Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive104

Admin protected his talk page

Initially, I had another issue I was going to take up with an admin, User_talk:FCYTravis, but his talk page was locked. I posted here about my original issue (it ended up in the BLP noticeboard as per FCYTravis's request) and the protection on his talk page. He replied that "...semiprotection of my talk page is not an abuse. You want to post there, register an account. Free, easy and anonymous." Wikipedia:Protection_policy states that semi-protection may be used for "User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user."

Especially for an admin, as IP users might wish to contact them, semi-protected talk pages are inappropriate, and I think FCYTravis abused his power in applying the protection.

As far as protecting his own page, he claimed that "My userpage is fully protected because... it's my userpage and nobody else has any business editing it." User pages are not eligible for full protection, he's acting like he owns his user page, and he should have had another admin lock his page to prevent a conflict of interest (he may have, I haven't seen the log). Fully protecting a user page was probably also an abuse of administrator powers.

I reported this here and not the protection page because there might be a more serious issue than just protection. 69.12.143.197 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, gotta say, protecting his talk page is a bit extreme; there are plenty of good-faith reasons for a new user to drop him a line. Even if his talk page was getting hit with vandalism, it should only get locked down for a short period of time. I'm informing FCYTravis of this thread right now... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Which I, myself, would have done if not for... 69.12.143.197 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Does appear unusual as it been semiprotected since Dec 2006 dif Gnangarra 05:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend we firmly, but politely, suggest that he unprotect his page on his own. Then again, he'll be seeing my message... so..err... yeah. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's okay to sprot it for a short while if there's a good reason, but it shouldn't be kept permanently protected, especially when he's actively deleting pages and blocking people. I think he should unprotect it, if there isn't a particularly good reason for the protection. We are supposed to welcome anons editing and they need to be able to leave messages. Sarah 06:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have un-semi'd my user talk page. The full protection of my userpage will remain - it experienced quite a bit of nasty repeat vandalism when unprotected, and I don't feel like wasting a bunch of my time making sure it's reverted. There's nothing in the least abusive about keeping it protected, unless you think you have a good reason you need to edit it. I await hearing about said reason. FCYTravis 06:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting your talk page; I can't see any problems with your userpage remaining protected. Sarah 06:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no good reason, although I think you should go to semi-protected, then see if there's a problem. 69.12.143.197 06:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument for unprotecting your talk page does not carry over to unprotecting your userpage; leaving it protected seems fine to me. Personally, I would recommend tuning it down to semi-protected, but that's just me; there's very little reason for anyone other than you to edit your userpage (if you had more userboxes, there might be a greater case to be made for toning down the protection). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he semi-protected his talk page because anons repeatedly vandalised, trolled and harassed him? I used to edit regularly, but left for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.121.36.232 (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• That would be why, for sure. And in this case the anon also violated Godwin's Law, so I don't think there's anything for us to do here except issue an official "so what". Guy (Help!) 07:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, for peat's sake, protecting one's own talk page is not an "abuse of admin powers" ... it is using one's admin powers, though possibly with poor judgement (though that is clearly debatable, as we are now debating it ;-). I wish people would stop arbitrarily decrying "admin abuse" where there simply is none. It is tiresome. --Iamunknown 08:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes - people are too quick to scream "abuse", when it's just a case of poor judgement. But semi-protecting your user-page long term and telling people who take issue to "get an account" is ludicrous. IP editors are not an underclass. Neil ム 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How difficult would it be for a user to request and receive protection of his or her user page? Is there a reason why this should be an easier process for an admin? Or should an admin do the same thing a non-admin user does: request it of an admin? Wouldn't having those extra eye-balls on the situation bring added value? Isn't it worth (at least) setting a good example? If the admin feels setting a good example is a "waste of time", perhaps that admin shouldn't be bothered with the duties of adminship. (sdsds - talk) 15:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere above, I said that admins wishing to protect their own user pages should as another admin. It wouldn't be much trouble, and it would bring in a second opinion. Doctors don't treat themselves; admins should talk to other admins for their needs as users. 69.12.143.197 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you get trouble on your talk page from an anon, make a sub-page for anons and link to it. Takes all the fun out if it for the trolls, and a real anon can still talk to you. Unless it is to gain advantage in some sort of content dispute, I don't see why an admin could not protect their own page. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but if your watchlist is of a moderate size, it's pretty easy to completely miss any comments left on the pseudo-talk page without the orange bar to alert you. I know there's a slim chance of me catching something like that among the 2k items on my watchlist (I really need to clear it out, though...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a watchlist of similar size, and it worked pretty well for me back when my talk page was being hit by an IP vandal. One additional step I took was transcluding the unprotected subpage to my real talk page, both so that I could easily see any comments left there and so that they'd be visible to others as well. Then again, depending on the type of vandalism one is getting, this might not be a good idea. In my case, I wasn't concerned with anything the vandal might have done to the subpage, I just wanted to keep them from blanking the real content of my talk page while they vandalized it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to "people are too quick to scream..." If after I took it to the wikiquette notice board, he said "Oops, I didn't mean to leave that on. It's unlocked, you can comment now," I wouldn't say he abused his power. The response I got, however, wasn't quite so accommodating. That said, I'm satisfied with the outcome. I really just wanted to see the talk page unlocked. 69.12.143.197 16:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So you were too quick to scream, then, and he fixed it. Thanks for that. Someone semi protected my talk page a while back, it stayed that way for months because I didn't notice or didn't remember. It's a trivially mistake to make. Needless to say, banned troll JB196 screamed hysterically about this atrocious abuse of administrator powers. One of the many reasons that complaints from banned trolls are not useful as critique. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"last" warning?

I've seen this before: a "last" or "only" warning, followed a few days later by lower level warnings. It is as if the posters did not see the "last" warning and just started over. Or it could be that they decided the vandal had reformed.

My question is: how long after a high level warning does the clock reset?

• Suppose there is a bunch of vandalism, with escalating warnings to a "last" warning, then a week with a dozen good contributions, before another case of vandalism. Does the week of good contributions demonstrate that the vandal has reformed, so the newest vandalism gets a level 1 warning or does the vandalism just one week after the "last" warning trigger a report to WP:AIV?
• Same start, but then a month-long break with zero contributions, before new vandalism. Restart at level 1 or report to AIV?

Sbowers3 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The short answer: It depends. Remember, the idea is to get people to stop unconstructive behavior; blocking (or banning) people is a last resort.

The long answer: Theoretically, warnings are supposed to given in a gradual manner, but experience will show that some people will respond well to a gentle request, while some seem to respect nothing short of having their ISP disconnect them and/or their computer taken away. Then there is the philosophy, experience and mood of the various Admins involved: I'd guess most will ignore a single warning from 6 or more months ago, no matter the severity; but it's clear that many recent warnings increase the likelihood that a user will be blocked.

I don't see any warnings on your Talk page -- if anything, the exact opposite. Are you thinking of a specific editor? -- llywrch 17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually you can treat IP vandals as if they were a completely different person from the previous vandal, so starting over after a final warning and a break is appropriate. For an account vandal, if they took a month off after a warning and then started in again, I would create a customized warning explaining that they had been notified before that such behavior was unacceptable, and because of the long break I was giving them one more shot. Then if they screwed that up they'd probably be immediately blockable. --Masamage ♫ 17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IP vandals do have to be treated differently. They're often the same person, often different ones. You usually just have to look through the contributions for WP:DUCK problems, but to remember to assume good faith if you're not sure. My rule is this: if they got up to a level 4 warning yesterday, I will usually issue a {{uw-vandalism4im}} the next day. But I do agree, starting over can be a bit silly sometimes. The Evil Spartan 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, you're nicer than I am, Masamage. If an account vandal starts back up after having received a final warning, I'm nuking them right off the bat. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to do the same as EVula. But it can't be underscored enough that IPs are different, and cannot be treated like accounts. IPs show up at AIV often enough with a last warning from months ago. Natalie 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above that it's purely a judgment call. Unless there's clear evidence that it's the same person - like the edits are very recent or they vandalize the same articles or vandalize the same way for each "session" at a computer - I assume it's a completely different person at a very public computer. I get disturbed when I see an IP that was clearly vandalizing several days ago and then the same IP writes "hi" in the middle of a low-profile article and immediately gets blocked for two months. In that case, it's quite likely that the "hi" vandal was actually innocently testing and suddenly they get a nasty scary block message. Losing one good newbie editor like that is worse than not blocking 10 blatant vandals in my opinion. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Masamage above, and I'd also strongly recommend blanking any earlier, obsolete warnings when "starting over". After all, we're trying to communicate with the user here. If they get a "You have new messages" notice and click it, only to be greeted by a chaotic wall of random warning icons and dozens of old messages of varying style and friendliness, they might not even notice the new warning at the bottom. Just remember to note the blanking in your edit summary. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I really like the idea of simplifying the forest of warnings that a (presumably) new shared IP user sees. Except I think collapsing old warnings in a navbox-type thing would be better than blanking them. Makes it much easier for people leaving warnings to see what's been going on in the past, while making it fairly clean for inexperienced users. I was going to give it a try a couple of times and see if it helped/hurt, but unfortunately, I don't know much anything about navboxes. I've been trying to self-teach for the last hour or so in my sandbox, but it ain't working. So,

1. Is there any reason not to condense previous warnings on an extremely busy shared IP talk page when you're re-starting the cycle?"
2. Can someone who is smart and bored look at User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Sandbox and see if you can fix my navbox? It's getting screwed up on the | symbol in the block template.
3. Better yet, is there already some kind of archive-top and archive-bottom type template out there that can do what I'm trying to do?
4. If not, could someone smart and bored create one?

--barneca (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the sandbox, but I don't see any way to make that change automatically. — madman bum and angel 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks madman, I knew there was some way to do it manually, just didn't know what it was. But as you point out, the whole idea would be diminshed if you had to painstakingly do that for each instance. I'm thinking something like a template you can apply directly above the warnings you want collapsed, and another template you apply directly below what you want collapsed, kind of like what Arknascar44 is trying to do on WT:AN, but with a customized title block to identify it for newbies as hidden warnings. --barneca (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a modified version of {{hat}}/{{hab}}? See User:Madman/Sandbox for an example. — madman bum and angel 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! that's going to work fine. I'm going to play with it in my sanbox for a while (killing 2 birds with 1 stone, and learning something about template syntax at the same time), then I'll try it in real life a few times and see if it's practical or not. Thanks much, Madman. --barneca (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Thanks everybody for useful advice. I've been seriously fighting vandals for the last couple of weeks. Today, I found vandalism, looked at the Talk page, saw a "final" warning, then no contributions at all for a week, then a level 2 warning, then the next day a level 3 warning, then the vandalism I found. Sbowers3 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dissonance on policy RfC listing

There are two separate ways being used to list policy RfCs. I used a temporary solution to show both lists on the RfC page.[1] I pointed out the issue and requested comment on the talk page.[2] I've notified the operator of RFC bot (talk · contribs), so they are aware of the situation.[3] I'm just raising this here, because it is likely to cause some confusion until it is resolved and wider input would be welcome. Vassyana 18:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice needed on multiple accounts

Hi there. User:Memestream is arguing strongly that the article he created on Neo-Darwinism not be deleted and the material that most other editors regard as original research be replaced in the article. His edits to Evolution and Modern evolutionary synthesis have likewise been reverted. This user is clearly a sockpuppet account of User:Lindosland (e.g. diff) and my invitations to discuss these multiple accounts have been ignored. Could an uninvolved admin look into the edit histories of this user and see if there is reason for concern - both accounts have edited Political correctness and the behavior of the Memestream account might be regarded as disruptive. Thanks for any advice. Tim Vickers 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty cut-and-dried case of good-hand/bad-hand, avoidance-of-scrutiny accounts proscribed by WP:SOCK. Lindosland (talk · contribs) has made some generally good contributions, but Memestream (talk · contribs) is disruptive, tendentious, and a serial abuser of article talk pages. In fact, the account appears used largely to stir things up. I would strongly recommend limiting this user to one account (preferably Lindosland), and either voluntarily abandoning or indefinitely blocking Memestream. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to me notifying Memestream of my actions, he made this edit on his user page and claimed he had responded to my questions. I cannot assume good faith with this user any longer, can I hand this over to somebody else please? Tim Vickers 17:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There are cryptic comments on Memestream's talk page that are almost confessions. I am pretty sure I haven't broken any rules ... As I understand it multiple accounts for the reason I stated are allowed. Editing without logging on is also allowed. and I hasten to add that I do not seek to deceive in any way, I just decided to see if I could avoid any bad experiences on one topic spilling over into another topic. I also prefer not to explain exactly what I do, and then get limited. Most likely, the user is referring to WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I guess there is a fine line between separating user accounts based on content/interest vs. separating user accounts based on disruptive behavior. What is clear is the user isn't abusing multiple accounts to game talk page or deletion discussions.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Memestream account has pretty clearly been used as a "bad-hand" account to stir things up while segregating the "good" edits to his other account. I've indefinitely blocked the Memestream account (with the autoblock disabled) - based on Memestream's activity, I think it's completely legitimate to ask him to limit himself to one account. Of course, if there's disagreement on that score, I'm happy to hear it. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion at User Talk:Memestream as to the appropriateness of this block (in response to an unblock request); any interested admins or editors are welcome to comment there. If there's a feeling that the account should be unblocked, then I won't stand in the way. MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have commented there, generally, but not in the manner of a unblock request decision. LessHeard vanU 21:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot hits one million edits

Cydebot has crossed the one million edit mark. As far as I am aware, this is the first user account to make 1,000,000 edits on any Wikimedia project (and possibly any wiki on the entire web). 1,000,000 edits accounts for roughly 0.6% of all edits to the English Wikipedia. I just thought I'd post this here to let anyone who might be interested know. --Cyde Weys 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations.  ;) — madman bum and angel 03:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow... thats special. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

According to current models of edit-count inflation, by 2012 this will be the minimum standard for adminship. --Haemo 03:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So when is someone going to create Wikipedia:Cydebot two-million pool? --B 03:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

ROFL, Haemo. — madman bum and angel 03:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

<standard complaint> Yeah, but the stupid bot has screwed up my page formatting by cat reorganizations so many times that it is a worthless piece o' ... </standard complaint> Keegan^talk 06:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He's messed up our project stuff too, but only once. Betacommandbot and OsamaKbot are far worse.Rlevse 11:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Haemo, I would suggest we create Wikipedia:Requests for godkingship/Cydebot before too long. Moreschi ^Talk 12:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Too few edits, lacks experience. 11231343 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose No original mainspace edits. 2345245 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Plenty of experience, should promote this user and ban all users with less than 1 million edits. 345556 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: The 3 votes above are a parody. They are not to be taken more seriously than the godkingship comment above it. Archtransit 16:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, few significant edits in portal talkspace. 18,352 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

0.6% eh? Is that percentage going up or down? I presume it must be going down, but maybe in some far distant future when we are all dust, Cydebot (or its direct descendants) will still be editing away, shuffling wiki-paper (categories) to their hearts content, and their proportion of contributions will converge towards, but never quite reach, 100%! :-) Carcharoth 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Haemo seems to have misread the graph. I make it 100,000 edits by 2012... Carcharoth 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it will reach 100%. See 0.999.... :) Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It'll never reach 100% because without the chaotic principle the bounteous principle serves no purpose. Consequently, unless there's someone complaining about it, it serves no purpose and will cease to exist. Or something like that. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to Cydebot, he'd (she'd? it'd?) make a good GodKing. :) Kudos to Cyde for running him too. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Noway419

Resolved

 – blocked 24 hours by Rlevse

User:Noway419 has been ignoring warnings regarding his edits on Under Pressure which directly violate Wikipedia’s style guidelines, despite repeated warnings on his talk page. He has offered no explanation and has replied to comments on his talk page by blanking it. – Zntrip 18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. Next time this same such case should be filed at WP:3RR. If different circumstances it would be the appropriate noticeboard or if none of them apply, WP:ANI. This board, here, WP:AN is more for generic questions. Rlevse 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Next time I’ll be more careful about the board I go to. – Zntrip 19:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff hs been locked for three months.

