Web Analytics

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive55 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Noticeboard archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65
Incident archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
3RR archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] User:CFIF an inappropriate username that could be confused with CFIF-FM

Hello. I found someone with an inappropriate username User:CFIF. He makes all sorts of broadcast media related edits and may be confused with radio station CFIF-FM. I hope I did the right thing by reporting this. Syolent Mauve 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No confusion. User is probably a fan of the station or the like and uses its call letters as a username. No harm in this that I can see. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just thought that it may imply that his postings are sanctioned by the station, which may cause problems. Syolent Mauve 16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I note user:CFIF has never worked on the article for CFIF-FM. The connection seems tenuous at best. In the future, you could also contact the user before reporting the incident. But welcome to Wikipedia nonetheless. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of the station 'til now. Never been to that part of Canada before, probably never will. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, my username is just a random jumble of letters I thought of that sounded sort of catchy :). --CFIF (talk to me) 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chodorkovskiy (talk • contribs)

User states explicitly that the name is that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a very famous Russian political prisoner currently in jail. How do we feel about this username? Shall we ask the user to apply for a WP:CHU? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically we could have him change his username (under the names of well-known living... people' clause of WP:U), but I don't really see the point. The spelling is unconventional (while the user brags about his username being #1 in google, it is only #1 out of ~400 hits), and it looks like there had been no complaints about his usernames in the past (the user has been editing since January). Do you have any particular reasons, besides the ones you've already voiced, to ask him to have the name changed?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No. It's unseemly, but otherwise, no. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Steele

User talk:Robert Steele here deletes a link to a commercial competitor and here offers money to subvert wikipedia. WAS 4.250 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable behavior. Would anyone object if I indef blocked him and let the foundation take care of this? JoshuaZ 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, he's offering money -- not a lot of money, at that -- to people to write articles about areas that interest him. Emphases mine:
I got explicit approval for hiring a professional Wiki editor to get this page out of its slump, and to lead a team that can over time discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT. While I was told to post to the WikiList first, I believe that those of your who have volunteered here already deserve a first shot. I am thinking in terms of $250 increments, and over time this could become a weekly amount as we move beyond this page to create or contribute to ten Wiki pages on the ten High-Level threats to humanity (Poverty, Infectuous Disease, Environmental Degradation, Inter-State Conflict, Civil War, Genocide, Other Atrocities, Proliferation, Terrorism, and Transnational Crime. It is clearly understood that I have to identify or post secondary works, and then work with the professional editor to get them properly integrated.
And the "subversion" in that 'graf is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 06:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well "got explicit approval for hiring a professional Wiki editor to get this page out of its slump, and to lead a team that can over time discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT" and "Wiki policy will accept vendors creating a single paragraph and URL link to their home page, and abusive vendors like LEXIS-NEXIS will be cut back to that." This sounds like someone who thinks he knows The Truth and is willing to pay people to promote it. Taken together with the removal of his competitor's link (and the accompanying edit summary) I have trouble seeing how this could possibly be a good thing. JoshuaZ 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Repeating the words of the quote and saying, in effect, "it's obvious!" is, shall we say, less than convincing -- as does ignoring the highlighted portions explicitly acknowledging Wikipedia standards that must be met, which last time I looked were nothing about The Truth, but verifiability. So, mind pointing the actual "subversion", the phrases that don't require projection? --Calton | Talk 07:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Judge him by his behavior: [1], [2], [3]. WAS 4.250 07:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That second link is a month old, and the post above allegedly under discussion, well, isn't.
Judge him by his behavior No, you asked us to judge him by his words -- words somewhat more recent than a month old. Were you going to actually say why, or are you going to change the subject again? Maybe we can judge him by his spelling? His haircut? Or you could, you know, actually articulate an answer to the question asked. --Calton | Talk 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, please don't insert newer comments above older ones (ie mine). If you wish to refer to a comment by another user that someone has already replied to, please do so below the original reply. ViridaeTalk 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That's what indenting is for, and I WAS directly replying to a comment, which why I, you know, put it directly under the comment I was replying to. Not difficult. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That second link is VERY disturbing. ViridaeTalk 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, they all are. ViridaeTalk 07:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Considerng the point of the not-month-old posting above is, in effect, a mea culpa for earlier stuff -- and given that the timeflow in this universe is in one direction only and stuff that happens after other stuff is generally considered to supercede the earlier stuff -- why is that a priori a problem or applicable? --Calton | Talk 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain yourself using english not missused latin. (Mea culpa translates to my own fault). ViridaeTalk 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, ":Considering the point of the not-month-old posting above is, in effect, a it's my fault, I was wrong for earlier stuff..."
There you go. Or are going to pretend you don't understand that, too? --Calton | Talk 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no point in continuing this conversation. I do not want to be involved in arguing, I was only commenting on three links that were posted. ViridaeTalk 05:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't that complicated, the user has a massive POV calling Lexis-Nexis an abusive vendor and he would rather have their article reduced together with 'the comment bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT makes it sound to me like he is essentially paying people to POV push. Between that and his earlier comments, we should ask Jimbo what is going on here. JoshuaZ 12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

His continuing edits are: [4] [5]. If Wikipedia is for sale, I think we can get a better price. WAS 4.250 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Makes me remember Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. WAS 4.250 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't that complicated True. The word for that is "projection". Once again, what is it in the words that he actually used makes it "subversion"? -- and try to do it without the mindreading this time.
Oh, and I've reposted the Steele posting that WAS 4.250 deleted until such time that WAS 4.250 can actually explain why it's a Bad Thing. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason seems to me to be clear. It may be due to poor phrasing, but it looks very much like Steele wants to pay people to push his POV. JoshuaZ 03:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography says "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." Steele has a very clear conflict of interest. Enough so that he himself needs not to edit the articles he is proposing to pay others to edit. Paying others to do what he himself is not allowed to do is not acceptable behavior. WAS 4.250 04:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, any time you two want to actually address the actual words used by Steele using their actual meanings -- instead of making up stuff and yelling BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOOGEDY -- is fine by me.

