Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive68

Ethics of banning socks

Now that AWilliamson is community banned as the sockmaster of the Joan of Arc vandal I have a query about whether there's still a conflict of interest reason for me to refrain from banning his sockpuppets. So far I've touched only one: an impersonation account User:Durova. that deleted archive contents of Williamson's prior talk page wars. Some of those socks have been inactive for many months but other suspected socks remain disruptive at Williamson's other interest points: cross-dressing, homosexuality, and Catholicism. In particular I noticed WP:RFCU#CC80 this evening - a declined request whose other named accounts don't look like red flags for Williamson socks to me - but the edit history for CC80 is classic Williamson activity. I've suspected the account of being a sock since September when it edit warred to delete a link from Joan of Arc.[1][2][3] My long investigation probably puts me in the best position to identify his socks - I'd checkuser anything that's dubious. Do I have the community's support to use sysop tools here? Durova^Charge! 05:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no conflicts of interest with banned users. There are no conflicts of interest simply because an abusive user declares one. —Centrx→talk • 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Then here's my second question: I'd like to notify the relevant Wikiprojects for these other subjects because I suspect he'll attempt to dodge enforcement by hopping between socks and different articles. Those project participants would be more likely to spot that behavior than I would. The only catch is where to send them to report such a complex case. WP:RFI doesn't normally handle sockpuppet investigations. Since I know this case in so much depth, would it be appropriate to refer new reports directly to my user talk?

And BTW I don't think this user has claimed I have a conflict of interest. I want to proceed in a way that proves I've been fair and honest in case some future troublemaker ever tries to claim I acted improperly. Since I do a lot of investigations I field spurious misconduct allegations fairly often. I'm open to recall so I want to cover all my bases. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the entry at WP:LTA? 68.39.174.238 10:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've updated that in the last day. After giving this a lot of thought and asking for input I've decided to put my name forward as the primary investigating admin (and contact point). By the way, the only Goa Inquisition editor that's been confirmed as a Williamson sock is CC80. Durova^Charge! 14:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see several possible approaches. One, enlist another sysop to take over. Two, enlist a couple of admins to review your work and handle appeals. Three, document the heck out of each action you take - specifically the reasoning behind each action. This leaves the door open for peer review and is probably the most practical. Rklawton 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If any of these suspected socks appeals a ban I'll be ready with evidence, although this user's long and creative career makes it slow reading to even review the documentation, much less replace me (I wouldn't wish this on anyone). I suppose my long hours of work on the case are far from ended. Durova^Charge! 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CC80 (talk · contribs) and socks have been trolling on Goa Inquisition and vandalizing sourced information. They have succeeded in getting a contradictory and jumbled version protected.Bakaman 18:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, to respond to your opening post, I agree with Centrx. There's no COI that I can see and I don't think you should be hamstrung by the sock of a community banned vandal. I believe you have the common sense to know when you might be compromised and should step back and ask another admin to act. Sarah Ewart 09:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah (a little tardy) I've gone ahead and had a little blocking spree. Durova^Charge! 07:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg - Stephen Harper - Copyright conflict -- revert war

This is a photograph of the Prime Minister of Canada. It has been listed since December 13, 2006 and no admin has addressed it. During the time that it has been listed, I have had to engage in several page reverts to keep the image excluded until the copyright can be resolved. Please expedite this review or protect the image page so these conflicting editors cannot continue to remove the copyright notice. Alan.ca 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright has been established already. It is currently in the realm of crown copyright, and therefore rightfully ours to use. Permission was given from the copyright holder already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission is not enough, it needs to be licensed freely per WP:FUC. This man is living and a free image could be reasonably created (FUC #1). Hbdragon88 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See commons:Category:Stephen Harper, and my comment here about this particular image. Jkelly 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The House of the Commons is a government organization with permissions held by the public. The problem is that Alan.ca has been perpetrating this edit war over an outdated page because of the basis Herman is supposedly the only copyright holder although I can't find my way to that page from the Parliament's site.

This how I got to Stephen Harper's biography where it clearly states "© House of Commons"

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "Members of Parliament (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

OR

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "The Canadian Ministry (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

Also there is an email from Stephen Harper's contact email approving of this distribution as well. But Alan.ca is going ahead with no confirmation that this is not acceptable when other people have confirmed that this is acceptable. ViriiK 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it couldn't be fair use. However, the PMO wrote that the image is their's and that it is freely-licensed, so it should still be usable unless someone has evidence that the Prime Minister of Canada is lying to us. --Arctic Gnome 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Separate issue entirely, if it's on the commons, why is the bulk of the discussion on this image taking place here on en-wiki?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is not on commons. Alan.ca 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Another link with Herman Chung listed as the copyright holder. [Stephen Harper]. This one I acquired by: http://parl.gc.ca, site map, Members of the House of Commons - 39th Parliament, HARPER, Stephen. Alan.ca 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Alan, we all know that there are old sites that list the image as copyright Mr. Chung. That is not the point. The PMO has specificially said that the image is their's on August 8, 2006 regardless of what some pages on the House of Commons web site said. Do you have any evidence that the Prime Minister was lying to us or that the copyright has changed hands since August 8? --Arctic Gnome 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You show me something that demonstrates the PMO owns the copyright for that image and we can start discussing the credibility of your e-mail. As in, Copyright Prime Minister's Office. That second source I included is not out of date, it is the current page for Stephen Harper of the 39th parliament of Canada. Alan.ca 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The email itself demonstrates that they own it. Head-of-government offices are credible sources. Plus we have the archives of Canada and the House of Commons saying that Mr. Chung no longer holds the copyright. --Arctic Gnome 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion either here or on ANI? If this email could be forwarded to the permissions list, the image can be cleared. – Chacor 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is they are getting the release from the Prime Minister's Office, when there are 2 urls that show it belongs to Herman Chung and one that says House of Commons. The PMO is separate from the House of Commons and the 2 Herman Chung references are on the parliamentary web site. I'm new to this kind of dispute, but I would think we would have to see them remove the Herman Chung notice or provide a release from Herman Chung. Additionally, the PMO isn't the right place to contact for a release, it's the House of Commons. I did e-mail them regarding this issue, but I have not received a response yet. I had contacted <infonetATparlDOTgcDOTca> on Dec. 14/06 Alan.ca 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By your logic anyone could make us get their permission for any image just by putting it on their homepage and writing "© Me" below it. My proof that it is owned by the PMO is that they said that they owned it. If Wikipedia can't use head-of-government offices as sources, who can we use? --Arctic Gnome 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And while this image is on the commons, can we wait for the issue of its true copyright be dealt with before it's deleted from either place?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the image name probably needs adjustment, once everything is sorted I will be pushing for the name to be changed on commons and making the change to using articles here. OfficialPhoto is not a very good name... something with his name in it and some indication of his rank at the time probably would be a lot better.... Lar: t/c 19:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The official tag name is actually supposed to be nlc012160-v6.jpg which you can find here

I found out on this website because I saw that other canadian politicians had their images stored at Library and Archives Canada.

Here I was able to discover that the Office of the Prime Minister is the copyright holder as well. Clicking "Copyright/Source", I was able to discover

Stephen Joseph Harper

© Office of the Prime Minister.

Reproduced with the permission of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Source: Privy Council Office

Alan.ca however by his logic demands that we need permission from Herman Chung although there is no contact information anywhere to be found and no proof of him contacting Herman Chung. The email from the Office of the Prime Minister which you can find on the image page clearly shows that they gave permission to us to use this image on wikipedia. ViriiK 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ViriiK, see this [4]: Public domain material will be clearly indicated as such on our website. If they did send permission, it needs to be sent to [email protected] or whatever; copying the email that they sent you isn't good enough. Hbdragon88 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Uprotection of many test templates / wikipedia pages

Aaron Brenneman has started an unprotection spree, I'm looking at some of the pages and I have to say, they're vandal magnets and I'm not sure unprotecting them might be a good idea. Just throwing it up for discussion, I think unprotection here is more of a hassle than it's worth. -- Tawker 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• See the log here: (link removed) - looks like a man on a mission. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Looking over the logs, I agree with most of the unprotections. I started forming my thoughts on this issue a while ago at User:Renesis13/sandbox but never got around to finishing. Most of these were protected on a whim at RFPP, without any community input. Aaron's reasoning in the logs ("this should always be subst -> not a high risk template", etc.) is sound and he is doing the community (especially excellent non-admins on the [[WP:UW|User warnings WikiProject) like User:Khukri) a big favor. -- Renesis (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why {{IPA}} was unprotected, this template is transcluded on several thousand articles, and is about as "high-risk" as high-risk can get. Especially with the recent rash of <includeonly> vandalism we've been experiencing with our Main Page articles. I have re-enabled protection and am posting my action here for review. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'll agree with Renesis13 that Aaron Brenneman has made a good decision here, and the edit summaries... well, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SunStar Net (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
• I'll agree with Renesis13 that Aaron Brenneman has made a good decision here. Endorsed! --SunStar Net^talk 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman, was thier ever a discussion prior to the mass-protection removal? There is some valid concerns over vandalism on many of those templates that you shouldn't ignore.

"No reason to protect - does not appear on articles" - I think that logic is flawed. Expecialy since you said that about Template:IPA - used in more then 1000 articles. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no discussion prior to protecting most of these templates. I agree that some of these need to be reviewed, but I don't start a wheel war or make Aaron Brenneman think I'm wiki-stalking and bad-faith-reverting his changes, so I'll wait for this to play out a little bit more and for him to finish his unprotecting. -- Renesis (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about this one too: Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the unprotects might have been a good idea, but I'm not sure I like the thought of unprotecting {{unsigned}}. That could do some fairly serious damage. Alphachimp 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned should most definitely remain protected... I should say that overall I agree with the unprotections but a few seem to have slipped through. Unsigned is NOT always meant to be substed... see Wikipedia:Subst. -- Renesis (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit of a case of shoot first and ask questions later? I'm worried then, because any administrator who undoes any of his actions might be accused of wheel warring as soon as it becomes clear that people have a problem with the edits. Whether the community agrees with him or not, it would have been proper to ask for consensus first. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

True, Patstuart, very true. If I was in this situation, I'd try and get consensus before going ahead with such an action. Wheel-warring is unproductive, in my opinion. --SunStar Net^talk 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above to J.smith, some should have been discussed, yes. Others (most) are fine because they were protected on a whim and the reasoning for unprotecting is completely legitimate (the {{test}} templates, for example). I just don't want to start re-protecting in the middle of the wide-spread change unless it's a serious situation, because it may cause hard feelings and the best way to proceed from here is to simply bring the matter to discussion. I don't expect too much irreversible damage from having these unprotected for the next few hours. -- Renesis (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, I have made a couple of mistakes here: I did in fct snap at tawker when he reversed two protections, for which I have fully recanted. I was clearly smoking crack with IPA, I looked at it three times and still confused it with Template:IPblock. I'm going to wander off now. And don't hesitate before re-protecting something if you have a good reason: I may be a cranky but I'm a 0RR on admin actions kind of guy.
  brenneman 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how quietly I can say this, but the changes seem to have created a list of pages that can now be vandalized. Out of 8 or so I've clicked, I've found 2 or 3 instances of vandalism, some repeating, within the last hour and a half. I removed the original link posted by JzG to obscure this a little bit. -- Renesis (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Awww Beans. - brenneman 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, Beans indeed ;). Patstuart^talk|edits 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with many of these unprotections (particularly for templates not used in article space), though not all of them. But I must quibble I'm afraid with Renesis's statement "Most of these were protected on a whim at RFPP, without any community input." That's the way protection works--we protect if there's a problem, and someone can come along and unprotect, and it's not a big deal. At least, that's the way it should work; if we've gotten so nervous about wheel wars that we're not willing to undo someone else's protection, then that's a problem. I urge any admin who sees something that badly needs protecting to protect it, and similarly to unprotect something that needn't be protected, and if there's a dispute then deal with it. The overwhelming majority of protections and unprotections are not controversial. Chick Bowen 07:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the concept behind the unprotection is sound... just gotta be sure people are ready for it:) ---J.S ^(T/C) 08:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more clear... no community input and no prior problems (I'm referring to the user warning templates). -- Renesis (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we agree about the user warning templates. I'm just talking about the general principle--it was fine to protect them; it was fine to unprotect them: no dispute, no problem. Chick Bowen 08:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

True. I think the biggest concern is that when one admin starts to see multiple actions being undone, a wheel war might spring out of a misunderstanding. -- Renesis (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am dissapointed however that Can't sleep, clown will eat me chose to reprotect several without discussion here, on my talk page, or on any template talk page. There's "casual" and there's "bold" but there is also "get bent I'm just going to undo this without comment or discussion." Once it is clear that there is a disagreement over the bast way forward, more talking is better than less. - brenneman 10:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hey Brenneman, {{IPA}} is used on 12,050 articles. You should be apologizing for unprotecting it in the first place, which was obviously the wrong move, not trying to blame CSCWEM. He didn't do anything wrong, and it's funny that you accuse him of reversing without discussion when you are the one who just reversed without discussion on dozens of pages. You have no right to get all bent out of shape when he does exactly the same thing you just did, except on a much smaller scale and for the right reasons. --Cyde Weys 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um apart from IPA, that link only shows protection being restored after the beans discussion above. Catchpole 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Brenneman did apologize for IPA, immediately: [5] [6]. CSCWEM is the only one not communicating about this. -- Renesis (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This massive, unilateral unprotection of templates is disruptive, and a serious violation of WP:POINT. These templates were properly protected by a large number of administrators per Wikipedia:High-risk templates, which authorizes an exception to the general protection policy, and recommends that heavily used templates be fully protected as a preemptive measure, before any substantial vandalism occurs, due to the severe harm caused by template vandalism. The assertion that template substitution is somehow a panacea that will ward off the evils of template vandalism is quite incorrect -- the danger associated with template vandalism is that a single act of vandalism on a heavily used template will result in a large number of vandalized versions of the template being displayed. This is true even if the templates are substituted -- when a heavily used, substituted template is vandalized, hundreds of vandalized versions of the template may be generated before the damage to the template is repaired. Additionally, because template substitution breaks the link between the original template and the substituted versions, vandalized substitutions of the template will remain after reversion of the vandalism on the template itself, and may be difficult to find and repair. Moreover, when a user applies a substituted template, the text of the template is displayed in the user's contribution history as though they entered it themself. The vandalized text of a template will thus appear as if entered by the users applying the template, and without any indications that a template is being substituted, if the vandal removes comments such as .<!-- Template:Test (first level warning) --> from the template. Vandalism of substituted templates is the only type of vandalism that can be used to falsify users' edit histories, thereby causing immense disruption. I urge administrators to protect the high-risk templates that Aaron Brenneman has taken it upon himself to unilaterally unprotect. John254 11:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

John254, you are incorrect about the history of 'high risk templates'. They were not "protected by a large number of administrators", but rather by individual admins acting 'unilaterally'. Often doing so for large swaths of templates at once. This is not "a serious violation of WP:POINT" as you describe, but rather 'an admin doing his job properly'. I've both added and removed templates from that list several times myself... it's called making updates to fit the current situation. If people disagree with some of the actions they can be discussed and reversed if need be. No need for hyperventilating. As to your theory that hundreds of usages of a substituted template might occur before vandalism is repaired... it seems exceedingly doubtful to me. The second someone substitutes a template and gets results different than they expected they are going to correct and/or report it. Maybe a couple people use it without actually looking at the results, but not "hundreds". --CBD 12:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my claim that these templates were "protected by a large number of administrators", since many different administrators were involved in effectuating these protections. No one administrator protected all of these templates him/herself. When many different administrators act to protect templates, it shows far more consensus than Aaron Brenneman personally unprotecting almost every user talk namespace template that was protected. Moreover, these templates are often applied by automated means, such as vandalproof, so vandalism won't necessarily be detected instantaneously. Users participating in RC patrol generally aren't looking to see if the warning templates have been vandalized, since, until recently, it was essentially impossible to vandalize these templates. Nor should such vigilance be required -- reverting vandalism on articles is a sufficiently difficult task already without worrying about the vandalism warnings themselves being vandalized. A cost-benefits analysis weighs in favor of full protection for these templates: it's far more important to ensure that no one has tampered with these warnings when they are placed on user talk pages than to maximize the editability of the warning templates themselves, which seldom require editing. There was certainly no shortage of administrators willing to edit the warning templates when they were fully protected. John254 12:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I expect that the test templates used for vandalism warnings are used without checking by hundreds of people who revert vandalism with automatic tools. (I don't use any automated anti-vandalism tools myself, so correct me if I'm wrong). For this reason, they should probably stay protected. Kusma (討論) 12:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of protecting various templates or not (except to say that I tend to favour protection of high risk templates and would err on the side of caution, that is, keep those puppies protected, er oops, I guess I just did comment on the merits...), I'll just say Aaron acted in accordance with the Bold-Revert-Discuss mantra, as is proper in the general case in my view, although MAYBE a bit over the top in this case? Lar: t/c 15:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to put everything in perspective, I found some image vandalism on some templates that wasn't caught for 2 hours (including a vandal image on AntiVandalBot's user page for a while :( - I don't know if that makes be a bit biased towards protection but as I see it, let's do a risks benefits analysis, if there isn't much benefit to unprotecting pages that pretty much any ip / new account would need to edit let's save ourself the find the damn vandalism image template problem. Yeah, it's pre-emptive but I think our time spent on better things than finding a vandal image in a template. -- Tawker 17:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about doing all we can to stop the template vandal and completely agree with protection for non-subt templates, but I think we should think a bit longer about this subst templates protected/not-protected problem. From an admin's perspective, it's easy to say "plenty of admins are willing to make edits to the test templates", but that doesn't seem to sit right with me. We have excellent non-admins heading up projects like the user warnings project, and this isn't the "free encyclopedia that admins can edit". -- Renesis (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be an technicality freak, warning pages don't really fit into an "encyclopedia" - they're more so administrative backend :o -- Tawker 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with this the Mediawiki: space is permenantly protected for good reason. Many of our administrative templates are very similar in effect and purpose to the mediawiki messages, just within the layer we have built on top of the core mediawiki functionality. --pgk 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about administrative templates. -- Renesis (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well how would you categorise the test templates if not administrative? They certainly aren't part of the encyclopedia, they meet the same resistance to change that the mediawiki texts have done etc. etc . --pgk 22:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This was really 1) stupid 2) a waste of our time and 3) should not have occured. If Aaron really wanted protection extinguished from these templates, he should have brought up a discussion a la here before doing so. What a waste of our time. *shakes head* —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, given the recent resurgence in template vandalism, unprotection of all the user talk namespace warning templates couldn't have come at a worse time. Can an administrator reinstate full protection on the templates that haven't been re-protected yet? John254 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the case is not as closed as you make it sound. It's neither obvious which decision is right, nor which decision the community supports. In this thread, I see as much support for leaving them unprotected as for protecting them. -- Renesis (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course its obvious... protection of ANYTHING that is used on multiple pages is a good idea. If not full protection, at least semi-protection... there is no reason someone on an IP should be editing a mass displayed template... and if its just a regular user who's accidentaly forgot to log in ... well it will remind them!.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First, technically, pretty much any (non-subst'd) template is used on multiple pages, otherwise it shouldn't be a template. Second, I don't know why I need to keep pointing this out but we're talking about user warning templates. Those aren't ever transcluded, let alone to multiple pages at the same time. Full, permanent protection for pages that are NOT transcluded hundreds of times should only be done after careful consideration. If adminship is truly no big deal (sorry for using the cliché), then we shouldn't be so liberal with full protection as John254 suggests. -- Renesis (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I had Cyde run a perl script to count... Template:Test is currently transcluded to several THOUSAND pages, dont tell me its always SUBST'd, because your flat out 1000% wrong. And as for buying into the whole Adminship is no big deal bullshit... well if its no big deal, then i guess penis vandalism on the mainpage is no big deal either... thats why its unprotected full time... ohh wooops it isnt </sarcasm>.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So keep {{test}} protected—big deal—did you also run your perl script for the other 75 or so user warning templates? Did you consider User:Pathoschild/Projects/Template substitution, a list from which bots go around substing any un-substed templates? Your logic that saying adminship is "no big deal" somehow also means vandalism on the main page is no big deal is the real bullshit, and as for your mistaken opinion that I support unprotecting the main page, maybe you should read my comments over on the incidents noticeboard. You also seem to have skipped over a large portion of this conversation, where I am actually for semi-protection of most templates, and full protection of all high-use templates. -- Renesis (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reset indent Can we first get Cyde/Alkivar/etc to tone the the, um, hyperbole? No reason we can't be civil while we're having this discussion. Following on from this, I'm unclear on something: Why, when we've seen people *cough* run mad bots removing images from signatures in archives, replacing cross-namespace redirects, etc, etc, without support in consensus or policy, is it such a big deal to run one over something that both by concensus and guideline should be done? Subst all old versions of all these templates. Then we could move on to the philosophical and current practical reasons for protecting/not protecting without the red herrings/straw men/whatever of the un:subst versions. - brenneman 08:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the new uses of the templates. No one cares about some crusty template in some user's talk archive. What does matter is the dozens or hundreds of uses of {{test}} and {{unsigned}} per minute, many of them automated by bot, which would then substitute some penis image into dozens or hundreds of pages. Many of them would be substituted and forgotten by the commenter; many of them would not be discovered at all except perhaps by the new user who finds a penis on his talk page; others would be covered over by later revisions and require manual removal. Substituted templates are worse to have unprotected; at least with the transcluded templates you know that if you removed it from the template it will be gone from all the other pages. —Centrx→talk • 09:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that there are hundreds or even dozens of uses of {{test}} per minute that the user doesn't bother viewing the result, I see that it might be a good idea to keep test[0-4] protected. As for the rest ({{spam}} and all the other more specific ones), I think we'd be fine with semi-protection. And as for unsigned, well, it isn't even required to be subst'd, so it should absolutely remain protected. -- Renesis (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so can have dispensed utterly then with Alkivar's complaint about existing templates. I'd certainly like to see some real data on this "hundreds of uses of {{test}} and {{unsigned}} per minute." And, forgive me for being cavalier, but if someone is just dunmping something on someone's talk page without checking what it is, I'm not feeling too sorry for them if they cop flack. Finally, is there some good reason not to subst unsigned? - brenneman 10:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the blame rests on the user who's too lazy to check the result, but the flack is copped by Wikipedia in general, if there is a problem. About substing unsigned: there has been quite a bit of discussion, and I don't think the conclusion was ever reached that it should always be subst'd, so it was left to the user's discretion. I personally think it's cleaner without, kind of like {{tl}} (which, I think, has undergone the same discussions, and, I see, you have substed in my comments above :) ) -- Renesis (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The test templates are used semi-automatically with vandalism prevention tools. Also, they're not just dumping some random thing on talk pages, when the templates are protected they know exactly what is being put there. There is no reason to add extra time and work. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've re-semi-protected WP:VAND since it's an obvious and frequent target of vandalism, as indicated by spree that started almost immediately after its unprotection. (Radiant) 10:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates that are not meant to be on articles are not articles. That should be obvious, but the articles are the only thing that really matters to be available to editing as much as possible. High use volume templates by definition should not be edited very often, so there is very little downside to protecting them and a lot of upside. So what if subst reduces the number of pages that get affected by vandalism. But since not all templates are substituted, reducing is not eliminating. We should be making efforts to eliminate vandalism, not make it easier. All high volume and high risk templates should be protected whether they are substituted or not. - Taxman ^Talk 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First, removing protection is just a normal admin action, and it can be talked about without dramatic overtones. And Aaron, this is not article namespace, so the same rules don't automatically apply. That's the wider issue here, the status of the template namespace. We've been treating it in much the same way as article namespace - people create what they think they need, and we go from there, with consensus required for deletion. That's a bit problematic - these are not encyclopedic content pages, they are tools for building and maintaining the content. Some of them are really extensions of the software (and hardly ever need to change), and we've had popular templates upgraded to new software features before. The template namespace is more like an open source programming library than like an encyclopedia.