Resolved

 – unprotected by Rlevse

Does this article still need to be blocked? User:Jayjg blocked it on 14 June and has since disappeared from Wikipedia. I was not watching the the article at the time. As far as I can tell from looking at [4], the dispute was about the inclusion of a couple of sentences about a cartoon competition in Iran. Although this is a subject that might cause splits on pro- and anti-Israeli lines, it appears that editors coming from a range of views wanted the text included and only one editor was removing it.--Peter cohen 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've unlocked it.Rlevse 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Peter cohen 19:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Horrible logo sorting TfD

Could another admin please take a look at [TfD]? Don't worry about there not being consensus, precedent on TfD is that copyright templates are decided on their merits as copyright templates, not always community consensus. Regardless of the outcome of the TfD, the logos it is used are all fair use, some with rationales, some without, and some others may need to be deleted. I am admittedly shaky on image copyright policy, so another set of eyes would be appreciated. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User 156.34.212.136 is following me, deleting all my discussion threads

Resolved

 – moved to ANI, please make comments there

Whenever I propose an edit on the discussion page of an article he deletes them for no real good reason at all. Can you please do something about this? This is gettign EXTREMELY aggraviting and annoying. Shutup999 17:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This report should go to WP:ANI, not this board. However, I did skim his edits, and I'm not sure what, exactly, you were referring to. Please provide diffs of the specific reversions you took offense to so we can better determine whether his actions are inappropriate. Someguy1221 17:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I can not find the edits at the moment, but the user is infact removing Shutup999's comments from any talk page, calling him a sock puppet. Regardless of this editor being a sock, his discussions were legit and not vandalism. SpigotMap 18:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

SpigotMap could not have said it any better. Can somebody please help me with this. Shutup999 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed at ANI, and the IP user in question has joined the discussion, so I'm going to mark this as resolved. Further comments should go to the ANI discussion, to keep everything in one place. Natalie 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Harassing emails

Resolved

Someone is harassing me via email for blocking him for 48 hours for vandalism. I saved the emails and asked him to cease on his talk page. What should I do if this persists?Rlevse 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail block? GDonato (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible, is there a wiki procedure, like if it got bad enough, would I forward the emails somewhere or paste their contents to a page? Harassment is a vio and could be a case for a long block I guess.Rlevse 19:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

One or two is enough to justify an e-mail block in my opinion. Do not reply to them. GDonato (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He sent me two. You mean block within my email program or is there a wiki email block one can do?Rlevse 19:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

On-wiki it says: "Prevent user from sending e-mail" on Special:Blockip GDonato (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh, all the times I've used that form and I never noticed before!Rlevse 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a somewhat new feature :D --ST47Talk·Desk 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, several new features have been added there recently (we can block for 72 hours now, for example). · AndonicO ^Talk 00:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We could always block for 72 hours if it was added in manually - those various times are more like suggestions or quick links. There's always been an "other" option. Natalie 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on my wiki

Hey, I have an Ace Combat Wiki [5] and a vandal with a dynamic IP hit it. (Followed a link from my userpage) How do I do a range block? The IP's I want blocked are:

88.155.6.43

88.152.104.98

81.155.60.78

Thanks, Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how WP:AN can help you, but my guess is that you don't want to range block that since it's too much an area to range block. (You'd be looking at something that's bigger than /16). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But could you tell me how to do it? For more, see [6] [7] [8] I've got to do something, this my website on the line here. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

mw:help:Range blocks Cowman109^Talk 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software won't support blocking anything larger than /16 . Unless you want to do a lot of those blocks (to block everything from 81.0.0.0 to 88.255.255.255, you would need a /4 or 4,096 /16 blocks), you'll have to protect the pages or the whole wiki, block them as you see them, and/or file an abuse report with the ISP. Mr.Z-man 05:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that those same three IPs have also vandalised the English Wikipedia, and since there are targets in common we can assume they are controlled by the same person. Can someone check if they're open proxies? If this is the case, the solution for the original poster might be to import Wikipedia's list of open proxies periodically. Range blocks aren't going to work in this case; the first two IPs are in Israel, and the third in the UK.-gadfium 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

They do not appear to be open proxies at this time. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nartopa

Can someone with a little extra time take a look at this article? I think it's a real place, but the article is a true mess and definitely needs tags and probably some serious pruning. Thanks. --MZMcBride 05:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you need Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup and choose the appropriate templates. Also, see if there is a Pakistan or similar WikiProject and ask for assistance there. LessHeard vanU 10:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like there was a good version a while back[9] so it might be just a matter of bring that to the surface as a starting point and adding in the new information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Review of deleted US Civil War generals pics

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Examples of OK images orphaned and tagged for deletion by bots. In particular look at the upload log of Robert Luna III, and his talk page that is full of warning tags left by bots (and, rarely, by humans), but no welcome message, and a contributions log that shows no sign of noticing or being aware of the talk page. A look at one of the images marked PD-US by age shows that in some cases other humans have come along and added a license tag. I've gone through this upload log, and picked out the US Civil War pics. Can admins help out by undeleting these pics and adding at a minimum {{non-free historic image}}, and probably {{PD-US}}. I'm also mystified as to why these pics were deleted like this, without any sort of effort to salvage them. Could the deleting admins clarify this? I understand it was probably part of a "clearing the backlogs" effort, but still, it is a lot of effort to undo all this and restore the links on the articles. Of courser the original uploader should have done better, but why is it still possible to upload without a license tag? At the very least, admins looking at these pics should do better than the uploader and take more care than the uploader did. And a general plea: when you see an old B&W photo in a 'speedy deletion' category, please stop and think "hang on, this might be an old public domain picture - it is probably worth changing the tag on this so someone else can investigate this if I don't have the time". Carcharoth 12:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the images in question are:

• Image:Bishop Ellison Capers.jpg (Ellison Capers)
• Image:Charles M. Shelley.jpg (Charles M. Shelley)
• Image:Daniel W. Adams.jpg (Daniel W. Adams)
• Image:Ellison Capers.jpg (Ellison Capers)
• Image:James Craig (Missouri).jpg (James Craig (Missouri))
• Image:John Bratton.jpg (John Bratton)
• Image:John Bullock Clark, Jr..jpg (John Bullock Clark, Jr.)
• Image:John Bullock Clark, Sr..jpg (John Bullock Clark, Sr.)
• Image:John Wilkins Whitfield.jpg (John Wilkins Whitfield)
• Image:M. Jeff Thompson.jpg (M. Jeff Thompson)
• Image:Marcus Joseph Wright.jpg (Marcus Joseph Wright)
• Image:Otto F. Strahl.jpg (Otto F. Strahl)
• Image:Pinckney D. Bowles.jpg (Pinckney D. Bowles)
• Image:Robert B. Vance.jpg (Robert B. Vance)
• Image:Sam Jones.jpg (Sam Jones (Confederate Army officer))
• Image:Stand Watie.jpg (Stand Watie)
• Image:Thomas J. Churchill.jpg (Thomas J. Churchill)
• Image:William Henry Carroll.jpg (William Henry Carroll)
• Image:H. L. Hunt.jpg (H. L. Hunt - could be a pic of this person's father?) valid I2
• Image:Lloyd J. Beall.gif (Lloyd J. Beall) corrupt
• Image:Robert Hall Chilton.jpg (Robert H. Chilton)

Thanks. Carcharoth 12:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to help with this. And I agree absolutely with the plea. Also remember that simply scanning a public domain image does not give the scanner a copyright on it. If it's public domain, digitizing or otherwise changing the format does not restart the copyright timer. Natalie 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Working on this right now. I'm also going to archive all of those old warnings and leave a welcome message in their place. If the user does return and check their talk page, the warnings may confuse them and/or freak them out. Natalie 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing that (and others who helped as well). Much appreciated. Carcharoth 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this thread is nearly resolved now. Only outstanding issue is whether the deleting admins need to take more care, or just to chalk this one up to experience. I would say the bots need to take more care, but they are only bots, so we should pity them for not having human brains. What do people think? Carcharoth 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My bot, Polbot, always tells me that she pities me for not having a bot's brain, but that's another story. :-)

Look, there are two competing goals here. One is the goal that we want to save as many salvageable free images as possible. The other goal is that we don't want to allow unsourced, unlicensed images to sit around on our servers indefinitely. These are both valid goals. Our policy says that after 7 days we should delete images that don't have license tags, and there's nothing wrong with following that. It's much better to look through each untagged image to see if it can be salvaged. Heck, if you want to be a saint, there are all kinds of great things you can do to save images! You can do a Google Image search or library search on each unsourced image, and add licensing and sourcing information, before their 7 days are up. You can add image copyright tags for untagged images where the license can be understood in text. You can add use-rationales for non-free images that don't have them. And that's all great to do, and those who do that work should be commended! But no one is required to do that. It's still policy that images without tags be deleted after 7 days, and if no saint comes along quick enough, that's what happens. This is because the alternative (we keep ambiguous images around until some saint decides to research the license information) was tried, and became absolutely unmanageable. There was a time when the majority of images on Wikipedia's servers were not within policy. So that's why it's best to research each image before deleting according to policy, but it's still better to process the speedy-deletion backlog mercilessly than to let it build up indefinitely. If someone does much-needed backlog work, I won't criticize them for not being a saint. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deactivate

Resolved

 – Image and user talk pages have already been deleted, as per the user's right to vanish. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please deactivate my talk page and this image because I'm gonna leave Wikipedia. Rafünümän 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the image and my talk page have been deleted. Thanks a lot. Best wishes and enjoy Wikipedia, bye. Rafünümän 15:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ru-sib" wiki about to be closed

Public service announcement: according to this, the infamous "Siberian" ru-sib Wikipedia is now about to be closed, after a procedure that was dragged out for almost a year. Happy news. Interwiki bot operators might want to take note. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good news indeed, judging by all the problems this WP created. It shows how hard it is to assess whether or not a language is fake or not ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good news, though it did take a bit long to get on with it. Hopefully the dev's will be more discerning with future requests for new wikis. :) The Evil Spartan 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The motion started in late October, when User:Mikkalai investigated the content of some articles in ru-sib. A brief discussion here in English Wikipedia was followed by a much longer one in Russian Wikipedia, which resulted in a motion to have Zolotarev's project shut down. In the meantime, Zolotarev and his associates infested the Incubator, suggesting a plethora of new wikipedias, including one in pre-1917 Russian orthography and a Russian Wikipedia spelled in Latin script. I wonder if they have not suggested an English Wikipedia in Chinese or Greek script, too. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that that does not mean the whole Siberian saga is over. The two main proragonists have moved on to pastures greener, where they can compete with and parasite on Wikipedia: Wikislavia, hosted on Volgota and warmly embraced by Metapedia - but no longer paid by the foundation of course. If you still doubt that the project had to be taken off here, have a quick look at Metapedia before they change their main page: they have Siberian nationalism as featured article and a DYK on the political tendency of the group. --Pan Gerwazy 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Die russisch Großstaatchauvinisten feiern Ihre Sieg hier auch. So schön :] --Deutscher Friedensstifter 08:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)!

"Gott sei des Herschers Schutz mächtig und weise

Herscht er zum Ruhme, zum Ruhme uns.

Furchtbar den Feinden stets, stark durch den Glauben,

Gott sei des Tsaren Schutz!"

Und nun 'ne Wodka mit Schnaps!--Pan Gerwazy 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • So about how many bots will run to remove all instances of the soon-to-be-closed wiki? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is rather an unusual occurrence, isn't it? Have wikis been closed before? -- ChrisO 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It happens once in a while, but usually because of a lack of active users and articles. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Moldavian Cyrillic was --ssr 08:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Z: Do we need top use bots to remove links to ru-sib? do we usually do that? --ST47Talk·Desk 22:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure; I seen it done when the Belarusian Wikipedias were being toyed around with by the devs. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Block review (possible conflict)

I have blocked a user that I was involved in a dispute with six months ago on the same, or similar, topic. I had forgotten about the incident and was reminded of it reading through their talk page. As such, I am posting the block for review here, to ensure it is appropriate. IAF (talk · contribs) engaged in serious edit warring/disruption at Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A user asked I review and/or intervene due to the repeated reverts and related issues. I blocked IAF for one week.[10] This is based on repeated behaviour, multiple revert violations in the past few days and a 96 hour block for similar issues last month. Please let me know if this block is appropriate and if I should have refrained from acting directly. Thanks! Vassyana 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This fellow is a right troublemaker, unrepentant edit-warrior and POV-pusher. The block is fine, and is even more fine if his accusations of sockpuppetry are without merit. Moreschi ^Talk

To clarify: IMO this should be his last block of limited duration. Next time he should be permanently removed from the site. Moreschi ^Talk 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to {{PD-Art}}

Hello I have proposed a change to {{PD-Art}}. At the moment the template ignores one of the basic property laws, by making it sound like if the uploader is in the USA, they may release a work into the Public Domain, even though the copyright is legally detained by a person in another country. If you are interested in discussing please see Template talk:PD-art#International issues, Thanks. Jackaranga 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment on there was too long, sorry, so I reduced it to 3 lines 3 line version, please read if possible, PD-Art on wikipedia and on the commons are almost entirely different, needs to be corrected. Jackaranga 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Help Sought

I added some scholarly information to these articles Hurrians, Armenia (name), Proto-Armenian language, Armenian language, Graeco-Aryan language. These two users User:Ghirlandajo and User:Dbachmann, have changed them without any rationale, they have not given any reason, nor do they attempt to talk about in the talk page. I really need an Administrator to look into this for me, also, I suspect that User:Ghirlandajo may be trying to start a 3RR war, he has been blocked for doing such a thing in the past. Please look into this issue, thank you!--Moosh88 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be well served to heed Dieter's advice on your talk page and also familiarize yourself with the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This board is not for disputes, so this should be taken to WP:ANI. However, I did look into this and what I did not see was any evidence of your trying to contact either of these users yourself, nor do I find anything but 1RR by these users against your edits. Please try to ask these users for their reasons yourself, and please try to assume good faith and not accuse others of vandalism when they appear to not like your edits. If they continue to revert and not discuss or provide meaningful edit summaries despite being politely asked to, then repost this on WP:ANI. Someguy1221 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Need Admin to LOCK Plácido Domingo article asap

Resolved

To admin, please look at the revision history on the edit warring. The anonymous editors have getting out of hand, it is hard for us to protect the article day and night. We would be appreciate if the article could be locked from anonymous editors, at least for a week. - On behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera- Jay 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is going now as I am writing this, can someone lock it now. Thanks - Jay 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected. In the future, please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.. I appreciate it very very much. - Jay 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential vandal?

I don't know if I've brought my concern to the right place, so feel free to redirect me (nicely please) if I'm in the wrong place. I occasionally look in on the help desk to see if I can help out. Today, I came across Hello, I am a reformed vandal... and my first thought was... "I know how to get unblocked automatically. Would you like to know?" sounds more like a vandal's challenge (something I've seen before) than an attempt at rehabilitation. What do you think, am I being paranoid? Astronaut 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't unblock, sounds shaky to me.Rlevse 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Raven-Symoné

Resolved

In the creation of this page, editors have created pages listing every episode in which this actress has appeared (example: List of Raven in TCS episodes). Incidentally, they have been copied and pasted from IMDb. What to do, what to do? AfD? CSD g12? Or am I wrong in assuming they should be deleted? — madman bum and angel 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, your example was deleted. Are any others still there? Someguy1221 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They're linked to Raven-Symoné#Television; another example is List of Raven in KP episodes. — madman bum and angel 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the two others I've found and left a note on the creator's talk page. -- Merope 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) — madman bum and angel 13:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what speedy criteria would something like that fall under? A friend of mine was asking me about whether he could tag them for speedy, but I wasn't sure what criteria to suggest he use, so suggested a PROD instead. It'd be good to know if stuff like that is taggable easily... Tony Fox (arf!) 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it was copied and pasted from IMDb, criterion g12 could apply. — madman bum and angel 16:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Makes sense to me - I'll remember that for next time. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion

In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R 2‎, 2 deleted pages, which seem relevant to the discussion there, should probably be undeleted for the duration of the RfA discussion. The pages are: User:R/Rant (deleted under CSD U1) and User:R/Single Letter Group (deleted and undeleted several times). Although these pages are covered by CSD U1, I think they should be available for public viewing during the RfA. Od Mishehu 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some action here? I think it's important for people to be able to see this. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe post this on WP:DRV/CR? - Alison ^❤ 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I were in a position to decide, I'd keep the pages deleted. I saw WP:SLG, and truthfully, it wasn't so interesting. I think people can discuss the candidacy without seeing every deleted contrib that "R" has offered. Shalom ^Hello 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the RFA instead, several users have raised those pages as issues. I would consider it appropriate to undelete these pages for the duration of the RFA. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If I remember right, /Rant is only a line or two. Someone asked me to come here for my "permission" even though you don't really need it. Anyway, you have my permission to undelete. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored per user's request and author's permission. Let me know if there are any revisions that should not have been restored. — madman bum and angel 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Err, what exactly was your reasoning behind protecting it? -- John Reaves 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's stated in the protection summary. Is there a reason it should be edited? It was my impression it was restored merely for RfA-goers to review before voicing their opinion. — madman bum and angel 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying "Restored for review" was your reason for protection? "It doesn't need to edited" isn't a reason for protection. -- John Reaves 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. It should not be edited. — madman bum and angel 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a short explanation at the top of each page so anyone who comes across them will know why they've been temporarily undeleted. Newyorkbrad 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