This may or may not be a spectacularly bad idea and maybe it would set a bad precedent. But "AIEEE! MONSTERS UNDER THE BED! BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOOGEDY!" is not really a convincing argument. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the phrase that is most concerning (in addition to his history of problematic edits) is "discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT." Now, that sounds strongly like the sort of thing users say when they think that their POV is the Truth. Do we need to spell this out anymore? JoshuaZ 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He says "I now understand my mistakes earlier, especially the need for a third party to post any link or reference to me, however central I may be to OSINT. Not to worry. I talked about this page, the experience, and the broader future in depth with several Wiki leaders, and I believe we are all on the same page. I got explicit approval for hiring a professional Wiki editor to get this page out of its slump, and to lead a team that can over time discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT." [6] saying he will "lead" in changing the OSINT page; something he believes himself "central" to and he sees his past mistake as editing himself rather than hiring others to make the edits he wishes to make (which includes links or references to him he says). The point of third parties is unbiased editing by people who lack a conflict of interest. People being lead and paid by someone with a conflict of intrest also have a conflict of interest. Further he has already edited the page in a way that was widely believed to be very self serving and he shows no indication that his leadership of paid editors would serve any purpose other than self interest. WAS 4.250 09:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Jimbo just blocked another editor for similar problems until he could talk to them personally [7]. JoshuaZ 19:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo just made a deal with that other editor who was paid to write an article. Jimbo says:"He agreed not to edit Wikipedia articles when he is being paid to write by the subject of the article, and to help the companies he works with understand that it is probably not a great idea for them to edit their own articles as well. He will write articles and post them on his own site, under the GNU FDL, and to ask trusted prominent and independent Wikipedians to add the articles, on their own independent judgments of the merits of the articles." [8] because "Getting paid to add entries to Wikipedia by the subject of the entries is a serious serious no-no because of the obvious conflict-of-interest issues." [9] Steele has made another edit to the OSINT talk page moving in this direction but he's not quite there yet. Maybe an admin could talk to him to get him to agree to the same deal Jimbo agreed to with the other editor. Then we could assume good faith and wait for actual edits before making further judgements. Does that sound like a good idea? WAS 4.250 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest created by User:Eloquence 10 August 2006 in this regard. WAS 4.250 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:CFIF an inappropriate username that could be confused with CFIF-FM

Hello. I found someone with an inappropriate username User:CFIF. He makes all sorts of broadcast media related edits and may be confused with radio station CFIF-FM. I hope I did the right thing by reporting this. Syolent Mauve 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No confusion. User is probably a fan of the station or the like and uses its call letters as a username. No harm in this that I can see. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just thought that it may imply that his postings are sanctioned by the station, which may cause problems. Syolent Mauve 16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I note user:CFIF has never worked on the article for CFIF-FM. The connection seems tenuous at best. In the future, you could also contact the user before reporting the incident. But welcome to Wikipedia nonetheless. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of the station 'til now. Never been to that part of Canada before, probably never will. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, my username is just a random jumble of letters I thought of that sounded sort of catchy :). --CFIF (talk to me) 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chodorkovskiy (talk • contribs)

User states explicitly that the name is that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a very famous Russian political prisoner currently in jail. How do we feel about this username? Shall we ask the user to apply for a WP:CHU? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically we could have him change his username (under the names of well-known living... people' clause of WP:U), but I don't really see the point. The spelling is unconventional (while the user brags about his username being #1 in google, it is only #1 out of ~400 hits), and it looks like there had been no complaints about his usernames in the past (the user has been editing since January). Do you have any particular reasons, besides the ones you've already voiced, to ask him to have the name changed?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No. It's unseemly, but otherwise, no. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Sysrpl, pagemove and nonsense vandalism

Someone mind moving Catfish (freshwater) back to Catfish and deleting Catfish (saltwater)? Sysrpl (talk • contribs) seems to have been trying to foist a hoax page (read the content of the saltwater page). Some disambig pages need correction as well. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

King of hearts seems to have taken care of it. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] banned username? supermod

I noticed there's a user with a name supermod. Should this be a banned name? I'd say yes. St.isaac 07:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. If I received a warning from supermod, I would definitely assume he was an admin. alphaChimp laudare 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
perhaps usersnames could be restricted so they could not end in "mod" St.isaac 07:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Then things like modern, modarna, mode etc wouldn't be allowed.--Andeh 12:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I said usernames could not end in "mod" St.isaac 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't find anything particularly bannable about the name. I wouldn't make any assumptions about warnings I had received from such a name - nor would I have done as a newbie - perhaps this is a cultural or generational bias.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Every online forum I have ever been in disallowed the use of mod or admin in the name. As a newbie it would be a correct assumption to assume that we wouldn't allow usernames that smell likes they have power they don't have. It's standard practice, and I don't see why we should allow someone that name or anything similiar. (comment by Mboverload)

"Super mod" is an administrative position on many Internet bulletin boards (including many modified phpBB boards), halfway between "moderator" and "administrator". Supermod doesn't appear to be making any attempts to act the part of a moderator, and no one seems to be getting confused, so I see no problem in letting this username stand. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's rather like adopting a user name of "administrator" or, more accurately, "semiadministrator", which would obviously not be allowed. It's a recognised title and is potentially misleading. Although, as with AYArktos, it wouldn't have meant much to me, I see that it would to other people, so I think it needs to be changed. Tyrenius 06:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Although for at least some of us the name has no significant connotations, I appreciate the arguments put forward that it has some meaning in some online forums and thus and on the basis the name has connotations for some (ie it suggests a definition or association), I support restrictions on this and similar usernames as per User:St.isaac --A Y Arktos\talk 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia expert/admin/programmer advice needed

