference in them. Since the unreferenced tag is being so widely misused in this manner I'm leery of creating an analogous tag that has deletion as a default action should it go unnoticed for a few weeks. Bryan Derksen07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the closing admin would surely check for sources in the article before deleting. (This proposal is basically WP:PRODUS, by the way, but applied to BLPs only where it will surely be less controversial (but probably still somewhat controversial).) --ais523 08:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, one main difference with PRODUS was that it would have applied only to articles created after it went into effect. (I don't think that's needed here, but it certainly is a major difference.) I said before and I'll say again-"unsourced biography of a living person" should be CSD A9. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be the best way to scare off many of our IP and new contributors, providing good, valid information but without sourcing (as they don't know enough of our policies). Why would we speedy delete e.g. (found through "random article") Barry Middleton, Adrian Moyles (perhaps for notability), [[Tony Baxter (footballer)], Randall Row, Dick Nolan (footbal player) (needs a different title though) or Michael Hutchings (finally a non-sporter!)? Most of them are stubs in need of expansion and (of course) sourcing, but what would be gained by speedy deleting them? It's not as if they accuse the subjects of being involved in the Kennedy murder. Fram08:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
They could tomorrow. Got them all watched? I doubt very many people do. Besides, right now, we pretty much don't care if anyone learns our policies. "Well, sourcing is kinda nice, if you can get around to it eventually." Hrm? That's not our policy. Here's the policy-"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And that goes triple for BLPs. Sourcing makes it easy to check and refute any claims made. And if a BLP gets deleted, but sources exist? Recreate it with the sources cited. Easy enough. If someone wants to write unsourced BLPs, and will not stop that when clearly told that's unacceptable, let's, in no uncertain terms, scare them off. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A similar proposal to this was floated earlier - it's still a very damaging idea.
Consider Category:Senegalese politicians. All very notable, important sorts of people. About half of the articles are unsourced, generally stubs.
Now, yes, we obviously can find sources for articles on all the prime ministers of Senegal. That's not the issue. The issue is that there are very few editors working in this area - often not enough to handle a wave of PRODs on their articles. It's an area of high importance to the project and low participation. To add a rule that allows for deletion in this area makes it far too easy to overwhelm these vital areas with deletions and gut our coverage with no attention to whether or not the articles are actually erroneous.
So, when someone is ready to source, they simply recreate, easy enough. This wouldn't be a "you may never recreate" type thing, or even require a DRV. You got sources, you're ready to recreate, you just do it. Until then, why should we have the article? SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Because we look stupid if we have articles on every Pokemon and two articles on leaders of a foreign country. It is vital that we not take steps that make it harder to have coverage in these areas. Phil Sandifer02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a funding discussion going on here on the foundation mailing list. Perhaps just as each article page has edit, talk, and history a click away - we could have a "paid ads" page a click away. WAS 4.25010:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me be nice and 100% clear here. If Wikipedia ever advertises, in any way, shape, or form, I quit. Period. If mirrors advertise, that's beyond our control. But Wikipedia itself should never, under any circumstances, whatsoever, accept money to promote anything. Doing so would destroy every concept of neutrality we've ever had. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia has the financial resources to run its servers for about three to four months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear.” - February 2007 - Florence Devouard, chairwoman of the Wikimedia Foundation.--Docg10:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
edit conflict x2 A link to the more original draft proposal is here. The concept can be summed up as a) create a new wiki that is devoted to external links and supports advertising and b) only use links sanctioned by linkswiki as external links in Wikipedia. The end result would be no advertising on Wikipedia but advertising on a site that Wikipedia draw on for content. In fairness, the proposal is related as "Obviously, this is a very raw concept.. but I'm interested in hearing what folks think.." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, she later corrected that to state that they had 3-4 months ahead in the bank. For a charity, that's not too bad. It's not like donations are about to stop today. Regardless, if this is something the Foundation wants to do, then we need to be hearing from, and discussing it directly with, them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a Foundation issue, how is AN the appropriate place for this discussion? WP:VP might be the place to go to. – Rianaऋ11:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused about this all, but I believe users are not permitted to remove AfD tags until the issue is resolved. Now if that is correct, 71.217.39.122 is constantly removing the tag and it has been replaced again and again. I don't want to break the 3RR or make things worse myself so I am requesting some administrative assistance in this matter as I'm not sure what to do. .:Alex:.18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This guy removed prod's, which is kosher, but then went on to replace his talk page with a ridiculous "Why Wikipedia is gay" rant. Now he's removing AfDs. AGF is out the window. JuJube18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