QQ MORE NOOB

A "new" user insists I reverse my speedy deletion of this article, as CSD A7 doesn't cover phrases. While I have a small amount of sympathy with the wikilawyering logic, this is one of the first times I've applied IAR to my use of the tools. I believe that without any references to support the contention that it is notable, this is a speedy article - it just seems plain daft to take it to AfD. But, as I am using IAR in support of CSD and in case I have misjudged the case, I am happy for other admins to review my action here. If I'm wrong, I'll reinstate the article, list it for AfD and apologise to the article creator. --Dweller 09:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have no sympathy for a new user, User:QQ MORE NOOB, that knows so many policies and how to Wikilawyer. If Dweller hadn't deleted it then I would have. Wikipedia ain't phrase of the week. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said. The Rambling Man 10:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G1 (no meaningful content) would have covered it. It doesn't have to be gibberish. Or A1 (no context). You did the right thing. Neil ム 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious troll, sock. I suggest someone block him ASAP: knows a bit too much about policy. The Evil Spartan 16:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a block is in order. He hasn't done anything wrong. "Knowing too much about policy" is hardly grounds for blocking. Neil ム 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a ground for blocking if you're a bad-cop sock account. As for "not doing anything wrong", I can't imagine how you don't see this user as a troll. User comes here, creates crap pages [11] (good enough reason to block), removes speedy tags (good enough reason to block), jumps into wikilawyering about how it's not speedyable (how'd he know that?), complains that he can vandalize his own talk page if he wants (and does so), and uses breathtakingly good edit summaries (I hardly can use ones so good), clearly showing he's a sock - good enough reason to block. Sheesh, this is the kind of wikilawyering and bowing to trolls that makes Wikipedia often so useless. The Evil Spartan 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked indefinitely. Can't see how this person could be acting in good faith. Grandmasterka 17:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All of this discussion -- to a conclusion I agree with, BTW -- & no one suggested we tell this guy "QQ MORE NOOB"? Maybe everyone else decided to assume good faith -- or demonstrate some maturity -- except for me. -- llywrch 19:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Shared public terminal IP

This is a shared public terminal IP. Do not block for long periods. Be careful about blocking, see the talkpage. --67.55.48.34 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Only two edits other than ones publicising this notice, so not exactly an major source of edits. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and both of those edits have the same tone as the person putting up the shared public notice. Hmm, sounds fisy. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at contribs; obviously same user as User talk:67.192.60.213 three sections above. We're being trolled. --barneca (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Both IPs have expressed the same views on communism. — madman bum and angel 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that led me to a ton of blockable accounts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're being facetious... there are other obvious correlations we've already made between those two IP addresses. — madman bum and angel 23:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP is an open proxy belonging to Canaca-com Inc. The user claimed to be from Liverpool.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

LOVEHATE

Could somebody check something for me? LOVEHATE is a newly-created article, but it was created with an {{unsourced}} tag already on it, with a date of March 2007. This indicates to me either that it was a recreated previously-deleted article, or it's been copied and pasted from somewhere else. But there's no prior edit history. Any clues as to how to research this? Corvus cornix 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• The page log doesn't say that the page was ever deleted, and the log doesn't show any deleted edits. It's possible that the user who created the article just copied/pasted an infobox from somewhere, including the {{Unreferenced}} tag, without knowing what it was really for. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates, new style

The Wikipedia:Article message boxes project has now changed and standardised the styles for most of the message boxes that goes on article pages. We are now planning to change the protection templates to have a matching look when on article pages. But they will keep their old look when they appear anywhere else.

Here is an example of the new look. (Note: Exact colour for the left-side colour bar is not yet decided, and we will of course have the old full text in them, this is just a short example.)

Any input is welcome, see discussion and more examples at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Protection Templates and Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Next steps.

--David Göthberg 02:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The new design is ready to deploy. Have a look at {{pp-meta}}. --David Göthberg 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'm not sure this warrants a mention here. Also, this temp. is usually made small anyway. Good job all the same; this {{ambox}} thing is really catching... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since some people did complain that we didn't announce the previous round of changes enough before we deployed them we thought we should announce this change a bit more. And an admin within our project suggested announcing this here since it is admin related.

--David Göthberg 08:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible suggestion: Consider re-wording to "Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered user is currently prohibited" Disabled is jargon and possibly not understood by non-WPedians. Newly registered is not very specific (2 hours? 4 days? 1 month? 6 months?) Or even more direct is "Editing this article requires requires a user name created more than 4 days ago." Archtransit 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Prohibited implies that it is possible but that you don't have the right to do it. I prefer disabled, that is more neutral. I'd prefer not giving everyone the time they need to wait either, per WP:BEANS :) -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

e-pol.org, UNNET and Peter Lundgren

A while back, User:Durin got a legal threat which caused him to leave Wikipedia. The organization claims to be www.e-pol.org, an arm of something called UNNET, headed by someone named Peter Lundgren in Sweden. I asked User:Davidgothberg, as a Swedish editor in Sweden, to look into Mr. Lundgren. Despite several attempts to reach him, User:Davidgothberg has been unable get Mr. Lundgren to return his phone calls. I think we can close this entire episode as a really bad hoax, and hope that Durin may come back some day. I am sure that he is not going to have to worry about real litigation any time soon. Corvus cornix 15:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Durin was a great admin, and the fact that we pandered to this abuse is a shame. Hopefully he will see past the whole incident to come back. The Evil Spartan 17:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

Resolved

 – IPs and main account blocked The Evil Spartan 17:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21 was indefinitely blocked 14:22, 22 September 2007 and is now editing from an anonIP (one of a number she's used, see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tweety21). If there are intermediate steps I need to take before reporting this, or if there's a more appropriate forum, please leave a comment either here or on my talk page. Thanks. Precious Roy 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

==Tweety21== this is not an evasive measure just one to stop Precious Roy from his stalking behavior of all my articles. If you look at his history of edits this will prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that I neglected to include the IP you were editing from. Precious Roy 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Now this editor has gone through the list of WP:AFC articles I created (on my user page) and tagged 5 of them as AfDs. If that's not harrassment and disruptive editing, I don't know what is. Precious Roy 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Has broken WP:3RR now (see this edit history). Precious Roy 19:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Special:Log broken

The Special:Log page seems to be broken; the "user rename log" option is, for some reason, displayed as "&lt;renameuserlogpage&gt;". (Is there a problem in the Mediawiki namespace, or is it a software bug?) - Mike Rosoft 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any changes to the MediaWiki namespace that would cause that problem. (The edit history of MediaWiki:Renameuserlogtext is empty.) This is a MediaWiki bug, so file it on BugZilla. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ITYM MediaWiki:Renameuserlogpage. But yeah, looks like rev:25997 is probably to blame. I'd revert it, but I'm not on my home computer right now. Might want to ask someone on #mediawiki. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, submitted as bug 11446. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My watchlist has been broken since I got on about 45 minutes ago. The Evil Spartan 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation

It has been brought to my attention that someone impersonating me has got themselves blocked and their user page is the first result on a Google search for my name and "wikipedia", User:Mr. Thomas Dalton. Could someone please delete that page, and the associated talk page? In the interests of transparency, I won't do so myself. Thanks. --Tango 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Alabamaboy 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tango 12:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Brought to your attention"? I'm not ashamed to admit I sometimes google for my own name. ;-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, anyone who doesn't occasionally Google their own name is asking for trouble. Never know when someone might impersonate you (or worse, write nasty things about you in their blog :-).--Alabamaboy 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but in this case, I was actually told about it on wikien-l. --Tango 12:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mastereditor101. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not even transcluded yet. It may never be. Isn't it a little early for WP:SNOW, and for the oppose? --barneca (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if an RfA hasn't been transcluded onto the main RfA page, it's a non-issue. Don't need to comment on them until they are live. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just experimenting with the "Nominate yourself" button I guess. — Edokter • Talk • 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well probably got it wrong, there are other errors on the page too. Secretlondon 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's most probably a test/mistake. Maybe someone could delete it and leave a (nice) message on his talk page? -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 07:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Norval White

This article is up for deletion, but looks like it will survive. My question is this: I've been working with the author on a single point, whether or not White lives in France. The author tells me that he has met the subject at his home village and has pictures. I've advised the author that this could be seen as violating WP:NOR. I have faith that this is a good faith editor trying to create an article on an undoubtably notable subject. Suggestions?--Sethacus 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As this is not a contentious claim, it's not ultra-vital a reference is immediately present. I would leave the place of residence there, tag it with {{fact}}, and move on; if you personally believe the author that the fact is true, and the fact is an uncontroversial one, why leave it out? Neil ム 12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Subpage of Elaragirl:

Resolved

I came across the retired editor Elaragirl's subpage User:Elaragirl/Teacup, which has a distubing entry User:Elaragirl/Teacup#Elaragirl_is_not_a_gangbang. It seems to be implying that the editor Gracenotes is either attracted to young boys or a paedophile. This is a serious accusation which should not be taken lightly. It is both a personal attack and if I were Gracenotes, I'd be deeply hurt by the comment. Seeing as the user is no longer active, and since it could be potentially upsetting to other members, should this text be removed? I'd have done it myself, but I wanted the communeity to develop consensus first. Elaragirl was a (Wiki)friend of mine, but still, I wouldn't want anyone to have their feelings hurt. A similar thing happens in the section User:Elaragirl/Teacup#Elaragirl_is_not_here_to_discuss_bullshit, where from the looks of things Elaragirl attacks Daveydweeb's site after discussing Citizendium - however, my browser couldn't access the page, so this is just hearsay. Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to attention. Cheers, Spawn Man 08:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, this reads like "I only flirt with Gracenotes and hate it when others flirt with everyone". English is my second language, so I'm probably overlooking something, but I can't find the personal attack or accusation of pedophilia that you see. Could you explain? Kusma (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The text was "And while I'm sure this is going to piss a lot of people off, I'm not going to act like some females on Wikipedia who have to constantly flaunt the fact that they're a woman, flirting with everyone and making vague, slightly creepy overtures to young men. The problem with this is that there's only one reason to be doing it, and we don't need to go into that on wiki, do we? I limit that sort of shit to Gracenotes ... but alas, my pining is for naught. :p" I read that as "Some people on here make passes at young boys, which is slightly creepy and Gracenotes is one of them..." or something along those lines. The term paedophilia doesn't occur anywhere, but it could take that way and I think it is meant to be taken that way... Spawn Man 08:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I read it the other way: "I am not like some woman flirting with young boys. I only flirt with Gracenotes". But English is not my primary language either, so... -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is humorous :). But you might want to ask User:Gracenotes first. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd already asked Gracenotes, but she hasn't replied yet. Agreed, the rest of the page is humorous to a degree, but it could be offensive to some people and hurtful to Gracenotes. Anyway, just wanted to discuss it with you guys. :) Spawn Man 08:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes is a boy. His first name is Matthew, not Grace. Nothing to see here, move along folks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's humorous. I think it's an IRC in-joke, but yes, you're best off asking Gracenotes. Will ^(talk) 08:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, the quote says "young men". How do you go from that to "young boys"? And I interpret the comment at saying that Elaragirl pines for Gracenotes. Note the humourous emoticon at the end of that sentence: "alas, my pining is for naught. :p". Carcharoth 09:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm yes, but Elaragirl is a girl... I think...? I've been wrong before... Young boys, young men, all the same really, but we shouldn't be arguing whether or not it is offensive until Gracenotes comments... If she does... Spawn Man 11:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Young boys, young men, all the same really" ahh, no, they aren't, actually, big difference, big....--Tom 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it here? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Because, I thought it might be offensive to Gracenotes, so wondered if it should be deleted. I couldn't just bring it to Gracenotes to delete because then that would be a COI and I couldn't just give it to any old admin because I wanted there to be consensus. Every time I post here, I either get abused for bringing up a potential problem or get thick resistance even after the problem has been resolved! have you even read my post below before you made a comment asking why I brought a potentially hurtful piece of text to an admin's board?? I'm not going to comment any further, but let it be noted, that admins on this board have a bad attitude and out of the three times I've used it, I've been harrassed three times. If Gracenotes and Elaragirl hadn't been friends, then it would be a different story. I'm not supposed to keep up with all the cliches on Wikipedia - I saw a possible attack and I reported it. I really don't know why I'm getting slack for it. Frankly, I don't know if I want to use this feature again... Spawn Man 11:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke, Elaragirl and Gracenotes were friends, it's all good. --CBD 11:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Flirting with Elara? At your peril, my friend. I've always hoped she comes back, she was a legend who really spiced the old place up. It can get a bit stuffy sometimes, Elara was a great antidote. And yes, Carcharoth's interpretation is correct...but did we really need to have Elara's pining, or lack of it, all over AN? Anyway, if you're reading this, Elara, we do want you back. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 11:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

False alarm then people - Sorry, just being cautious; I'm not up to date with who's friends with who on Wikipedia and was just looking out for another's feelings. Hopefully you'll understand. Anyway, thanks for clearing it up... And yes, I'd love for Elara to come back to Wikipedia... Spawn Man 11:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that Gracenotes is a guy. -- John Reaves 15:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 1/9 Truck

• In Wikipedia:Requested moves ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=160225616 as at this edit), someone called for the move U.S. Route 1/9 Truck (Jersey City, New Jersey) → U.S. Route 1/9 Truck which needed admin action. I did the move, but it left about 40 double redirects. Must I wade through them all manually, or is there a bot that routinely clears up double redirects? Anthony Appleyard 11:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a bot. Neil ム 11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Blockage

This account was posted on the account blocking page and blocked[12]. I ask that it be unblocked, because it is a normal, proper name and does useful things. I also ask, not for the first time, that you avoid giving blocking privileges to users who are retarded.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.93.84 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What account? Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz (talk · contribs)? Correctly blocked for being too long. Choose a shorter username. Also, insulting other editors is very unlikely to help. Sandstein 21:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what ever happened to WP:BITE? Seriously, who the hell are we to find a user who created their account on the 16th and then block them without warning 6 days later after they made multiple productive edits? Unless anyone objects very shortly I'm going to unblock the user, apologise, and refer them to WP:NAMECHANGE. Cowman109^Talk 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The name is a violation of WP:IU due to the fact it is too long so unblocking may not be a good option, GDonato (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with this one and refused to block it once at WP:UAA. Polish people have long names! Do Polish genealogy and you'll be amazed how long some of their names are. So now we're blindly blocking people who use their own names?! That's awful. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may quote WP:IU directly, Length alone is not always enough to forbid a username, however; there are many productive users with acceptable usernames over 20 characters in length, and even some with over 30.. I agree that the user's name is a tad inappropriately long (and uses foreign characters), but when a user has made positive edits for 6 days after creating their account, we don't just go blocking people without notice. We're supposed to ask them to change their name first, not block them and get them rightfully upset as this user is now. Cowman109^Talk 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Three questions. First, why even make it possible to create a username that is going to be judged too long? Second, is the name above too long, really? I don't know about everyone else, but I almost never need to type a username to get to their talk page; that's what wikilinks are for. And if you're just going to refer to them, you can always call them GCvB, or if you have to make a wikilink yourself, just copy/paste. And third, does the "you've been blocked for an inappropriate username" template seem a little bitey to anyone else? Not to add another gratuitous layer of complication, but shouldn't we talk to someone who's name just seems inconveniently long more sweetly than to someone with a "badfaith" name like User:I made love to your mother multiple times? --barneca (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I would recommend WP:RFCN as it is certainly not blatant as it is a real name but that is not always enough reason. GDonato (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure if there were some technical reason why long names were harmful, it would be disabled past a certain character limit in MediaWiki. I'm asking user:ST47 to reply here before I go unblock the user, though. I'll still suggest to the user that he should see WP:RFCN WP:NAMECHANGE (woops, wrong shortcut), however. Cowman109^Talk 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocking someone who uses their real name is terrible. When I said that above, I didn't realize they had already made good-faith edits to *drum roll* Poland-related articles! Now we're punishing an entire nationality?! Please unblock this person ASAP. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to barneca: there is a technical way to stop long usernames. Add .{x} to MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist, and usernames of x or more characters will be prohibited. The blacklist doesn't affect admins creating new accounts while logged in, so overriding it is possible. In this and other cases, context is an important part of determining what is "too long", but it would be a good idea to have a maximum length of less than 255 (the number of characters the database can store) Gracenotes^T § 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the message displayed if someone tries to create a name that is too long? I hope the message is not too WP:BITEy... :-) Carcharoth 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blacklistedusernametext. Looks like it could use a facelift; go ahead and edit it if you wish :) Gracenotes^T § 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The honour of updating that (and updating is needed) will have to fall to someone else. Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not me. That's good advice, but instead of giving it here, you need to put it on his talk page, preferably being politer than the blocking admin. If the string is short enough to be a name, or a simple phrase, it should be short enough to be his username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.93.84 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the name because it was too long and confusing, per WP:U. The blocked template suggests that the user change their name. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think we should be telling people that in any form when their username is just their real name. Citizendium insists on using your real name, we don't allow it. Not cool. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And forget bitey, this is downright insulting to this poor guy. "We don't like your name" is what we're telling him. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the user and I'm suggesting they see WP:NAMECHANGE. Cowman109^Talk 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin-warring is not helpful when you know ST47 opposes an unblock. GDonato (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't qualify as warring IMHO - it's just common sense. Let's hope we didn't alienate a good user forever. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm? ST47 didn't oppose an unblock.. I asked him to respond here, and he did. No harm comes from unblocking the user. If I misunderstood his reply, my apologies. Cowman109^Talk 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. GDonato (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I find this particular block reason counterproductive (not in this case alone). Shouldn't simply suggesting that users with overly long or confusing names get them changed be the rule and not the exception? In my humble opinion, WP:U offers plenty of leniency with regard to this particular criterion. (For the record, I have a very, very long name, and it would probably have been blocked if I'd registered under it.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If someone is being cute and using an entire sentence as a user name, I would suggest that they change it. But this is the guy's name! We shouldn't even be suggesting that he change his name! Should we suggest he change it in real life too? This is not some odd name either - see here for another guy who apparently can't edit here under his real name. How is it confusing to refer to this user as Grzegorz anyway? Personally, I'd like to see Can't sleep, clown will eat me change his name before this person. I always have to slowly type CSCWEM when I refer to him. (BTW, I don't actually think CSCWEM should change his name but the point remains). —Wknight94 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To be brutally honest, I'm somewhat surprised some trigger-happy person hasn't already started an RFCN on CSCWEM. GDonato (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be brought to the talk page of WP:IU instead to change the wording of the policy? Cowman109^Talk 22:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do, please say so here because I want in on that discussion. This is embarrassing and I really hope the guy isn't insulted just at being asked to change his own damn name. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) GDonato, beware of WP:BEANS :) I don't think the policy needs changing; the wording is fine. I think there should be a generally more accepting attitude towards such usernames, backed up by the already generous wording of WP:IU. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WT:U, thread started. Fvasconcellos, yes, of course, if anyone think about doing that in the immediate future I will be displeased. GDonato (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I found where I originally refused to block this name after it was bot-reported. Maybe the problem is that there's nothing to stop people from reporting names over and over until someone blocks them. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The block was not needed, in my opinion, and was severely counterproductive. Several important points need to be made here (and over on WT:U):

• (1) Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz is a real name. Username policy primarily applies to silly-sounding names and offensive names. This is neither.
• (2) "Correctly blocked for being too long" - as has been pointed out, it would be preferable to have the underlying software limit the length of the username, rather than have both the user, and those upholding the letter of law, waste their time worrying about length of user names. I swear I've seen someone running around with a ruler measuring the length of names... (that would be the bot, then).
• (3) The WP:BITE points are extremely important. Any admin or other user who sticks to the letter of policy and guideline while failing to see that their actions are alienating new users is a detriment to the project. I don't normally put things as forcefully as this, but new editors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and treating them with respect cannot be emphasised enough.
• (4) This thread was started at 21:33, an hour after the block at 20:26. It took another hour before the user was unblocked. The unblock should have taken place straightaway, followed by an apology. Thankfully the user's talk page is now a bit more welcoming, though the editor has yet (as of the time of writing) to resume editing. If this editor doesn't edit again, I, for one, will be kicking up a huge fuss.
• (5) "I blocked the name because it was too long and confusing, per WP:U. The blocked template suggests that the user change their name." - Hmm. Let's have a look at what the first part of the template says, shall we:

  "Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information)."