A discussion is underway concerning the redesign of the sidebar which is displayed on every page of Wikipedia at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. We need the advice of programmers and/or admins who are familiar with the guts of Wikipedia, and who can shed some light on the feasibility of the various aspects of this project. --Nexus Seven 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible bad user page move

User:ClintFord moved his user page to User:Schmendrick with the edit summary "My new nickname". ClintFord forwards to the new nickname, but at the new nickname, there is no "User contributions" so I'm wondering...did he move his user page to the mainspace? He's still editing as ClintFord and there's no creation listed in the user creation log. I can't tell what has occurred or not, can someone take a look? Metros232 05:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a bug. Unfortunately he didn't create the new user in the normal way so the Wikimedia software isn't behaving properly. I'm pretty sure that all he did was use the Move Page link to move his original user pages to his new user name. You can still track his User Contributions but you have to go the User:ClintFord page to get the link. As you say, it doesn't show up on the User:Schmendrick page presumably because the software thinks that this is a User page without a User. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is it possible for ordinary users to move user pages? Ben Aveling 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
He needs to be told to do it the right way. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to close this out, I contacted him and he has applied at WP:CHU. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this happen often enough to justify raising a suggested code change to the wiki? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
OrphanBot's logged three cases where a user has moved their talkpage without renaming their account, out of 13,000 userpages checked. --Carnildo 02:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it'll happen, but if we were to do such a thing, I'd like to see an inability for users to create userpages for non-existant users- more than a few times, I've seen people create pages at User:ExampleUser subpage instead of User:ExampleUser/subpage. Ral315 (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mistakenly restored deleted edits

I mistakenly restored 3 deleted edits from Paul Stamatiou (dating from back in June). How can these be again deleted? (the page re-appeared, and is up for a prod, btw). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom members, two Wikipedia developers, and a couple of other users have leet revision-deleting powers. Ask 'em and they shall fulfill. Hbdragon88 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, administrators can remove revisions (deleting them fully, as you mention above, is only for privacy violations). You just have to delete the entire page, and restore only the versions you wish to keep. I've deleted the first three revisions. Ral315 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow that's news to me...I thought they could just generally be used, but now that I have read Wikipedia:Oversight, its use is very narrow and explicit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hbdragon88 (talk • contribs) .


[edit] user 190.10.4.55

An avid linkspammer.[10] Needs a ban.Yeago 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I warned him with {{spam3}}, as I counted at least five additions of that spam link. If 190.10.4.55 does it again, do I follow logically with {{spam4}}, or does that jump up to {{spam5}} and a block? Hbdragon88 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
{{spam3}} gives warning of an impending block if they continue, so it is rather up to you. ViridaeTalk 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an admin, so I'd have to request for it here. Hbdragon88 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Either an article, or my mind, is missing.