It's not clear that the open status of the template namespace is beneficial to the project. We have a lot of duplication of effort, a lot of inconsistencies, and a total lack of a sane naming scheme for templates. Maybe we're getting it backwards. Maybe templates should be more often (semi-)protected, and maybe new templates should be automatically TfD'd (or rather reviewed) after a month and require consensus to keep. Zocky | picture popups 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POTD can be speedied?

The current Pic of the day, Image:LakeEffect-Superior-Michigan-EO.jpg, has a non-commercial use restriction, so it is a speedy deletion candidate on Commons. That said, it is also a speedy deletion candidate here. So, what should we do? Uploading it under fair use would be a pretty flimsy rationale, but uploading it with {{noncommercial}} will cause some sysop here to delete it. It should be deleted eventually, but do we wait until its day on the Main Page is up before doing so? Titoxd^(?!?) 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is a non-commercial license then it does not meet featured picture standards and should not be picture of the day, the way I see it. I would go to the next on the list. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(ec)It was a mistake to ever chose it as the picture of the day. Non-com is a major problem. ---J.S ^(T/C) 05:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was listed as pd-NASA when it was selected, however since then it was determined not to be a NASA image, and not PD. Can we change the POTD? Move on to the next one? People who mirror Wikipedia for profit under GFDL will unwittingly violate the non-commercial license. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is a major problem. I think we have to go to the next one and just leave it for the extra day. We have in fact had unfree pictures on the main page before, if they were the lead image in an article, but as POTD it's not so good. Chick Bowen 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and did this. I haven't deleted the image, though, since it's still in use elsewhere, and I'd like someone to check what I did (and also to see if anyone cries bloody murder), since I don't do much POTD stuff normally. Chick Bowen 06:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The confusing thing is that the RSS Feed still talks about the lake effect picture -- at least it does on my personalized Google home page. Can we add a link to this discussion to the picture page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpresser (talk • contribs) 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Time out. Where exactly does it say this image is under a noncommercial license? Are we talking about the SeaWiFS home page? Because that just says, "All SeaWiFS images and data presented on this website are for research and educational use only" (emphasis mine). And I can't find this image on the web site (admittedly, I only searched via Google and didn't really browse around the site much). No such restrictions are presented on the Earth Observatory page, which is usually pretty good about stating the image license terms. For example, [7] states that the image is copyrighted. So I have to question: Are we making a fuss when in fact there is no issue? howcheng {chat} 17:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Commons:User:Titoxd(who is also User:Titoxd) first brought up the concern on the commons(here) and there is a discussion about it here Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/SeaWiFS imagery. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the only reason anyone ever thought it was PD is that it was assumed to be a NASA image. Since it's not, we can no longer assume it's PD. The burden of proof is always on us to show something is PD; if SeaWiFS doesn't explicitly release their images to the public domain as the other NASA divisions do, then we cannot consider them free. Whether it's non-commercial or not is somewhat beside the point--what matters is that it's clearly under copyright. Chick Bowen 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think this sentence is pretty clear: "All commercial use of SeaWiFS data must be coordinated with ORBIMAGE." All data, not just data on that website or specially marked. Chick Bowen 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But they specifically state "data and images" in the first sentence but only "data" in the second. I don't think it's as clear cut as you say. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that the SeaWIFS scientific package is actually installed abroad a commercial satellite. Though I haven't seen anywhere that made it explicit, this suggests that the commercial rights to SeaWIFS imagery were given to the satellite operator in exchange for allowing the instrument to be incorporated into their satellite. Dragons flight 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Sometimes images that would normally be copyrighted by the agencies who contribute images to Earth Observatory are in fact not copyrighted. The link above to the San Francisco image is an example of one by Space Imaging, whose images are normally copyrighted (see [8]). The best course of action to take here is to contact NASA EO and find out, which I have done and am now awaiting their response. howcheng {chat} 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, the link I mentioned above IS a copyrighted image. Here's one by Space Imaging that does NOT state that it's copyrighted: [9]. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "if your work is not considered 'research' you must purchase SeaWiFS data from ORBIMAGE as they own the commercial rights to it. Please note that ORBIMAGE refers to SeaWiFS data as OrbView-2 data" sounds copyrighted enough for me. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it may be the case that images featured on Earth Observatory have been released of rights -- I reiterate: NASA EO has always (to my knowledge) clearly stated when an image is copyrighted. Now since there's no evidence of that, like HighInBC said, we have to assume it IS copyrighted/usage restricted, but we may get clarification from EO personnel. howcheng {chat} 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, we must assume it is coprighted. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. If in fact the licensing is bad, then I certainly have no objections to deletion. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From [10]: "SeaWiFS is a cost-sharing collaboration between NASA and Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) wherein NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) specified the data attributes and bought the research rights to these data, maintaining insight, but not oversight, of OSC. The SeaWiFS Project at GSFC is responsible for the calibration, validation, and routine processing of these data. OSC provided the spacecraft, instrument, and launch, and is responsible for spacecraft operations for five years at a fixed price, while retaining the operational and commercial rights to these data." If OSC owns the instrument, it is a pretty safe bet they own the rights the commercial rights to the images as well. Dragons flight 17:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The original image was uploaded in March 2004, the last revision in March 2005; non-commercial only licenses were not prohibited until May 2005 (see relevant email from Jimbo). Jimbo specifically says that those uploaded prior to the decree can't be speedied, but most go through the deletion process (which at that time was still called VFD). Someone may nominate it for deletion, but it cannot be validly speedied. Essjay (Talk) 22:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is at Commons, not here. I'm not (unlike you) a Commons admin, nor all that familiar with the policy there, but my understanding is that they frequently do delete images in precisely this category (but you would know better than I). Its deletion is not really our concern; its status here--as a featured picture, as POTD, and in articles--is. Chick Bowen 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jimbo's decrees apply across all Wikimedia projects; if they do not, then feel free to disregard him and my comment above. If they do, the matter remains as I stated it: It is not a valid speedy delete, but must go through the deletion process of whatever site it is currently on per Jimbo. Essjay (Talk) 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag and listed the image for deletion at commons. Also seeking clarification at your talk page. Chick Bowen 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced page

The information for İstemihan Taviloğlu got accidentally placed at Category:Classical music/IstemihanTaviloglu. I'd ask that this page (the latter one, the category) be deleted, as it really doesn't belong there. --Eyrian 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagging it for speedy was sufficient; it was deleted by Fang Aili. Thanks. Chick Bowen 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

please unblock my account

Someone said on the main page I should post here. Good afternoon. I joined this site two days ago and yesterday my account was blocked forever becuase I tried to help out another person. I was invited to join this site by an old web buddy named Coolcat and he pointed me in the right direction towards a couple of articles and some other users. People then started saying I was another person named Husnock and, in violation of my privacy, conducted an ip address and posted I was living in the UAE. I then went to Husnock's web page and saw some very mean messages towards him by some other people. I responded to one of them and thought it would show up as his name, but my name instead appeared. I was then told that I was permanently banned from this site and my user page was blanked. I'm new to this site, for the most part, so dont know your policies but, hey, that seems really brutal. I was just trying to help this guy out. Please see my account: user:CamelCommodore. If I broke a rule, I'm sorry. I just want a fresh start. Regards- Camel Commo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.27 (talk • contribs)

Ridiculous. CheckUser is not an invasion of privacy. This guy is either a disruptive sock of Husnock, or a disruptive meatpuppet of the same, or - if the above is true, which I rather doubt - a disruptive meatpuppet of Cool Cat. Either way this troll should stay blocked and requests like this for unblock should be ignored. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I will say that putting the unblock template on your talk page is the way to do it, not posting here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I put the template on my talk page, it was denied. How can I appeal this? I am not a meat or a sock, whatever that means. I do know Coolcat and he told me about Husnock. I was only trying to help but now I can't log on to this site. I am sorry for putting the message on Husnock's page. Can't I at least get a second chance instead of being kicked off this website forever? Please help me, thank you. Regards- Camel Commo

I think that response confirms this person is just here to disrupt - not many innocent blocked newbies would shorten "meatpuppet/sockpuppet" into "meat/sock". – Chacor 10:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This has to be my favourite comment I've seen today, it's just great on so many levels

1. The assumption that "not many" people are clever enough to shorten meatpuppet/sockpuppet to meat/sock, is sublime.
2. And of course meatpupper/sockpuppet has only even be used on Wikipedia and never gets used elsewhere to refer to a similar situation, fantastic, just...great.--212.50.162.251 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a real person and I'm not just saying that because I'm involved. The person sent me two e-mails giving me his real name and e-mail address. He is swearing this is a misunderstanding and is asking to be let back on the site. See my edit here [11]. I feel bad about this as this person has been banned from Wikipedia becuase of me. I've caused enough trouble and this is unfair to this man. Also, lets us assume good faith, here. I recommend clearing this block and giving him a second chance. -Husnock 15:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to hold my tongue but this is pretty pathetic stuff - AGF does not mean that we are required to remove our brains. It's you, it's always been you - all those tales of mysterious figures (all in your immediate area and all off the same or similar IP addresses) be they come colonels, generals or commanders has been one of the most transparent cases of game-playing and frankly trolling I've seen in a while. I have no idea why you are insulting the intelligence of the community with this game - I can only assume it's to muddy the waters in some manner with your current ARBCOM case. Stop - just stop. At the moment, there are a fair number of people who want to see you continue to contribute to the encyclopedia but those constant dramas and games are getting to be pretty tiresome. --Charlesknight 15:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block, the user was disruptive to an already sensitive issue. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I got another opinion on this guys. I don't see any problem w/ unblocking. If it would appear later that he was just trolling or a sock/meatpuppet of Husnock or anybody else than we can easily block again. Nobody is sure who is this person so why are we acting as if we already know who is this guy? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good sir, please understand me...this is not a trick. I have that person's e-mail address if you want it and there is a way I can get it to you without posting it here. He is not me, but has sent me e-mails about this sitation. He has tried for two days to get unblocked and be put back on the site and has been met with nothing but accusations and cold shoulders. I feel very badly that he was blocked. All I am asking is that he is unblocked and given a second chance and not be punished for trying to help me. Is there so much hate and mistrust here that we can't even do that? Thank you. -Husnock 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

forward the emails to me - [email protected] (with headers) - or even better get him to email me himself. I don't know what you mean "tried for two days to get unblocked", as he was only blocked last night. And hey, let's not forget you thanked the blocking admin to start with. Morwen - Talk 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll pass the e-mail address on to him so he can e-mail you. I'm trying to give this person a break since, at first, I thought it was a nasty trick but now seems to be a misunderstanding. -Husnock 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It still looks like a nasty trick to me, this post[12] to me is clearly an attempt to look like a sock puppet of yours, and thus discredit you. It is possible that it is a misunderstanding, but I would need that misunderstanding spelt out for me becuase this looks like malice to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose unblocking. This is definitely a troll account, and probably someone's sockpuppet. If this user is now of good faith and wants to make decent contributions, he/she should just create a new account and edit properly. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think whether or not User:CamelCommodore is really User:Husnock matters. The much larger issue has been Husnock's behavior with regards to the use of admin privs and release of password to another party. Whether or not Husnock created a sockpuppet account is fairly irrelevant to that issue. Regardless of whether it is or is not, it is my opinion that User:CamelCommodore should remain blocked. It is readily apparent that the account is a sockpuppet of someone, the question is who and that question isn't very important. Has the sockpuppet been disruptive? Yes. Blocked. End of discussion. --Durin 16:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to reiterate my doubts they are the same person. Husnock simple does not react the same way CamelCommodore does, it is more likely CC is a person trying to discredit Husnock. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, it's yet another compelling argument to leave the account blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you more I could not... I mean I could not agree with you more. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend changing the block from a permanent one to a long one (1-6 months) or just allow the person to make a second account and behave normally. I don't know if I support this person, I just feel bad that someone was banned from the site becuase of me. -Husnock 16:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• If he isn't you, he was blocked because of his own behavior. Again, it's an obvious sockpuppet of someone. It was used to disrupt Wikipedia. There's not much point in unblocking it. --Durin 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with unblocking. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Cool Cat to verify this? Thatcher131 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Contact me for what? --Cat out 19:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the unblocking of CamelCommodore. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm it appears consensus vote has established CamelCommodore to be my meat/sockpuppet. Guys don't troll, I am in no way involved. I actually like Husnock... What gave you the idea that I would try to annoy him? --Cat out 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh? what give you that idea? my understanding is that you name was mentioned because Husnock said that CC was a mutual friend of both of you. I don't think anyone has accused you of being him? (unless I'm missing something). --Charlesknight 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

CamelCommodore claims (above) to know you in real life and that you asked him to come to Husnock's defense. CamelCommodore also happens to use the same IP address that Husnock uses, and at the same times. I'm not sure there is a case for unblocking CamelCommodore on the theory that he will turn into a productive wikipedian, but whatever shred of a case there might be would depend on whether Camel Commodore really is a real life friend of yours whom you asked to come here. Otherwise, CamelCommodore looks like a sockpuppet of Husnock playing out some bizarre game. Thatcher131 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Its my honest opinion that we should unblock CC. It would be very distressing for them if they were actually a different person who suddenly got caught up in a huge furor involving a large amount of people who could block their account at will. I havent seen any evidence of him doing any major harm to the encyclopedia, and in the event I turn out to be wrong and he does do harm then he can be quite easily and quickly blocked again. I think Assume good faith has been thrown by the wayside to a smaller or larger extent, in this whole affair and maybe we should return to one of the principles of wikipedia. Viridae^Talk 21:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I would offer to take responsibility for his actions/watch the contributions closely if he was unblocked, but I will be at work all day today, and going to a place with limited internet access tomorrow. Viridae^Talk 21:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Assume good faith does not mean bend over. It is obvious that this is either a sockpuppet of Husnock, who as himself has been behaving badly lately, or a person trying to discredit Husnock, which makes them a troll and not welcome here. Why would we possibly want to unblock them? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's compare the writing styles here

User A	User B
"What is the point of posting that lengthy thread? Arew you trying to help me or kick me when I'm down. You call my a liar, call me stupid, and bring up stuff about copyright images which is far far from proven. Take a look at what you're doing. I ask you? Do you have something personal against me? Now, you tell the truth"	However, looking at my talk page, I see two uses who have posted what appear to be baiting messages and “kick you when you’re down” postings. One openly calls me stupid and a liar another starts a deletion discussion of an image I uploaded months ago knowing that I am blocked and will not be able to participate.

Note the same types of typos, indicating perhaps a rather hastily written notice, and that the same points being made ("kick you when you're down", mentioning "stupid" and "liar"). Now, one of these edits was made at 19:41 to User_talk:Husnock, by User:CamelCommodore. The other was made to Wikipedia:Requests for arbritration at 19:35. Now, let us count the things we are being asked to believe here

• User:CamelCommodore's name is, as User:Durin notes, a play on "naval officer in the middle east", which is what User:Husnock is being
• User:CamelCommodore's third edit is to a pretty obscure AFD about Star Trek
• User:CamelCommodore's lists as favourite articles several articles which User:Husnock has worked on, including non-Star Trek things such as Schutzstaffel
• User:CamelCommodore decides to talk about himself in the third person in a relatively childish way, despite apparently being a retired air force officer
• User:CamelCommodore is in the United Arab Emirates
• User:CamelCommodore knows User:Cool Cat
• not just this but User:CamelCommodore is in fact using the same IP address that User:Husnock was
  • User:Husnock edited from that IP that day from 03:31 to 06:52
  • User:CamelCommodore edited from that IP that day from 07:00 to 07:30
  • User:Husnock edited from that IP from 07:35 to 07:51
  • User:CamelCommodore edits again at 10:55
  • User:Husnock edits from 11:35 to 12:34
  • User:CamelCommodore edited again from 12:38 onwards
• note the edit times. they show that when User:CamelCommodore was editing, User:Husnock was not editing. this is not uncommon for sockpuppet usage. in part this is sensible because if you try to interleave edits you are likely to get confused and leave messages under the wrong name.
• also note that according to reports from the UAE, the IP addresses in question are part of a group of proxy servers, which users get assigned randomly in some manner. it is not one ip for an entire country.
• User:CamelCommodore is alerted somehow to User:Husnock's plight, and leaves a message with clear stylistic cues, as shown by the comparison above, that it was written by User:Husnock.
  • this is a skilled piece of fakery, especially for this to be written only 7 minutes after the message it used as a pattern
• User:Husnock reacts in outrage to this
• User:CamelCommodore gives what i consider to be a rather lame attempt at an explanation.
• User:CamelCommodore's writing style in the explanation is utterly incongrous with the the edit and relative cluefulness he made to User_talk:Husnock.
• User:Husnock has been the victim of real-life stalking attempts, which included emails to family, workplaces, and stuff
• User:Husnock has also been the victim of a malicious attempt to bring NCIS into this
• User:Husnock accepts User:CamelCommodore's explanation, and not seem overly worried by the prospect that User:CamelCommodore, who has exhibited what seem to be crazy stalker activities, might be the same person as this crazy stalker person

I wonder if anyone can come up with a simpler explanation for this pattern of edits? Morwen - Talk 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A few ideas, but nothing that would improve the situation. Thanks for putting the evidence together anyway. Carcharoth 02:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Morwen's work is to be commended, that must have taken some time. I strongly advise everyone, inclduing me, just let this die. This has gotten out of control with multiple posts about where people live and what ip addresses they are using. Way too much real world info. I also imagine this person has either given up on the site or established a new account. -Husnock 02:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you should be a detective. Dont forget this guy states to know User:Coolcat which is probably hw he found out about me and my edits. Also, Camel and I carried on a conversation on his talk page at the same time. Also, FYI, can we please get away from posting where people live (i.e. CamelCommodore is in the UAE). Since you've already said it, please be aware that all Americans in the UAE are confined to just a few ip addresses. But, in the end, posting where people live is against policy. I've done all I can for this guy and don't like where this is heading. Too much mistrust and implications of distrust and untruthfulness. I gave this person your e-mail and you and he can hash it it if you want. I think he is just going to start up a new account at this stage. Best to let this go. -Husnock 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really admin stuff, sorry

Where can I find stuff to do on WP? I think I might like to be an admin someday, but for now, I don't know what to do. Sorry if this isn't in the right place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got about 40 redlinks I'm slowly trying to turn blue on my userpage. Chop chop! d:-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

One down (a simple redirect for now), only about 39 to go. ;-) --Ali'i 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the "Help Out" box at Wikipedia:Community Portal. I'd recommend going and offering a Wikipedia:Third opinion, or picking up a nearby book and using it to reference unsourced material in related articles. Jkelly 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Category:Cleanup by month if you interested in cleanup articles. (It's currently backlogged). RJFJR 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry for taking up the space. Sometimes it can be a little overwhelming, and I can't seem to find my way around. Again, mahalo. --Ali'i 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll work it out in the end. Enjoy yourself! Viridae^Talk 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some things I've enjoyed doing: Wikipedia:Dead-end pages, WP:AFC (actually, I don't like this one, but it must be done), Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, Wikipedia:backlog. Those four should keep you busy for a while :). -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another option is the Wikipedia:Reference Desk, which can be fun to work on, though it is less likely to fulfill any vital role. Dragons flight 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another useful place to work is in Orphaned articles, creating internal Wikilinks between articles. Anchoress 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of maintenance stuff to do. My personal favorite is clearing out image galleries (as they are not applicable under fair use). Specficially, I do this on pages that I come across, or I check out OrphanBot's next log of stuff to retag images accordingly. Hbdragon88 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a TON of stuff to do at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles. And never forget you can always work on redirects. :) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When I'm bored I head for long-requested articles if I feel like a challenge (can you make a decent stub or a identify a valid redirect?), or ver long-requested articles if I feel like a ridiculously difficult / impossible challenge (only ever managed to create about four articles through this). If you have any other languages, there's always translations that need doing. Or see Wikipedia:Maintenance. Proto::► 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You've probably got plenty to do by now, but here's another idea. Pick a subject you've always pursued as a hobby and look over the article. Then pull all the books you own about it and borrow some more from the library. See if you can make it a featured article. Durova^Charge! 07:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow... everyone seems to have their own little projects they like. Thank you to everyone... I think I can keep busy for now. :-) --Ali'i 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

role accounts

Just a note: these two users, User:Rockcollege and User:Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy, appear to be role accounts. — coelacan talk — 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blanked the latter user page as an advertisement and left a note on the talk page. Durova^Charge! 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

real estate edits

I'm not an american so I don't understand your real estate laws (or why your food portions are so large but that's for a different thread} BUT as far as I can see (and I could be entirely wrong about this but this editor seems to adding material about something called a 1031 process and it seems to be all to provide advantage to this company. The edits could be fine but as he's Stuart Chamberlin and the business is called Chamberlin Financial group..