User has been blocked, and the two articles have been protected for four days (expiring about a day before the AfD is closed). EVula// talk // ☯ //18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Protecting an article on AfD is usually a bad idea, as those who favor keeping the article can and often do respod by trying to fix problems cited by those who favor deletion. There are cases where protection is needed. Would semi-protection do here? DES(talk)19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, poor wording on my part; the articles are semi protected.[36][37] I'd never fully protect an article on AfD for what are apparently obvious reasons. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute at WT:NPOV (specifically this thread) about some text that was added in Dec. 2004 without discussion and remained in place until a few days ago. The text in question is relating to the controversy of Shaskesperean authorship. As it stands, I seem to be the only one there who is not involved with editing articles relating to this. I would appreciate it if some more neutral editors could comment on the issue. See the Dec. 2004 edit, the April 24th change, the April 27 reversion as vandalism, and my reversion as it was not vandalism and was discussed on the talk page. Mr.Z-mantalk¢19:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I've had a hard time getting anyone interested in fixing a couple of issues with the current incarnation of MediaWiki:Sidebar (albeit fairly minor ones). I've posted an {{editprotected}} at MediaWiki talk:Interaction, posted at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar, posted at WP:VPT (see the archive here), and written up an analysis of the problems and a proposed solution. Since it's been over a week and I've gotten pretty much zero response, I decided to post here instead of reposting the same thing at WP:VPT.
The issues and their fixes are a little on the tech side, but basically they relate to tooltips and stability of XHTML ids for custom scripting and CSS styles. Most of my analysis document should probably be turned into documentation for how to make future updates to the sidebar. I'm hoping that posting here will generate some interest in getting things fixed. Mike Dillon03:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was recently told that I was not allowed to give two users a barnstar because my barnstar had not been approved through the "proper channels". Since basically barnstars can be given by anyone, to anyone, for any reason, I found this approach rather baffling. In the spirit of cleaning up overly bureaucratic subprocesses like WP:ESP and WP:PAIN, perhaps some people could take a look at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals? >Radiant<07:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This probably doesn't need administrator attention, but I agree it is baffling. I've got an "unauthorized" barnstar on my own userpage, and I honestly think the idea of "authorized" barnstars (!) is strange. It seems like bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. I support the removal of instruction creep whenever possible. Firsfron of Ronchester07:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I recently created a new form of barnstar (in utter ignorance of the fact that some people thought they should be approved), just because I wanted to give some users a pat on the back. If one user wants to thank another, why should a bureaucratic process step in to stop them? Sam Blacketer10:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, you know better than this. If you want to make a form of wikitext and call a barnstar, do it. You can then offer it to the person of your choice, and if they like it they can place it on their user page. There is no bureacracy there so there's nothing to reform. Please feel free to re-educate in your own inimitable way anyone who incorrectly believes that such informal activities are subject to some form of regulation. --Tony Sidaway10:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is an opportunity - albeit an annoying one - to educate the users rather than to shrink from the shadow of Big Brother falling over Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There was one misguided attempt at creating a "Wikihalo", which User:Phaedrial rightly turned down a nomination for. This was revitalised recently and handed out as "Wikipedia's top award" without much discussion. I suggested maybe the criteria should be tougher, but thinking about it recently I realised I was wrong. We don't need it, period. Let users thank other users spontaneously not by way of committee. --kingboyk13:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I think the person was saying that you should not add your new barnstar to the "official" list without demonstrating a consensus to do so rather than saying that you could not create and present whatever award you liked as a personal matter. Whether control over a so-called "official" list of barnstars/awards is necessary or desirable is another matter.