  Not very friendly, is it? Imagine what your reaction would be if the above was the first message you ever received on Wikipedia? The template gives a list of possible reasons for the username block, but the underlying message is "work out for yourself why your name is inappropriate, because I can't be bothered to tell you".
• (6) Some of the other attitudes in this thread beggar belief:
  • (a) "unblocking may not be a good option" - um, the editor was making good contributions! Unblocking would not have done any harm, and keeping the editor blocked could potentially have lost us a new editor.
  • (b) "Admin-warring is not helpful" - again, this completely misses the point. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that an unblock does no harm in this case, and that the original block was a misguided application of the letter of the policy. It would only become admin-warring if the block was put back in place.

Apologies for bringing up all these points, but it is threads like this that make me seriously worry about the future of Wikipedia. Unless people who apply the letter of the law without regard for the spirit of the law, are told in no uncertain terms that they got it wrong, and learn from their mistakes, then there is no point in having pages like WP:BITE. And if people try to defend such blocks, that is almost as bad. Carcharoth 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Agreed 100% on every point including that I will throw up a fuss if the user never returns. I do want to mention that ST47 should not necessarily be singled out because I know many admins would have applied the same block - but they would have all been equally wrong IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well summed up Carcharoth. I think this is one of those times where WP:IAR should be applied. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another point, the bot reported the name as being 41 characters long, but I've counted several times, and I can only find 39 characters (including spaces). Do "ą" and "ę" count twice or something? Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The user name is 39 characters long, and 41 bytes long. (See Unicode#Mapping and encodings.) The bot should probably use characters :) Gracenotes^T § 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin characters with diacritics (like the ogonek) use two bytes in UTF-8, I think. Gimmetrow 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be sensible to ask the operator of user:HBC NameWatcherBot to increase the length limit by a few bytes? Cardamon 08:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that this is sorted out. Now, is anybody going to warn the original complainant about using uncivil comments such as, "I also ask, not for the first time, that you avoid giving blocking privileges to users who are retarded" as being in possible violation of WP:NPA? I don't suggest that we should block, of course, this being an isolated case. LessHeard vanU 10:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of a barnstar for pointing out the inappropriate block (spirit, remember, not letter). But as it is an IP address, I find warnings and barnstars a bit pointless in this case. You could go and chat to the IP address on their talk page if you like. Carcharoth 11:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not retarded people at all, it's retarded polices. Wikipedia:Username policy is one of the most moronic, screwball things about this place. Who knows how many potential good contributors we lose because of it? I left a rant about it on the village pump a while back here. Sad to see the same problems still persisting. Moreschi ^Talk 12:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice points in that village pump post. You almost inspired me to MfD the username policy, but then I saw that it is an official policy. Maybe a "disputed" tag? Carcharoth 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: the timer is still running. Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz (talk · contribs) has not edited since he was blocked around 18 hours ago. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he stopped editing about 2.5 hours before he was username-blocked. It is not even certain if he is aware that he was blocked. The only way to know for sure is to ask and hope he is still around. Carcharoth 13:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could there be some advantage to modifying the template so it requires the blocking admin to include a specific reason? I think the point above that we are essentially asking users to figure out why their name is inappropriate is an important one, especially since the current template doesn't even list all the possible reasons. What I'm thinking is that we change the template so it's like CSD tags and has to include a specific reason, which I think will go a long way to making the whole blocking experience better. Natalie 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% w/ Natalie. --barneca (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is a reason tag with {{uw-ublock}} (e.g., {{UsernameBlocked|reason=being Polish}}). It has been there for some time. However, it is not required. The problem with making the parameter "required" is that some admins might not be aware that they have to include it, or may forget it. And, the only way to "edit" a block summary is to unblock and reblock (messy). If we had a block reason blacklist, this would be a piece of cake (great example of creeping featurism, too). Gracenotes^T § 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think requiring something on the block message is likely since, as you've said, the only way to change it is to unblock and reblock and that's just annoying. I see what you're saying about people not being aware, but try tagging something for speedy deletion without adding a reason. You get huge read letters read "This must be replaced with a specific reason" or something similar. The same thing happens when people attempt to add the "hangon" tag to talk pages. Feature creep it may be, but that isn't always a bad thing. Natalie 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Big red text doesn't work here: the blocking admin would just see ({{uw-ublock}}) as a summary. It is possible to make a bot that annoys admins who do username blocks without a reason. (Not sure if it's a good idea, but it's possible.) Gracenotes^T § 17:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the message that's left on the user talk page, and I can only assume that you are talking about the message in the block log. The admin would see the message on the talk page, because when you press submit the current page loads. But yes, it wouldn't work in the block log. Natalie 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we are talking about different things. Both are relevant, though. It seems to be a good idea to have the template require a reason, so long as everyone knows about it. Gracenotes^T § 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For general interest

Those who have commented here may like to check out this discussion concerning fixing the username "policy". Moreschi ^Talk 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

While this username may be a real name indeed, it may also be a reference to "Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz", a fake name the protagonist of Jak rozpętałem drugą wojnę światową used when interrogated by a Gestapo officer (see the trivia section of the article). Both "chrząszcz" and "Brzęczyszczykiewicz" are also polish tongue-twister words. Миша13 22:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The user may be named Grzegorz Chrząszcz or Grzegorz Brzęszczykiewicz, not both (vel is similar to aka). He should chose one name/nickname, not two, for reasons discussed above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand bot and a larger environmental threat

I commented above that I think Betacommand bot's over-reaching is symptomatic of a larger problem at Wikipedia. My comments got no reply there--I think they may have been lost in the middle of a discussion that had already moved on--so I'm going to take the liberty of re-posting part of them here, because I think the issue is important to the future of Wikipedia, and I'd like to know whether the admins here (or whoever else is looking in) share my concerns. Here's what I wrote earlier: I think there's a serious problem that is damaging Wikipedia and is not limited to the issue of this bot: people whose mentality is oriented toward rulemaking and law enforcement are making the environment inhospitable to people who are interested in creating high-quality article content. Those who are primarily interested in writing and research are unlikely to spend their time in policy and procedural discussions. The more heavily bureacratized and legislated Wikipedia becomes, the more mechanically and aggressively the laws are enforced, the less attractive this environment is for those interested in writing articles. You personally may not be as interested in the nuances of the writing and illustrations as in the efficiency of the programming or consistency of policy, but surely you recognize that the article contents do matter at wikipedia, and that the interests of volunteer writers (and contributors of relevant images) should be a consideration in all administrative matters. End of self-quotation. Do you agree with my characterization of this issue? If so, are there mechanisms in place to correct for this tendency? BTfromLA 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the The Free Encyclopedia; that is one of its core goals. BetacommandBot, and all of the other image patrollers, do us a great service by ensuring that Wikipedia stays a free encyclopedia, composed of free content. --Haemo 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the argument, exactly... indef blocking anyone who ever uploads fair use would technically help us be the free encyclopedia, but some ways of enforcing the philosophy are just obviously bad ideas in the long run, if we want to continue having contributers. There is a long, long record of people who otherwise would be fine with policy getting really angry because an (often malfunctioning) bot is enforcing rules, and anyone who complains gets accused of being against Wikipedia's core goals. --W.marsh 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about malfunctioning bots here; we're talking about them doing a job which we, as a free encyclopedia, need done. Users who are "fine with policy" should be aware that said policy extends to images, just like any other contribution. Blanket accusations of being "against the encyclopedia" are, of course, silly, but all too often I've seen comments that simply misunderstand what image use on Wikipedia is all about — accusations of "vandalism" to image patrollers, of "ruining other people's work", and outright bad faith all around. People on both sides of the "argument", though there isn't one here, need to understand that everyone is doing it for the good of the project and that bombastic accusations on either side are totally unproductive. --Haemo 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see bombastic accusations in the present discussion? BTfromLA 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

From Haemo, I think. I read your post and thought: "fair comment". I then read Haemo's comment and though: "that's missing the point". This is about civility and WP:BITE, not WP:NFC. Carcharoth 21:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is if you're going to use other people's property for free (non-free media), you're going to have to take the time to learn about the necessarily complex rules and procedures that allow you to do so. Any article writer who doesn't want to deal with this is welcome to use only free media in their article, period. - Merzbow 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BTfromLA makes some good points. What he writes, however, has nothing to do with fair use rules or Betacommandbot. Moreschi ^Talk 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. While I am trying to address a larger issue than BetacommandBot, I think that the bot is related to (and symptomatic of) this problem. Take a look at the example of the bot's behavior that brought me to this page in the first place ("my 2¢...," above.) If that doesn't make the connection clear, I can try to spell it out in further detail. BTfromLA 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(To Moreschi) Agreed, which is why we need more content-oriented admins (which I know you already know ;-), so the people with the sysop bit aren't completely clueless as to what editors need or want. --Iamunknown 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BTfromLA is right, it is an important point, and an inherent achilles heel of the wikicracy that needs to be counteracted consciously. It is not entirely unrelated to betacommandbot, as the huge discussion above shows. That we need to get rid of unfree content is undisputed. The debate above is surrounding particulars of how this is being done. It boils down to this: admins need to remember that they are here to serve the project, not to build a watertight bureaucracy. We need the bureaucracy to be able to deal with the sheer scale of the project, but whenever bureaucracy is in the way of improvement of the pedia, we will bend the bureaucracy around the pedia, not vice versa. dab (�) 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Carcharoth 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dab misses an essential point here. The present consensus is that Wikipedia content is as free as possible -- that is, due to copyright laws & prior art, Wikipedia will never be 100% free-as-in-speech. On some points, I think the community is in practical consensus (e.g., "No, you may not have a free-use image of your favorite acress on your user page"); but on many, either there is currently no consensus, or the consensus exists against removing free-use content (e.g., the use of logos to help identify corporations or brands). But he is correct that the emphasis should be on the "how" -- not in building a powerful beaucracy or seeking "diktats" to effect these changes. -- llywrch 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of this, and do not quite see how I am missing anything. I granted we need to remove blatant fair use violations, but this wasn't the point I made. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Re-reading what you wrote, Dab, I now see what you meant. I've been annoyed by this ideological purity over image licensing for so long that I'm starting to see its advocates where none exist. Sorry. -- llywrch 22:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We really do seem to be spending a disproportionate amount of time these days on images, rather than text. Neil ム 09:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we will continue to do so as long as we allow fair use images. Patrolling hundreds of thousands of images for adherence to our non-free content criteria is quite difficult. I don't think any rule that is more complicated than "you can upload anything you like" or "free content only" is going to be enforceable without really large effort. For the record, I think we should move to "free content only" (good reasons for this move can be seen on Angr's userpage). Kusma (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, with a bit more organised effort, with proper use of categories and tags, it should be possible to get the non-free images under control and see the real scale of the problem and some of the details and proportions of different types of images. Just looking at the overall number and going on a case-by-case approach for each image, was never going to be very informative or efficient. A breakdown into different types is a much better way to approach the matter, and this is what has been happening and what is currently being made more efficient. Then more effort can be devoted to examining the free images and making sure they have sources, and making sure they really are free! In other words, even if all images are "free" we still trust out uploaders to be truthful, or we still have to carefully examine thousands and thousands of images. No different to the case with fair-use, except for some small proportion of the fair-use image (by no means all of them) there is some unknown chance of legal repercussions. Carcharoth 09:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:67.192.60.213

OK, guys, just a heads-up. Please be careful when blocking this IP, as you'll cause massive amounts of autoblocks if you do block it. See the above talk page. From a concerned student, --HurricanVest 09:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we confirm this with the district? It seems an extremely inefficient setup, given the size of the region. I'm not saying the anonymous editor who added the caution is spreading misinformation, but he may be misinformed. — madman bum and angel 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, blocking the IP shouldn't trigger autoblocks (since most blocks are soft), only blocking accounts will. Since we don't know the underlying IPs of named accounts there's not much to be done... -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 13:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Both this IP, and the newly created account HurricanVest, are acting very much like socks of a troll, including goofing around with sock notices of other users. An admin might want to look at the contribs of both and see if they think my hunch is right. --barneca (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch. I've reverted the problems I've seen, and I'm keeping a close eye on them. Thanks! — madman bum and angel 17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: The IP might be a sockpuppet of Bugman94. [13] — madman bum and angel 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; this is clearly not a new user, was devoted to monkeying with shared-IP templates and sockpuppet tags, and seemed not to be contributing to the improvement of the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved.  ;) — madman bum and angel 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest keeping an eye on 195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs). Odd situation. User:HurricanVest was there earlier this morning. Per user and talk pages, long history of sockpuppetry and claiming to be unfairly blocked on a shared IP that Cyde said (back in August 2006) isn't really shared. 6 month block expired 7 months ago, with what appears to be a mixture of legitimate and vandal edits from there since then, and one vandal edit earlier this month. Still not shared? --barneca (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP referenced is on a server for Webhosting. Very likely an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think 195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an open proxy. It may well be a public terminal IP per this diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:195.188.50.200&oldid=159978063

Sefton Libraries do have a contact form here, select Technical Services and they should be able to confirm or not if their public terminal IPs are 195.188.50.200 or not. Hope this helps. --Solumeiras ^talk 09:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm referring to the IP that this section starts with...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Special:Watchlist

Resolved

 – It would seem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up: A lot of people experience trouble with Special:Watchlist, getting a database or 500 internal server error. Impact is unknown, but if all editors have this problem, a lot of vandalism is going undetected right now, and all editors have to cleanup big time when it's solved. Is anyone in contact with a dev? — Edokter • Talk • 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be solved again (for me anyway). — Edokter • Talk • 17:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting an error too. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was having the problem in Firefox, until I did a CTRL F5 to refresh the cache.--SarekOfVulcan 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, this issue has been resolved. The best I could gather is that Ariel (one of the database servers, it serves the watchlists, from what I'm told) went offline for a bit and took some time to reboot and sort itself off. Don't need to bug devs about it unless the issue persists, I would think. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxer User:Woofe705

Recently I detected a hoax paragraph at Bourges that had lain undetected for months. The User's other hoaxes, all entered 1-15 February 2007, were detected more quickly: at Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll, Doune of Invernochty, and King of Bavaria. Hoax text was cut and pasted by an unwary editor to Huvadhu Atoll, causing a brief kerfuffle. Clio helped unmask the hoaxes: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Sir Fergus Woodward, Scottish explorer?

These deleted hoaxes have been translated into other wikis and spread over the Internet: Google "Sir Fergus Woodward". "Sir Fergus Woodward" was inserted at Fergus.