Many thanks --Charlesknight 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The edits aren't fine, and are reverted. Thanks for the heads up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - normally I would have just done it myself but it's all dutch to me. --Charlesknight 10:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Probable socks of banned user: seeking community agreement to ban

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BooyakaDell: BooyakaDell, BertoBowdoin, and 67.86.149.41 are the same editor. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell several editors agreed that these are probable sockpuppets of banned editor JB196.

JB196, identified at this AFD as Jonathan Barber, is an aspiring author who is writing an unpublished book about professional wrestling.[13] All of these accounts edit professional wrestling articles in a confrontational manner and are strongly deletionist toward non-North American wrestlers. Of particular interest is this link where BooyakaDell inserted a link to an article about Jonathan Barber's book in progress.[14] The anon has inserted Jonathan Barber's name into a series of wrestling articles.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Also, BooyakaDell and JB196 consistently misspell the word "irrelevant" as "irrelevent" in their edit summaries.

Examples for User:JB196 [23] [24] [25] [26]

Examples for User:BooyakaDell [27] [28] [29] [30]

I think that's a pretty solid case that these accounts are all socks of the same unpublished author who's been trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. We can't get a checkuser on the original account because it was banned in September. Anyone object to calling these all his sockpuppets and closing the theater? This show must not go on. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As a person in the dispute with Booyaka and the IP, enough is too much. SirFozzie 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I have been the Adopter - see WP:ADOPT - of BooyakaDell from the start of this, and am now convinced not only that he is a banned sockpuppet but also disruptive to the runnings of Wikipedia. Lethaniol 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a ban. It's ironic that the user often finds things "irrelevent" considering he's spending a lot of time at John Cena trying to add a comment about Cena not participating in anal sex. Metros232 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've stayed out of the debate considering that I was a major part of the situation that resulted in JB196 being banned in the first place (he then proceeded to vandalise my user page and talk page for a long period of time using AOL accounts) but suffice to say I have been convinced that Dell was JB for a long time. Apart from solely editting wrestling articles it was the little things that they shared that convinced me such as labelling reverts of their edits as "vandalism" and the fact that the sign all posts the same way without a space between the full-stop and the signature. I agree with the ban, though I do not see why it is required to go through AN as isn't being a confirmed sock of an already banned user grounds for a banning? –– Lid^(Talk) 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The other accounts are all socks of each other, but JB196 was too old to checkuser. Considering the vanity edits the IP made during the final hours there isn't much doubt in my mind. Part of why I'm bringing this here, to be candid, is that I specialize in tough investigations. The problem editors I deal with can be very dedicated to Wikipedia in their own peculiar way and one of these days some of them will probably try to build a serious malfeasance case against me. Three of the investigations I've handled are currently in arbitration. I want to avoid the fate of MONGO - yet I've made myself open to recall. So I make an extra effort to place my actions above suspicion. Durova^Charge! 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've found conclusive proof that the anon is JB196 - The articles linked after the line "The anon has inserted Jonathan Barber's name into a series of wrestling articles." listed the SAT and Amazing Red as two of the articles that had had Barber's name inserted which reminded me of this wikiproject post from April. This post shows that JB196 was trying to cite himself on both Amazing Red and the SAT (among others) even though there is nothing on the OWW pages to confirm that he wrote the move lists from all those months ago and now the IP is attempting the same thing. Either the IP knows who submitted the move lists even though OWW does not credit move list submitters and "knew" it was Jonathan Barber or the IP is JB196 and in continuing is also BooyakaDell. I think one possibility here is much more likely than the other. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that I BooyakaDell am a "strongly deletionist toward non-North American wrestlers" is bias and totally unreasonable. Also I have already explained that I read DOI, the web site which "XPW: Bleeding was only half the job" is printed on. Lastly, as far as the evidence about the misspelling of "irrelevent," it is a very common misspelling. "Irrelevent" gets 555,000 hits on google.BooyakaDell 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Four different editors signed onto the descriptions and examples listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BooyakaDell#Notability_criteria. Durova^Charge! 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No the four users signed under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" (unless I'm missing something) which has *nothing* to do with them supporting any contention that I am "strongly deletionist toward non-North American wrestlers" (a preposterous assessment). The only two who would argue that are Curse and possibly anon IP 81. Their signature just says that four users agree there was a dispute that needed to be resolved, and its obvious there was such a dispute. That being said, I am out for the night.BooyakaDell 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out that BooyakaDell's posts here are in violation of WP:SOCK because the IP is currently subject to a 48 hour block. The other two registered accounts were rampant block evaders until the checkuser result came in. I haven't reverted these posts or imposed other blocks because it seems fair to let this editor speak in his defense. Also, less than an hour before this denial he wrote I don't see how there would have been any gain from being "forthcoming about being JB196."[31] To me that reads like an implicit admission that they are the same person: if these were different editors I'd expect something more like tell me what I can do to help clear up this misunderstanding. Booyaka also left a follow-up message that stated Yes this is all hypothetical but how is it possible that a sockpuppet coming clean would result in anything other than an immediate block (I can't stress the word immediate enough)?[32] Durova^Charge! 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think the O.J. Simpson defense works any better on WP then it does in real life. SirFozzie 03:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked BooyakaDell and the puppets indefinetly. Alex Bakharev 04:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped close the Case of the Wrestling Enthusiast.

Thanks Alex. I was minutes away from doing that myself based on the following:

• 26 April 2006: JB196 self-identifies as Jonathan Barber and credits himself for compiling signature moves.[33]
• 19 December 2006: the IP links to onlineworldofwrestling.com and credits Jonathan Barber by name at the same article regarding signature moves.
• Yet the referenced site does not not credit anyone for compiling for that list of moves.[34]
• Above, BooyakaDell (who is also this IP) claims his references are similar because he reads the same website - but he'd need supernatural powers to find a credit name the site doesn't post...unless of course he's Jonathan Barber, in which case the whole chain of events is very simple. Durova^Charge! 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

One question, should the IP be blocked long term as well? If you look at it's contributions, it's all BooyakaDell's edits [[35]], with no edits outside of it, I'm not sure if that's a static IP address or a long term dynamic one (if it is dynamic, we're probably going to have to keep an eye out when he changes IP) SirFozzie 05:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of the IP block. Durova^Charge! 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Piratez4v3go2:  http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/oww/contact-researchers.html

Yes, they do credit IB.69.122.252.77 05:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the site credits him in a general way as an inactive researcher. There's no particular reason to believe he compiled a list cited three days ago unless Booyaka had inside information. And beyond reasonable doubt, everyone except the sockpuppet concluded that this information was as inside as it can get. It's also perfectly obvious that an IP address with no previous edit history at all doesn't randomly come to the administrators' noticeboard and supply a link reference at the end of a long investigation - minutes after a series of accounts got banned - unless that IP address has an equally personal stake in the outcome. The new IP is now blocked. Would any others like to step forward? Durova^Charge! 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

More Bobabobabo nonsense

Tonight, I discovered several of Bobabobabo's sockpuppet's user talk pages filled with a copy-paste from an old Yu-Gi-Oh! episode list. Upon this, Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and I worked to fully protect every user talk page of the sockpuppets we could find, blanking them of the fair use images and whatnot. Again, IGNORE ANY REQUESTS TO UNBLOCK HER PRIMARY IP FROM ANYONE. Thank you :3—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The user e-mailed me today; yes, I know the situation and, yes, I ignored the request. *rolls eyes* RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is more of a message to the stewards/crats to not de-sysop Geni for wearing down her protect button to a nub.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, good. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect everything! Power to the Morlocks!! Down with Geni!!! Oh... wait... Yeah, erm, good work.
:Aaron "protection perverts people power" brenneman 06:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
• RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner.
• Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we here for this?

I am a new user and I am not sure I am writing this at the correct place. I just want all senior editors to take note of this. Look at the following links.[36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Is an administartor's energy to be wasted like this. Is this a place to write encyclopedia or for clashes like this. Shouldn't all editors respond when incidents like this occur. Can't we improve this software to prevent such incidents so that we can concentrate on what we are supposed to do here. SunilMS 06:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what you're complaining about... Sasquatch t|c 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he is talking about a rouge admin by the name of Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 11:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Look what we found – [43]. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Email Abuse

After recently posting my email address in error on Wikipedia, I began receiving subscriptions from gay websites signed up from this IP address: 24.29.141.11 . Please find out who this user is and take appropriate action. Thank you. Miracleimpulse 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe "nothing we can do" is the correct term here. That user already quit Wikipedia so there's really nothing left we can do on here. Sasquatch t|c 07:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP hails from VA. The provider is Road Runner Holdco LLC. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Can the e-mail address be deleted or oversighted? You should look at Requests for oversight. Thatcher131 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your best bet is to file an abuse complaint against IP 24.29.141.11 with Roadrunner. Good luck though; it's been my experience that Roadrunner isn't overly helpful on abuse complaints unless it is another big ISP complaining.--Isotope23 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the only foolproof option here is to switch email providers. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:131.104.218.46/User:Serafin

this editor (Serafin and 131 are same person) keeps personally attacking me despite myself and multiple other people warning him repeatedly. The latest here he calls me a "limited essence soya bean case" in Polish (according to online translator poltran.com) then states in Polish "It is necessary to pound him (it) faith technically not he (it; it) oczywiscieale." the last word being untranslatable I guess. See for instance Talk:Recovered Territories where he even created two sections called "exclude Jadger" and stated "All of you accept the truth you will need to blame anybody. Stop spreading Jadger the Nazi garbage." even calling me "German Arrogant" or stating "Do you love anything, maybe you only love is dollar?" this has been extremely offensive to me for obvious reasons, and I have asked him repeated times to stop but it continues. On another discussion page, that of Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II he essentially calls on people to vote for blocking me at the recovered territories discussion page because I am "a trouble for wiki". Also I would recommend taking a look at his talk page where he states "I am completely aware of you position. You attempt to equalize Polish wrong with Nazi crimes." which I would view as a personal attack. also this "I found also that you statements are provocative for others and actually you hate Poles." the list could go on and on, he repeatedly calls me revisionist and claims my edits are "false and twisted".

please put a stop to this

P.S. I would also like to note that this user has been banned on the German wikipedia for similar incidents, but his username is slightly different Aserafin.

--Jadger 11:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For future reference this kind of thing belongs on the personal attack noticeboard. I'll take a look at it in an hour or two if no one else does first. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I thought I had put it in the personal attack noticeboard, but I guess I had both boards open at once and edited to the wrong one, sorry. If you would care to look at my userpage, user:Boyau has been kind enough to translate 131's attacks upon me in Polish. It is now apparent that he called me retarded and "less than human".

--Jadger 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into this, but I don't see any evidence of personal attacks from User:Serafin. Can you provide me with specific Diffs? Or can you provide any evidence that User:Serafin and User:131.104.218.46 are the same person?

What I do see is some mild incivility from you... you need to tone it down a notch. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this evidence shows nicely that they are the same person.] ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize I have grown impatient and have become uncivil at some points, but what can one expect when you are called a Nazi repeatedly? I doubt anyone could not become a little perturbed if they were me, the constant edit warring and personal attacks I have undergone from this user are annoying to say the least.

--Jadger 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide me the diffs of 131.104.218.46's statements? ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

alright, here goes. [[44]] [[45]] [[46]] [[47]]

[[48]]

you need but look at our two usertalkpages to see more. also, he wrote me saying [link] under "Chauvinists twists, propaganda and lies" was about me, I havent been able to find the specific diff on that one though as I am in a rush, sorry.

P.S. I did not include diffs of the discussion on his and my talk page because those should be obvious enough, if you want the diffs, I will add them here

--Jadger 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a stiff warning on the IP talk page. If this continues let me know. Also, consiter this your final warning to act in a civil manner as well. ---J.S ^(T/C) 06:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

alright, understood, and thank you

--Jadger 11:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD post-closure editing guidelines per administrator needed

An administrator deleted the AfD discussion [49] per another user's request, and then restored it at my request, with this qualification: [50]. I am willing to do this, but want to do so without getting myself in to more trouble. I've asked the restoring administrator for guidelines, both on their talk page [51] and through e-mail, and have not yet had a response. Can another administrator give me some guidance? Thanks! Keesiewonder 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell this is a case of embarrassing/etc comments on an AfD page. The simple approach is to blank everything between the closed debate templates at the top and the bottom. See this for an example. This can be done liberally, unless there is a really good reason not to blank the page. The full debate is always available in the history (which you may want to link to when you blank it), this is mainly to prevent the contents of the debate appearing in search results. --bainer (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking. - brenneman 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In my opinion, there is good reason to not blank the entire AfD page in this case. I will edit the AfD page directly this evening. It sounds like I do not need to worry about getting in trouble with administrators and WP politics if I simply give it my best shot. I intend to complete my first pass editing as the original administrator requested sometime during the next 24 hours. Regards, Keesiewonder 14:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I request that you DONT edit other user's comments to remove explitives. You can blank the discussion and use an oldid link if need-be... ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood, J.S. Thanks for clarifying. I will follow the example bainer provided above later today. Keesiewonder 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Moratorium on blocks for non-Latin characters

Because of recent conversations on the various email lists ([52] and [53]) demonstrating that not only is blocking users solely for use of non-Latin characters overly anglo-centric but also counterproductive and pointless because of the upcoming Unified Login; I am suggesting that all blocks based on non-Latin characters be suspended pending further investigation of the fairness and practicality of the policy. I have already suggested a policy change here: Wikipedia talk:Username#Non-latin_characters_and_Unified_Login. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we better start writing some of these articles in languages other than English to avoid the anglo-centric accusation. The policy as I understand it is based on two issues firstly that on many browsers these characters don't render properly (happens on at least one of the computers I use) coming out as little boxes or ? or some such. In article histories this is worse than meaningless. And secondly that the use of abusive names or terms can go unchecked for a long while. The former is not easily solveable and why we encourage users to use such characters in their signature where usually hovering over the link shows the underlying username and the usernames show up properly in page histories. (Though in a recent RFA there were complaints that the signature was too different from the username...). The second is also not easily soluble and single login with local blocking, may indeed make it a real issue. Personally I don't see it as unreasonable to ask people to pick a name which is legible and renders well in peoples browsers. On the question of your proposal, the way things normally seem to work is we discuss and then take action, not take action then discuss --pgk 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a suggestion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is continuing on WT:U. Please respond there. I am shifting these comments to the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the moratorium on non-latin character blocks. /me goes off to write this at WT:U. DVD R/W 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ral315's comments have been moved to WT:U.] — Nearly Headless Nick 07:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Question - finding articles deleted associated with an editor

I'm wondering what the best method is for finding the set of articles that have been created by an editor and subsequently deleted by one of several administrators. Thanks for your help is pointing me at the appropriate tool(s) for finding this information. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a way to do it on the toolserver, but thats down now. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, something of a problem, then, when it comes to tracking the hoofprints of vandals. When a page is deleted, edits to that page no longer appear in the contributions page for a user, so it becomes difficult to gather evidence of bad behavior in the absence of detailed accounting of the targets of vandalism by persons who set warnings on the perpetrator's talk page. Am I imagining a problem where one does not exist (not unlikely)? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why you're meant to leave {{attack}}/{{nn-notice}} warnings on their talk pages. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes .. there is a whole matrix of the templates (several for CSD applications) and I use them .. but my understanding is that they are not necessarily applied for every page vandalized in a series of events as they are meant as a notification trail rather than an audit trail. What you are suggesting is that for page creations, the talk page should function as an audit trail. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, just today I indef blocked a vandal and had to leave a message on the page to other administrator's that there would be little contributions becasue of deleted articles that he created/contributed to. Cbrown1023 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like a "page creation log" that listed all pages created by a user would defenently have been usefull sometimes. Granted that would still leave "regular" vandalism to pre-existing-but-since-deleted articles hidden. The ideal would probably have been a "toggle deleted edits on/off" button in the user contributions list (for admins at least), though I guess that might lead to performance issues (it's my understanding that deleted revisions are compressed and stored in a seperate, not-so-optimized-for-searching table). --Sherool (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I suspect the devs could easily code a "contrib history over deleted articles" for users, and make it accessible only to admins. Bugzilla, anyone? (Radiant) 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would like that, too, it would be helpful in dealing with accounts whose contributions are routinely deleted as vandalism. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock review

Chesdovi, whom I blocked the other day, has filed a request for unblock review. His request has stood for nearly a day without being reviewed and now he's calling for a 48 hour retributive block on me. Would an uninvolved administrator give this a look? Durova^Charge! 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed it yesterday, and declined it, but decided to return the request to give the user another opinion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish, another case

If you look at my contributions, you will see that I just did a cleanup of some old pages relating to Jeff Merkey.

Jeff is focused on other projects which involve Wikipedia content but they are not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. I removed the BAN since it is essentially become moot since Mr. Merkey has little interest or time to focus as an editor. Mr. Merkey has already told the Foundation he has little interest in being a Wikipedia Editor per se and given the amount of work he is doing in other areas, and as a courtesy for his right to vanish, I have removed these pages.

This is a courtesy, contingent of course on continued good behavior. I trust there will be no issues around this, but I wanted to give admins a heads up, since once upon a time there was a rather hysterical charge of a bribe being offered and accepted around this issue. Wikipedia is about many things, but one of the things it is or should be about is forgiveness and healing, as we all can become better people over time. Hopefully, there will be no further problems in this area.--Jimbo Wales 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism suggestion

re: 131.230.133.186 (talk · contribs) I just stumbled on an Anom by way of my watchlist, who has been a 'good occasional contributor' (by spot check and contribs) and would like to suggest those patrolling for vandalism make it a priority to leaving a similar message on talk pages of those 'good anoms' you check out in the course of your patrolling.
   Templatizing a similar message should be considered, IMHO, but I didn't do so given I have no good feel for how prevalent such non-problem IP editor's actually are.
   By the same token, I'm very surprised that no one patrolling vandalism hadn't welcomed this gal or guy sooner. So I would like to suggest those doing so who recognize an IP as a regular non-problem do some spot cross checking and at least welcome such people! Happy holidays all! // FrankB 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've actually never seen a discussion of posting "welcome" messages to IP accounts. Given that so many IP addresses are floating (does anyone actually know what percent of contributor IP's are static or not?), I'm not sure how many of them would be seen by the right person. Is this considered a good practice? Newyorkbrad 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I use {{welcomeip}} when I see a good anon editor with a red talk page. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I use {{anon}}... on IPs that make good edits, IPs that vandalize and self-revert it, IPs that make what look like test edits on a page, and even plain old IP vandals... though followed by a 'test' template or written request to desist in that case. No reason not to be nice and invite people in. --CBD 11:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Guildhall at SMU

I messed up by copy/pasting from a website, so the article I wrote got tagged the next day. The copyvio tag says it should be mentioned on the talk page if a new article has been written, which I did on the same day when the tag got added. I have also informed the one who blanked/tagged the article that I've written a new one. Nothing happened, but I read that the procedure for admins is to look at the issue after seven days, so I waited. Ten days later still nothing, so I put a comment into the article section at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#2006-12-04, hoping it would catch the attention of the admins who look at the copyright issues. Six days later still nothing, so I put a comment into the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#The Guildhall at SMU. Now this was 18 hours ago, and still nothing. :( So as a last resort I'm posting here, kindly asking if an admin could fix the issue. Thank you. --Pizzahut2 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly, you wrote the article and you want it deleted? Since you are only the contributor, that's easy. In the future, the speedy delete tag {{db-author}} can sometimes get attention faster. I'll delete the article. I can then move your other article into the mainspace. Cheers. Dina 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Orginal article deleted, new article moved from subpage to The Guildhall at SMU Dina 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem on AfC pages

I'm not sure where this goes, so I'll start here.