On, or about, July 31, 2006, i created an article entitled Connor Barrett. Here is the link that was also generated, and that I sent to a friend who had helped me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connor_Barrett. I then added the article to my list of articles on my user page, where it appeared in blue. Today it shows as red and I am perplexed, perturbed and possibly pissed. Can anyone here help or enlighten me? Carptrash 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted on 31 July 2006 by Stifle for being an article about a person that did not explain the notability of its subject. See Wikipedia:Notability. —Bkell (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Bkell. Several people spent a lot of time and effort on that article and while it was no polished jewel i was working on it - and i am rather offended that it would be deleted without my being informed. I see that it was nixxed by one calling him or her self "Stifle" and it is easy to see where that name comes from. I would like to see the article returned to wikipedia, i believe that it begins with a rather long list of Barrett's accomplishments, sculptor, musician, painter, graphic artist, poet, but if that's not enough, please let me know and i'll try and find some more. Carptrash 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Carptrash 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Biographies which do not demonstrate their relevance or significance will be speedily deleted, as yours was. I do not know what your article's exact contents were, but if the article was speedily deleted, I would assume it met the deletion criteria. --Emufarmers(T/C) 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The article was about a sculptor, only one of whose works, for a block of flats, is listed. Apparently he's also a poet, I assume, since a poem was included, though there was nothing to indicate that it was his poem. If you can make the argument that the article meets our guideline at WP:BIO, then you can take your case to Deletions for review. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
since this is obviously a good faith complaint, and since the article was speedied unceremoniously (no doubt also in good faith), I have restored it: If you want to delete it, put it through Afd. If you want it to be kept, provide references supporting the subject's notability. dab (ᛏ) 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I see User:Dbachmann has unilaterally undeleted it without going through DRV, claiming it isn't speedyable, even though there is nothing in the article which claims notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was speedied unilaterlly, wasn't it? Seeing that lots of refereces are given, I can really see no justification for the speedying. Passes the Pokemon test with flying colours, I'd say. It can still be go on Afd, what's the harm in that? dab (ᛏ) 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Your undeletion said that it wasn't a candidate for speedying, which is obviously untrue, if you read the article. You also failed to discuss it with the deleting admin before unilaterally undeleting. You should have taken it to DRV. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason not to undelete a contested speedy- what's easily done can be easily undone. Friday (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course you don't. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this, but Stifle should have alerted Carptrash, using {{nn-warn}}. I have restored it, putting {{importance}}, and Zoe has put it on Afd now. I honestly don't see what is so upsetting about this, it's a disputed speedy, so put it on Afd, case closed. dab (ᛏ) 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to take a deep breath now. The real problem, from my perspective, is the lack of collegiality from admins who revert other admins without prior discussion. This is happening much too frequently. How does it hurt to talk to the deleting admin before undeleting? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Wheel war, in big bold letters at the top of the page: Contact the administrator if you disagree with one of his/her actions. Gain consensus before reverting the administrative actions of others.. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
To avoid undoing another admin when it's reasonable to do so would bog us down in needless bureaucracy. Perhaps centralized discussion of this issue would be handy, since it has been coming up a lot lately. Friday (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to follow the guideline, perhaps you should discuss changing it to "go ahead and revert any other admin's work that you want, after all, you know what's best for Wikipedia". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
My userpage makes my stance pretty clear. A revert, of an edit or an admin action, should not be done lightly. But to say it should never be done is insanity. Friday (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I really think you should take a deep breath, Zoe. I do not consider my action wheel-warring: I restored the article, once, and documented my action here for everyone to see. Stifler deleted a new article in passing (out of process, I might add, by not alerting its creator). I did not assume Stifler had an emotional involvement with his decision, and neither do I. This is just housekeeping stuff. I wouldn't ring up a janitor telling him he misplaced a broom, I'd just move it to the proper cupboard. "Go ahead" is indeed our first guideline, as long as you do it informedly, in good faith, politely and in the open. If Zoe thinks that this means she has to re-delete the article, I invite her to do that. dab (ᛏ) 23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A revert, of an edit or an admin action, should not be done lightly. But to say it should never be done is insanity. True. However, would you mind pointing to someone who has actually argued such a thing, oh, in the last two years or so? You appear to have left out a key phrase. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but in this case and others, Zoe appears to think that any reversal of an admin action is automatically wrong. We should no more try to own our admin actions than we own our edits. Friday (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth... And you went ahead and did it anyways. So your leaving out the clause "...without notifying the blocking admin" -- which makes your original statement nonsense -- was done deliberately? Since no one actually has asserted or hinted at what you say is an opinion that should be opposed, I have to wonder who ou're arguing with other than yourself. --Calton | Talk 22:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What the hell? Is there a reason you're not assuming good faith? I was referring to an incident in which I did notify Zoe that I'd undone one of her blocks. She got all bent out of shape because she insists that simply telling her is not enough- I'd need her permission to reverse one of her actions. Friday (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason you're not assuming good faith? Hmm, "Mr. Kettle? Mr. Pot on line 3. He say's you're black." So your characterization of other people's objections as meaning ...to say it should never be done is good faith? Your claim that Zoe appears to think that any reversal of an admin action is automatically wrong is good faith? And you have the chutzpah to blather about other people not exercising good faith? Please, pull the other one. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sensing a definite All wikipedians are created equal, but . . .... some are more equal than others thing here. If the article had not been deleted without notifying it's author then the same thing would not needed to have been done to an administrator. Yet the crime here seems to be that an administrator was overturned without due process and not Ms/Mr Average Wikipedian. Interesting. Carptrash 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can recreate a deleted article if they want to. There's no need to take it to Deletions for review. That is only necessary after an AfD if it is wished to keep the same content, which could otherwise be speedy deleted as recreated content. (If it is a speedy that is recreated it can't be deleted as recreated content, but can be deleted under the same original criterion, in this case A7.) So if Carptrash had a record of the content he could have uploaded it and recreated the article. Alternatively he could have asked dab to userfy the deleted content, and then Carptrash could have recreated the article immediately in that way. Dab short-circuited this by simply restoring the article. When admins were given the right to do unilateral speedy deletes, it was given out of necessity because of the increasing deletion workload, but was still given with some reservation. Admins can't regard their speedy deletions as sacrosanct, and must be prepared for them to be challenged, in which case, if necessary, AfD can be invoked in the normal manner. As it says on DRV: "if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack." Tyrenius 00:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

this perfectly summarizes my take on things and my approach here. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 08:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't take it as an attack. I do, however, take it as a lack of civility if my action is overturned without discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Zoe states that she take(s) it as a lack of civility if my action is overturned without discussion but another's work was deleted without discussion, even though Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states it would also be considerate to notify the original author. I think we all need to reconsider that civility applies both ways. I agree with the comments of Tyrenius and dab, incivility by admins undeleting the article was not intended. The actions of the admin were within scope of guidelines and policy. User:Carptrash could not see what had gone on - he isn't an admin and the article had disappeared for an unknown reason - he couldn't see what happenned - and he brought the issue here - quite allowable, especially since he was seeking help or enlightenment. DRV is not needed under CSD. While notability originally might not have been apparent, it was not an egregiously not-notable biography - unlike the typical varieties like xyz goes to zz school and is kool. As has been pointed out above, more appropriate action (as well as notifying the editor), might have been to use the {{importance}} tag or something similar allowing a response. At Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which expands on CSD7, it states that this this criterion is mainly intended to deal with vanity articles created by their subjects or by people personally known to them. I don't think the article when nominated obviously fell within that scope - even more reason to use the tag and/or discuss with the editor rather than nominating quickly for speedy deletion.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If we conceive of the whole process as team work, rather than individual actions, then it falls into place more easily, with the aim — which must always be kept in mind — of creating an encyclopedia. A process, starting with the original stub, takes place and is worked out in several stages, regardless of which individual has enacted each particular stage. The different individual actions counterbalance and correct each other. Finally a result is obtained. Let's see the overall process as the important thing, either to excise material which is not suitable, or to include and improve material which is. Nobody is doubting any of the participants' good intentions, and this is the most important thing. Everybody is on the same side, so I recommend good will and tolerance all round. I have devised a user box in its beta stage, which I have on my user page and which anyone is welcome to use or suggest improvements to. I think it's important that admin actions are always open to review. Tyrenius 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This admin asks other admins to change his actions if they disagree, and will not wheel war.
Since when is it "a lack of civility" to revert someone? It's a wiki... that happens all the time and is supposed to. Yes, explanations of why a reversion was made are good things... which is why we have edit summaries, block/unblock summaries, delete/undelete summaries, et cetera. That's usually all the notification required. Since regular users can't see delete summaries, putting an explanation for a delete on their user talk page is a reasonable alternative. Not doing so is effectively the equivalent of not including an edit/delete summary... not very helpful, but also not a heinous crime. If the summary indicates the reverter didn't understand or overlooked something then go ahead and reverse again with a summary explanation of what they missed. Only if it there is clearly strong disagreement about how to handle the situation should we stop taking edit/admin actions and hold a discussion to develop a consensus. This is all fairly standard 'dispute resolution' stuff. If anything, admins should be better than most at calmly dealing with people reverting them. Only making edits/admin actions after strong disagreement has been established is 'uncivil'. It becomes edit/wheel warring when you take an action which there is no established consensus for and which you know one or more other people are going to strongly disagree with and wish to revert, whether that is the eigth action or the first. --CBD 12:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please speedy close AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America. As per the existing merge tags, I merged the article with American terrorism, so the AfD is irrelevant now. Travb (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can close it yourself if you like. Super PowersTM are not required. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A copyright question