I'd like someone to check whether the IP is currently logged-in under other aliases and note them here: other hoax insertions may be detectable this way. --Wetman 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

His last edits are far too old to run a checkuser and find his IP. Someguy1221 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to Wetman for spotting the subtlest variety of vandalism that went unchallenged for months. It is these things that undermine our credibility the most. What disturbs me is that more than one logged-in account was employed for perpetuating the hoax. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLAGGED anyone? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've mis-stated that: the seemingly cooperating edit was from an IP. A moderately credible dead-pan hoax may be hard to detect.--Wetman 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidents

I have been having a constant battle for about a year now with user Metros I created two pages on notable, sourced internet radio stations. Each had at least 3 sources from an outside source, but Metros thought since the page existed a year ago, that it should be deleted again. The two pages are currently up for AfD 207 Live and DHMRO which is even listed on the NYSE from the parent company Applied Technologies. I am requesting administrator intervention, before this is brought up to the arbitration group.--NightRider63 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Listed on the NYSE? Dude, you need to stop with the blatant lies. Your "ticker symbol" that you listed in your article on DHMRO came up with this listing. So suddenly your company is somehow related to Structured Obligations Corporation? As for your "parent company" Applied Technologies, how come there are no Google hits to link these two? Nor no mention in the DHMRO article about this. Is your grandpa suddenly the owner of your radio station, a mattress store, and Applied Technologies? Metros 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people are more successful then some people who just edit day after day--NightRider63 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to go off-topic but isn't this more appropriate for WP:ANI? Hell, the word "Incidents" is the section heading. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless there is some suggestion of Merope's using the tools inappropriately (especially if in furtherance of some personal grudge) or of the community's needing to involve itself, a discussion probably need not to be had at AN/I (or, for that matter, RfC); it seems that, the ostensibly insignificant editor/admin conduct issues aside, the issue is being properly addressed by the community at the relevant AfDs, and I cannot imagine that any administrative attention/intervention should be necessary. Joe 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing the need for admin intervention here. ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process (down the hall, if you're interested). Joe, did you mean Metros, or is Merope also involved somehow? Natalie 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[EC]You mean Metros (talk · contribs) and not Merope (talk · contribs), I imagine? — Scientizzle 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I have no idea how/why I made that substitution. I did indeed mean Metros; thanks to you both for catching that. Joe 03:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digitally Imported looks like a WP:POINT AfD to me...and PownedByWindows (talk · contribs) looks like a sock, too, having only really participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHMRO‎ & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/207 Live, another Metros-nominated internet radio station. — Scientizzle 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Religion in India history split

Resolved

Hi. I need help with splitting the history at Talk:Religion in India:

• Everything up to the version dated "11:09, 31 August 2007" should be at Talk:Religion in India
• All revisions after that one should be moved to Talk:Indian religions

I already tried doing this by following the directions at WP:CPMV. Thanks in advance. Saravask 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do. (Responding now to avoid duplication of effort and move conflicts.) — TKD::Talk 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Page histories should be fine now. Let me know if I goofed, or if you need anything else. — TKD::Talk 00:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TKD. It looks great now. Saravask 00:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to solicit emails and personal details from children in 1993 Births

Resolved

I just saw this at AFD, it's been there for 15 hours but no one has even commented on suspect this is. The creator Camcd has added 26 requests for children born in 1993 to email him with their name and birthdates, and incuded his personal email address. I find this extremely suspect, as it could be a pedophile attempting to get personal details from kids. Could someone deal with this as none of the people in the discussion seem to have realised what could be going on here. Masaruemoto 00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted and user blocked by Krimpet. Someguy1221 00:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him and speedied the page; this was a blatant attempt to solicit information from minors, and will not be tolerated at all. --krimpet⟲ 00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response, I'm surprised no one at AFD questioned this article sooner. Masaruemoto 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Email blocked as well - don't want to take any risks here. Mr.Z-man 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the article. Good call, Krimpet - Alison ^❤ 05:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Should probably be reported to gmail as well.-gadfium 06:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just done exactly that - Alison ^❤ 06:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please create a page prevented from being created

A user at Wikipedia:Articles for creation suggested to create a redirect from Cronology to Chronology, which is the correct spelling. No problem, said Ariel Gold, until he tried it and found that the page was protected against creation, having been deleted twice as A7 and then G4.

Please unprotect Cronology and create the redirect, adding the Template:R from misspelling. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it from Wikipedia:Protected titles/September 2007/List and fully protected the redirect to prevent the NN band to take over the redirect. We should be able to unprotect it in some weeks. -- ReyBrujo 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Merge?

Most of the merge discussions I've seen take forever, but I can't think of any reason not to move one of Maya Herrera or Alejandro Herrera to Maya and Alejandro Herrera and redirect the other to it, since the content is the same. But I wasn't sure how bold that would be, and the Heroes editors always seem to get really picky when I touch their stuff, and I don't have the time to establish myself on their turf. Since the character Alejandro can't leave Maya's side, though, it seems unlikely that they're going to have separate experiences to merit separate character pages anytime soon. Anyone?--Thespian 06:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• A suggestion to get more people from the Heroes crowd talking about it would be to go also to the Wikiproject Heroes group (Personally I don't have a problem with merging until they do have separate experiences on the show)-- Marcsin | ^Talk 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson closed

The above arbitration case is closed. Jmfangio has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Tecmobowl. Chrisjnelson is restricted to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page for a duration of six months. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User page and talk page moved - muddle

Hallo, I think user "Vivi Greenwell" has managed to move her pages into a muddle - see CONTENTS and Special:Contributions/Vivi_greenwell. I'm not sure I know enough to fix it and suspect she doesn't either - have left a note on her talk page, but perhaps someone expert could help? Thanks. PamD 17:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the pages back and deleted the resulting redirects. I've also left her a note. Thanks for notifying. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise abusing his power to impose his way

Administrator User: Future Perfect at Sunrise is using his admin standing to impose his way of 'looking at things' on the Wikiproject Republic of Macedonia which allegedly is using for pushing POV, which could not be further from the truth, as the project page is just a mean for coordinating efforts concerning articles that deal with Republic of Macedonia, there is nothing POV on it, and there are Greek and Bulgarian users there which can offer a balanced opinion on all matters. He went even further and proposed the whole project for deletion as his 'authority' was not respected. Capricornis 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ROMacedonia. I don't see any problem with Fut.Perf's actions here, considering the abuse of the WikiProject system outlined in that nomination. There's already a strong consensus to delete, and for good reason. Seems to me some of the WikiProject participants need to be censured as well. — madman bum and angel 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just censured...probably some bans are in order. Future Perfect has done everything right in trying to restrain an mischievous little nest of POV-pushing. Moreschi ^Talk 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And filing an MFD is not an abuse of adminiship tools; it doesn't require that bit to file any sort of deletion case. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Read all the refutals on each an every of Fut.Perf. arguments on the MfD page. His case holds no water whatsoever, he hasn't proven probable cause nor any of his claims are beyond reasonable doubt. He has exhibited conflicts of interests and personal bias.This notice is not for his reporting of the wikiproject to the MfD, but for all of his 'acting as a higher power' by unilaterally deleting parts of the wikiproject without discussion, deciding what constitutes POV without discussion, imposing his opinion without hearing other arguments, etc, etc. His last MfD application was the last drop in the ocean, where he presents only one side of the case, withdraws facts, and misrepresents information just to prove his points right. The people who agreed there are either notorious for their hostility to anything Macedonian like NetProfit (check his contrib history and how many edit wars he is involved in), or the others who probably didn't even bother to check the validity of his claims. I could garner just as many votes against deletion if I alerted many pro-macedonian users who don't spend each and every day (or week) on wikipedia. But that is of no consequence, if he gets his way and this project gets deleted (not that a new one cannot be created within minutes), it would be a final proof of how much wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. Capricornis 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, nothing to see here. Perhaps a review should be undertaken to see if disruption is occurring so that the problem can be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Orderinchaos 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Zscout370, you are right, filing an MFD is not an abuse of the adminship tools, but this MfD request came as result of this argue between the Fut.Perf and Capricornis about the To do list of that project:[14], [15] where (see the second link) Fut.Perf concludes that when Capricornis is willing to bring the case to a larger audience, the case would continue at MfD. I don't think that an admin user should fulfill an MfD because the other user wanted to bring the dispute about the To do list to a larger audience and because he found the To do list POV-ish. What is the purpose of the whole project deletion just because the To do list is supposedly wrong? I'm afraid that this deletion is going to happen and I'm disappointed that would be result of an admin user initiative. MatriX 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing closed AfD

I just pulled an IAR to clarify an out-of-order AfD list in a closed deletion discussion. That seem unreasonable to anyone?--SarekOfVulcan 15:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, that is why we have WP:IAR. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing a closed AfD discussion is not really high up on the list of heinous wiki-crimes. That is more a public order thing. I often edit archived pages and closed discussions. The trick is knowing what sort of changes are reasonable and which aren't. Clarifications and corrections should always be added, while making clear that the addition was made after the closing point. That is one of the advantages of a wiki after all - mistakes can be corrected. The trick is to do it in such a way that people reading the page after you don't have to look through the page history to work out what happened. Carcharoth 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's about what I figured. Thanks for the input!--SarekOfVulcan 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a written-down policy that closed AfDs shouldn't be edited. It lies in the realm of common sense. Adding a new comment to the debate is inappropriate, but what Sarek did above is OK, and fixing format problems seems OK. A related case was discussed at the Village Pump where half of an AfD was blotted out by an unclosed strikeout. Someone daringly fixed it, and no retribution ensued. EdJohnston 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any written policy about editing closed anythings, but as has been noted, it depends on the edits. I've edited closed RfAs before, but I've also warned editors for editing closed RfAs (for my part, it's usually either correcting the final tally or removing the "voice your opinion" link; in the later case, it was someone adding bogus supports to his own RfA). Your edit, Sarek, definitely strikes me a proper use of IAR. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the templates we use to close AfDs say that it shouldn't be edited, but I agree that in this case (and similar cases) common senseical edits are perfectly fine. Natalie 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of editing a closed AFD that definitely should not happen. This would be covered by {{uw-delete1}} (or higher) as a content removal "wiki-crime". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User names

I requested a review of a user name at WP:UAA (BCSPM (talk · contribs)) because they had created Boldt Consulting Services, and it seems like they have the same name as the article they created. It was deleted and I was told to take it to WP:RFCN. So I took it there and it was deleted without discussion, not even a friendly note on my Talk page. What's the point in having either page, if a questionable User name can't get discussed anywhere? Corvus cornix 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't dig through the history, but I'm assuming that the reason it was deleted from RFCN is because the user was not asked to either clarify or voluntarily change their username on their talk page prior to bringing it to RFCN. Quoting from the instructions at the top of the noticeboard:

Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply. If after that you still believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here and explain which part of the username policy you think it violates.

It's a pretty strictly enforced requirement. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So, how about if I go to WP:COIN instead? Corvus cornix 22:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You never put {{UsernameConcern}} on his talk page. Give him a few days to respond, then report him. It's not blatant, anyway. After all, it still doesn't say "Boldt Consulting Services". Looking at the username, I don't see anything wrong with it. Only "BC" matches with the company, the rest is un-related. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "BCS" part matches up exactly, and, from looking at the deleted page, the "PM" likely refers to "Project Management", which is a listed division of the company in question. It's clearly related to the company, but that doesn't mean we can or should bite them without explaining why. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RFCN is the proper venue, but only after it has been discussed (or there has been an attempted discussion) with the user in question. Basically, it's to ensure we don't WP:BITE new users for inadvertently choosing a name that might possibly violate the username policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, does this edit satisfy the concern? Corvus cornix 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Give him some time to respond, though. Maybe about a day or two. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I understand. Corvus cornix 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Paulcicero

This stalking story has started around middle of August this year with this revert [16] by user:Paulcicero. It is interested to notice that 2 statements confirmed with internet links has been reverted/changed with facts without sources. (he has never edited before this article)

Then it has come this : [17] (he has never edited before)

Then on 24 september it has been this [18] (he has never edited before on this page)

My personal best is article House of Trpimirović where new user has started edit war (in which I have not been) so in the end on 23 september I have reverted article to User:Paulcicero version of 8 July with which everybody has been happy (part of article which speak about archont Petar [19]). But now user:Paulcicero is not happy anymore with his version and he is reverting me [20] If this is not bad faith edith and stalking I do not know what it is ??

All in all user:Paulcicero has reverted me or on any other way made changes of 9 articles (Creation of Yugoslavia , Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991 , Chetniks , Independent State of Croatia *, Jasenovac concentration camp *, Serbs of Croatia *, Extermination camp , The Holocaust *, House of Trpimirović *, which I have edited in last 40 days. You must take in account that I have taken pause between 9 and 22 september tired of his games. Where is writen * he has deleted statement confirmed with internet links which he do not like. This is clear example of bad faith editing. In the end I will like to know if it is possible to revert without thinking of 3RR rule if somebody is deleting statement confirmed with internet link. --user:Rjecina 02:25 27 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.99.205 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about a member

Resolved

Physik=Vanilla2. Maxim_(talk) 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to make a complaint about Vanilla2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first heard of Vanilla2 when he tried to had an RFA. I wanted to help him steer towards his goal, but reviewing his contributions, he has done some bad things here. Examples:

Stop it you fucking non-members

Added "300 Part II" to 300 (film), then reverted his own edit and added it again Note that he was told to stop, but continued (see below diff)

Vandalized Prison Break (although he reverted this himself)

Blanked a redirect

Telling Pascal.Tesson to go to hell because Pascal removed a fair user image on Vanilla2's userpage

Removed a user from WikiProject Saw because "he copied him."

Tried to unblock a serial vandal

I would like to maybe see what an administrator thinks of this. Forgive me if this is in the wrong place. Thank you. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been too kind. Seriously. He's stretching his welcome too thin. Maxim_(talk) 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I've been trying to hlep this guy out but it's become frustrating. What do you think we should do about him? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with JetLover's concerns about this user. There appears to be an issue with impulse control when making edits and comments, and the user has not availed himself of the ample help which has been offered. --- Taroaldo 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Only two edits within the last week are self-reverted vandalism. Follow up if problems resume. I'd definitely have blocked for some of the previous actions if I'd been aware of them when they were new. Durova^Charge! 10:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As somebody who followed Physik during his tenure here at Wikipedia, I really think that Vanilla2 is probably a sock puppet of that user. His grammar, his editing habits (what he uploads, the content of what he edits), his obsession with adminship, and the fact that he tried to unblock Physik as one of his first acts as an editor all point to that conclusion. Maybe I'm crazy; I wanted to get some second opinions first and this seems a good forum in which to do it. bwowen talk•contribs 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser? MER-C 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd endorse a block. Bwowen raises some good points about his habits. Even if he isn't the sockpuppet in question, he's worn out his welcome and it's time he's shown the door. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed by checkuser Dmcdevit as a "very clear" match between Physik and Vanilla2. Blocked as well. Maxim_(talk) 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article namespace

I've noticed that the terms "article namespace" and "main namespace" are used in thousands wikipedia pages, many of which are policies, style guides and other important pages. I was quite surprized that there was no Wikipedia:Main namespace/Wikipedia:Article namespace artile, not even a redirect, so I quickly hacked one from several other instruction pages. I guess y'all have to take a good look at it. `'Míkka 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is Help:Namespace (the shortcut for it is WP:NAMESPACE). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not well. It is for meta and way too general. `'Míkka 08:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgz33

I just logged in and found the folling at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Any vadalism here?. As I was one of the ones he was attacking I'm not sure that I should be taking any action so I bring it here for others to decide. However, I'm concerned that he now appears to be trying to find out where others live as in "Do you know if Quartet or Yankees is from Toronto?" CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No wikipedian should be collecting nor distributing personal info on wikipedia. It's suggested not to give it out either. For example, some minors put their ages on their user page. Such is not recommended, especially for minors. Warn the offender. I'm not sure if there's a written wiki policy on this, it's just common sense though.Rlevse 14:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

Resolved

Wasn't sure where to ask for help on this... I've been asked to break up List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/S into 2 articles due to pre-expansion template limit. So I've broken into List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Sa-Sh and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Si-Sz. I then moved List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/S to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Sa-Sh. Now, my issue here is not knowing how to change the Siblings output found on each of the pages within List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Visit List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and you'll see at the top of the page: Siblings:

-- this is put on each article within List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and I need to change the output that {{List LGBT short}} is giving from [ A • B • C-E • F-J • K-O • P-R • S • T-V • W-Z ] to [ A • B • C-E • F-J • K-O • P-R • Sa-Sh • Si-Sz • T-V • W-Z ] but I can't figure out where {{List LGBT short}} is located to make changes to it. Thanks for any help. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:List LGBT short. When something is included between double {}, it is a template and can be found in the template: namespace. I have changed it for you. Fram 08:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 08:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Thafadi Adahabou