For the last couple of days the AfC pages have been acting very screwy.

• The "edit button" does not edit the line that it's on - it opens the article before!
• The afc templates seem to be randomly putting the correct -top- and -bottom- tags on the new articles, so that sometimes editing a new article will affect the entire page!
• When a new request comes in, ofttimes there is not a new == == heading created.
• When there are multiple == == sections, attempting to edit the parent one opens only the top section, and not the entire submission. I've had to go through and blank out several nonsense listings that had multiple sections.

If this isn't the correct forum to address this, would you please redirect it to the right place! :) Thanks... SkierRMH 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, the best place to mention this would be at the technical village pump, but I'll try to help. Taking your comments in order:

1. This sometimes happens on long pages - I'm not sure why, but it gets the wrong section number (probably there's a bug on the page or in the software)
2. By "article" do you mean section? There's been a problem with the databases messing up lng pages when edited recently - nothing we can do :(
3. Perhaps the IP is adding it without using the system (ie - new section) but is typing it at the bottom by mistake
4. == == sections denote new edit sections in the mediawiki software, so editing one won't open the following one for editing. This is a major problem on the AfC desk - it needs to be emphasized to IPs that they must not use levbel 2 headings! Martinp23 12:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to take this to WP:VPT myself. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia

FYI, User:JewishEncyclopedia, who identifies himself here [54] as the owner of jewishencyclopedia.com and has expressed concern at content from the encyclopedia being used without attributing his site. The encyclopedia is PD and so technically no attribution is needed, regardless of his TOS, but it may be a good idea for an experienced admin or someone from the foundation to respond to his request for contact. --BigDT 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought we do usually attribute anyway; I've seen articles that say "This article came from xxxx, which is in the public domain." Usually some 1911 encyclopedia or some Marine Corp thing. Hbdragon88 04:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

His concern was a link to his website ... I don't know (no idea, haven't looked into it at all) if that is actually where they are getting the information from, or even if it is the only online source of the Jewish encylopedia. Obviously, citing sources, we should credit the encyclopedia ... and if his website is the only place to find it, then a link might be appropriate, even if it is PD ... but it probably ought to be made clear that it is a courtesy, not an obligation. BigDT 04:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, even public domain stuff needs an attribution if we use its text in an article. The thing is, since he just digitized a PD encyclopedia, there's not automatically proof that someone uploading text from that encyclopedia copied from his efforts, maybe the uploader to Wikipedia scanned or transcribed the article manually too. I would suggest having contributers attribute his project if they did copy from it, but otherwise just use a standard attribution as described above. --W.marsh 04:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerical comment: This issue was apparently brought up before, about a year ago. (As for my two cents, if the text is indeed public domain, then standard attribution seems perfectly sensible.) Ourai ^т _с 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Attribution to the Jewish Encyclopaeida <> linking to jewishencyclopaedia.com of course. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD backlog

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion appears to have been backlogged for quite some time now... between the images and articles, it looks like it could use a bit of clearing out. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of talk pages of salted articles

Whats the protocol? ie Talk:Uncle Sherm's Visit. Viridae^Talk 08:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically the same as for any deleted page. If there is conversation important for re-creating it, like a re-write or discussion about finding sources, or other things like that, then it should be kept. This one looks like kids complaining "How you could you delete it! It's real!". It is also good to leave it for a while if there is explanation to the editors why it was deleted or a reference to WP:DRV. That advice has already been there for a week though, and I don't think "It is real" is a valid reason to undelete at DRV. Altogether, it is not that important though, because the talk page will be gone along with with the salted page when I delete it in a couple of months. —Centrx→talk • 08:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If noone realised because of the redlink, I deleted it. Thanks Centrx. Viridae^Talk 11:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Young'uns

Sorry, I've been hiding under a rock. What was the verdict on people declaring themselves to be minors? Specifically, how should I proceed with this? Hesperian 10:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Tell them why it might be a bad idea (Wikipedia:Privacy) and that they probably shouldn't add their home address and such. (Radiant) 12:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations backlog

Wherebot has been busy lately, there are almost 20 reports at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. Anyone with time to delete copyvios? -- ReyBrujo 12:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Broken_redirects_for_speedy_deletion

Moved in from WP:HD

Since when is a broken redirect a speedy criterion? Shouldn't you try to fix a redirect especially when it has a history that may be the result of a merge of the material that used to be at the redirect? = Mgm|^(talk) 12:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You might like to take this to WP:AN, since it is admins that will be doing the deleting. Viridae^Talk 12:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

MGM, looks like the only things that *should* be speedyable under that cat are the following:

For any redirects that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. In any case it may be possible to make it a useful redirect to some other target.

1. Redirects to non-existent pages
2. Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User_talk: space from the main article space. If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect.
3. Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages.

So perhaps its an ambiguity in "Broken", as that implies that they worked once upon a time. Syrthiss 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• That makes sense. Redirects to non-existent pages for speedy deletion doesn't have quite the right ring to it. I've reworded the intro to make it clear what it's for. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Syrthiss 13:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

HoboWars

Hi, Hobowars is an online turn-based game with lots of players. It is extremly fun and there is lots of good people on it. I know that some people abused the privalige of Wiki and made stupid pages about hobowars. But I think it should be allowed to make a good one. I would gladly make it. Plz email me at <email address removed> and tell me if this is possible or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.79.197.198 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 December 2006.

Please don't post your email address here unless you want tons of spam. And you want to address this concern to WP:DRV, which can handle your request for a deletion review. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:WEB, as these pages will aid you greatly in creating a successful WP:DRV. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Approval for deletion by bot

This is a crossposting (aka spam), so group or split discussions as you see fit.

User_talk:Cyde#Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2006_December_19

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Approval_for_deletion_by_bot

I've raised some concerns about community feeling on having a script do deletions.
Enjoy,
brenneman 00:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CAT:CSD - Heads up

Someone gotta help me here, its overflowing. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate that category ;). Anyway, I've just added some stuff which may help to NPWatcher. Martinp23 13:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletionism

This wikiproject seems to be a bit problematic. It assumes Afds are votes and even scores them. Several comments are slanderous in my view. I would like to have second opinions, preferably on the talk page of the wikiproject. --Cat out 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Try MfD? --Deskbanana 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you need to quit shopping this around multiple projects. Your deletion request on Meta isn't going well so you brought your problem here? I think that [55] shows clearly your intentions. Maybe you need to take a break from editing. Naconkantari 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it's Elaragirl's pet project, would it? JChap2007 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, let's assume good faith here,and AAGF too. It would have been nice if Cat had bothered to post a question to anyone's talk page about this, or engage in discussion on the project talk page, or even bothered to read the project's description that it exists to reduce improper AfD's, but I guess I'm being silly or even incivil to suggest that. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think the project really needs to go away (NPOV, as we already have an inclusionism project), but there are huge problems with it (especially the vote counting bit - if anyone went to DRV saying something like "but there are 60 points for merge and only 55 for redirect", I'm certain the DRV would be quickly dispensed with!). I think that something which will help to get more people involved in under publicised AfDs will help, but I'd prefer to see inclusionists and deletionists merged into an AfD taskforce, so we don't get blatant POV voting from each of the projects. But that isn't going to happen :) - I just think the whole project needs a cleanup - if it went to MfD now, I'd probably recommend Userfication until it's ready. Martinp23 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • We already have Wikipedia:AfD Patrol, notice. Uncle G 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The scoring system is for a bot I am going to make to identify controversial AfD's. The problem is that too many AfD's end up at DRV because admins are counting votes, no matter what people claim. The assertion that we'd go into an AfD discussion with a bunch of numbers I just made up is pretty funny, though. I'm testing these numbers by hand, to see if they work. If they work, I'd like to make a bot that scrapes AfD votes and spits out a table of AfD's that might need a look. If it doesn't look possible, the scoring system won't be neccessary and can go away. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The table is now in userspace anyway. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• responding to a number of posts

  I am merely trying to help. Incivil comments like the ones above are unwelcome here on wikipedia. Since WP:CIVIL is kept, please follow it.

  The point of ANB is it being a noticeboard. This is not the complaints department. I am merely asking impartial people to review the wikiproject page. I noticed the wikiproject at an afd... apperantly some people are advertising it with their signature. I do not believe it is Elaragirl's pet project, what makes you think that it is?

  The meta deletion page is a page I have made one nom and few comments. I do not campaign for deletion, no. I let impartial people review it.

  MfD/AfD is used too easily to shoot pages that can easily be improved rather than deleted. AfD/MfD is an overused procedure. I'd oppose a deletion nom (which seems to be inline with this wikiprojects guidelines).

  I think a wikiprojects objective should not be dividing the community (I am not saying it is for this wikiproject). I would oppose a inclusionism wikiproject just as well (I do not see one nor have I looked for it). I feel there should be one afd wikiproject that includes inclusionists, deletionists, and others and its title should represent this.

  Elaragirl, thank you. That makes sense. Elaragirl a key flaw IMHO is a bot can easily be tricked by sockpuppets, fake votes and etc. However a function that establishes the more clear cut cases might be useful but I also feel votes without a rationale should often be ignored. After all, WP:NOT a democracy and Afd not a vote.

  --Cat out 06:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Elaragirl's explanation of what this prospective bot is meant to do is perfectly satisfactory and should be left at that. The idea is not to reduce AFD to a vote, but to see if there's a quick and easy way to generate a list of problematic AFDs that need looking at. Perhaps a page-move to WikiProject Deletion? It does actually say on the project page that inclusionists are particularly welcome, I think, but I agree that this second title could be viewed as less inflammatory.

    And what uncivil comments? I didn't see anything. A point that was made at the Elaragirl RFC was that it basically consisted of Cool Cat being wilfully offended. Certainly a little skepticism is permitted after you come straight back from enforced wikibreak and immediately start complaining on AN about a Wikiproject set up by the same person you earlier filed a frivolous RFC against.

    Oh, and the advertising in my signature is working? Good! The more eyes and feedback the better. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish, vandals, and XP

Hi guys! I'd like to get clarification on the applicability of a m:Right to vanish request by a banned user. XP (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of ArbCom banned Rootology (talk • contribs) (see this thread for more details about that). Rootology/XP has blanked his user talk page twice after trying to game folks into unblocking him and has requested an RtV as a means of getting the incriminating talk page in question removed. I have concerns that this will hinder efforts to keep the user off the project. While administrators would still be able to (after a bit of hassle) view the page, non-admins (historically a grooming target by this user) would not. I've restored the talk page temporarily, but I'd like to get clarification on whether or not RtV can be used by sanctioned users who may be doing so to avoid enforcement of the ban. Your insight is requested and appreciated. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, I advocate very much for Right to Vanish as a great tool to allow difficult users to walk away with dignity. If the abuse you are worried about really does happen, the page can always be restored. In the meantime, it is probably worth a try.--Jimbo Wales 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

He may or may not be Rootology, but he played a more or less constructive role in the second MONGO arbitration. I would let him go. Fred Bauder 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Constructive or destructive? He didn't show up at this latest situation to chime in until he saw that there was a slim chance that I might not be desysopped. As I was told, "Rootology is gone forever. He will never be able to harrass you again using that handle."[56]--MONGO 11:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, I have executed the requested deletion of his User and User_talk pages. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I don't think you understand the definition of "construcitve". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u

A while back, a particularly troublesome user by the name of Cute 1 4 u (talk · contribs) was banned after exhausting the community's patience. In the months since then, we have had one sockpuppet after another. We find and block one and as soon as the autoblock expires, we get another one. Over and over and over and over again. Now, I can range-block RR for Chicago (I think that's the ISP, it's some provider in Chicago anyway) but this has the potential of a lot of collateral. But tracking down the sockpuppets and blocking them when they show up simply is not working. What other options are available to prevent banned users from simply creating a new account and continuing to edit abusively? I haven't yet contacted the ISP but I can't imagine they'll care. Even if they do, I only have access to the IPs used anonymously, not when the person was signed in, and these were some time ago. Clearly a criminal charge is not a good option, even apart from WP:LEGAL. --Yamla 03:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a major drain of community resources, I hope that the Arbitration Committee or someone with similar access can put an end to this. Yamaguchi先生 03:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom can't do anything more then any other admins/checkusers.

Roadrunner needs to take control of the situation or they will loseout. Can someone give them a call and let them know the problem? ---J.S ^(T/C) 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Roadrunner has historically been one of the least cooperative ISPs we've tried to report to. They really don't seem to give a damn.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, it's pretty sad. The 10th most popular site online, imagine the fuss Roadrunner would have if we routed their traffic to null. Really, ISP's are pipes, not content providers. It's generally a good thing to be nice to content providers :o -- Tawker 07:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From a POC within the community who wishes to remain anonymous it would be in Wikipedia's best interest to submit an abuse report to the ISP involved, for further details which have been requested to remain off-the-record and off-site please see me on IRC.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding from the above is that the person's ISP is Roadrunner which has not been particularly cooperative or helpful with regards to abuse. Of course, we should still submit an abuse report anyway if one hasn't been done already Nil Einne 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is always a threat of a blanket block of Roadrunner's ips. That might make them sit up and take notice. Viridae^Talk 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that could be dangerous. If we start trying to throw our weight around, we might end up looking like bullies. -- Donald Albury 11:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Come on, folks! Haven't we learned from AOL by now? We do not go threatening massive ISP's with thousands of good users because of a troll. I hate the vandals as much as anyone, within reason, but let's not cut our own throats to cure those carbuncles. As annoying as it is, we have to spot and slap these creatures one at a time. Geogre 13:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the diffrence is that AOL has actualy responded to the issue with thier rotoating IP addresses and is giving us new tools to track down vandals. I don't think RR is taking us seriously. :( ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There's some precedent for it, though. See the Usenet Death Penalty - Ehheh 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly urge a light touch here. As far as vandalism goes, Cute 1 4 u is obnoxious but hardly a threat to the continuation of the project. She's easily recognized and easily blocked. Mackensen (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is true. She's like a child who grabs your hand and uses it to slap you in the face, chanting, "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself". Annoying but not likely to cause injury. --Yamla 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems we've done all we can here. We can involve checkusers, but that may not be so effective. Rest assured, it will not hurt to at least file an abuse report towards RR. Section 230 may also come into play as to why ISP's have difficulty handling reports. —Pilotguy (ptt) 17:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

RR could, under a typical TOS, revoke the internet account of the vandal. Some ISPs are willing to do it. Either RR has a non-typical TOS and they can't do anything about it, or they simply don't care. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Worrying e-mail

I've just received the following e-mail; it's not entirely clear who's writing what exactly, but if it's genuine, then it's very worrying. Do we really have admins who are this un-self-controlled, aggressive, and unpleasant?

I'd be grateful if someone could check the facts on this; as I say, if the e-mailer is genuine, than this is not only an unplesant case in itself, but is bad for Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt an admin would have written those e-mails. More likely written by whoever e-mailed you. You could ask the sender to forward you the headers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a nonsense to me, blocking the address wouldn't cause lack of access to wikipedia for "educational purposes", not to mention I'm not aware of many schools running shoutcast [57] --pgk 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought (though I've come across one or two with very short tempers even on Wikipedia itself, and e-mail can encourage and exacerbate that sort of thing). Good point about the headers, though; I should have asked. I'll do that now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:72.177.68.38 is a sock IP of banned user Bobabobabo. Best to ignore the e-mail, as she has a history of making these pleas by e-mail to various users. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's User:Bobabobabo, folks. Here, here, here.... you get the idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've just googled the e-mail address, and it gave just one result — see User talk:Wikibofh#block. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned User:Bobabobabo. Nothing to see here, move along.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and usual peppering and bastardization of normal emails with curses that never occurred.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned this. Thanks for clearing this up; I don't imagine I'll hear from this person again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have, but I thought it would have been obvious seeing the red blinking text at the IP's talk page. :3—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(Hits head.) If I'd typed the IP address correctly when I first checked, I'd have seen it (though it doesn't blink for me, I'm glad to say).

I've been away for a while, and some of the cynicism that I'd developed had rubbed off; once I've been back for a while it'll regrow. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The <blink> element doesn't work on anything other than Mozilla-based and Opera browsers, and definitely not on IE. Kimchi.sg 03:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

New type of image vandalism

Sleeper accounts have been hitting the FA now. Jerseykites (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Arundakim (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) have been adding Image:Doublepen.png to the article, and we defintely need to root out who's behind them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Skippaminnow (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) now...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • They've been blocked. We'll have to start watching for this new type of vandalism. Alphachimp 04:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• ACMPC-1 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that some obvious vandalism has been carried out against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokémon_Diamond_and_Pearl There is an image appearing over the text that mixes graphic nudity with quite a lot of blood. An ugly combo!

Request for semi-protection: Mel Mermelstein

This is a request for semi-protection for the Mel Mermelstein page. Basically, an IP of a Holocaust denier is trying to put poorly sourced pro-Holocaust denial material on this page. Samboy 06:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP in question appears to have been blocked now for 3RR violation. If the problem is with only one or two IPs, semiprotection is usually not warranted - you can report recurring vandals to WP:AIV. Sandstein 11:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

When a policy is in dispute

I recently submitted User:المستهلك to WP:AIV and was told that we can't block this user because it's disputed policy. This pertains to the disputed policy currently going on at WT:U over non-Latin usernames. However, isn't it still policy until it's no longer disputed? Does this mean that anytime someone disputes a policy it is automatically no longer in function? It should go the other way around. This seems like a really bad idea as any group of people who doesn't like a policy can hold it hostage at any time by declaring it disputed. Please keep in mind, I'm not asking people to respond to the problem itself (we don't want crossposting), but the issue of "it's no longer policy because a group of people disputes it". Patstuart^talk|edits 02:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a nonsense to me, should we dispute WP:V and not enforce it in the intervening time? (Yes a weak example WP:V being pretty core, but the principle is their none the less). However, WP:U isn't disputed anyway, the examples of inappropriate usernames is just that, a set of examples. Names covered by the examples maybe perfectly valid and shouldn't be blocked and similarly names not specifically covered may still be inappropriate and blocked (we aren't a bureacracy, "rules is rules" shouldn't be a feature). As WP:AIV states an admin has to make a decision and doesn't have to block just because you list it. I would have hoped the person declining would have done just that, disagree that it's a problem and not block it on that basis rather than the stuff about "disputed policy". I would block this myself but I see they've made a fair number of edits, so at this point such a block would probably be more disruptive than helpful, I suggest you ask the user to consider changing their name if it bothers you particularly. --pgk 09:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, what problem would we be solving by blocking this user? For example, would admins be unable to block, revert or unblock the user because of non-Western characters in the username? I don't believe that would be the case. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  The rationale is laid out on the WP:U page, and as noted there is an on going disucssion there about it. But there are two problems which it addresses (1) That the characters don't render properly for many people this means things like looking at an article history and seeing various names consisting of a variable number of ?s or little boxes say. In some browsers/proxies the effect of such characters when edited get badly mangled. (2) The names on the English wikipedia are frequently unpoliceable. For the sake of argument we have some very sad individuals who spend hour upon hour creating usernames along the lines of "Jews did WTC lol". Can you tell me that if the Sinhalese version of that appeared you would know? If that got involved in something picked up by the press is would be good for wikipedia's credibility? --pgk 12:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, since I was the admin who refused to block, let me at least give my reasoning:

  • First, I saw the username, and his contributions. The contributions were all in good faith, so I didn't have any problem not blocking.
  • Second, the policy is under massive fire right now, not just on the talk page, but in all sorts of mailing lists and other places. It is reasonable, at least in my eyes, that while a considerable portion of the community does not agree with a policy, and the policy is undergoing reform, to hold a moratorium to not inflame things further.