For the copyright clueful: Image:Arclight.gif is tagged as fair use screenshot, used in Arclight (comics). Two issues: first, this is from the film not the comic, so the fair use is probably not valid in that article, yes? Second, it's not a screenshot, it'sa series of screenshots assembled into an animated gif by a YTMNDer, the image source is cited as the YTMND. Which I think makes it not actually a fair use screenshot at all. It's important because there are a number of these looping animated gifs on the project, including at More Cowbell. Just zis Guy you know? 08:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of this unnecessary animated gifs, (i.e. those that do not better illustrate something in the article) are a pain anyway - and make it harder to read the article. If it is used to illustrate the comic (being from the film), and it is noted that it is from the film, it could pass as fair use (I think) as long as it is needed to properly show the comic itself (which I fear may not be the case). The fact that it shows such a significant part of the original work (i.e. reasonable quality and multiple shots) which isn't really necessary anyway, I think it would be pushing the fair use boundaries, and could be considered a copyright infringement. Mind you I don't know much about the subject... Ian¹³/t 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jtkiefer: community ban proposal

Merged with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jtkiefer --pgk(talk) 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: MaindrianPace

MaindrianPace (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) continues to upload images without copyright information, despite two blocks for doing so before. In addition, he continues to remove tags added to his articles. PBP 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SPOV

I've been working with WP:GUS, and come across three more users that look awfully like the other ones (ie exact same userboxes). They are:

[edit] User:Thesharpeexperience

This user lifted a large amount of material from KISS (band) and put it on their user page under a promo for "The Sharpe Experience". I've removed the KISS material and asked them to remove the advert. They also created The Sharpe Experience discography, The Sharpe Experience and The Dean Street Sessions (album). All of them were KISS albums with the name changed. Will require watching. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troy J. Rose

This is in the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Could someone take care of it. I've made several edits to remove copyvio and don't want to delete or remove the speedy. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag since while the article isn't great, it seems like a viable starting point on a notable enough performer. Gwernol 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It looked that way to me which is why I didn't get rid of it some time ago. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it wasn't a speedy, as notability (of a degree) is asserted. After failing to find any supporting evidence for his notability, however, I've nominated the article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy J. Rose). His IMDb bio is hysterical: "If there had to be one image for cool it would be him.". :) Middenface 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Warning Template Idea

Image:Skull and crossbones in white inside of a black square, similar to the old "Jolly Roger" or the label on a can of "Black Flag" bug spray. Message:This is your FINAL WARNING. Continue to vandalize/disrupt Wikipedia and you will be blocked, even banned.

Is this a good template idea ? Martial Law 03:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this redundant with the {{test4}} template? – ClockworkSoul 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We don't want the template to be too harsh; after all, the recipient is likely getting a 24-hour block, not a death sentence. Regarding the redundacy, I concur. It seems like adding an additional template would be like saying No seriously, we're not kidding; we're going to block you. No joke. Honestly. Hmm... perhaps that would be a good idea for a {{test4.5}}... -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thought that would fine tune the warning process. Martial Law 04:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand your intention; perhaps others will agree with you. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't see any additional utility over the current templates --pgk(talk) 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Pgk. Test4 already claims to be the final warning, so this would have to replace it. Giving another warning after the "final" warning would just weaken the warning. You should discuss any proposed changes to test4 on Template talk:test4. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-11 08:24Z
There's nothing that annoys me more than a {{test2}} under a {{test4}}, so no. If a warning is final, then it is final. Go poke admins at WP:AIV if they're not listening. Titoxd(?!?) 08:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I often write custom warnings because I think they are more effective, and you are welcome to word your own warnings as you wish, even with a template under your user space, as long as it's not used as a "second final warning". (You should only give "you will be blocked" warnings if you can enforce them, though...) —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-11 08:35Z

I agree with Titoxd, if someone continues to vandalise after a test4, block them. No need for a little "Oh, I'm not sure" test2, unless the test4 was quite some time ago. This proposed warning is unnecessary. test4 says the same thing, with the same results. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Frequently anons will get test2's under old test4's, but they are also likely to be a diferant person behind the ip. — xaosflux Talk 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Questionable Image?