Today User:Thafadi Adahabou treatened to kill some people. He also vandalised some other articles. All his bad-edits have been reverted, and je is indefenitly blocked. But shouldn't you admins bann his IP-adress forever asswell? -The Bold Guy- 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He was only active for today. He may very well have been using a dynamic or shared IP address, in which case an indefinite block would not only not block him, but it may needlessly block other contributors. Someguy1221 16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, we don't know his IP address, because having a username masks it. When a username is blocked it does block the underlying IP, but only for 24 hours. If he reappears as an IP, we can block him again. Natalie 14:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Threats to commit murder is very serious. Please post diffs. If it is serious, reporting the user to the police may be appropriate. What if the murdered said "I told WP what I was going to do and they only blocked me. They did not do anything even though I told them the person I was going to kill, the victim's address, and the intended date of murder." This scenario may be not applicable in this case but I have not seen any diffs to say one way or another. Archtransit 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at his last edits. --Golbez 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely an administrator with CheckUser powers could find their IP address? --saxsux 19:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not intended to be used for fishing expeditions -- & that would be a fishing expedition. Natalie's answer above is appropriate. Besides, the death threats sound to me a little odd (although the block is justified): threatening to kill trolls? (Maybe it depends on who one considers a troll.) I can't help but wondering if this is some kind of joe job: someone allows a "friend" to use his computer, "friend" creates an account on Wikipedia, causes havoc, gets blocked -- all without the owner of the computer knowing. People do weird things. And if this is not the case, as Natalie says, we'll block the IP when that person makes more threats against trolls. -- llywrch 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocks vis a vis Proxy

I'm sure this is a redux, but there is really no reason to indef block proxys? Even static IP's change. I'm seeing this done on dynamics also when I view the block feed. Just something to keep in mind. Regards, Navou ^banter 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think open proxies should be blocked only 2 weeks to 1 month at a time. The common open proxy is detected and shutdown by the ISP it is running on rather quickly, most are running on unsuspecting home computers. An IP that is an open proxy now is unlikely to continue to be so forever. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If there was better documentation on how to detect them (or any documentation), they could be checked from time to time and left blocked until they were detected not to be an open proxy. Perhaps even a bot? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy Hannah strong disagree. IPs should be blocked for years on such a case, if not indefinitely. Yes, they change, but most of them do not change. They can always request unblock. If we start blocking them only for a little bit, I am going to guarantee you all right now that you might as well throw our page on WP:BAN right out the window, as every sock in the drawer will be on those addresses. The Evil Spartan 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked several hundred open proxies and have only been contacted by 3 or 4 asking for unblock, which I always do if I can verify the status of the IP. I doubt you will find many open proxies on truly dynamic IPs like AOL or British Telecom dialup; the proxies aren't useful to users if they are too hard to find. Thatcher131 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

2 weeks to a month is MUCH too low. There are hoards of lists of anonymous proxies out there. I usually do five years. It's important when you block one to note in the block message what port the proxy is on, or, if it is a web-based anonymizer, what the URL is. That way, if the IP does change and a legitimate user asks for an unblock, someone can confirm that it is no longer a proxy. --B 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I know that some people disagree with this, but soft blocking them is a very bad idea too ... if you soft block a proxy then all a banned user has to do is have a friend create an account for him and he can live forever on a soft-blocked proxy. --B 20:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to drive home the point, this is User:B editing from an open proxy. It took me about two minutes of googling to find an unblocked one. (I will block it.) If we don't block them long term, we will make no headway whatsoever. --208.112.107.20 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think people worry about folks that truly have no other means of editing. BTW, is there a definitive way to test the various ports? I know there's nmap but if you find a suspicious port, how can you actually use it to edit? I imagine there is no definitive way since zombie ports could be made to behave however the zombie creator wants but is there a usual method? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the simple methods is checking to see what ports are open. 208.112.107.20 has at least five open ports including 80, and 443 which are HTTP ports β^_command 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But this particular one isn't a proxy server in that sense ... it's the IP used by a web-based proxy planshost.com. --B 22:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If nmap shows a suspicious open port, the usual way to confirm it is simply to try using it as a proxy and seeing if you can access Wikipedia. This can be as simple as sending "GET http://en.wikipedia.org/ HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n" to the port and seeing what comes back. If the response is from a Wikimedia server, you can assume you've found an open proxy. Of course, as B points out, this will only work for some types of proxies. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We realy need to work on some kind of consistent "best practices" guidelines so we don't end up with this hog-podge of blocks. Some indef, some 1 week... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive username User:CompuHacker?

Resolved

 – Eagle 101 provides an appropriate conclusion to this discussion. llywrch 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I read on the username page that usernames that allude to hacking are inappropriate (under "Disruptive usernames"), I'm not sure if this counts. 172.142.128.94 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:RFCN. The Evil Spartan 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It may have been whacked when it was created but now there is an established positive editor behind the name so there's no point raising the issue to him/her now. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hacker can be either a positive or a negative term. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. --Carnildo 18:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Black hat or white hat; we like the whites. --Haemo 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to find fault with names, watch for disruptive edits. There are the blatantly wrong names like FUCKAGOAT or something, but then there are the ones that are just indicators that you should watch for activity. Hacking has both good and bad meanings. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

View source

I have come across protected page and the blocked message at my school (since my school IP is blocked), and I see "View source" lots of times, which may be confusing for many users.

Sometimes, I see the words "View source" when I come to a page that is fully protected. Even clicking a red link on a salted page (protected and deleted page) it still says View source, but there are no "source", so the title "View source" doesn't make sense for the message saying that the page is protected to prevent creation. We will have to think about a new title for the message that says that the page has been protected to prevent creation.

Regarding the block message, my school IP address has been blocked from editing because many students continued to vandalize, so I checked out the block message, to see what it is like. It also was titled "View source" instead of "User is blocked". "View source" would also not make sense for block message, especially for block message that blocked users get when they click on a red link. "User is blocked" makes more sense for block message that blocked users get when they click on the "edit" button or a red link, since "View source" can be a bit confusing for people. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but long experience hanging about Category:Requests for unblock has shown that innocent users getting a message saying anything like "user is blocked" is often reason for detonation, ANGRY SHOUTING, threats, recrimination etc. It's spin to just say "view source" rather than "edit" on a page, but good spin - the alternative is hordes of angry, innocent users calling for the scalp of the blocking/protecting admin or writing semi-informed articles in newspapers about how Wikipedia is no longer editable by anyone. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It only makes sense if it says "view source" when actually viewing the source on a protected page, but in a message saying that the page has been deleted and protected to prevent creation, there are no source so "view source" does not make sense there, as well as the block message. "User is blocked" would make more sense to a block message since sometimes, block messages doesn't even have sources, when the blocked user clicks on the red link. View source can be confusing particularly to block message because users have to scroll all the way down if there is a source. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I see. Do users who are encountering an editing block or a protected page immediately go and click "view source"? Is this something we can predict that they will do with confidence? I know that some people would suggest not trying to second-guess what a user would do, but in this case, my thoughts would be that this is a reaction that neither a brand-new user nor an experienced user would have. Perhaps an intermediate-level user?

Anyhow, the change you suggest would, I think, require a conditional (if x=y then z=a else z=b) modification of the MediaWiki interface; if so, it's nothing that admins can do, so you might be better to ask about it at the village pump or propose a change via Bugzilla. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a MediaWiki bug: the edit tab for nonexistent cascade-protected pages shouldn't say "view source". Perhaps there should be no edit tab at all in this case (since you can't edit and there's no source to view)? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It may be the bug. Instead of "view source", it should say "page protected" when users click on the "edit" button on a protected, nonexistent page, while the block message should say "User is blocked" because the block message can sometimes have no source to view. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd still argue against any element of the interface saying "user is blocked" automatically. Heavens to Jimbo, the very word "blocked" appearing automatically to people not directly blocked causes enough ructions as it is. It could even (he says, producing a card that seems to trump absolutely everything these days) be thought to be biting. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just committed rev:26189 to fix this. It simply removes the "view source" tab entirely if the page doesn't exist. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the block message, the title "view source" still wouldn't make sense since sometimes, there are no source to view, usually when a red link is clicked. The block message shows that the block is meant for a specific user, IP address, or IP range, and also shows whether the user is blocked directly or not. So "User is blocked" still makes more sense than "View source". NHRHS2010 ^Talk 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(Followup) Ethnic-warring and nationality

Sorry if this is intrusive, I don't want to canvass each of the ANI individuals concerned so I thought of posting a single ping/followup here: anyone who participated or was interested in the ANI section "Ethnic war brewing, and abuse of WP:MINOR" last week may be interested (as an editor, not an admin) about the 3 (con)current new RFCs on exactly the very same problem/solution/war:

• at Talk:P. G. Wodehouse#RFC (British vs. English) (disclosure: that's mine)
• at Talk:Andy Murray (tennis)#Nationality
• at Talk:Colin McRae#Protected.

As well as:

• about the possibility for an admin to merge the three RFCs into a single-page general RFC for the topic of representation of nationality (which is essentially independent of the bio subjects)? (Dunno if that's doable/done.)
• about an advance call to policy-makers at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Representation of nationality

Regards,

— Komusou ^talk @ 19:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Ortiz

This is a pretty obvious hoax article, and it's neither notable nor verifiable. Either the author or the subject came into the discussion and asked for it to be deleted because it was all untrue. This meets either WP:SPEEDY delete criteria A7 (request by author) or A10 (defamation of a living person), depending on whether we believe that the requestor was the subject or the author. It kind of confuses me, but I think it can be speedy d'ed, and it probably should be on the slim chance that there actually is an Alyssa Ortiz, that this article contains libellous information about her, and that she asked for it to be deleted. I suspect that because this is a few days old, no admins will look at it until the end of the normal waiting period.

I also suspect that if I knew how to change the template to a speedy, I wouldn't have to do this on the noticeboard. Sorry to bother. Thanks in advance. Deltopia 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've speedied it. Someone ought to look into the other contributions of Sxe lifer (talk · contribs) and the various IPs that have contributed to the article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also deleted Travis Helmsley and NATW X-Factor Championship. Others seem to have already handled most of the rest. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've checked out the IPs, and I've tagged an orphaned image the user uploaded for deletion (another image has already been tagged for speedy deletion). I believe most of the loose ends are tied up. I'll leave a kind but stern message to the user.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I also took a look at the IP contribs. Most are dynamic IPs from BellSouth and have no edits outside this cluster of articles. However, two of them, 68.199.18.48 and 71.146.26.25, stand out of the crowd. The former, from optonline.net, has made both vandal and anti-vandal edits to wrestling-related articles. Their edits to North All-Time Wrestling were also vandalistic, so they may just be a wrestling vandal that happened to hit the page. The latter, from sbcglobal.net, edited Alyssa Ortiz to add "Has a cult-like following among wrestling fans in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia", which would certainly seem to mark them as being in on the hoax. However, they also have a couple of unrelated edits in the same time frame. Maybe a friend? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Darwinism

Hi there, this AfD has been open for over a week now. Could somebody try to assess what the consensus was? Tim Vickers 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dom Passantino (3rd nomination) also has been there for nine days. Any takers? -- Jreferee t/c 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. Tim Vickers 21:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tim Vickers 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

United Nation of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone take a look at United Nation of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and determine if there's a slow-speed edit war going on there? There seem to be about two different versions of the article: the short version, which Masonuc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to favor, and the long version, which Useruser1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is favoring. The long version looks like a thinly disguised ad for the organization, while the short version ends with a paragraph that's pretty critical of the organization. I'm not quite sure if it counts as libel, but the criticism is pretty well unsourced. I asked Masonuc (talk · contribs) if he had any sources for the allegations, but according to the talk page blanking, he doesn't want to respond.

I'm really not even sure the group is notable enough for Wikipedia, except as an offshoot of Nation of Islam, but I'm not well-versed enough in such groups to make a determination. Any thoughts? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed a merge with Nation of Islam. Tim Vickers 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD needing a review

I would like for someone to review a TfD. Essentially, the lone opponent to the template's deletion is declaring the TfD void because of a old AbCom ruling on an unrelated dispute. The AbCom ruling itself was about two editors engaged in an editwar over BC/AD vs BCE/CE when both formats were expectable by the MoS. He is also using the AbCom ruling to practically declared owner over the template and articles it is/was transcluded on. --Farix (Talk) 11:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please link to the discussion? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I just realized I forgot to provide the link. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 17#Template:Infobox Oh My Goddess! character --Farix (Talk) 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem there - it looks like it will be deleted despite that one user's objections. violet/riga (t) 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing it, I closed the discussion as delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the close and the explanation. The only reason I had brought it up here was because that same editor has a long history of displaying ownership on articles in the subject area. --Farix (Talk) 20:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that editor has been mentioned here more than a few times. ::sigh:: -- llywrch 19:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, you could have just told him that the new template has a 'color' parameter which would allow the grey color he was complaining about to be replaced. I'm all for consolidating templates, but the general idea is to work with people to see that the template can cover all the variations of those it is meant to replace. Don't steamroll people into accepting a generic template as is... see what can be done to make the generic template display as close as possible to the specialized one. There were only a handful of people using the old babel templates that were left aligned or which had multiple columns, but I didn't replace those until Template:Babel could do the same. When I did replace/redirect them nobody ever noticed or cared... because there was no significant difference. All that being said, {{Infobox animanga character}} looks like a fork of {{Infobox character}}... making the 'we must standardize templates' mantra on that AfD seem somewhat ironic. There's a balance between 'too generic' and 'too specific' which needs to be respected... Template:Update after has alot of too specific functionality and thus is the only such inline notice I know of which hasn't been merged into Template:Fix. I dunno if this particular infobox had anything too specific to be rendered with the new one, but that ought to have been the first issue explored - can the same look and feel be replicated well enough that nobody cares (or knows) that it is a different template. --CBD 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Simon Wessely

As a courtesy I have blanked this section.

To sum up: the Simon Wessely article has in the past frequently been a target of single purpose accounts pursuing an agenda not consistent with our editorial standards, and it needs to be watched carefully. --Jimbo Wales 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

An admin acting like the Supreme Court, more tact is advised????

Resolved

Appears to be resolved. There was some discussion. That's all that was requested by the original poster, not a change in decision.UTAFA 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

- - -
I commented on an AFD about one of the minor 9-11 hijackers (not Atta, the ringleader). That article was proposed for deletion. I disagree but am for merge/redirect (as WP states that the event, not the non-notable person is to be covered in articles).

The other AFD's of the same day were decided around day 5 or 6 as expected. This one sat longer, probably because there was not a clear answer. Then an admin stated "Keep, Groundless AFD".

I can see how someone would say "Keep" and as an admin, their decision is the law. However, "Groundless AFD" is in violation of AGF and isn't true at all, given that so many admins passed up the decision because it was a harder decision. Certainly a speedily keep or speedily deleted AFD is groundless, not this one.

Is there any support to declaring the AFD as "keep" and not "keep, groundless AFD". You can say it here and I would be satisfied with the matter and the matter closed (IMHO). It would soothe feelings, right the process, yet have no change in the article's retention. This is not a major issue, hence it is not in AN/I. I certainly don't want to be part of a vote where I voted "redirect/merge" while the official result was "groundless AFD" because that potentially harms my reputation ("Mrs.EasterBunny voted yes in support of a groundless AFD, therefore Mrs.EasterBunny is actually Mrs.Satan" Oh!!!) Mrs.EasterBunny 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, "redirect/merge" is not a 'yes' vote on deletion because such a result would not result in the article being deleted. For another thing, people really don't care all that much about your votes in AFDs - it really doesn't matter (I've contacted the admin regardless, but maybe you should work on not being so thin-skinned about these things) —Random832 17:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reputation would not be hurt at all if you provided a well-reasoned and policy-based argument for redirect/merge. Leebo ^T/C 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tact is a good idea. The decision may be rouge (I don't know, I haven't looked into it), but admins are not gods and do make mistakes; if you challenge (pleasantly) a seeming mistake and an admin gets busy on your ass because of your challenge, it won't stand and others will notice. But that almost never happens. Instead, admins being yer actual human beings, a quick tap to say "I'm confused, your decision [[here]] made no sense to me. Can you tell me what you meant?" will almost always provoke forehead-slapping in the admin, rather than kvetching. In my experience. And with me. In my case, I may take the opportunity to boringly lecture you on how obvious the decision was, but I'd also quietly learn a lesson for next time and also instantly forget your troublemaking :o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevant info: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marwan al-Shehhi, closed by Wknight94 (talk · contribs); subsequest DRV opened by Mrs.EasterBunny (talk · contribs) (who contacted Wknight94 here).