  In fact, looking at the policy, Radiant! already took the relevant bit out, due to the dispute. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Would endorse block, however this user should be approached politely before blocking and asked to change his username. We don't want to go biting off newbies. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not even disputed on enwiki proper, as far as I can tell. I think it would be better to be mindful of the issues and have a conversation with the user instead of an initial block. If the user doesn't edit and doesn't respond then we could go ahead and block.. This would address the concern of sleeper accounts yet avoid biting newbies. I can setup a bot to list three-day inactive new accounts with non-latin characters so that they won't be missed. --Gmaxwell 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Due to english being the defacto universal language at this point in time, I would have hoped that en.wikipedia would be somewhat more sophisticated and sensitive to international issues.

--Kim Bruning 00:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR Considered Harmful

There are problems with the 3RR being a strict legalistic approach to revert warring, rather than a situation-dependent one; perhaps we should employ less bureaucratic rules against edit wars? Please comment on Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#3RR_Considered_Harmful. >Radiant< 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest? -- Samuel Wantman 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We suggest coming over to Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#3RR_Considered_Harmful, apparently. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard#Ghirlandajo (talk • contribs)

Hello, I'm hoping for some closure on this matter. The discussion became quite long and went off-topic. Appleseed (Talk) 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The principal participants have agreed to let me mediate. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, if you are referring to your Piotrus-Ghirlandajo mediation, then I'm not sure how that's related to this incident, which involves Ghirlandajo and myself. Appleseed (Talk) 19:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Different clash? Okay, apologies. Durova^Charge! 22:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, not so different. Please remember that the issue is larger then Piotrus-Ghirla conflict; quite a few other editors have been the target of the same incivility as myself. On the other hand, a civility parole would fix all of such problems, including the one being discussed in the Appleseed's PAIN report.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The mediation may be necessary, but what is there to negotiate in this example of blatant incivility? How can any editor act this way with impunity? Appleseed (Talk) 02:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes in vandalism notifications

Sometimes we make mistakes (at least I do) in placing a vandalism-related notification on a user's talk page. I did that recently and when my mistake was revealed, I put a retraction on the user's talk page (see User_talk:38.139.36.119#.27United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office.27_edit); I also noted in the edit summary that this was a retraction of a vandalism notification. Do you think this is over the top - not the original vandalism notification (that can be debated about whether the notice should have been put and what level it should have been) but rather the response to the revelation of an error. Thanks --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What you've done is just fine. Good job. ×Meegs 03:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of users' vandal pages

User:Cyde (possibly others, I don't know) has deleted a few users' vandal pages (the two I've noticed are User:Seadog.M.S's and User:Fredil Yupigo's) under CSD G3. The pages are technically "pure vandalism", but I've seen many users, including admins, use them. Was there some recent guideline (or something) added stating that users should not have vandal pages, or did Cyde just start deleting them recently just under G3? –The Great Llama^{sign here} 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:DENY. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing about WP:DENY is that it isn't a policy, in fact it isn't even a guideline, it is a proposed guideline. I would certainly not consider it appropriate to delete things in someones userspace unless it clearly meets a CSD, and a "vandalism page", while not the best idea in my opinion, is just an sandbox, and can't really be deleted as pure vandalism. Prodego ^talk 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just a sandbox, it's a sandbox with the express purpose of being vandalized. If you need a guideline, see WP:USER. Policy? Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. A vandalism page honestly doesn't seem to help with collaborating to build the Wikipedia. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason that page has {{proposed}} on it is because we have no box that says "This page is a sensible principle which has already become standard practice; however, the community is dragging its heels over what to call it, which is fine so long as they don't get in the way of those who apply it in order to improve Wikipedia." --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it had proposed on it because it hadn't been adopted, specifically because it's far too general and doesn't have the support of the majority of the community. I for one think it's one of the worst ideas I've ever seen, if for no other reason than it's used to justify things that cause way more problems than they ever solve, like deleting sockpuppet categories that are very useful when tracking banned users who don't stop just because their sock categories were deleted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iasson. But then, what do I know? Essjay (Talk) 03:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tracking banned users is useful; creating categories, userpages, etc. about vandals and their sockpuppets is not. A simple long term alerts page for complex vandals seems good enough to me. Ral315 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ocean's Twelve problem

I don't know where else to go with this, so I'll try here. I clicked a link to the Ocean's Twelve article and when I got there I found this. I had to revert back to October 8th, which as of 22:13EDT is the current revision, in order to clear it from my screen. I don't know or why that was there, but I dont' know why it wasn't spotted before unless it was an issue on my end and nobody else sees it. It was downright disturbing. If it's just me and I need to take a screen shot to show, let me know. --MPD (T / C) 03:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a template that was included in the page that had been vandalised. It appears to have been fixed now. Sorry about that. Naconkantari 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What template was it? We ought to protect it. -- Renesis (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was {{Rating-5}}, and it's been done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hunting for linkspam

Is there a simple way to check Wikipedia for outgoing links to a particular website? Akhilleus suggested that our Joan of Arc vandal was using Wikipedia to Googlebomb for his personal website based on the discovery of one of his hidden sockpuppets User:Maintenance[58], most of whose user space was written in an unknown constructed language (yes I know this is really really weird). After I removed the Williamson external link from Joan of Arc his website dropped from #1 to #2 on a "Joan of Arc" Google search.[59] So I'd like to see whether he has other linkspam hidden away on our site. Any tips? Durova^Charge! 15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Special:Linksearch is what you're looking for. Cheers, FreplySpang 15:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Durova^Charge! 22:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Carbon

This AfD has descended into chaos, mainly because of the large number of individual pages included in the multiple listing, and the nature of the pages listed, being to do with online gaming. I've suggested an immediate procedural closure as no consensus and individual relisting of all nominated pages, struck-through or not. I don't see any way an admin can close this one out normally. I voted in the debate so can't really take any action myself. Deizio talk 19:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As the creator, I would like this also. I will submit these seperately. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, this seems sensible, and several contributors on the AfD have suggested this as well. I'll do it. Sandstein 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a warning not to edit the AfD and striking out my initialy post as he did before you closed it. Should I go and remove those strikes as they're not my own comments? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is the "he" you are talking about, and what strikeouts? At any rate, the AfD is closed and soon-to-be forgotten, please don't edit it. But do please take care of the now-redundant AfD tags in the articles. Sandstein 21:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was talking about the creator of the said articles, Arrashju (talk · contribs) sorry. I have gone ahead and removed them, and now I will be resubmitting. Thanks for taking care of this, and I will refrain from large AfDs like this again. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"The nominator is kindly requested to remove the AfD tags from the articles." Eh? It's the closer's job to remove tags from articles. Colin can do it if he wishes, but it is not his responsibility as the closing summary implies; we do it that way because to do otherwise would be "punishing" people for nominating an article for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You are generally correct; however, in abortive mass AfDs such as this one, it appears appropriate to me that the nominator clean up after themselves, as it were. I'd not have said this had there been a "keep" result or had this been a single article AfD. Sandstein 07:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An AfD nomination is not filth, and nominators are not required to "clean up after themselves", whatever the outcome. You closed it; it's your responsibility to complete the process. (That wasn't exactly clear - the process has been completed by someone else, but he didn't have to.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jacob Peters

I have noted that User:Jacob Peters has been deleting huge swaths of articles, moving/renaming articles and battling over POV issues [60]. I am hoping that some other admins would take a look at his/her body of work, especially the most recent moves. I am having trouble parcing the changes out for what is appropriate and what is not. Thanks, --Kukini 04:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see thread started on talk:Holodomor by me, one of articles user:Jacob Peters had so to say "attacked". He has already been blocked for repeated abuse and for being an abusive sockpuppetmaster, please see his block log and talk page. Perhaps these blocks have not been enough? Please advise... —dima/s-ko/ 05:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard

Many of the reports there have not been acted on within 23 hours. Shouldn't someone be acting on them? Hbdragon88 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming in here to say the same thing. The backlog is significant. I hope those reports aren't going stale to the point that no one is going to ever act on them. It's time-consuming to fill those things out! Help! We're drowning in backlog! — coelacan talk — 13:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation block

I've blocked Rubayat Habib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours as a serial copyright violator (see the actress images in his upload log). However, I'm leaving on a long trip in the morning and will not be able to follow up. Would others keep an eye on this? Thanks. Chick Bowen 07:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Translation

Hello,

I am the main author of Wikipedia:Translation, and while putting this in place, I changed my mind on the naming convention and on how the project should be organized.

For this reason, I have a lot of pages that are not needed anymore, too much to put a speedy deletion template on them all.

The pages I want someone to delete are those on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allpages&from=Translation/ **&namespace=4

• all the pages of the form Wikipedia:Translation/_fr/XXXX (including Wikipedia:Translation/_fr)
• all the pages of the form Wikipedia:Translation/_ja/XXXX (idem)
• all the pages of the form Wikipedia:Translation/_de/XXXX (idem)
• all the redirects of the form Wikipedia:Translation/_lang/XXXX (redirect now to a subpage of Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang)
• all the pages of the form Wikipedia:Translation/_**/XXXX (even those pages which are not redirects but have October 2006 or Before November 2006 in their names are not needed anymore)

Thank you,

Jmfayard 13:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove TfD

Hi, requesting any admin to put the keep tag on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_fil. Thanks! { PMGOMEZ } 08:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a nom withdrawn without any delete !votes. The withdrawing nominator can do so themselves. Viridae^Talk 08:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep - it can be done by the nom, or any other user. As it is, I've done it Martinp23 12:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The point was directed at PMGOMEZ but oh well :P Viridae^Talk 12:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. People are requesting an admin to close the following TfD though... Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_16#Template:Infobox_Philippine_High_School. They've reverted what I've closed. Thanks! { PMGOMEZ } 13:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - Viridae, I closed it as an admin :) Martinp23 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the precedence on userpages?

Hello, User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is currently up for deletion.

My question:

I am wondering what the precedence is on deleting userpages which encourage others to comment a certain way in AfDs and on wikipolicy.

Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing and Wikipedia:User page don't seem to address this particular issue.

Thus far, no one has shared any precedence. By precedence I mean, a history of other userpages similar to User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard which have survived or been deleted in AfDs. Merry Christmas, Thanks in advance. Happy holidays, Travb (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my already-indicated bias on the relevant MfD page, but is this a campaign poster? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's some precedence for 'ya Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:LGBT notice board, which was a 'Snowball Keep'. Morton Devonshire^Yo 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved, but wasn't this page the subject of a previous MFD? Why is it being run through again? Thatcher131 20:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is 'axe grinding'. Morton Devonshire^Yo 22:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was inappropriately closed after one day, with a decision of 18-5 to keep.

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board is different than User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, as you stated yourself User:Morton_devonshire:

"..."Projects" are Wiki projects, and therefore take on some sort of official mantle. Userpages are just userpages, and carry no community policy weight, just one user's opinion."

Why are you differenating User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard on the deletion page, as not being a wikiproject, but comparing User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard to a wikiproject here? You can't have it both ways, it is either a wikiproject, which should have "some sort of official mantle" or it is a userpage which "carry no community policy weight".

I suggest a comprimise, which has been brought up on both AfD's: move this userpage to a wikiproject page, which will avoid the obvious vote stacking and off topic subjects that this userpage has been involved with. Merry Christmas Travb (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver put it up for AfD because his Muslim board was guilty of vote stacking, this is simply lashing out and I am surprised it hasnt been closed yet as such. The fact that Travb would come here while the AfD is leaning in the same direction as the last, after putting AfD notices on article talk pages that have been noted on the noticeboard (which Travb admitted to being vote stacking), and marking them as minor edits, is all a bit fishy. This is another attempt to go around the forming concensus, much like last time with the article deletion review, which also ended in keeping the snowball keep verdict. Also oddly Travb isnt even linking to anything related to this articles MfD in his link above, its about the "allegations of terrorism by the US" article, perhaps Travb is getting his many arguements confused, or again made a post wasting peoples time in a WP:POINT violation, I will assume he is just confused. You can see Strivers remarks here where he wants to put it back up about a week after the last MfD because what happened to his project, even admitting to looking for other articles/items to harrass. --NuclearZer0 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA "perhaps Travb is getting his many arguements confused, or again made a post wasting peoples time in a WP:POINT violation, I will assume he is just confused." How many times in the past two days have I told you not to do this Nuclear?

I can't comment for Striver, but he addresses all of these issues on the AfD.

Here is the full comment:

"I may be guilty of "vote stacking" but is this any different from what User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard does?"

NuclearUmpf has ignored this question, repeatedly.

When I wrote "I may be guilty of "vote stacking"" (notice it is in quotes, what I meant was canvassing, which is often called canvassing) I have been very careful to follow all wikipedia rules. WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass states: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. "

I did not violate WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass in these simple messages, as User:Morton_devonshire did repeatedly. Where is Nuclear's condemnation of User:Morton_devonshire for WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass violations, and for Morton's own votestacking/canvassing?

If Nuclear wants to condemn me for what he calls "votestacking"/canvanssing then what about Morton's own boot for votestacking, which was quickly overturned? I have not read what led up to Morton's own "votestacking"/canvanssing. But I wonder if these comments were as neutral as my own [61][62][63]:

==AfD== FYI: The User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard page is up for deletion right now. This article was listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard during the last AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My canvassing clearly follows wikipedia rules, Mortons violates WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass I quote: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."

Again Nuclear, for the second time I ask you this (modified) question: "I may be guilty of "vote stacking" canvassing but is this any different from what User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard does?"

And Nuclear and Morton, let me ask the question for the third time:

Why are you differenating User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard on the deletion page, as not being a wikiproject, but comparing User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard to a wikiproject here? You can't have it both ways, it is either a wikiproject, which should have "some sort of official mantle" or it is a userpage which "carry no community policy weight".

Please answer the question gentlemen.

I came here for an answer to this question:

My question: I have read previous AfDs of userpages which join other wikipedians to push their own agenda are deleted Snowball delete. I recall reading an AfD about a year ago for an abortion group and a church group which was deleted for this reason.

I am wondering what the precedence is on deletion of pages such as User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard ? Does anyone recall the deletion of these abortion groups and a church groups? Thanks in advance. I welcome all of your opinions on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Here, I am simply asking what the AfD precedent is.

And instead I get WP:NPA attacks. I feel because of this, no third party has answered this question.

Happy Holidays, Travb (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• The precedent is to keep this page, per the previous MfD :-) Guy (Help!) 10:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing and Wikipedia:User page. The first makes it clear that "votestacking" is not acceptable, and may, at the extreme, lead to banning the responsible user. The second quideline states that if you do not cooperate in removing inappropriate content, "In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy." -- Donald Albury 02:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• There are plenty of experienced editors advocating Keep on that particular page, on the grounds that it serves an encyclopaedic purpose in managing the morass of 9/11 conspiracycruft. It's been nominated before, and in both cases the nominator has a history of argumentative behaviour in respect of this kind of content. I have no problem with the page myself, and I would not mind seeing it moved to project space as a project to monitor neutrality (and especially undue weight) in the legion of 9/11 articles. We don't actually need an article on each and every minor variation of "gubmint evil, therefore conspiracy". A lot of the articles on the 9/11 "truth" movement are systematically biased, even in trivial ways like saying the truthers have "concluded" that there is a coverup, whereas actually that was their starting point. Every single explanation offered by the truthers violates Occam's razor, of course. NPOV is non-negotiable and articles which appear to advocate conspiracy theories are not neutral, so having some kind of task force to clean them up is entirely reasonable. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin harassment

SlimVirgin has been harassing CJCurrie for almost violating the three revert rule: [64] -- DLH

• So CJCurrie should stop edit warring? Guy (Help!) 08:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • • Would you like me to point out to you the standards of behavior that your clever remark here has almost violated? -- DLH
  • CJCurrie was cognitive of an edit war and tried to diffuse by using the talk page and accepting the disputed interpretation with a "dispute" template: [65] and [66] Others persisted [67] and looks like he was successfully chased from the page after others turned the content dispute into a user misconduct dispute.[68] ·maclean 09:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How exactly does warning someone to stop revert warring count as "harassment"? >Radiant< 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It counts as harassment when it includes mistaken accusations of violations of bright-line rules, and when, after it becomes painfully apparent that these accusations have been made in error, the perpetrator persists in accusing the victim of violating the "spirit" of the rule, and of "gaming" the system, rather than apologizing for her own mistake and her own vindictive and inappropriate behavior. And it counts as harassment when, after it has become painfully apparent that the accusation of the bright-line violation was made in error, the perpetrator goes along as though the victim has nevertheless committed a punishable offense, and indeed is joined in this witch-hunt by other people who have difficulty respecting processes that protect those who disagree with them. That, Radiant!, is when "warning someone to stop revert warring" counts as harassment. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.91 (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm glad that others can see this situation for what it is.

On a related matter, isn't it a violation of Wikipedia policy to remove a disputed notice that's been put up in good faith? CJCurrie 06:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Page vandalism

OK, I don't usually come here, but this has gone too far. Today, there was a picture of a penis on the Main Page. This should not be possible, yet it happens.

I have neither the time nor the desire to check every last template myself, and I don't see why I should have to. It's not an area I have any involvement with. It is, however, an area that several other people contribute regularly to. While I hold nothing against any one of them, this is a page that is viewed millions of times a day, and people have got to start taking some kind of responsibility for it. Featured articles and pictured are scheduled, ITN and DYK are updated; these tasks require administrative action and an essential part of such duties is making sure all these pages, and any transcluded onto them, are protected, before they go "live". Same goes for any and all pictures appearing on the page.

In other words, those of you who do this stuff, get your act together. I don't want to see it again. – Gurch 16:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Being rude makes people ignore you. --Deskana (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Vandalism on Main Page. For what it's worth, this is a responsibility for everyone, especially admins. (Non-admins, if you see an unprotected image or template on the Main Page, please drop a note on a currently active admin's user talk page and alert them.) Please don't blame any one group of users for not doing their "job"; I regularly protected and unprotected Main Page images and pages for a few months a couple of months ago before other administrators started helping out. Things will indubitably slip by, even with our best efforts, and there's no point in chastizing those who regularly help out. They've given their best effort, and the lesson has been learned; we'll all be more vigilant with each instance. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The ad hoc approach to the main page and the featured article is broken. There needs to be an organised effort now so that before any image or template is included on the main page or today's featured article they are protected. Catchpole 16:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping that this bot request will go through and we will get a centralised list of all the pages that are going on the Main Page tomorrow, and whether they've been protected yet or not. That would make it far harder for pages to slip through. (This post also posted to the similar thread at Talk:Main Page.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't the main page have a static(not transluced from anywhere) version? All local wikicode, all special copies of images? A simple bot can scan it for images that aren't protected and any templates, and confirm it is static. An automated system can subst all the templates once it is built the conventional way. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. If you see it as rudeness, I apologize. I saw it as telling people they need to do better. That's not rudeness; criticism, maybe, incivility, possibly, but not rudeness – Gurch 18:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my rough calculations say that somewhere in the vicinity of 16,000 people saw the images on the main page. And that's on a Sunday afternoon. It really is something we should be keeping up on, and people should have absolutely no qualms about protecting potentially high-risk templates. Shimgray | talk | 19:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

16,000 people? That's terrible. I've written and posted something on this here. Please comment on how to tighten up the checks and balances we need to have in place. Carcharoth 22:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm revising it down to maybe closer to 12,000 - but, yes, I agree with you. Not good at all. (We got 15 emails to OTRS about it; an interesting detail.) Shimgray | talk | 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in my calculations - not twelve to sixteen, more like the lower end of sixteen to twenty. (Average pageviews would have been ~25,000 in that timeframe, but Sunday plus Christmas Eve makes for pretty quiet readership...) Shimgray | talk | 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Userwarning templates sock attack

I've semi-protected Template:Test1a, Template:Test2a, Template:Test3a, Template:Blank, Template:Blank2, Template:Blank3, Template:Blank4, Template:Blank5, Template:Test5i due to a recent sock attack. I'm more or less signing off now, someone else please handle any long-term issues if necessary (such as either adding proper protection notes or unprotecting and keep watch etc.) Femto 16:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Such template should be protected. If people want to change one they can discuss it or make a userpage version. But somebody should not be able to make a change that effects what hundreds of vandal fighters are saying to the new users. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Az haris & UserAz84haris

I have blocked both of these users for a month for posting copyvios. I know this is a big jump from the 24 hour block they had before but take a look at the list on User talk:Az haris. Those were the only ones I found and there may be others. After their block they returned and posted more copyrighted material. I did notice that the user has not responded on their talk page or commented on any talk page. So they may not uderstand the messages. If you feel the block is too long please reduce. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to avoid spam blacklist

I saw this on WikiWatch:

Most recently, resourceful vandals (and spammers) have begun embedding commented text within the URL in order to throw off the blacklist. For example, instead of:

http://www.myspace.com/ one enters this:

http://www.my<!-- ABC123XYZ -->space.com/ which completely bypasses the Wikipedia URL blacklist and reconstructs the URL into a clickable link.