I'm not sure where to post this question, so it goes here ;) The image at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:I_ate_the_Jews.jpg&redirect=no doesn't seem to have a purpose? Am I missing something? CMacMillan 01:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It serves the purpose of illustrating National Socialist Movement (United States) quite well, even if the image's name is entirely stupid. I've restored the pd-self tag added by its creator, although whether Murple really took the photo is anyone's guess. Middenface 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks, I couldn't find its connection to an article. And yes, stupid title. CMacMillan
The name is an obvious gross insult to overweight people everywhere and requires people to be banned, arbcoms to be summoned, and all manner of effort to be expended in dealing with it. WAS 4.250 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So you agree? Good. We can put it on the recommended deletion list with your name attached then. I'll get right on that. CMacMillan

[edit] Sneaky advertisement

User:NOFX99 has made only one edit, but it's of a most nefarious nature. It was linkspam (on the Penis enlargement article, which sees a lot of linkspam), with the edit summary "spelling." It's pretty much impossible for me to assume good faith here. I don't know if it's bad enough for a ban, but. . . it just sickened me, and I felt that it shouldn't go unnoticed. LWizard @ 04:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie already warned him with {{bv}}, so the next time he does something like this he'll be blocked. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-12 22:50Z

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_automobiles_that_were_commercial_failures

Perm link. Wiarthurhu (talk • contribs) has been taking exception to all the delete votes in that afd. The comments have been reverted by another user, but it might bear watching - some of the comments were bordering on personal attacks. I have warned him to be civil but it might bear watching. ViridaeTalk 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I posted this to the talk page initially by mistake (navigated to the page via my watchlist and didnt check to see if it was the talk or prject page. ViridaeTalk 04:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also warned the same user today for a blatant WP:POINT infringement on Bully. He has a long history of issues with multiple editors and a current RfC. I concur that his behavior needs to be watched. Gwernol 04:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the most egregious editorialising form the article and left a note. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent Vandalism by permabaned user through anon.IPs

If anybody has got time plz look at the case of vandalism through closely related IPs [11].Holy|Warrior 13:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:82.153.195.94

Could someone please check the edits of this user. I think they may be pro BNP. --84.9.194.151 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • One wouldn't like to assign political allegiences to the anon 82. However, yes, he does have a long Wikipedia history of POV-pushing in articles about the deaths of black people (always accidental) and the deaths of white people (always at the hands of black people). So he certainly has a bee in his bonnet. I've been through his recent contributions and reverted a pile of strange edits, but I'll look closer now. I suspect a fair bit of stubbing of articles down to the known facts will be required - that's what was needed last year when he last appeared. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eleemosynary

This user has been making repeated, unsubstantiated allegations that I am a "POV shill" who works for either WABC Radio or Mark Levin. He has deleted many of my edits to the evin article, accusing me of "not editing in good faith". I welcome an administrator to review my edit history and how I have tried to constructively contribute to the Levin article (including reverting vandalism, supporting inclusion of negative/anti information, and trying to start a discussion on including a relevance/notability threshhold for what external links are to be included in the article.) and determine if these accusations are warranted. He has also taken a note I left him on his user page, asking him to stay civil with me and work towards consensus, and posted it to the Levin talk page as if I had posted it there. From this point, he has continued to be belligerant, uncivil, and is basically holding the page hostage based on his lone, unwarranted accusations that I am a POV shill for WABC. I am here to contribute in a constructive manner and I think I am owed the courtesy of assuming good faith and ntot having flames and attacks thrown about on a article talk page. Shouldn't this be about the content of the article and not the poster?

You can find most of the discussion here: Talk:Mark_Levin and here: User_talk:FLeeLevin. This particular poster also seems to have a history of belligerance and incivility towards others who don't agree with this political leanings. See here: User_talk:Eleemosynary and also the types of comments he includes in his edit descriptions, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Eleemosynary .

I am certainly not the first user to be subjected to his belligerance and am asking that an administrator drop in and review the situation. FLeeLevin 13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to try and make some order out of this war. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Your attempts to help mediate the dispute on the page are most appreciated, however the belligerance and assumptions of bad faith continue. He has effectively stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Levin&diff=69122885&oldid=69102461 that he will be assuming bad faith on all of my future edits. If history repeats, he will use this as the basis for reverting everything I try to do to improve the article. I am officially requesting some for of administrator action at this point. I don't want to go the RfC route, however will do so if this continues.NYCTommy 20:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationstates

people keep reverting the criticism section (censorship) --152.163.100.200 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Autoblock language

I know this is more of a Villiage Pump issue, but I just saw this [12]. It appears to be an autoblock written an another language. Is this a bug, or a new feature? 216.78.95.172 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Funky; bug I assume. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-12 22:46Z
Samir just showed me that. I was away almost all day yesterday and I did not block anybody yesterday nor today. I'm very confused right now; I hope my account hasn't been hacked. RadioKirk also noted that it doesn't show up in my log either. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hacking is unlikely; the block is absent from the user's logs (which he just noted [blush]). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The block is in your log [13], but it was made on August first. The autoblock was yesterday, not the real block . Prodego talk 03:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
So, pardon the confusion, why does an autoblock show up 11 days later in a different language? :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
...especially in a language that I can't speak and can't identify? ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well the eleven days part isn't that odd, as long as the initial block is active, autoblocks can occur, and it was a month long block. I have no idea why it would be in another language, I suppose it must be some sort of weird bug. Prodego talk 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I just tested this and found that the autoblock text's language is dependent on the language setting of the blocked user. For example, I created User:NK Test and set its language to French. Then I triggered an autoblock from that account which caused the Ipblocklist entry to show up in French. Naconkantari 04:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. Thanks. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I would like to announce my resignation