For what it's worth, I agree with the comment that this was a "groundless AfD." The overwhelming consensus was to keep. This is a sourced article about a historical significant person. In addition, the person who made the AfD nomination stated he/she did it because "the victims of (9-11) terrorist attack articles are routinely deleted citing non-notability." The admin was being polite in saying this was a "groundless AfD." I'd probably have closed the AfD earlier with stronger words than that.--Alabamaboy 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It could have been done more politely. The nomination was technically correct, al-Shehhi really is known solely for a single incident. However, it seems clear that participants agreed it was a rather important incident, and al-Shehhi became sufficiently notable as an outcome. So I agree with the closing as keep, but do think saying the nomination was groundless could have been phrased better. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, some single incidents are of such importance they make the people who caused the incident important. Overall, I agree with the single incident rule, but in this case it doesn't apply. I also disagree that saying something is groundless is not being polite. The comment on the AfD which asked the nominator if they were "legally retarded" is an example of civility issues, not merely stating the truth about an AfD. Best,--Alabamaboy 20:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from above:
Your reputation would not be hurt at all if you provided a well-reasoned and policy-based argument for redirect/merge
It could have been done more politely
I agree with the closing as keep, but do think saying the nomination was groundless could have been phrased better.
As a result of these comments and the facts that you brought up, I now declare that this AFD is keep, striking out the "groundless" comment. Nobody gave any reason for it to be groundless. Some did say that the magnitude of the attack was sufficient that even a minor player in the attack warrants an article. I am commenting because I have some experience in disputes of a Middle East related article. UTAFA 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I commented above that the AfD was indeed groundless and stated why. Please do not remove the comment from the AfD. And I notice that you are a new editor to Wikipedia. Perhaps that is why you misunderstand things like this noticeboard. I'm afraid one editor does not have the ability to "declare that this AFD is keep, striking out the "groundless" comment." That's a consensus decision, and it's probably not something we'd do in a case like this.--Alabamaboy 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop here. I didn't remove or modify any AFD comments. The groundless comment was not a concensus, merely a decision by one administrator. I seconded the motion about the "groundless" comment. I request that everyone, including Mrs.EasterBunny to accept that this issue has now been discussed and resolved (resolved by recognition by some that there is merit to a "keep" decision, rather than a "keep, groundless AFD" decision. UTAFA 22:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the issue has dwindled off. But I'd oppose changing removing the groundless comment. The AfD was indeed groundless, for reasons stated above.--Alabamaboy 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"groundless" doesn't just mean "shouldn't be deleted", it means "shouldn't be deleted and you're stupid for saying it should" - i.e. it's a claim that no reasonable person could think it is a candidate for AFD. It is (if only slightly) incivil, and serves no productive purpose (since it doesn't explain why it was kept, what policy interpretation led to it, etc). There's absolutely no reason _not_ to remove it if someone requests that. —Random832 11:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually no it doesn't mean that. It means that no valid reason was given for deletion either by the nominator or by anyone else voting delete. In other words, I viewed that AFD as a sweep by the people who said keep because nothing even remotely swaying was said by anyone not voting keep. I seriously can't imagine what all the fuss is here. How about everyone move on? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird Editing Patterns

I came across a user on WP:BOTREQ who not only made a weird request (see the heading "LegendBot"), has a bit of a weird side to his editing patterns. If you look at his contribs, you see that he's made a whole lot of User_talk: edits, but not a lot else. Could someone take a look at this or am I off my rocker tonight? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks weird to me. And that's the oddest bot request I've seen for a long time. — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, give me 2 pounds of what he's having. Sounds like good stuff. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm calling this one "odd". - Philippe | Talk 16:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:220.127.226.25

This user is problematic and has numerous complaints against him on his user talk:220.127.226.25 note from User:Lucasbfr: fixed the link. He has already been warned on two occasions, and I have ANI-NOTICED him as pending-ban. He removed all of the requests for citations on the Rapture Debate page, and had to have the article reverted. It is obvious to me this user has no intention of being helpful. EvanCarroll 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The user hasn't edited in two months... unless we are talking about a deleted article. -- ReyBrujo 04:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User has no deleted edits. Hesperian 05:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Something's not right... The talk also does not exist, and, as near as I can tell, never has. Wrong user, maybe? SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, unless I am missing something, Rapture Debate has never existed. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Rapture debate is the article. Tim Vickers 05:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yeah, I figured out where I got it wrong... Thanks! SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What is an ANI NOTICE? Some new template? :P —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

{{ANI-notice}}? =) --Dynaflow babble 05:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yey! another template :) I guess its too hard to type out, howdy I brought issue XXX in which you are involved in on WP:AN >.> —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a "I've told the admins about you" note on somebody's userpage. The edits in question are these from June. I suggest not doing anything. Tim Vickers 05:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, this IP removed fact tags from the article in June and got reverted 2 days later. I don't think it requires any sort of admin attention. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 10:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgz33 again

After finding the latest comment from him I have changed User:Burgz33 block to indefinite. My patience is at an end with this editor as he's had multiple chances. Edits such as his idiot list and this under the original account. Then there are this and this from one of his Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Burgz33. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Burgz33's sock parade and incivility have made his contempt for Wikipedia's policies clear.--Chaser - T 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also endorse. I see no reason anybody should have to put up with that type of comment. Be gone with him. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 09:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed, he had more than enough chances to improve and chose not to take them. Neil ム 10:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on the checkuser...though he appears to be using dynamic IPs, the checkuser might be able to root out obvious named sock accounts given his naming conventions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletion of South Vietnam medals based on "copyright violations"

This was moved by OberRanks (the person that brought this matter up to AN) to Massive deletion of South Vietnam medals based on "copyright violations". As I had to do some digging to figure out what has happened to this discussion, and others have commented, I thought it would be best to leave this here, so that others in the discussion can find the new location. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gayunicorn

I have been trying to work with a new user, User:Gayunicorn, who was having difficulties figuring out the 3 step AfD process. See User talk:Gayunicorn for my communications with the user. However, my attempts have not been successful, and the user still has a malformed, incomplete nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphabet murders. I wanted another admin to take a look at the situation. Should I just go ahead and fill out the afd2 template for the user and transclude the page on the current day list? Should I close it as a bad faith/incomplete nomination? Based on the users recent comments, and perhaps the user name (which may have WP:UAA concerns), I'm starting to lose faith in the editor. So here I am soliciting another admin opinion. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the nomination. I don't expect to see many people agreeing with the nominator, but there's little harm in humoring them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: User was blocked by Penwhale based on WP:UAA. Also, user was warned (multiple times) for inflammatory, soapboxy, boarderline vandalism to talk pages. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not involved in the dispute, but it seems somewhat likely to me it was based off the Planet Unicorn you tube videos, example here. Good, clean fun, not offensive, and quite amusing. Don't know if the username block was the best thing here. Mind you, haven't looked at the users contribs, he could just be a troll. -207.162.182.218 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I had several disagreement with Gayunicorn, the name should not be blocked as a name violation. However, Gayunicron's User page says the account has been blocked as a sock of user:Tweety21. Would some admin mind changing the block rationale? Corvus cornix 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots of copyright infringing material

Hello, can anyone tell me if it is OK to upload screenshots taken from an illegal bootleg of a film ? There is no way of proving the bootleg is illegal, because only the distribution of it is illegal, not the creation, and a screenshot can be released under a fair use rationale.

• Also downloading copyright infringing material is not illegal in Canada for example, so the copy may have been downloaded legally. However the uploading of it is illegal even in Canada. But in Iran for example, the government encourages the violation of American copyright, and supports the creation of internet sites allowing the "sharing" of copyrighted American films.
• My question is: Can someone explain in detail what the specific rules are on wikipedia as regards uploading copyright infringing material ? Can a screenshot taken from a bootleg that is illegal in the USA be released under a fair use claim?
• For examples please see the images on Pirated movie release types. Jackaranga 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fine so long as it satisfies the fair-use requirements. The fact that it was taken from a screenshot of a bootleg film is irrelevant. If your ok with stealing, then thats your business.... it doesn't impact the fair-use claim. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"downloading copyright infringing material is not illegal in Canada" - I'm fairly sure thats actually wrong... and if I were you I would operate under the assumption that it's illegal until you find strong evidence otherwise. (receiving stolen goods is illegal in any western country that I'm aware of...) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true, providing it is illegal though. We are charged a levy for copyright violations when we buy blank digital media. Of course it could be that both of us are wrong. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I can't see how these images can possibly meet our fair use creteria. They are not promotional images and are not illustrating articles about the media but an article about the theft of the media. Its hard to see what additional value they would also add to the article. I'd remove them if I were you and take any disputed ones to IFD or PUI. The couple I looked at lacked fair use rationales anyway so they can't be left as they are. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a screenshot in general, its copyright is owned by the studio regardless of who capped it, whether it was from a DVD, a bootleg movie, a TV broadcast, etc. Whether we can use it or not depends on whether it satisfies the fair use guidelines. In the case of an article on movie piracy, it might be acceptable to show the same scene capped from a bootleg and the licensed DVD, to show differences in quality or to illustrate that bootlegs made by people with vidcams often have artificats like people's heads. But the image has to have a specific purpose related to the purpose of the article, and that purpose has to be explained in a fair use rationale on the image description page. Thatcher131 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with a bootleg is confirming if the screenshot in genunine or not. Not a massive problem for say Image:Lukeworkingonxwing.JPG but may be an issue in other cases.Geni 16:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really thinking this article needs a good working over anyway. It's full of unsourced claims and OR. I think it strays way out of what an encyclopedia should usually cover. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the answer I'd like to give, but I think this is one of those cases where we need some intelligent legal advice. Obviously there is a fair-use case here, & perhaps even one that might stand up were Wikipedia sued by the owner of the movie being copied without permission. But that last clause is where things get sticky: we are dealing with materials that could be said to be stolen, & anyone with enough money to spend on lawyers could do so & use a DCMA take-down notice to force Wikipedia to remove it. On the other hand, to use such images perhaps all that is need is for one to approach the owner of the movie being bootlegged & get their permission to reuse it in this fashion; IANAL, but I believe individuals who create bootlegged/pirated media have no ownership rights in that material, so they would not need to be involved. -- llywrch 23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

While it may be illegal to produce such material once DRM has been broken normal fair use and copyright law applies.Geni 01:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Social networking group"

• User:Fatdance101 and his/her friends (see contributions) seem to be running a bulletin board/MySpace-like site on their user talk pages. They have been informed that it's against Wikipedia policy to do so, but haven't stopped. Someone might want to take action. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. User talk:Fatdance101, User talk:Obatron10, User talk:Rosiie2, User talk:Jennifer08, User:198.176.160.41 and User talk:Chrissy13, User:OLmr.berg. None (Less the IP) have any contribs to the encyclopedia, only to chatting. All the talk pages are pretty much the same, less the IP, and, the blank one. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• • So, is anyone thinking of a block MfD here? And does anyone think Wikipedia:Editors matter will be presented as a reason to not delete the pages? John Carter 19:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No MFD is nessecary, I removed the material. If they continue, that could lead to a block for using Wikipedia as MySpace if they choose to ignore the warning. — Moe ε 20:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. I concur that MFD is not needed for such stuff. Friday (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that template existed. Looks nice though. John Carter 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Large number of copyvio images from a single uploader

O3scotto (talk · contribs) Uploaded several images(18-20) claiming permission granted on all of them O3scotto's image uploads The source is listed as www.deanguitars.com. All of the content on this source website is copyright material and no permission of any kind has been granted for any of its use. The manufacturer's policy specifically states "DEAN GUITARS is the copyright owner of this website and that no portion of this website, including, but not limited to the text, images, flash, may be used in any manner, or for any purpose by you, without DEAN GUITARS’s express written permission." 156.34.209.197 21:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put {{puidisputed}} on a couple of them, but I don't have time to do all of them right now. Corvus cornix 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, since the source is clearly given, and no claim is made to fair use, and since the uploader is not licensing them with non-free licenses, all of these are G12 copyvios. Editors were trying to work with the user to under stand our image use policy since at least July, yet none of the issues have been addressed. I'll go through and delete the ones that I can find on Dean's webpage.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just checking

A user has asked me to move two AFD'd articles into his userspace and undelete them (he contributed to both). That's allowed in general, right? There's nothing in the content of the articles that makes me hesitant to do this, but I thought I should check. --Masamage ♫ 02:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. On a temporary basis. Do a restoration, move the article, and then delete the redirect left behind. Leave the user a note about the fact that they need to bring it up to snuff or have it moved back to article space and deleted again within a reasonable amount of time. GRBerry 02:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article red link

Just to let you know that the article links on the Featured Article are red linked. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone got it already. :) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Resolved

Could someone point me in the right direction, or tell me how to create an article page that redirects to another article? Jefferson College (Mississippi) is also known as Jefferson Military College but there's no article for Jefferson Military College and I don't want redundant, just simple redirect for anyone searching for Jefferson Military College to Jefferson College (Mississippi). Any help is appreciated. Thank you. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 14:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

See wikipedia:redirect. This does not require administrative intervention so a better place to post this would've been the help desk. Graham87 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Police Community Support Officer

Anon IP 81.159.187.114 (talk · contribs) and brand new account Travis1985 (talk · contribs) have been making huge numbers of edits to Police Community Support Officer over the last 24 hours, with no discussion either on the talk page or at the relevant Wikiproject (WP:LE), and in so doing so removed a large amount of sourced content, as well as (among other things) deleted all the categories. As another editor's raised concern to me about this, I've temporarily protected The Wrong Version and left a note on Travis1985's talk page encouraging them to discuss largescale changes like this before making them. As I've written a number of law enforcement articles (albeit have never worked on this one) whatever I do I may be accused of bias - can I ask someone not involved to also keep an eye on it? — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sockpuppeto & User:Kaoruchan

We may have a new sockpuppeteer.

• [1] & [2]

User:Sockpuppeto had made similar edits on Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice then User:Kaoruchan during his block. Kaoruchan was blocked inserting inappropriate images and then 12 hours later may have evaded his block while creatin User:Sockpuppeto who has been blocked indefinitely for suspected sockpuppetry and similar vandalism to Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice.

Although looking at the Karouchan contributions I may suspect also that this account may have been compromised by another person and thus later himself may have created the block evasion accountJForget 17:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC).

The Morning Post vs. Morning Post

There appears to be a violation of the 3RR over the above relaively minor issue. I maintain that the Former is correct. My opponent reverts my editing to the latter. Furthermore, I supplied evidence in support of my view on the Talk page. My opponent has not. I ask for Administrative assistance to resolve this dispute. Thank you. --Ludvikus 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence already presented on Talk:Morning Post suggests that 'Morning Post' is more common. I note there have been six moves already. Please obtain consensus at Talk:Morning Post before attempting to move the article yet again. You and User:Bkonrad have both shown your mastery of the 'Move' button, but consensus is good to have. Filing an issue at WP:RM can allow for wider input, and can provide an administrator to close the discussion. EdJohnston 18:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The (over) use of the move button is tiresome. I've move-protected the article and the redirect (both at The Wrong Version, of course) for 7 days. EdJohnston is right - consensus and/or WP:RM, that way lies peace. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 18:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Creation of redundant articles

Codyfinke6 has created a series of articles and redirects that I believe meet the standard for a speedy deletion tag.

Reasons:

1. Covered material already in Wikipedia under American cheese and Processed cheese;
2. They are a single, declaratory sentence articles that are not cited;
3. he failed to mark them as stubs.

Could an administrator please take a look at these and tag them appropriately?

Here, here, here and here

Other information about Cody:

1. He has done this repeatedly and been warned not to;
2. He has been blocked for other issues, including edit wars;
3. He has a history of unproductive edits;
4. I and other editors have repeatedly tagged his user page with warnings to stop his unproductive edits and he is currently at level 4.
5. He does not respond to contact requests from editors and administrators;
6. He makes changes that go against established consensus;

Thanks for taking the time to look at these issues, Jeremy (Jerem43 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Need help reverting this...

Resolved

This user appears to be some sort of vandal sockpuppet who is probably running a script of some kind. He made a ton of vandal edits, so any assistance reverting them would be appreciated. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

He's bragging on his Talk page about being two other indef. vandals. Can account creation block be implemented on this guy? Corvus cornix 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a dynamic IP, so you'd need a checkuser to consider a range block. I've just blocked ClaimJumperDan (talk · contribs) (0). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Today's Featured Picture - Again

Here goes again: I reported the following earlier this evening, Picaroon removed the link but didn't explain why, so Zzyzx11 in good faith put the link back and we're back where we started. Can someone please look into this? Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• The photo credit for Today's Featured Picture leads to a page which says, "If my involvement in Wikipedia is so dam important to you that you will threaten my family then fine, you win, I am outta here. I hope that satisfies you and you will leave me alone. It is just a web site for fucks sake. (H) 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)". I'm not up-to-date on user:H's wishes, however I had the impression that he might not have wanted his real name to be associated with the account. Does anyone know whether he wants his name hyperlinked to his userpage, or would it be better to delink it? Feel free to remove this message and contact me privately if discretion is needed here. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's fine, don't worry about it. Neil ム 11:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikirage Enhancements

I found some time to do some enhancements on wikirage (website that tracks the most edited pages on wikipedia for various periods of time). I added a home page indication and mashed in the WikiCharts data. I've also started capturing flags like 'Unverified', 'Cleanup Needed', and 'Disputed'. I'll try to get some change direction and velocity data in soon. If there are other 'flags' that I should be on the look out for, let me know. w3ace 13:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Overlong request for protected edit

Template talk:Film has had {{editprotected}} for six days now without either implementation or a comment on why it wasn't. But it seems like the category is not backed up, so I assume there's no backlog. Could an admin have a look at this? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was probably because someone asked did the code work, you replied you'd take a look and then never said whether it worked or not. I'm assuming it did work as you're asking here about it, so I've done the change. Neil ム 17:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Desperate Vandalism Help Needed

I know, this is not the right place to report this, but just in case the individual involved really does think he's in the right, I'm hesitant to actually report him. User "TTN", keeps vandalizing the Wild ARMS 5 video game article. He's messing with a lot of sections and completely deleted over half the article. It took me a long time to get back all the stuff he got rid of, since he did not make all his changes in the same edit. I don't want to start an edit way, but if I don't keep undoing it, it's going to make things a lot harder when more people come along and make appropriate edits. Can a mod or someone in charge say something to him?