WP:CRIC had a run-in with the award people about a year ago when we were told that we were not allowed more than one "official" WikiProject award. Well, "Nuts", as I believe one US general famously said. All these petty satrapies around the place. Sigh. -- ALoan(Talk)10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
They all seem to be dying MfD-induced deaths. Somehow, I don't think we'll be worse off, specially not if wikiprojects are being dictated to concerning some sort of award "quota"...MoreschiTalk17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposal: I think someone who likes doing graphics should come up with an 'IAR Barnstar' which you are allowed to give to people who: 1) cut through bureaucracy or 2) resist instruction creep or 3) are generally bold, or 4) any other reason you bloody well like, since there are no rules. Such a barnstar must be entirely unofficial for ever. (And I want one) --Docg12:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I, Ali'i award this middle finger as an Ignore All Rules Barnstar to all that have contributed to this lovely discussion. Aloha! --Ali'i18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Please place said award on my talk page, to go with my Peanut Butter Jelly Star (which I promised I wouldn't mention, so don't tell anybody else about it. Apparently it may only be given to folks who have worked on internet articles ;)) --kingboyk18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is a good idea. The best uses of IAR are where no one even notices that it was used; the second best are where no one cites it as justification. When one employs IAR, one should never refer to IAR specifically. Rather, one should always be saying, "I am doing A, B, and C for good solid reasons X, Y, and Z." If actions A, B, and C happen to not line up with a strict reading of policy, then so be it. You bent the rules because of your very sensible thinking on points X, Y, and Z; it has nothing to do with your wanting to flex your IAR muscle. If someone were to come up with an "I used my common sense" barnstar (or does one already exist?), that would be behaviour worth encouraging. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
While this user had made a few contributions to some pages on the old Heavy Metal rock band Led Zeppelin, both before and after that he has dedicated his account to disruptive activity and vandalism. He most recently effectively blanked the entry Wikipedia, apparently upset that his insertion of pornographic imagery was reverted in various articles (see his talk page). He also blanked the article foot, in a manner similar to his blanking of Wikipedia. I would suggest that the user be indefinitely blocked to prevent any further disruptive activity. Larry Dunn20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry but don't see any indication of that on the user page or talk page (I'm not an admin, of course). Larry Dunn03:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can view the block for any user account. See [38] for this one. The tags added to the user page are not definitive and can be added by anyone, and vandalism and many other blocks usually do not have them because adding them is typically a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
70.71.147.143 (talk·contribs) has been repeatedly changing the spelling of Maserati MC12 from British to American spelling contrary to policy, even after I had notified him/her about it (see their talk). It's approaching 3RR so I brought it here. See the history for the only contact (via edit summaries) they have issued. How should I proceed? I don't think blocking for disruption is appropriate and if it is I shouldn't because I'm directly involved. James086Talk | Email07:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
He ignored your polite warning and did it again. So I warned him. He also attempted to plonk a picture of a penis (an erect human penis, I fear) on the user page of somebody else who disagreed with him. Oh dear.
The article on the minor actor Nick Adams has a long section headed "Rumors", full of tabloidy tittle-tattle. On 26 April, a newish user recently cut the whole thing, announcing this in edit summaries (but not on the talk page). The next day this user stuck it all back in (without even an edit summary). I'm inclined to think that it's all crappily sourced, and that it would be insignificant even if it were verifiable. But I hesitate to act on this because:
I know there are some pretty dumb guidelines and I have a horrible feeling that some guideline may say mere rumor is OK if it's presented as mere rumor,
this user and I have locked horns before (over the wretched article on Elvis Presley, now off my watchlist) and he may think I'm on a personal vendetta.
If I am on a vendetta, it's an impersonal one against crap, written by anyone; and I realize that I may be unrepresentative of "the Wikipedia community" in that I have little or no interest in other people's sex lives, etc. Could somebody else take a look at this? -- Hoary07:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like an area covered by WP:BLP#Reliable_sourcesThere are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we? Accepting that he isn't living, but the basic principle seems to hold. --pgk13:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I imagine that the fan of such stuff would retort that the heading "Rumors" is a very clear warning that it may not be true, and that the mere fact that this is rumored is significant (that whether these rumors are well founded is by the way).
To which I'd respond that the fact that speculation about sex lives (etc) is usually not significant.
This is an actor. If it were widely rumored that, say, he didn't really appear in such-and-such a movie but instead used a stand-in, I'd agree that the mere rumor would be of some interest. I don't automatically say that it's encyclopedic, but I'll consider such a claim. But this stuff is all about such thrilling matters (not) as: Was he gay? Wasn't he? Zzzzzz.-- Hoary14:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the rumors section to the talk page and have asked the editors there to move anything verifiable to the appropriate part of the article. This may include well sourced reports of significant speculation. For instance if major commercial biographer X (not just some guy with a blog and lots of free time) discusses the sexuality of person Y in book Z then this can be cited. --15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Per this user's contributions, they decided to move their userpage to the main space. I managed to convince the user to move it back to the original page, but it not even their userpage (User:Oleksandr Ublinskykh). Could a janitor/admin please clean up this pagemove/redirect mess? I was thinking to go to WP:RPM, but I thought it would be best to go here because of the long trail this user left behind. Thanks, UnfriendlyFire08:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be fine now. Harryboyles 07:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
Done – Steel 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
![[9]](https://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/SpecialBlockip.png){kind=link}