Has anything been done to correct this?--Azer Red Si? 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This was already fixed in a previous revision (see bugzilla and the trunk) and shouldn't be technically possible anymore. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:IAF

User:IAF, without bad intentions is using Indian Air Force as his user name. I am not aware of the policy, I request that due notice be given to him and the word "Indian Air Force" be removed from everywhere if the usage is contrary to the policy. swadhyayee 10:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The acount name is not bad, since there are many air force organizations that go by IAF. However, what he needs to do is go into his preferences and drop the Indian Air Force as part of his signature, so it just reads User:IAF and the timestamp. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That is what I feel could be wrong and prevented. Are you admin? Can you remove Indian Air Force from places where he has signed as Indian Air Force? swadhyayee 11:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am an admin, but I want to wait and see first if IAF took the changes that I suggested. If he didn't, it would be pointless to change them if I know more are showing up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean to say that he will be allowed to use Indian Air Force as his signature if he does not stop and remove earlier signatures? And I couldn't understand your view that there are many air force organisations that go by "IAF". Indian Air Force is only one organisation of Indian Govt. Defence. swadhyayee 02:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what is more likely is that he will be blocked from editing if he refuses to change his signature, but at least until the matter is disposed there is no special urgency in replacing the old signatures. —Centrx→talk • 02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:IAF does not find wrong in use of "Indian Air Force" as his signature. Will some admin pl. cite proper policy on his talk page and do the needful. swadhyayee 11:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Permanently blocked User:Technajunky

I have permanently blocked User:Technajunky. In his brief edit history he has mostly edit-warred and sockpuppeted. More recently he has been stalking editors for the purpose of reverting them, both as his userid and as an IP. He has been warned about this, been blocked, has his block reviewed, and has taken to blanking his Talk: page, and making insulting edit summaries: [69] I have little patience for editors who exist solely for the purpose of stalking other editors, and I don't see how Wikipedia has benefited, or will benefit, from anything Technajunky might bring to the project. I open this up for further discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I first encountered this user when I noticed the edit war he was involved in at Middle Eastern American. Another user asked me to warn Technajunky about stalking, and when I did, I got the response "One warning was enough, kiddo. If you keep messing around with my user page, it could be considered vandalism, or at the very least, a sign that you have too much time on your hands". Last night I saw an anon, 68.5.96.201 (talk · contribs), stalking SlimVirgin and using edit summaries like, "RV'd Vandalism". Finially when Technajunky started to follow Humus sapiens around, reverting all his edits and adding a {{db-nonsense}} tag to an article he started, I blocked him for 24 hours. As I later reviewed the edits of 68.5.96.201, it became apparent that they were the same person, and that he actually used his Technajunky account to circumvent 3RR at Wall of Shame. I asked Dmcdevit to do a check, and he confirmed that it was him, in addition to User:ElectronFlux and User:SockPuppetKing, the former of which he used to evade 3RR on Joe Escalante. All of this simply shows is that we have a user who refuses to abide to Wikipedia policy, and continues to be disruptive despite several warnings. Endorse block. Khoikhoi 19:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this block. The few encounters I had with this user made me think he was there only to cause disruption. Beit Or 21:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This block will be a relief. I noticed the ill behavior but didn't realize it was a sock. I was preparing to do an RfC. The user came to my talk page and accused me of wikistalking (see User talk:Coelacan#WikiStalking), because I monitor Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, and I require WP:RS citations for new additions. User had a nasty habit of blanking warnings from own talk page. So considering the classic troll behavior of accusing others of harrassment and trolling, I support this block. — coelacan talk — 01:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. Indeed a relief from this disruptive user. Sorry I assumed good faith at first. Won't happen again. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a relief. I went away to do Family Stuff for Xmas yesterday and was expecting to see my userpage vandalised several times by this editor when I returned. I doubt further support is needed, but should it be, you have mine! Tonywalton  | Talk 11:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Istok/Istog

Could someone delete Istok/Istog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ?
Created today in relation to Istok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), now really serves no purpose as a redirect. - Best regards, Evv 22:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as unlikely typo. Kimchi.sg 00:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving the main page

Please see Talk:Main Page#Requested move. —Mets501 (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:nobs01

I'd like some administrators to review the renewal of a year-long block that's described here: User talk:Dmcdevit#Your block of User:nobs01. Thanks. KarlBunker 13:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A page called "Audrey Wyler's"

I need to request that any Administrator able to do so please change the name of a Wiki Article titled "Audrey Wyler's" be changed to "Audrey Wyler."

Thanks for your help. (By the way, and apologizing in advance, I am sorry if I am in the wrong Administrator's Forum to ask for a Page Change of this sort to be made.)

Thanos777 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't require an administrator to move most pages. You can just click on the "move" tab on the top of the page and follow the instructions. I'm not an admin but I've moved this one for you. Newyorkbrad 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this come over the recent changes page. Is this some sort of upside down world?

This was posted at the user's page:

What's up with the block, User:Yanksox? Isn't it odd when the administrators are doing the vandalism and then blocking someone else trying to fix it? See the histories for Somatopleure and Splanchnopleure. --NotYetFree 20:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts what could be going on? --NotYetFree 20:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, "spiteful vandal," take your choice of vandal or sock. Case closed, thanks for playing. Yanksox 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying you decided to support a vandal over a sockpuppet? This just raises more questions. --WeAreTheOnes 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This one's blocked. --Deskana (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked a whole sockfarm, and two IPs. If it continues, let me know. Essjay (Talk) 21:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This has actually been going on a long time since you did the 2 December checkuser, Essjay. Every day another half dozen usernames get added to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot.--Kchase T 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oy, Cplot. How lovely. Keep them coming to the RFCU and we'll keep blocking. Essjay (Talk) 21:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, because I don't mean to stir the pot. The matter has been settled, and I have no wish to re-open it. However, if I could get some clarification on the issues it raised (I haven't looked at the user's history), it would be helpful to me. My understanding is that sockpuppetry per se isn't an actionable offense as long as the sockpuppet is not abusive. I know that it can't be used to evade a block or ban, but isn't kind of a poor man's "right to disappear"? I understand wanting to nip problems in the bud, but if a user appears to be editing constructively, even on articles he/she has edited in the past, what's the harm in letting them go on for a bit just watch them? I ask because I have seen a couple of these questionable calls lately, and I don't really understand. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I mean block the sockpuppet if necessary. But why go vandalize the constructive edits the sockpuppet made? -- Tbeatty 17:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

<comments by sock of banned usere removed> User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See the policy on Banned users. Banned users are not welcome here, period, and all their edits may be reverted on sight. Waterboarder (talk · contribs) first two edits were not trolling, but then he goes right back to where he left off the day before with Listen to the music now (talk · contribs). We've had enough, and he's not welcome. Thatcher131 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

keep your eye on ShoYoAss (talk · contribs), who has started out the same way as Waterboarder. The user name might be problematic, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Major backlog at WP:SSP

Some cases there were from over a month ago, someone needs to go, have a look, and clean it up. ♥ Fredil`

I closed 7 cases yesterday and merged 2 into 1 and closed another 2 today. In all of these, the fate of the users involved have already been sealed. However, some admins are needed over there to get rid of this backlog. MER-C 03:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also helping out at WP:SSP, just like MER-C is. A lot of the cases that I can't close right now are pretty obvious, so it shouldn't take much from an administrator to finish up a lot of the cases without further investigation. // I c e d K o l a 23:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy between WP:COI and Reward Board

I'm confused. Conflict of interest policy states that financial payment to edit should be discouraged. But at the Reward Board, it is encouraged? How does the Wikipedia community resolve this disconnect? --JossBuckle Swami 00:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians are not Borg. People disagree. --CBD 12:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Conflict of interest page lists financial motives as a conflict of interest primarily to make it clear that organizations offering to write Wikipedia articles in exchange for payment are not welcomed; see User:MyWikiBiz and the associated debate – Gurch 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:COI also covers employees of a business adding articles about their employer as well as other close relationships. The WP:Reward board presumes that editors have no prior relationship with or interest in the article subjects. -Will Beback · † · 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that WP:COI is an official guideline of Wikipedia, while WP:REWARD is just an idea put together by a few people and does not carry any specific meaning besides being an idea put together by a few people (a poor one IMO) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tasogare51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A false-information vandal. Be sure to check all contribs carefully after blocking.--Azer Red Si? 00:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You sure you meant Tasogare51? His contributions look fine to me. —Mets501 (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

At first blush his contribs look reasonable to me too, and I don't see any comments on his talkpage. Can you give some specific examples of what you think is the problem? Newyorkbrad 04:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's one I saw.--Azer Red Si? 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That does look like a bad edit, but it was the user's first edit and it dates from February. Is there anything problematic since then? If not, I suggest that you raise your concern directly with the user (I don't see any warnings on his talkpage, which is still a redlink) and come back only if there is another problem. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Asher Heimermann (talk · contribs)

• Talk page archive A
• Talk page archive B

I'm sorry it's come to this, but he's started up his antics again and I think it's getting to the point where he's exhausting community patience. Some background: Asher, a middle schooler, originally edited under Resources of Sheboygan Club (talk · contribs), creating vanity pages such as The Resources of Sheboygan Club and Asher Heimermann. He switched over to his current Asher Heimermann username and recreated Asher Heimermann. He tried to use a meatpuppet to sway the AfD. For some reason, he decided to go on a welcoming spree, welcoming blatant vandals, non-existent users, and giving blatant vandal warnings to good users. A lot of us tried to help him out (see the talk page archive) but to no avail; he just refused to listen to any of our pleas to stop his welcoming. He also used another account NumLee (talk · contribs) to recreate his autobiography at Asher Luke Heimermann (deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asher Luke Heimermann).

Eventually, he moved on to actually contributing to articles, and he copied and pasted directly from IMDB. I warned not to do it again, but he ignored me and did so again. At that point I gave him a harsh warning to stop his continued disruption, but was accused of WP:BITE.

Finally, User:David Levy gave him a final warning which seemed to work for a while. User:Rockpocket was also kind enough to adopt him. Asher stopped editing for a few weeks, and we all started to move on, but he just started up revert warring on John H. Cox by continuously inserting a vanity sentence into the article: [70] [71]. I don't know what exactly to do; he's exhausted my patience...looking for the wider community for help. Gzkn 01:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and he's started welcoming users again... Gzkn 01:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also in the last hour or so, Asher has:

• Recreated Asher Heimermann as a cross-namespace redirect to his user page.
• Requested that his original account be deleted.
• Created Wisconsin Teenage Republicans (of which he is the president apparently).

My patience, too, has worn very, very thin. Metros232 01:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, I thought it was just another teenager. But given contributions like [72] (threatening not to contribute to the Wikimedia foundation) and the edit summary here: [73] (precisely the kind of edit summary which shows he's not being careful), I would say this user could use a break to realize that he can't contintually run amock of our policies (e.g., creating an article about himself and adding himself to other articles after being asked not to). I support some sort of block. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I DO NOT a block at all. Asher Heimermann 02:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The user is making vandalism edits like this attempted redirect of a disambiguation page Sheboygan to [[She-boy-gan]]: [74]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu (talk • contribs)

More disconcerting edits: [75] and [76] Gzkn 02:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave Asher a final warning for civility for the comment he left at Hu's talk page and reverted the comment. Metros232 02:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. After [77] this edit, I blocked Asher for 3 days for disruption. He was already skating really thin ice and this edit was just another disruptive edit. It forces other users to go to respond to his help-me plea who will only give him the same basic information I just gave him. Metros232 03:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm extending the block to a week now after Asher, Jr. (talk · contribs) appeared. Metros232 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the only person who sweet talked me into removing a speedy delete tag, and this is the only person that I took to AIV twice and both times my request for block were denied, I kept getting told to be patient and not to pick on him. that he would improve. I think not. He has not shown that he learned anything from previous errors, and a week is much too short, something like 50 years would be about right. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to argue with any admin who chooses to extend the block I placed on him. Metros232 04:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts) I have quite a few of the Sheboygan city and area pages on my watchlist (as a former resident), so I'll continue to watch the pages for unusual activity. Asher sure tests everyone's patience. I don't think that Asher has bad intentions. I changed Asher's welcome signature to mine on the welcome pages for the more credible contributors that he welcomed. I wish that he would follow everyone's suggestion to use a username instead of real name. Royalbroil ^T : C 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Cancel comment on intentions. No implications of bad intentions.Royalbroil ^T : C 04:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to change another user's signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resources of Sheboygan Club (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Per this, the above is another sockpuppet being used to evade a block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I thank everyone for their prompt attention to this matter. I just added my signature so that a new user wouldn't get blocked user. Royalbroil ^T : C 04:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And now Resources of Sheboygan Club (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for block evasion by Asher. Metros232 04:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the block length, he should definitely be required to change username before editing again. For his own protection we shouldn't allow Google to accumulate more cites under his real name to discussions like this one, no matter how big a pain in the neck he is being (I write as one of the people who first tried to help). Newyorkbrad 04:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This was also mentioned a short while back (perhaps it was you actually) in regards to Asher being a minor and using one's name as an internet handle is probably not the best idea for someone of his age. Metros232 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Also, be wary of edits coming from the 209.103.228.* range, as Asher has edited quite often from those IP addresses in the past. Gzkn 05:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Better late than never... After Asher's last round of conflicts I offered to adopt him. Its proving pretty difficult as he doesn't really engage then, when the fancy takes him, he appears to contribute in a flurry of activity. Unfortunately I missed the latest round, as I was off for a short Christmas Wikibreak. I would suggest we allow him to see out his current block then, on his return, determine whether he is willing to engage for some Wikitutoring. If he is willing to work with me, then I will make it very clear that he is close to exhausting the community's patience and that any further misbehaviour will not be tolerated. If, after numerous offers of help and even more warnings, he will not follow the rules, its difficult to see beyond an indefinate block. Rockpocket 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

GurchBot 2 messed up our archives!

GurchBot 2 (talk · contribs) moved all archives with non-standard names to standarized names. E.g. changing "Archive12" to "Archive 12" and leaving a redirect behind. By so doing, GurchBot 2 has messed up the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and probably many others which use Werdnabot to archive their talk pages. It did not change the Werdnabot invocations to show the new file name for the current archive so Werdnabot added the archived material to the redirects which were left behind. Also, a minor point, GurchBot 2 did not change the archive lists to point at the new file names so they are now all going thru the redirects. This is a real mess. JRSpriggs 04:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if {{sofixit}} is the appropriate response here. Archive standardization is the approved task for the bot and is probably a necessary task, but if it is conflicting with any other archiving bots, such as Werdnabot, then the latter need to be changed to update this so that the two bots do not keep on conflicting with each other. Problems with Gurchbot 2 should go to Gurch, and if Werdnabot needs to be changed, Werdna needs to be informed. (I've directed both of them to this thread, since it seems like both their bots will need a little modification to avoid the conflict.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, further reading does show a deeper issue here, but I doubt anything on the programming front will change this. This just looks like something that needs to be caught before it happens (unless there is a way for Werdnabot to not ignore the redirect being performed).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Update. I fixed this for the Math and Physics projects and left messages with both Gurch and Werdna. But the damage is done already for many people. What needs to be done is to notify them to repair their Werdnabot invocations and archives before the problem becomes compounded. I do not know how to broadcast such a message. JRSpriggs 05:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple of notes: all automatically-archived pages are in Category:Discussion pages automatically archived by Werdnabot. This seems to be under 400 pages. Also, GurchBot 2 is/was on a 2 day, non-repeating run, so this should not be a problem beyond those two days. Mike Peel 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact most of those are userspace archives, which the bot hasn't moved – as far as I'm concerned users are free to do whatever they want with their old discussions; elsewhere, though, there should be some consistency. So only a handful of pages are affected, mostly WikiProjects. (Automated archiving isn't currently permitted on article discussion pages) – Gurch 13:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Erk! That'll teach me to leave a job half-done. The need to check Werdnabot instructions was in the back of my mind, and I was intenting to get the "tidying up" done a lot sooner, but unfortunately other things (i.e. Christmas) have been holding me up. I'll try to find time for it later today. The bot has finished running now, though I'm going to move a few more pages manually.

In response to the posts above:

Changes to the instructions to Werdnabot on some five talk pages will be necessary. I take full responsibility for this and will do it as soon as I have time; of course, anyone is welcome to fix the situation if they get there first. Werdna is not at fault here, please don't pester him.

Neither my bot nor Werndabot will need code changes. My bot has finished running and will not run again until a new task is approved. Werdnabot simply moves comments wherever it is instructed; the instruction rather than the bot needs to be changed. If the bot has archived comments to the wrong page, revert its edits, archive the comments to the correct page and change the path of the archive in the instruction to the bot. If you don't know how to do this, don't worry; I will do it myself within the next 24 hours.

I apologize for the delay – Gurch 12:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The affected pages (all five of them) are now fixed – Gurch 18:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To Gurch: Thank you for taking responsibility and fixing this so quickly. I am sorry that I over-estimated the severity of the problem (I had assumed that user talk pages would also be affected). JRSpriggs 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppet policy clarification

This isn't on AN/I because I'm not reporting anyone, in the interests of not coloring reputation unnecessarily. On the other hand, this is not a hypothetical, and does involve actual account activity.

In short, is there any problem with an editor who is an acknowledged real-life contact of an indef-blocked user who is known to have evaded block with a litany of socks? I'm not familiar with where administrative consensus draws the line between assuming good faith and proactive attention to potential blocked-user puppetry, and I could certainly make convincing arguments here in either direction.

Thoughts? Serpent's Choice 07:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just knowing someone who has vandalised Wikipedia is no reason to block anyone. In fact, I'll bet most of us know someone who's vandalised (I certainly do). Mak (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors should not be acting as a proxy for a banned user (making edits on behalf of). In one case last year, an administrator was de-adminned for allegedly making edits at the request of a banned user. Just being acquainted with a banned user is not a problem. If you think someone is acting as a proxy, you should probably let us in on the details, or inform the arbitration committee privately. Thatcher131 08:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It comes down to actions. If the person knows the banned user, we can't go with guilt by association, but if the person acts like the banned user, even just "sometimes," we have to come down with the hammer of Thor. Basically, actions got the ban, and actions indicate meat puppetry. Presumably it was never a point of view that caused a ban, but the way that a point of view was operated. Watch out for, though, the infamous "I told my password to my buddy" or the "I was in the bathroom, and my buddy must have gotten on my computer" dodge. That is not tolerable. Geogre 02:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights redirects

Earlier today SatyrTN (talk · contribs) added speedy deletion tags to a few "19xx in gay rights" articles that presently redirect to Timeline of LGBT history. He was reverted by several administrators, including myself, because the grounds on which he was nominating them "redirect to incorrect article" didn't make sense to us. I talked to the user on his talk page and the reasoning seems logical, the methods just seem odd. SatyrTN is looking to have those deleted so that they no longer appear as blue links on List of years in gay rights and instead are redlinked so that it encourages creation of these articles.

When looking into this further, I found Special:Undelete/Talk:1925_in_gay_rights/delete this deletion log which contains the discussion in which it was decided to change a bunch of the articles to redirects to the timeline. It's slightly odd...the deletion debate was decided on December 27, 2004 at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1925 in gay rights. That same day, Francs2000 (talk · contribs) moved the discussion to Talk:1925 in gay rights/delete. JoJan (talk · contribs) deleted the Talk page on August 29, 2005 as being a talk page for a non-existant article (which makes sense because Francs2000 moved it directly to the talk space instead of moving anything with it to the main space) and the redirect to that page created in the move was deleted in December of 2005.

So here's what I want to know:

• What should be done with the redirects?
  • RFD them as a group?
  • Leave them as is and suggest the LGBT wikiproject create a "To do" list with those on them?
• What should be done with the deletion debate?
  • Was Francs2000's move common practice in late 2004?
  • Should the deleted discussion be restored?
  • If restored, should it be moved back to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1925 in gay rights or stay at the talk page?

Any guidance would be much appreciated. Metros232 16:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow - I didn't know there was so much history behind a couple redirect pages! :) All in all, it's probably not worth too much discussion and worry. I'm in the process of adding some things to pages in that listing, so the "Leave them alone..." option is probably best. I'll see about getting some more input and content on those pages from our LGBT WikiProject, too. Thanks much for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• JoJan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should not have deleted that talk page. I've undeleted it and moved it to the proper AFD sub-page for 1925 in gay rights (AfD discussion). The main reason that talk pages with archived deletion discussions on them are specifically exempt from that speedy deletion criterion (talk pages of non-existent articles) is that up until 2004 article deletion discussions were archived on article talk pages, or on sub-pages thereof, rather than as sub-pages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as they are now.