I have decided to retire from editing Wikipedia. There are several reasons for this, one of which is that I am still angry with myself for having been involved in a fairly recent sockpuppetry incident. I am particularily ashamed of the fact that some of the accounts that I created had usernames that attacked specific users. I would like to address all of those users now and apologise for what I did. Please do not think that I have anything personal against any of you. Why, if that’s the case, I choose names that deliberately attacked you, I am not even completely sure myself. The best answer that I can give is that I had seen vandals create similar names before and wanted the accounts I created to seem like “authentic” vandal accounts. Please also take into consideration the fact that I suffer from certain mental problems and at times have a difficulty acting with reason, but everything else aside, I was aware that what I was doing was wrong, and chose to do it anyway, and therefore I accept responsibility for my actions. This incident is not the only reason that I have decided to resign, though. Right now I am involved in a lot of academic-related activities and I feel that editing Wikipedia has been eating up too much of my time that I should have spent studying. I ask that an administrator please delete the user and talk pages for Edmonde Dantes and Conrad Devonshire. I have enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia, but unfortunately it is time for me to move on now. Thank you and farewell.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 04:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted your two user pages. Have fun in the outside world :) Cowman109Talk 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Daniel575's comments

Daniel575 has been making incivil comments at Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Such as set up by a bunch of heretical idiots and doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever. 203.217.54.74 05:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahrarara is Panairjdde

User:Panairjdde has returned now in the form of User:Ahrarara. He or she is stalking every single article from my contribs list right now and deleting AD anywhere and everywhere. Please stop or warn him or her. Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked again, thanks, but note that he is currently wreaking havoc yet again with an edit warring anon, User:151.44.81.169, on the very same articles stalked from my July contribs, multiple 3RRs here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Loath I am to do it, I have blocked the entire 151.44. range for an hour -- which affects not only the editor formerly known as Panairjdde (TEFKAP) but some 65,000-odd other people. However, he has been stalking or edit-warring not only with Codex Sinaiticus, but at leat 2 other editors. I'm gambling on the fact that the users of an Italian ISP aren't interested in editting an English Wikipedia, & as long as no one complains, we can repeat this until TEFKAP gives up. (He has also used the 151.47. range -- but let's wait until we see what kind of trouble I've caused before blocking that one also.) I won't protest if another Admin reverts the block. -- llywrch 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Very funny

Very funny ok, you've had your laughs--AOL account 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, it's not a joke, it just seems like one, my mistake--AOL account 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jim Shapiro

Jim Shapiro All debate now consolidated at WP:DRV, these discussion sin the linked document at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31/Shapiro 14:57, 31 July 2006


[edit] User:68.99.19.167

User:68.99.19.167

He's been blocked for a week (second block), but I think an indefinite block may be required; he's vandalized hundreds of articles relating to religion, often in fairly subtle ways (PoV inserts and content deletions and modifications, removing images, etc.), and I've only managed to revert a quarter of his edits so far. (Going down the list, I managed to revert everything [sometimes with difficulty, due to later edits] down to 03:21, 29 July 2006, although that still leaves scores and scores of edits which someone will need to revert. --Emufarmers(T/C) 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

we don't indef block IPs unless they're open proxies. Sasquatch t|c 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New summary bot - detecting backlogs / requests

Category Tracker Summary
Requests
Copyright violations for speedy deletion 6
Wikipedians looking for help 1
Wikipedia protected edit requests 7
Candidates for speedy deletion 101
Requests for unblock 3
Backlogs
Copyright violations for speedy deletion 6
All images with no fair use rationale 502
Articles lacking sources 31142
Articles with unsourced statements 34150
Categories for deletion 461
Wikipedia articles needing factual verification 5238
Accuracy disputes 1646
NPOV disputes 3644
Pages needing expert attention 1741
Articles to be split 614
Redirects for deletion 87
All pages needing to be wikified 8466
Wikipedia protected edit requests 7
Miscellaneous pages for deletion 39

I have recently created a bot-based summary to follow up on the RFA summary and AFD summary. This new function, which I have dubbed the Category Tracker, monitors a selection of administrative and editing related categories and identifies when they have an unusually high number of items in them compared to their long-term means, and hence are in need of some attention. The full tracking page covers a couple dozen different categories and gives statistics on their fluctuations. In addition, I also created a summary table (transcluded here) to give easy access to the most important or most backlogged categories.

There is also a configuration page which can be used to adjust which categories are monitored, where they are displayed, and how often they are updated.

I hope this proves useful. Dragons flight 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Keen! Good work. -- Infrogmation 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This is lovely! Thanks. -- Natalya 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice work, now admins can now prioritize their tasks better.--Andeh 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome work! --mboverload@ 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be counting many of the very large image speedy cats.--Peta 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a very nice summary, but the number of articles needing wikification is incorrect. There are 6,776 (sorted) articles in the category currently, but they are split up into subcategories by the month they were tagged, so only the ones that have not been sorted (123 at the moment) show up on the summary. Once the bot comes around, the 123 articles will be put in the August category. -- Kjkolb 09:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this is wonderful work... and therefor please do alot more. :]
People have noted various issues above, but it would also be nice if this could incorporate AIV, RFI, RFAr, RFCU, all of the 'cleanup' categories, et cetera. What would really be nice would be some method of putting the data onto individual transcludable pages... so a person who wanted to keep an eye on just TfD, PER, and RFAr could transclude those three stats onto their user page... a possibly beneficial form of 'userbox' showing the topic, current backlog number, and color (red/yellow/green). Likewise a page could then be set up showing the status of all 'admin only' tasks. And if it could make toast too that'd be really grand. :]
Seriously, excellent work and very useful as it is. --CBD 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I really like it, and have it on my talk page. Maybe it should be at the top of AN like RfA summary is at BN? Yanksox 11:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic work, sincere thanks to Dragons flight for this great tool. I also think CBD's idea above about individual transcludable pages is excellent (not to mention the toast). If that could be done without too much effort well, brilliant. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Very nice. -- Миборовский 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant!!! I've been using it for the past 4 days. Well done Dragons flight! -- Samir धर्म 10:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] On the brokenness of AfD