He deleted ALL of the character profiles, the trivia section, and just about the entire article. People have been working on all of that stuff for months, and he deleted it all without even bothering to try and discuss it first. He is trying to claim that video game articles should not have that stuff. but I've seen plenty, and I know that's not the case. It's information. And Wiki is an encyclopedia of information, isn't it? Please, someone step in and stop him. I don't want to get in trouble, but if his edits are left unreverted, it's going to become harder and harder to get back all the information that he's taken. I've asked him to stop, I've requested he at least discuss it on the talk page first, and he refuses.MagicalHopStep 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this is a content dispute (an argument about what the content on the page should be, not a larger issue), so it's not somewhere administrators need to intervene. Second, I asked User:TTN to post what part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games he is following (I assume just the base article style guidelines) on the talk page. Magical, perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, which is what I think TTN is basing his view of the article off of. Don't be so quick to call it vandalism; assume good faith. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

TTN's edits have always been somewhat controversial, but they aren't vandalism. TTN usually edits sections that he considers fancruft from articles, of the edits on this article I concur that most of what he removed is fancruft perhaps the only section that can be seriously debated is the "Characters" one and its in serious need of a cleanup being written from a In-universe perspective. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

When a person deletes that much of an article and refuses to even discuss it with the many people who have been working their butts off on those sections for months, it's vandalism. Someone needs to step in, or else a serious edit war will likely develop.MagicalHopStep 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop editing and take some time to clear your mind, you also need to stop reverting since you are already at the limit of the WP:3RR, TTN already stopped reverting the best thing is that you do it to. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not reverting. I'm fixing. Someone edited the article, and I don't know how, but somehow duplicated some stuff. I was getting rid of the extra sections created by that, not reverting anything.MagicalHopStep 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You reverted TTN's edits three times its clear on the article's history, and I suspect that you are editing as 24.3.186.152 right now to avoid the three revert rule. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That is untrue. And you should not make accusations like that. Too many innocent people get in trouble that way.MagicalHopStep 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

MagicalHopStep and The Prince of Darkness both blocked for 24 hours for breaking the three revert rule. Neil ム 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

MHS is claiming utter innocence and the IP edited the page "long before I ever joined" - judge for yourself, noting timestamps: IP's first edit, MagicalHopStep's first edit. Hmmm. I'm tempted to extend his block for obvious IP sockery at this point. Neil ム 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have a checkuser done first and probably include our new friend, User:Tantei who just decided to join in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Quack quack. Two sock accounts (User:Tantei and User:Coreyzard blocked. If anyone feels like running a checkuser, there's probably an involved user (making no assumptions as to who) behind all these. Neil ム 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And dear God, all the Wild Arms pages are garbage. Wild Arms 3 was comprised of links to Amazon sites, in depth game play guides and links to cheat sites, yo tube videos, and copy and pastes from the character bios in the instruction book. Neil ム 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I removed about 20,000 bytes from Wild Arms 4 that was either totally irrelevant or sounded like it was copied from the game's documentation. Mr.Z-man 22:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Userspace Salt Pages

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Private_Salt_pages. Regards, Navou ^banter 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

7-day old MFD

Resolved

Hello AN. I am trying to tie up loose ends here, and with this in mind I ask that an admin please consider Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Behnam/Local news and close the matter. Many thanks in advance. The Behnam 03:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected Administrator User Talk Pages

# To request assistance from a specific administrator, enter User talk:Whomever in the search box to the left and press "Go."

How do I leave messages to admins who've sprotected their usertalk page? (and their user page). 132.205.44.5 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You can click the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox on the left side of the administrator's page. Unless their talk page is suffering from enormous amounts of disruption or vandalism, sprotecting it is generally not endorsed. If you can point out the page in question, someone can look into it and ask the admin in question about unprotecting it. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont't see such a link. Is it only available to non-anons? 132.205.44.5 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Bishonen 09:17, 29 July 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) m (Protected User talk:Bishonen: fed up with abusive IP edits for now. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (undo)

You can also create an account. Corvus cornix 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to wait four days after creating your account if you wish to edit a semi-protected page, though, so e-mail is of course faster if you need to contact a specific administrator urgently. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon is right; "E-mail this user" is only available for logged-in users. For that reason, admins should not semi-protect their talk pages long-term or without a pressing situation. Chick Bowen 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And over two months is far too long. Bishonen should really unprotect his/her talk page. Natalie 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Her email is enabled, and that's good enough.--MONGO 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, anonymous users cannot use the Special:Emailuser function, so they currently have no way to contact Bishonen. Melsaran (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone happen to mention to Bishonen that this discussion is going on, in case she didn't see it? I'll mention it to her just in case. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

CrossRef here.Rlevse 17:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the thread on ANI is marked "resolved" and will soon be removed, I'll reply to both that and this one here. First of all, thank you, MONGO, your defense is much appreciated. Secondly, it's not that I'm especially sensitive to having anonymous little penis vandals I've blocked coming to my pages and calling me Bitchonen. (Disappointingly, only a few have in fact had the inventiveness for such a simple pun.) Not at all. There's another reason why I've sometimes been keeping my userpages semiprotected for quite long times: it's to discourage a special "friend" of mine who never gives up. I would rather not elaborate, but instead ask people to consider my record before they decide whether or not to extend an assumption of good faith to my words. If Wikipedia is in fact not for me,[21] I suppose now is as good a time as any to find out. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC).

As I have so recently asked another administrator, please unprotect your talk page, user talk page protection is not nice to legitimate anon and new users, as well as being a violation of the protection policy. Prodego ^talk 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Friday's post, to which Bishonen linked above ("If you can't handle being abused by random strangers, Wikipedia is not for you."), I very much doubt that Bishonen would protect her page because of random strangers. I am aware of several cases of user talk pages being semi-protected because of a particularly vicious form of trolling. I don't think one should do it just out of whim, but I have no trouble in extending an assumption of good faith to productive users and admins who don't have a reputation for being over sensitive or for making unreasonable demands. Nor do I feel that it's ever essential for an anon to be able to post directly on a particular admin's page. If Bishonen blocked you, posting on her page would be block evasion anyway; use the {{unblock}} template or try the unblock mailing list. If she protected a page that you want unprotected, make a request at WP:RFPP. If she deleted a page, there's always deletion review. If you have something you badly want to say to her, you could make a post on the talk page of one of her friends. And I don't see that it's a violation of the protection policy, which says merely that it shouldn't be used "with the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users." Let's not make too big a thing of this. There are hundreds of active administrators with fully editable talk pages. If a very small number, who are not known for being unreasonable and who are known for contributing productively to the encyclopaedia, have personal reasons for being more comfortable with semi-protection, it's not really doing any harm to anyone, so why not just leave it and go and spend more time writing an encyclopaedia? ElinorD (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• For what it is worth... agree with ElinorD's and other's comments. --Iamunknown 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I hereby invoke WP:IAR. (poof) Leave the talk page protected until the persistent troll gives up. As long as we have more administrators than persistent trolls, this solution works. See also crapflooding. Access control is sometimes necessary to preserve a shared resource. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

From WP:PPol: "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for (1) Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism. (2) Biographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that are not widely watchlisted (3) User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user" No mention of being allowed to semi-protect a user talk page there, it is expressly forbidden. For temp protection: "(1) Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses. (2) Article talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions." Once again, shouldn't be protected. Here there is a caveat, since semi-protection is ok on user talk pages for a short amount of time, when disruptive users can't be blocked. But July was several months ago, so the page should be unprotected, the troll probably did give up. WP:IAR says "[if something] prevents you from working with others... ignore it". But protecting a talk page does exactly that, prevents you from working with others! So the policy and ignore all rules both say to unprotect the page. Prodego ^talk 01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this response to be anal retentive and excessively legalistic. Nothing is permitted unless it is specifically written down? No, not really. Admins should be accessible to users but there may be exceptions, and as this thread shows, this anonymous user has had no problem getting attention from other admins. It's a wonder that no one has actually asked the anon what he or she wanted and why only Bishonen could provide that. Thatcher131 02:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes, maybe just sometimes, longtime great contributors should be able to do things others can't. ie IAR and make an exception. It's not like it's so desperately critical to the functioning of the encyclopedia that all anons need to be able to get a hold of her immediately. I submit that good contributors are more important than trolls and we shouldn't feed. - Taxman ^Talk 03:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, thinking we should actually follow policy. Prodego ^talk 16:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do follow policy; WP:IAR comes to mind? --Iamunknown 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now 3 months since Bishonen's talk page was semiprotected - surely a trial period of unprotection could be attempted without the world coming to an end. Neil ム 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Or we could let it go and reallize all 2,000,000 articles are more important to work on than continuing this issue. - Taxman ^Talk 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

While admins with semi-protected talk pages should be few and far between, I guess I can imagine situations where persistent IP harassment makes no other option feasible. We’re smart people here, we can figure out a workaround. Assuming that the admin doesn’t want to create an unprotected subpage (which the troll could just attack instead), I think Ryulong’s solution shown here seems reasonable; the admin just needs to be willing to watch the talk page of IP’s and new editors they interact with, and talk pages of articles they edit. This breaks down if too many admins do it, or if the admin interacts with too many IP's, but for special cases, it seems a reasonable compromise. Perhaps a note at the top of the admin's talk page that tells IP's that this is how it works is appropriate. The only other problem is that there is no way for an IP or new editor to contact the admin if they have never interacted before, but I'm trying to think of a reason this is vital, and I can't come up with one. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(more) Plus, there's always {{helpme}}. How's this: if you feel the need to semi-protect your user talk page for long (or even short) periods, put a notice similar to this in a prominent place on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would reword that to avoid feeding the trolls. I'll make a duplicate revision on the page you started. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see your point. Personally, I'd average the two versions, and at least mention semi-protection, but the idea is the admin can adjust it however they wish, to fit in with their overall talk page scheme. The important thing is that a good-faith new editor isn't left staring at the admin's user talk page going "????". --barneca (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Opera proxies

At ANI, it has been discovered that a banned user has operated off of IP addresses that resolve to the offices for Opera Software. Two of these IPs are 195.189.142.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 195.189.142.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and both appear to be open proxies (putting the IPs into Google gives many results). Currently, the range that is given in the WHOIS data is being scanned for other IPs that open ports and allow for open proxy usage. If it turns out that a sizable amount of IPs can be utilized (or have been utilized), the entire range may be necessary to block. However, as this is a prominent company, there may be issues with blocking it for any period of time, even if no one should necessarily be editting through an IP owned by a company that is not an internet service provider.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already hardblocked the first address, unbeknownst to all this. I portscanned it and it came back as an open proxy (both squid and socks). Blocked for 12 months and templated. I intend to contact netops at Opera in the morning and discuss the situation & maybe they can tighten up their public network infrastructure - Alison ^❤ 06:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found a few (at least a hundred) that might be open proxies as well, based on having either 1080 or 8080 open. List is at User:SQL/OProxy SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this is a proxy system used, by Opera Mini, an browser applet used by many mobile phones, and PDA's. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So, we've got the Google Web Accelerator problem all over again?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing like Google Web Accelerator. I do half my editing via Opera Mini; if you have to block them, block them anonymous-only. Neil ム 11:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the proxies don't actually seem to be open to casual surfers. The open ports I've seen are 22 (SSH), 113 (identd), 1081 (SOCKS?), 4949 (Munin?), 8080 (Roxen webserver) and, for one of the servers I scanned, 8120 (unknown, no response). Of those, 1081, 8080 and 8120 would seem suspicious, but I haven't actually been able to use any of them as a proxy: port 8080, which seems to be the one actually used by Opera Mini, returns an authentication request when asked for its root document and "Proxy support disabled." when asked for "http://en.wikipedia.org/". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are usable via the Opera Mini demo applet, though. So, yes, I'd say these do seem to qualify as open. So, an anon-only range block on 195.189.142.0/23? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Short blocks when vandalism takes place only, please - again, these are shared IPs. Neil ム 15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the Opera Mini proxies do provide X-Forwarded-For headers, although they are of limited usefulness: when accessed via the demo interface, they simply give the IP address of demo.opera-mini.net (195.189.142.176). Neil, since you say you have access to a genuine non-demo Opera Mini, could you try looking at, say, http://showip.net and check what the X-Forwarded-For header looks like. If it gives a different address for real Opera Minis than for the demo interface, then it might be worth having the proxies added to the trusted XFF list so that we can only block the demo interface if and when it gets abused. (Of course, it'd be even nicer if the demo interface were to pass along the actual IP of the user, as they apparently do for the User-Agent header.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty ... www.showip.net gives the following info when accessed via Opera Mini 4:

• IP address: 195.189.142.149
• IP number: 3283979925
• Host name: p10-15.opera-mini.net
• Network owner: OPERA SOFTWARE ASA
• Country (guess): Norway
• City (guess): Asa
• User agent: Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP, Opera Mini/4.0.8993/58, U; en)
• Browser: Unknown browser 0
• Connected at port: 49120
• Operating system: Unknown platform
• Accepted languages: en
• Accepted encodings: deflate, gzip, x-gzip, identity, *;q=0
• Then a bunch of lines repeating the same info, then
• X-forwarded for 195.189.142.148, 193.113.200.172, 10.206.75.68

Is that what you need? Neil ム 17:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's very nice. So it's only the demo interface that stops at the first hop. Yes, I do think we ought to add these to the trusted XFF list. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So what does that mean? Assume I know nothing about this stuff. Can we stop the demo interface being used to vandalise without hurting people who use the actual browser? Neil ム 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Once the proxies have been added to the list by a developer with shell access (such as Tim Starling, who's been handling much of it), then yes. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy & paste move help needed

Resolved

 – assuming this is resolved, the article has been edited after the merge --ais523 12:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

UCE Birmingham has renamed itself Birmingham City University. Unfortunately a user went and created a new article at Birmingham City University, largely copying the text but with amendments, making it hard to just delete it and move. Can someone with the skills do a bmerger to Birmingham City University? Timrollpickering 09:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done the history merge, but I'm confused about what version should be 'top'. Could someone please revert to the correct version, if it isn't on that version already? --ais523 10:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that - the correct version should settle now. Timrollpickering 17:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Submit request to use images

October 1, 2007

Hello,

I have gone through the details on Administrators' noticeboard.
As per the instruction:
"Post request on the administrators' noticeboard,"
I am submitting request for using the following images on
http://mysexdoctor.blogspot.com,
which covers [uncovers] human sexual health.

Image 1]
This file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0
This is the link to the image originally posted by Inferis:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg"

Image 2]
I seek permission to use the images licensed
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
secondary sexual characteristics MALE
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Mann_geschlechtsmerkmale.jpg
and

Image 3]
secondary sexual characteristics FEMALE
source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Frau-2.jpg
Thanking you in anticipation.

Dr. Ashok Koparday

Consultant in Sexual Medicine

http://www.mydoctortells.com

ask(at)mydoctortells(dot)com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drashok (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

These images have been released under free licences. You do not need anyone's permission to use them, as long as you adhere to the terms of the licences. Sandstein 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This mess needs sorting out

Okay, so I followed a link from Richard Brittain (from St. Mirren F.C.) and came across a page about the former Countdown Champion - a page which itself had been deleted as per a discussion. The page for Richard Brittain (soccer player) also exists.

Older (and previously deleted) versions of the undisambiguated Richard Brittain read precisely as I expected - much in the same vein as former Countdown Champions Julian Fell, Graham Nash, Ben Wilson, etc etc. The current version of Richard Brittain's page reads very much like a borderline CSD G1 candidate.

Please advise. Part of me knows this to be a straight CSD-G4 candidate, even, but on the other hand, this page is already ten days old. If Richard Brittain's page is then deleted, we need to move the article for the soccer player to an undisambiguated title. Bobo. 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted Richard Brittain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as G4. It had much the same content as during the AfD, only now with added silliness. Sandstein 18:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kekkei genkai Vandalism

I think I screwed up trying to revert some vandalism on Kekkei genkai. can someone please look and see if it's fixable/rollbackable? --Rocksanddirt 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks fixed now. --Iamunknown 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion (or more!) requested

IDNexpert (talk · contribs) is a new user who created an article called Social Parking regarding a Domain parking monetization practice. I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Parking, and deleted the page. Shortly thereafter, I got a talk page note from User:IDNexpert asking for the deleted content.

The editor apparently found it without my help though, and it had already appeared at User:IDNexpert/Social Parking by the time I read the note. The editor had also created mainspace redirects to the userfied version. I deleted those, and informed the editor.

I'm wondering whether the userpage is an acceptable use of userspace, or is it too far in the direction of promotion? Do search engines even see user subpages? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith on IDNexpert's part and assume that the userfied article is to improve it until such time that it can be moved back into the main article namespace. I'd say it's appropriate, though creating links from mainspace to userspace is not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do see user subpages. On at least one occasion I've seen user subpages of old versions of articles have higher pagerank on Google than the mainspace article. They should be deleted, or blanked and the user can view them in the history feature. The other thing to be careful of is live links to mainspace categories from user pages. SchmuckyTheCat

Indeed. I editing the userfied page to remove both the categories and the navigation template that had cats attached so that that wouldn't happen. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)