  In answer to your other question: No. Don't move things to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion sub-pages. User:Uncle G's major work 'bot spent a lot of time moving VFD to AFD. Uncle G 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

CAT:CSD backlog

There's a heavy backlog of articles nominated for speedy deletion; it'd be swell if some admins could help me take a crack at reviewing them. Thanks, JDoorjam Talk 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd help, but apparently I'm no longer allowed to use common sense when deciding what to do with an article [78] – Gurch 23:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ffs, Gurch. Badlydrawnjeff complains about everything CSD related. Go help clear a backlog and feel free to use your discretion. -- Steel 23:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. And if you're speedying articles that don't meet the criteria, you'll be hearing from me again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. If there's this much of a dispute raging, rest assured I won't be speedy deleting anything for a good few months – Gurch 00:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a large number of history merges in the backlog. I'm not comfortable doing them yet, so I'll leave that to other admins. But something's really odd with them. There's 8 of them tagged by Nicobs (talk · contribs). Not only that, all the issues were caused by 82.41.66.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at random times (it wasn't like 82.41...did these all in one day, these are over the span of several months). Does anyone know what the heck is going on here? Metros232 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you've been reversed on DRV a few times (I haven't looked lately and don't know this history), and it's happened to me, you should still do your duty and get your boots muddy. In any given 100 cat:csd's, 80 are so obvious that no one is going to make a peep. Jeff is far more inclusionist than most folks, but he believes in talking and not abusing, so let's not get too sensitive to the fact that we have different standards. (Yes, I believe in "delete 'em all and start over" as a first principle.) Geogre 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

but he believes in talking and not abusing. Mileage varies on that score. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I doubt I'll axe all 100 items, I'm doing my part in killing it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Convergys copyright issue

Convergys was tagged with a copyright violation. I've compiled a version of the article that does not infringe (as far as I know), I've put it on the temp page, mentioned it on the Talk page, all as required. Apparently an admin is supposed to copy this across within 7 days - is there some way of triggering this action? --Areia 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the administrator who deletes the copyright violation is meant to do this at the same time; there must be a backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems – Gurch 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Refusal to put sources in

This in particular stems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StepMania and the StepMania talk page, but it's a perennial problem: People claiming there are sources, or even worse providing the sources elsewhere but refusing to put them into the article. While the burden is meant to be on the person wishing to keep material to provide sources, it seems poor form to delete something when I know there are sources. Although if this AfD is closed as keep w/o changes to the article I'll be tempted. I feel as though I run into this problem three and a half times a week, and once I've first talked myself blue in the face and then run through the gamut of {{fact}} and {{uncited}} and {{notability}} with a stop off at {{prod}} maybe on the way, I'm stumped. Any suggestions? - brenneman 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do some research and add the sources yourself. Or, since the sources have been provided, save yourself time by copying them into the article. You could have probably done that in less time than it took you to write the above. If you can't do any of that: try the unreferenced tag. Articles don't get built in a day and they certainly don't get built by blubbering on message boards. Everyone who participates shares the same burden of improving articles. That includes you.--JJay 22:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. - brenneman 22:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, that applies to adding material to an article, not the article as a whole. Besides that, why do you feel you have an obligation to delete notable articles rather than adding references? --JJay 23:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(2x edit conflict - comment from ceyockey) Well, I wouldn't suggest you step into the PROD pond as way of encouraging sourcing. There has been recent discussion around potentially inappropriate usage of PROD on articles that, though unsourced, are verifiable (the discussions surrounding the conduct of user Alan.ca). Use of PROD or deletion paths is not an appropriate alternative for application of cleanup-related templates. Elsewhere it has been commented that people who are recalcitrant with respect to adding sources might be suitable subjects for WP:RFC .. though I've not been involved in going that route myself previously. Hopefully others will be of more help in their comments. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the best way to approach the issue would be to add all of the sources yourself, but I'm assuming you don't care or don't want to spend the time on it. If no one cares or wants to spend the time on it, then Wikipedia probably doesn't need the article. It should also be pointed out that even if the subject is notable, the article must be verifiable, so a bad article about a good subject may very well merit deletion.

If there are editors who can find reliable sources and are willing to improve the article, it should be kept. But if you come back in a few weeks and find the article in the same shape, then go ahead and put it up for AfD again. If the same people make the same promises to improve the article, but never do, it will be deleted eventually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Car insurance in Ireland (third nomination) for an example. The first AfD failed because editors believed an article could be written about the subject, but in a few weeks when it was clear that it hadn't been, the AfD went through. –  Anþony  talk  01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say wait a month or two, and if by that time no-one's used the supposed sources to verify the article, there's two options: either a) the given sources are actually trivial and can't be used to verify anything that would be relevant in the article, or b) no-one cares enough to do the necessary work. Both, to me, are grounds for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree completely. "Keep and improve" works once for me, but not a second time. If people who want the article kept can't be bothered to fix the fundamental problems, then why should we care?. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, the message I'm getting here is not to attempt to address the contributor's behavior, but to focus on the articles, eh? - brenneman 10:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A major problem with not putting the sources from the AFD discussion into the article, is that it regularly leads to the article being nominated for deletion again, months later. (One example: Badlydrawnjeff cited some sources in an AFD discussion for some drinking games, didn't cite any of them in the actual articles, and the articles ended up coming back to AFD a second time, months later.) It's in the interest of those not wanting to have the same AFD discussion all over again to put the sources in the article, so that other editors don't have to track down the deletion discussion simply in order to find them (or even to know that there actually are sources to be had in the first place — The drinking game articles didn't use the same names for the games as the sources did.) and then to improve the article using them.

On the other hand, it's also important to remember the principle of collaborative editing. If editor A finds and cites some sources, then editor B can help to improve the article, and help to reduce the repeat traffic at AFD, by copying the citations into a "Further reading" section of the article. There are editors at AFD who copy citations into the articles. There are also editors at AFD who cite sources directly in the article in the first place. (TruthbringerToronto is one name that immediately comes to mind.)

Note that an editor citing sources in an AFD discussion but refusing to place the citations in the article is quite different from an editor not providing any sources at all, for material that other editors have not been able to source, and not responding, either on talk pages or in edit summaries, to any of the requests for citations made of them over a period of six months. Uncle G 14:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange e-mail

I received this e-mail from MexicanMuger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and this is just here to get some more input on the bullshit he may be pulling (solely wikilinks added to it):

text of email 

“ Bobabobaboo is a group of 15-year-old kids, including one 16-year-old called Grace.

Even Tony Sidaway is involved in this game.... he created some Bobabobabo sockpuppets too, he told me via email! (it's true, Tony Sidaway is Tony Two-Ways!)

Please unblock the IP address 72.177.68.38 as it's used by libraries colleges schools you know.... and IS a shared IP.

The guy who blocked them is wrong, and he should know it.

Anita Horne

”

I'm thinking it's just another Bobabobabo sockpuppet trying to get the home IP unblocked, but I'd rather y'all look into it, especially because of the attack on former administrator Tony Sidaway.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This has also been brought up here and I believe handled. -- JLaTondre 03:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see that there. Guess I've got another e-mail to filter.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just got it, too. Apparently they're just spamming admins. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Template help needed

Only an admin can do this one; I didn't dare try because the syntax is so complicated. At Template talk:Birth date and age#selfref there is a request to remove an unnecessary {{selfref}} from a template. - Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's so that mirrors don't take the age, which might be inaccurate should the person later die. Ral315 (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change. Rationale can be found on the talk page. --CBD 13:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Martinp23/NPWatcher

All ye who clear CSD! Have you had occasion to see the fruits of this new software? It automates newbie biting, taking it to a whole new level. We should rename it WPBiter. How do the sysops feel about it? Is it a net positive thing? - crz crztalk 17:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice software (gave it a 10-minute try) but I don't remember anyone being so enthusiastic about VandalProof when it was this young... :P Kimchi.sg 17:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, another automated CSD thingummy. OK, but I prefer the interface and talk page messages on my own one – Gurch 18:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Kimchi here...like VandalProof, it's up to users to wield it responsibly. Gzkn 08:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe - yep. Any admin can remove access to the program from any user, or disable any version (from the pages linked off the checkpage). As well as deleting new pages, I've put stuff in it for admins to delete/keep prods and images, after entering the category of their choice (after a suggestion by Eagle 101). About biting - I've tried to minimise it by including {{firstarticle}} for taggers/deleters to add to the creator's talk page (a template which was specifically designed to avoid biting :)). For what it's worth - I've been really surprised by the take up of the software, and it's heavy use by some users (Pilotguy (talk · contribs) :)). On the other hand, it means I get more feature requests :S. Martinp23 17:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist

This page appears to be dead. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Whitelisting solved by JzG, but that page is still dead. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Explanatory pages

Many pages in Wikipedia namespace serve to explain to (novice or unfamiliar) users why we do things in a certain way. We should distinguish between pages that explain how things work in practice, and pages that give somebody's opinion on how things should work. Traditionally, we have called the former {{guideline}}, the latter {{essay}}. Since anyone can write an essay for any reason, they are not authoritative, and people learning how Wikipedia works tend to ignore them.

Off late, the distinction has become problematic. A (new) page that explains how things work tends to become a locus for people who don't like the way things work. Such people vehemently object to calling such a page "guideline", generally because they think of guidelines as binding rules (even though the tag says they're not) or because they think formal process wasn't followed in creating the guideline (even though no such formal process exists, and discussion suffices).

Though several others exist, a good example is WP:SNOW. Several people work that way, several others don't like that. There are no apparent objections to what the page actually says, but people object to the page because of the way it can (allegedly) be abused.

Wikipedia can be confusing, so informing and educating users is important. So how do we deal with this? Do we say that guidelines are no big deal, and being guided by practice is not problematic? Do we need a new tag for "this page explains how Wikipedia works"? Would there be a meaningful distinction between the latter and "guideline"? Should we make a formal way of writing guidelines? This dispute is flaring on several pages, so it's desirable to have a general principle about explanatory pages. >Radiant< 12:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We should make a formal way of writing guidelines. More importantly, we should make a formal procedure for marking a proposal a guideline. There's a person called Radiant who has been very involved in several important controversies on just this issue who should probably be very helpful ... hey, wait!AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you cross post this to the village pump, which is the correct place for this kind of thing? Proto::► 16:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to define "Guideline" in a clear manner. E.g., and this is off the top of my bean: "Guidelines represent a set of practices that have precedence and which represent the point of view of many Wikipedians. They are not rules, and violating them is not a matter for dispute resolution, but they will inform the reader of the way things are commonly done." Something like that? Anything that does the "this is a bill which is on its way to becoming a law as soon as the president signs it" kind of talk will be off putting. Crowbait 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks suspiciously like this dynamic[79] which earned a spot on Raul's laws and a brick of common sense. My take on the matter is that it's a nonissue: problem editors will mine any explanation for its own exploitive potential or else disregard it. Good faith contributors quickly learn the distinction anyway. Durova^Charge! 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Iconoclast

Iconoclast (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
I recently started an afd for American Nihilist Underground Society (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society (3rd nomination)) and this user has since started posting comments such as "anyone who votes delete is a homosexual pedophile" and "I think Azer Red needs more friends". If he wants to participate in the afd, fine, but I think that these comments he's been making would be considered trolling.--Azer Red Si? 15:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I looked at his userpage and the first section of it appears to be a soapbox declaring that his nom for adminship was deleted by the "white racist power structure" within Wikipedia, and calling the closing admin, Radiant!, a "neo-nazi Scandinavian". I don't think that users are allowed to use their userspace to attack Wikipedia and other users.--Azer Red Si? 16:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the user keeps this up, his days here are numbered. I removed the personal attacks from the user page. Please do not remove AfD comments, rather, use strikeout. El_C 16:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he's trying to supernova. I don't know why people do that. If they want to quit, they can just quit. They don't actually have to try to get blocked and then banned. (Maybe it's like the old days when admins used to block themselves to break the addiction.) Crowbait 17:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is because wikipedia is absolute garbage? There is a reason all the professors I know openly mock it. I could help out and make it better, but really, I don't want to waste time in pointless edit wars because some dominatrix felt that "troll metal" exists or that Guru Kabir really lived to be 120 years old. LOL. This website is absolute garbage and it will never amount to anything. Plus it is openly laughable at how the GNAA had to have 18 vfds just so they could "democratically" delete it. LOL. I've seen admins delete people because they have different ideologies and all that garbage. I'm done with this filthy, pathetic website --Iconoclast 23:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, after that rant, you almost certainly are. SirFozzie 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for personal attacks and incivility after warning. Indefinate as the user has expressed that they are not interested in contributing constructivly to the encyclopedia. - brenneman 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious activity at Talk:Broly

There have been several IPs editing the Broly talk page and they all sign their comments with "(shadowsok)" and sometimes "([email protected])". They also seem to have the same spelling patterns. The most recent IP to edit the article claims that he has edited an article prior to the talk page but when I checked his contributions, the talk page was the only page he's edited. I've noticed that most of the other IPs have only made one or two edits to the talk page. I would be grateful if someone could go through the history and the IPs and see what's going on. // Sasuke-kun27 17:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I could semi-protect the page if this were really a problem, but it looks as if this editor is a bad speller and a novice Wikipedian who's acting in good faith. Why not welcome them and encourage them to register? Durova^Charge! 00:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category-adder

I've a slight problem with an anon user (217.42.5.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) who is insisting on adding a very large number of articles on footballers to Category:Muslims. The category is at the moment up for deletion, but more importantly my understanding is that we don't add such categories to every adherent of every religion. Rather, they're for people who have some special relevance to a religion (or vice versa). I've tried discussing it with him, but he seems either unable or unwilling to engage in discussion, instead accusing me of being a radical atheist who thinks that anons shouldn't edit.

First, am I right about religion categories? Secondly, if I am, could someone else try to reason with him? I'm getting nowhere. (If I'm wrong, of course, someone will have to reason with me; I promise to read what you actually say.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To take Category:Jews, there is a subcategory Jews by occupation, the subcategories of which refer to people who are Jewish, but their notability has nothing to do with it. I see no problem with a category for Muslim footballers, which would be a subcategory (directly or otherwise) of Category:Muslims.Eli Falk 21:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably be acceptable. They shouldn't be directly in Category:Muslims, though – Gurch 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose so. There is no category for Muslim footballers (or any other sportspeople). perhaps the anon could be persuaded to create one. (To be honest, I can't see much point in all this categorising of people in ways that are important to certain editors but not at all to the significance of the subjects, but I suppose that there's not much chance of doing anything about that.) Thanks for the responses. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rrcoachella (talk · contribs)

Can I get some admin eyes on Rrcoachella (talk · contribs)? I've been dealing with his contributions for a month now and it's getting frustrating. Of the 185 edits this user has made as of 00:37, December 28, 2006, 138 of them have been to his own user page. All of these edits have been to promote his own singing "career" in some way, shape, or form. Of the 185, 42 have been to the mainspace. Of those, I count maybe half a dozen that I'd consider valid edits (i.e. improved the article in some way and weren't reverted). About 20 or so of those mainspace edits have been to add himself to other articles like the release of his album in 2007 in music and things of that nature. In addition, he also created a bunch of articles such as Heart & Soul (album) which were meant to promote his own "albums." He has made 3 user talk edits, 1 to User talk:Ketchuplmao who was blocked indefinitely the week before (so I reverted the comment left there) and 2 blankings of his talk page. There are 0 other edits in other wikispaces except for images where he's uploaded 9 photos and all have (or will) be deleted.

I thought the issues with the vanity in the mainspace had ended awhile ago until his edits to O Holy Night today (which he self-reverted). I'm at a loss as to what to do here. I gave him a final warning a few weeks ago to stop creating inappropriate articles and he seems to have stopped that. And I gave him another final warning today [80] for vanity in the mainspace after the O Holy Night edits. In my message to him today I ask him to try to help us build an encyclopedia rather than concentrating on his self-promotion through his user page. The talk page was blanked 20 minutes later. Since my message, he has made 18 edits to his user page, blanked the talk page, and uploaded a CD cover for his album without a source or license. Obviously my message went unheeded.

Can anyone else try talking to him or suggest something? He's obviously a teenaged kid who has an obsession with music, particular things related to High School Musical, but I'm not seeing anything productive coming from the account at all. Any advice or assistance would be appreciated, Metros232 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I left Rrcoachella a message to let him know I made this post here and a short time later he sent me a message [81]. I've replied telling him to look at WP:NOT and realize that we're not a free webhost so he can entertain his friends with his albums. Metros232 01:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV, specifically User:68.194.66.222

There is a minor backlog at WP:AIV and this guy:68.194.66.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is being a royal pest on the Nancy Pelosi article. --Dgies 03:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A royal pest that has already been blocked, yes. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

IIPM Article, User Makrandjoshi

He is repeadtedly violating NPOV, Verifiability and 'Do not revert' policies of Wikipedia. He ignores mediation requests, other independent opinions including third party opinions and sweeps aside any logic with dismissive statements. Please take a look at the talk page and all his reverts.Iipmstudent9 07:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User reverting image copyvio/no-source tags

User:Venu62 is reverting copyvio tagged images

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Wallajah.jpg&diff=96463659&oldid=96423743
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Madras_famine_1877.jpg&diff=96458878&oldid=96423290
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Tanjore-Serfoji-II.jpg&diff=96459027&oldid=96424426
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Gingee.jpg&diff=96459064&oldid=96421984
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Madras_Prov_South_1909.jpg&diff=96459193&oldid=96423474

These images are either directly taken from websites with copyrights or those which have not explicitly released their rights. ­ Kris (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

All the above artwork images have the appropriate {{pd-art}} tags for licencing. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

All of then have source information as well. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice a problem. I am looking at this page from the museum and I am thinking we might not be able to use the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have written to the V&A museum asking for permission to use the said image. However, according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Photographic reproductions of visual works in the public domain were not copyrightable because the reproductions involved no originality. Also {{PD-art}} defines the criteria as '{{PD-art}} — for images of works of art where the artist died more than 100 years ago'. Which is the case here.Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing the age of the photo, but what I notice is that some of the photographs they host on the website do not belong to them at all. Are we sure these above photos belong to the museum? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The said portrait is a miniature in the museum's collection 'Presented by Harry N. Jonas, in memory of his wife, Rosa Maud Jonas'. - [82] Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Under the Bridgeman decision, it doesn't matter who owns the painting or who took the picture. If the picture is a exacting 2D reproduction of a 2D work, then there is no new copyright created by scanning/photographing it. That said, some of these images are not simple reproductions of 2D works, they include elements like the frame and as such their status is not clarified by Bridgeman v. Corel. --Gmaxwell 21:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If the museum has not released its rights yet (assuming it owns the copyright), the pictures have no business being on wikipedia merely on the contingency that someone has written to obtain permission from it in the future. The museum (or the real owner) might sue wikipedia when it comes to know these pictures are lifted from the site without proper license. Plus, the Bridgeman v. Corel case might not be considered valid outside the USA (even if it is valid, these images are not simple scans and include additional elements, as has been pointed out by Gmaxwell above, and not all of them are more than 100 years old either). Besides, the above are not all from a single website. ­

Further reverts of copyvio tags on Wikimedia Commons made by the same user:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Madurai-tank.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=3892439
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Maha_shoretemple.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=3892435
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ptolomy_map.png&diff=prev&oldid=3892431
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:TolkaappiyamExcerpt.png&diff=prev&oldid=3892423
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Gopuram-madurai.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=3892414
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Women_farm_workers_in_coimbatore.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=3892410
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Temple_Tangore_2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=3892406
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:NatarajaMET.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=3892397
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Tamil_girls_in_Tiruvanamalai.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=3892389
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Fort_St._George,_Chennai.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=3892385

Kris (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If one cares to look into the history of each image, then one can understand the nature of these bad-faith edits by this user. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, User:Venu62 has now not only reverted those images again to remove the copyvio tags, but also removes some images that I had provided in the article Chembai, by way of retaliation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chembai&diff=prev&oldid=96702540
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chembai&diff=prev&oldid=96702750
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chembai&diff=prev&oldid=96702906
This is getting ugly. I request some admin with knowledge of fair use & copyvio to deal with this user, I'm not going to continue with this. Thanks. Kris (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

ALLtheTrue and filmography external link dispute

After noticing a comment by at the Village Pump I introduced myself into a dispute between 2 users and ALLtheTrue who has been adding an external link to 'dreamingwith.com' to several porn bio articles, a site containing the filmography for the actresses/actors. I tried to come across the point that IMDB is far more reliable source rather than the site he/she provides, which appears as a personal website, hoping that my input added upon the other users would pursue ALLtheTrue to stop reintroducing the external link. ALLtheTrue view on the situation is that IMDB filmography is wrong and the external link he/she provides is far more reliable/better. The extent of my conversation with the user is located at Talk:Kelle Marie and he continues to hold his/her point of view on the situation. I would like to get a suggestion on how to resolve this dispute or another user to try solve this conflict of opinion. - Tutmosis 02:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try the Mediation Cabal or other means of dispute resolution. He/She is entitled to her opinion, no matter how...controversial it is. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I dont wish to go to such measures for such a small dispute, they are already busy as it is. I do understand the user is entitled to their opinion, I came here since he/she is not really clearly violating any policy therefore I would wish to see more eyes on the matter, taking in account that I may be wrong. If all else fails and the dispute escalates I would consider mediation and RFC. For now this seems solvable through discussion. - Tutmosis 03:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The site clearly fails the unverifiable research and confilct of interest qualifiers at WP:EL, and therefore should be removed. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I tried to explain as well as others to the user but he fails to listen and re-reverts the site. Would warning the user of a possible disruption block if he continues be best at this point? - Tutmosis 03:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a request for mediation? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

mediation cabal case created. - Tutmosis 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is Wikipedia have rules for big websites and others rules for small websites, isn't it ??ALLtheTrue 12:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has a guideline on linking at WP:EL. In general, we don't link minor porn sites. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

By this way you say Wikipedia links reserved only for big websites ? Then, why is free encyclopedia ?

I think what the main problem here is the fact that it contains porn, not the fact that it is a smaller website. That's what I gather from this discussion. --KindGoat 03:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Then what you gather is incorrect. Wikipedia is not censored. We have tons of articles about porn topics and actors. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

When that arrange you you use the rules (small websites) but for others to be unaware of them to you (big websites)ALLtheTrue 17:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up to Vandalism on Main Page

This post is a follow-up to the vandalism recently seen on the Main page. Unlike the other template vandalism seen recently, this one was because a page transcluded onto the Main page was left unprotected when it shouldn't have been. Discussion of this seems to have taken place mostly at the following three locations:

• Talk:Main_Page#Vandalism
• WP:AN#Main_Page_vandalism
• WP:ANI#Vandalism on Main Page

Following the vandalism and discussions described and linked above, I thought I'd look ahead through the templates and see how far ahead the protection extends for the content of the five templates with changing content, I've come up with the following regarding protection status:

• Wikipedia:POTD row is transcluded in the form of a page with the title[[Wikipedia:POTD row/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}]]. These pages are created for each day, and have currently been created up to and including 24th January. They seem to be edited for a bit and then protected. The current status is that they are protected up to and including 11 January 2007. Pages have been created for 12-24th January, but haven't been protected yet. I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Protection_of_PotD_row.
• Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries is transcluded in the form of a page with the title [[Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]]. It looks like these pages already exist for the entire year and are reused each year (ie. they do not need to be created). They are currently protected up until 31 December. As this is a cyclic system (unlike the POTD and FA systems), the pages seem to be unprotected as soon as they leave the main page, so they can be edited for the next appearance and for where-ever else they appear (other pages and via the random featured content generator).
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article is transcluded in the form of a page with the title[[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}]]. These pages are created for each day, and have currently been created up to 31 March. They have been selected up to and including 27 December, and are protected up to 31 December.
• Wikipedia:Did you know and Wikipedia:In the news are collections of short items that are added directly to a template, and so there is not a succession of pages to protect in the same way as is done for the other three sections. The main concern here is remembering to protect images used in those templates, just as for the images used in the other three sections.

So, following all this, what is the best way to make it less likely that one of these images or one of these pages is not left unprotected again in the future?

The current systems seem to operate in three ways:

• (1) A team of people working on it. The team then has to have a way of indicating to others on the team that a protection has been done, but when protection is not done and no-one notices, then vandals notice instead.
• (2) One person takes primary responsibility, as with the Featured Article. From what I can see, Raul, as Featured Article Director, selects the featured article for a particular day and updates the template and protects it. As long as the person responsible doesn't forget, this works fine.
• (3) Anyone adding an image to a page or template that will appear on the Main page is expected to remember to protect it. Not sure what fail-safes are in place here.

One proposal at the moment is to have a bot generate a list of transcluded items on the Main Page (and the featured article) and say whether or not they are protected, and then alert someone if they are not protected. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Shadowbot2.

I posted this here, because I don't think Talk:Main page is appropriate. If there is a more suitable location for this to be discussed, please copy this there and direct discussion there. Thanks. Carcharoth 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I don't know how to even check to see if a template is protected, but if there is any grunt work to be done that I can help with I'd be happy to, reply here or on my talkpage. I can do a bit each day or whatever. Anchoress 22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A few other administrators and myself used to take responsibility for this; I usually logged in right after the day changed in UTC and protected the next day's images and templates and unprotected those now off the Main Page. After a few months, the other administrators had taken some of the slack, per se, and I stopped my routine of protecting and unprotecting. This method of having a few people taking care of doing protection and unprotection worked well, as it was rare that one of us wouldn't be able to do the job. I think this method would be still be acceptable and should continue: human oversight would always be there. (Anchoress and other non-admins: if you ever notice a template or image not protected, you can notify an administrator immediately, hopefully in a non-discreet manner.) However, a bot assisting us in this capacity would make the process easier and more failproof. While I'm not too sure having the bot actually protect the page is a good idea, given vulnerabilities for technical mistakes, etc., a bot could easily double-check the work and alert certain whitelisted administrators via email if a current image or template was not protected. (See the bot's proposal page.) On a related note, I will also attempt to help out more often now and return to my routine of protection and unprotection; the more eyes, the better it is. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Flcelloguy: Thanks for posting the 'hopefully in a non-discreet manner' comment, because I have a (general) response. When, early this morning Pacific time, I saw the first warning about the image, I had been watching my watchlist (which lists most of the major admin pages) and had noticed that there were almost no admins posting, so in the interest of getting the word out as quickly as possible, I posted in several places, including the talkpage of the admin who'd most recently posted anywhere (that I could see), and also to the AIV page, an action which resulted in this gentle scolding, in the edit summary. I'm not hurt or offended by the comment, but I think it should be agreed-upon that, when these vandals strike (especially when it's early Sunday Xmas eve morning and not a creature is stirring, not even a mouse), it is of not only primary importance, but almost sole importance, to get the giant diseased scrotum or whatever removed ASAP. Particularly since this is an unique type of vandalism, where just knowing where it is isn't enough, just knowing that it exists isn't enough, the more help the merrier is the remedy until the second the image is found and removed. I might not have been so quick to post there (AIV) at 6pm on a Wednesday night (although I probably would have after a few minutes if the image wasn't gone), but I don't think such actions should be looked upon as a misuse of the project pages, not in this specific type of instance. Anchoress 04:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All has a bot on RFP that checks for protections/unprotections; perhaps it would be possible for the same code to be used and pointed at anything transcluded to the main page. Is there a staging ground where the next day's main page is prepared, where the bot could scan the day ahead and there would be 24 hours for all the pages/images to be protected? Essjay (Talk) 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The closest thing to a "staging area" is {{Main Page toolbox}}; it links the current, previous, and next templates of all the Main Page-transcluded templates that change. Perhaps Voice of All and Shadow1 could work together in coding the bot? (Although my impression is that the Shadowbot2 is already coded and programmed, though I could be wrong.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is Main Page/Tomorrow which transcludes the next day's templates, as its name describes. Kimchi.sg 00:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! I've suggested this over at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Shadowbot2, and the bot reports are running already. I won't link to them though. Carcharoth 00:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with a team system is when people drift away or move on. It needs to be made clear to whatever small team does this that there is a short, simple checklist to follow and once you have done it, you tick a list somewhere to confirm that you have done it. And the key is to make sure that if you can't do it, that you pass the baton on to someone else. Probably a buddy system would help as well. Two people marked down to do this everyday, and if one is ill or whatever, the other one should be able to step in to the breach. The bot would be good as this fail-safe system, but really needs to alert people before the pages are transcluded onto the Main page, so it should be given a 'future' list to work with, plus a bot to scan image links more frequently than daily. Carcharoth 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that images used on the main page, especially for 'In the news', are changed quite regularly, maybe every couple of hours, not just every day. The regulars at the moment know that protecting the images is essential, but you have to try and have a warning system that still works when humans make mistakes, forget things, or move on without training a replacement. There are really, though, only three pages that need checking 24 hours before:

• TFA - tomorrow's featured article section
• SA - tomorrow's selected anniversaries section
• POTD - tomorrow's featured picture of the day section

Which codes as:

• [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{tomorrow}}, {{#switch:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}|December 31={{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}} 1}}|#default={{CURRENTYEAR}}}}|TFA]]
• [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/{{tomorrow}}|SA]]
• [[Wikipedia:POTD row/{{tomorrow}}, {{#switch:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}|December 31={{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}} 1}}|#default={{CURRENTYEAR}}}}|POTD]]

The other main page transclusions are watched and edited actively, but these sections are: (a) created in advance; (b) sometimes edited before protection; (c) sometimes prepared days or weeks in advance; (d) because they are prepared in advance, double-checking for protection is not always done. Carcharoth 00:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's possible to detect what is protected on the page, would it be technically possible to prevent the page or any subsidiary template from saving if anything in it was unprotected, similar to the url spam blacklist?--Kchase T 00:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• One change which might make this alot easier would be to show the 'protection status' next to each transcluded page in the list which is given when you are editing the page they are transcluded onto. In such case any admin who clicked 'edit' on the Main page would immediately see a list of component pages and whether any of them were not protected. This would also be helpful for tracking vandalism on the 'article of the day'. --CBD 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea. I've created bugzilla:8392. --Ligulem 15:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to extend this to images? Is there any easy way to prevent someone accidentally inline linking to an unprotected image that is used in a sensitive area? Without alerting vandals? Carcharoth 02:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, theoretically it might be possible to have images brought in by each template listed under them. Something like;

• Template:Tl (semi-protected)
• Template:Tomorrow (unprotected)
  • Image:Sunrise.jpg (protected)
• Template:Ifnot (unprotected)

Of course, that could get to be a pretty involved list with protection status of all templates and images displayed. At that point I might suggest moving it off the 'edit' page to a separate 'page inclusion map' linked from each page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CBDunkerson (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

That would be good. If done at the software level, that would detect this sort of thing faster than a bot that runs every hour or so. A bot could maybe check the list generated by the software and alert people if anything was unprotected. Could an alert be programmed into the software? Like the alerts that tell people if they've forgotten to subst a template that needs subst'ing? Carcharoth 15:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A flubup on my part, demonstrating the point.

Good analysis Carcharoth. Just as a note, the vandals do watch this stuff. I updated DYK a bit ago and bobbled the image protection. Image:US National Christmas Tree 1923.jpg was protected on commons but I forgot to protect it here on en:wp... the updating admin for DYK is supposed to make sure that gets done properly, and in this case, I didn't do that. My apologies for that. Thanks to user:Mark for being on the ball though, and taking quick action. Lar: t/c 11:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. You mean this and this? We are all human and such slips will happen. That is the the important point here. The bot that has been written to check protections should be able to catch such human mistakes and forgetfulness in future. I think that is preferable to putting pressure on the admins responsible to not forget, and to hoping that vandals won't twig about how they can do stuff like this. The bot can check the templates that change on the Main Page, but the images (which can change anytime) are more of a problem. I wonder if there is a technical tweak that can be done so that a page can be marked to only display protected images and ignore unprotected images. Possibly something like a new namespace like Protected image:example? Carcharoth 02:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

When will this thread be archived?

I'm slightly concerned, as this took place over a holiday period, that this thread will be archived before many people have had a chance to see it. Is there a way to, in general, reduced the frequency with which the bots archive when a holiday period comes round, or is it really the resopnsibility of individual editors to dig around in archives and get themselves up to speed on what happened if they have been away for a few days? Carcharoth 12:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that threads get archived after a set period (two days?) of inactivity. If people are still commenting then it shouldn't be archived. --CBD 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Carcharoth 02:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An edit a day keeps the bot away. :-) -- PFHLai 16:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? I would never have guessed... Carcharoth 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make me vandalize...

Can someone block me indefinitely? ♥ Fredil 16:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kimchi.sg 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Block this account too, please, I don't intend to come back. ♥ Fredil 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you asking to have your account blocked just because you're leaving? It doesn't make since.--Azer Red Si? 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying either of these is correct, but they are circumstances that might lead to the rather unusual request. I will venture a speculation - if someone recognizes that they have a mental illness where they cannot effectively control their actions under some circumstances, that person having an unblocked Wikipedia account is an invitation to improper behavior that the user cannot effectively be held responsible for as it is a result of their mental illness. Another possibility is that the computer is shared among people in a household and there is no way to control use of the stated username - one of the editors is concerned about potential bad behavior on the part of another user on the same computer. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy

A rather strongheaded newbie made the following statement and was blocked. I suggested to unblock him and talk instead (User talk:Nnatan), but was declined by a very creative interpretation of assume good faith (which I enjoyed BTW, while disagreeing). I have to seriously disagree here.

• First, we cannot punish for something a person didn't do.
• Second, it should be pretty obvious that the person simply doesn't know about our 3RR policy otherwise he would not write such stupid announcement.
• Third, this person obviously does not understand what wikipedia is (he wrote "So you decide : either a creative encyclopedia or a robotintellectual encyclopedia."): instead of hitting him with the sledgehammer an admin has to talk to the person. All talks a've seen in his talk page was of kind "don't do this"
• Fourth, this action sizzled: the person doesn't edit since Dec 23, and if I were him, I'd think it was rather stupid to block a person who is not even here.
• Fifth. While for some he may look a kook, a brief internet search revealed that the disputed issue is indeed disputed to some extent. And it is not covered in the article. I cannot evaluate the prominence of this dispute, but I see it is not even discussed in the talk page. So IMO biting this newbie is outright detrimental to the article.

Whatever this discussion, the major question is: "does the threat of disruption constitute a blockable offense"? AFAIK only personal and legal threats are a reson for blocking. `'mikka 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

All blocks should be for prevention. Yes, threats of disruption justify blocking a user to prevent that disruption. You say we cannot punish for something a person didn't do, but blocks should never be punitive, only preventative. I may be wrong about this, but I don't think so. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

However, I already reviewed this block, so others opinion's on this would be greatly appreciated by me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, I see where you are coming from and agree that the user was obviously new and shows a lack of understanding to a point that being talked to may be all that is needed. However, I agree with the initial block (I haven't looked at exact timing, but in principal) based on a threat of disruption. That said, if there is no reason to believe the user would start or continue disrupting Wikipedia upon being unblocked, the block has apparently served its purpose of preventing disruption and there would be no reason to keep the block. -- Renesis (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is only a 24 hour block. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's have just one place discussing this. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Solomon.27s_Temple which preceded this discussion. Uncle G 22:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, Uncle G. Threat of disruption isn't really valid, IMO, as much as threat of continued disruption is. After all, everyone is a threat to disrupt (except me, of course...I'm placid as an unmuddied stream, as an azure sky). We really need to watch out for reaching for the "irremediable" label too quickly, even though 9 of 10 times we'd be right. It's that 10th that's a killer. Geogre 16:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. You say everyone is a threat to disrupt, but surely the statement of intent to disrupt distinguishes this one user from the masses of general probability. I also do not think the user is even close to "irredeemable", that is why the block was only 24 hours. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was speaking of the principle, not the instance. Everyone might go nuts, and so we should try to have credible evidence that a person is not just ranting but actually planning to continue something that is unacceptable. I wasn't trying to invalidate the block, just point to the need for clear language so that people don't get the wrong idea from the conversation. Geogre 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

IP blocking and Internet technology awareness

I've been a longtime Wikipedia editor, editing from various IP addresses (home, work, on the road). I recently created this account so that I could avoid a problem I saw way too much as anonymous editor: blocked IPs. However, now I'm finding that even with an account I have difficulty finding an IP on the road that's not blocked. I've been looking into what's leading to these blocks and it does not appear to be called for in most cases (or just an overreaction). I think part of the problem has to do with misconceptions about how the internet works. Specifically an ignorance of RFC 1918 and it's growing ubiquity. With RFC 1918, what appears to be a single IP address affecting one machine and presumably one user.

This first arose for me with Tmobile hotspots which use a single IP (or maybe a few) for their 8,000 internet hotspots throughout the US. I reported this issue to ISP reporting and I am trying to work with them to get something worked out. However, there is clearly a problem of administrator awareness and misconceptions about the meaning of an IP address. Often time an IP can be cleanly associated with a single house or office. However, more and more private WAN networks make use of a single public IP address to sever thousands or millions of private IP addresses. This is a network topology decision. The network administrators could have chosen instead to purchase thousands of public IP addresses. Administrators should try to be aware of this and it would be best if Wikipedia could compile a list somewhere of these important IPs. It's not that such an IP should never be blocked, but rather the same caution should be exercised in blocking a shared IP with thousands of private IPs behind it that an admin would exercises in blocking a thousand IPs.

The WikiMedia foundation has a XFF-RFC1918 Project that may help with this too, but it's not entirely clear because the issue I'm talking about does not involve a proxy server (a work I see thrown around a lot by admins), but is instead simply a NAT router with a single IP address and hundreds, thousand, or even millions of private IPs. Until the WikiMedia foundation and its developers can work something out the best approach is to raise awareness among admins and to try to learn where these RFC1918 IPs are and create a list of them. --360P 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that effort. It would probably be a good idea to develop a template specifically for that sort of shared IP address. From an administrative standpoint I don't see a reason to treat a wireless hotspot as inherently different from a school or a public library. Durova^Charge! 00:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may clarify a bit, because this is exactly the misconception I think 560P trying to overcome. Certainly a hotspot or a LAN should not be treated any differently than any other LAN (even a school ro public library). What we're trying to convey is in terms of the scale of the effects of a particular block. A block of an IP shared by a school effects that school. A block of an IP for a WFi hotspot effects everyone at that hotspot. However, a block of 208.54.95.129 or 208.54.95.1 effects a good portion of 8,000 LANs across the US. Imagine if every school shared a single IP, or every middle school. We would want to find some other way of handling that IP: to treat it with some more conern when blocking. Well this is whole heck of a lot of WiFi hotspots, so it's something that should be treated as such. It's much the same rule for such an IP as for a dynamic IP where the editors affected are largely different than the editor targeted (though in this case you should get the targeted editor too). When blocking the tmobile IP is't the same as blocking 10.0.0.0/8. It's not that this means the IP should never ever be blocked (though it's quite a pain in my ass). It just means administrators should understand the significance of the block. --208.54.95.129 02:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's especially a problem if you're Cplot (talk). Thanks for playing. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this after my previous post in support of 560P. Yes, I've come to see the Cplot thing everytime I try to edit and I hate it (or him or her or whatever). So my advice is either get someone to make Cplot stop or help us treat this IP the way it should be treated (like the proposed WikiMedia Foundation XFF-RFC1918 Project), or both. Also be aware that a block of this IP affects other editors But above all, please stop treating us all like garbage because we use the same ISP as Cplot. At the very least administrators could provide the requested diffs that justify an IP block on the talk page so we're not sitting there wondering why we've been blocked yet again.. --208.54.95.129 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The abuse report was disappeared through CSD G5. MER-C 06:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd respect that. Although this makes me wish for a better technical solution. Durova^Charge! 07:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Note the templates added to User:208.54.95.1 by brand-new user ShoYoAss (talk · contribs). I have removed a rather gratuitous slam at Mongo from one of the templates. -- Donald Albury 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--MONGO 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I said this user was probably Cplot.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly he just could not resist getting another dig in against Mongo. I should have blocked for the name, but I think I've waited too long to do that unilaterally now. In any case, no activity for two days now, looks like it was a throwaway account. -- Donald Albury 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add to your watchlist

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard was just created and is open for business. Please add it to your watchlist or check it out every now and then. Thank you. WAS 4.250 08:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. And I've just responded to the first case. MER-C 11:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this is needed? At some point, we have too many noticeboards. We already have several (WP:PAIN comes to mind) that are way way underpatrolled. Not sure we need another one. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's success has made it a target for everyone who has something to sell, causing our articles on products and companies to (in some cases) be turned into little more than ads. The problem is going to get far worse and this is simply a small step in the right direction. WAS 4.250 16:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll second the request for more sysop patrollers at WP:PAIN and WP:RFI. I've cut down my involvement because too many cases progressed to arbitration. As an actual percentage of reports the arbitrations are rather low, but they eat up a lot of my time. Durova^Charge! 21:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I encouraged the creation of this noticeboard because of the increasing problem editors who participate here as single purpose accounts to promote their groups or to denigrate competitors. A dedicated noticeboard should help keep some of these problems off of this page. See #Ideas? below, for an example. WP:CORP helps keep non-notable companies off of Wikipedia, WP:COI/N should help keep honest our articles about notable companies. -Will Beback · † · 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Shadowbot2

Due to the recent Main Page vandalism, and also because the vandal(s) were probably using Shadowbot2's publically-available reports to target templates, I've changed the notification method of unprotected templates to use Special:Emailuser. Any administrator that wishes to receive these reports can add their name to User:Shadowbot2/Mailing list. Hopefully this should put an end to the vandalism. Shadow1 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Shadow1! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, will make use of it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move protection?

I protected Bombing of Gernika/Bombing of Guernica then received an additional request for page move protection. Nothing in the administrators' how-to guide describes this separately. Unless I'm mistaken, page move protection happens automatically with full page protection? Durova^Charge! 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you unlock the pagemove protection on the protection tab, it will place the pagemove protection at the same level (ie on Guernica above I confirmed that it has pagemove semiprotection). If you want to fully pagemove protect it, just go to the same protection screen, unlock the page move protection with the checkbox, and then set the protection to full protect. Syrthiss 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's full protected now. Thanks. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion history of undeleted articles

Maybe I'm just confused, but if an article has been deleted multiple times, then undeleted, does the deletion history go away? How do I view the deletion history after undeletion? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"history" -> "View logs for this page". The deletion history might be missing if the page was moved because the deletion/undeletion records stay with the name it had at the time, but the log should at least show you that a move had occurred and you could track it down from there if need be. Dragons flight 18:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you! User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)