I know it's been said before, but AfD really does seem to be a remarkably bad way of dealing with controversial articles. I think it generally works fairly well in most cases but when we get a subject that attracts major controversy it seems to go off the rails. A case in point is the current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (the third on this article!) which seems to be attracting POV-pushers from all over, from both sides. Some of the comments strongly suggest that vote-stacking by e-mail is going on. Many of the votes are plainly being driven by partisan POVs on the article, totally ignoring the notability criteria in favour of their own opinions on the subject matter. I've seen the same happen with other recent controversial AfDs, such as Turkish Kurdistan.

I really do wonder if we should seek to restrict voting on controversial AfDs to administrators, who should be more likely to act on the basis of Wikipedia policies and criteria rather than voting as a proxy for blatant POV-pushing. If there's an unusually large number of votes on an article, as indicated by Dragons flight's useful AFD summary - perhaps a threshold of 40 or so - it's a good indicator that the subject is particularly controversial, particularly likely to attract partisan voters and particularly susceptible to being decided on POV rather than encyclopedic grounds. Perhaps when this threshold is reached it might be a good idea to impose cloture and initiate a vote among admins rather than prolong the agony on AfD? What do you guys think? -- ChrisO 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giving admins more editorial authority is probably not the way to go; not only would it be immensely unpopular, but it also wouldn't necessarily be helpful -- admins can have idiosyncratic ideas about policy, too. We need to encourage closing admins to discount these "votes" that do not take our policies into account. Jkelly 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. What the analysis reveals is not a flaw in the AfD process, but a flaw in the application of policies, particularly it would seem WP:NPOV, though I am sure a closer inspection would reveal WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR to be equally ill attended. More rigorous standards need to be expected and imposed on what is permissable as argument. As often, it is the discarding of policies — which have been stated as non-negotiable — that results in brokenness. Tyrenius 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, on this particular occasion, the initial nomination appears to have been a clear violation of WP:DEL by a user who was recently blocked for abusing AfD. See my comments at WP:AN/I#Abuse of AfD?. Getting back to the topic, though, I'm sure you're right that it would be controversial to give admins more editorial authority. Jkelly is certainly right that even admins can have idiosyncratic views on policy (I note that at least one admin has given a blatantly POV reason for voting in the AfD I mentioned). However, wouldn't it be even more controversial for a closing admin to decide - by himself - which votes were valid and which weren't? Perhaps a middle way would be for a group or panel of admins to determine which votes were for valid policy reasons and which weren't. I agree that we need to enforce permissible arguments but we would need to ensure that a single admin's interpretation of policy wouldn't dictate the outcome. -- ChrisO 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be controversial to discount "votes" that do not take into account policy, but that doesn't mean it cannot be in particular instances. It may well be a good idea to encourage AfD closing admins to engage in some extra discussion about controversial cases. Jkelly 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Extra discussions from the closing admin would tie up our closing admins (there are precious few as it is as closing AfDs gets you hell from both sides) in needless, long, neverending pointless discussions.

What we need to do is accept that our admins need greater discretion. That admins can close AfDs against the apparent consensus without being flayed alive for it. And that would mean close in either direction, and it would mean that we would need a rule about "not biting the closing admin" or the like. And, yes, it would mean that we would have to give a greater degree of latitude to admins like Tony Sidaway (no offence, Tony, you're just a convenient example :o), happy to close a debate with a caustic comment on how poor the quality of the debate was. Of course, in giving that discretion to our admins, we make it so that such caustic comments aren't required.

But the face-off that currently exists between rampant inclusionists and rampant deletionists means that we would never get consensus on giving admins that latitude. And we would remain fair game for the parade of personal attacks, droning-on comments and public pillorying that even otherwise sensible editors subject a closing admin to for... closing something. Even when we close within consensus. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think deletion review already does give discretion to admins - at least, I've not noticed many recent overturnings of what I considered to be correct deletions (or keeps) as a result of considering the arguments and not just the numbers. I think we should be looking to ourselves as admins to show more boldness in closing discussions. Getting overturned at deletion review is not something to be worried about, as if you do get overturned the article gets undeleted or relisted and no harm is done. The only way to do harm via closing discussions is in not learning from overturns and repeatedly getting overturned for the same reason - and people who can't learn from mistakes often don't pass RfA. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, for this particular article, it was questionable behavior by several admins that forced the issue to arbitration. If the original dispute hadn't involved admins, a few short blocks would have resolved the issue. Because admins were involved, that wouldn't work, and the heavy machinery of Wikipedia arbitration had to be invoked. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid for the whole sad story. --John Nagle 19:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] CAT:CSD

We could really use more administrators monitoring the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion queue. Thanks. theProject 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, we could really use less users adding non-speedy or almost-but-not-quite speedies to the queue. I for one would like a nice "CSD-Ax: Pure Advertisement" criterion, as it seems that 90% of potential nominators think it already exists. And I'd also like the "DB-No reason given: see WP:CSD for a list of reasons" template to die, now, painfully. If people don't know the reason they want the article speedy deleted, then why are they asking me to guess for them? ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If 90% of potential nominators think it already exists, then it does; it just hasn't been written down yet. Tom Harrison Talk 02:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be even better if when an article is tagged it went to subcategory as do attack pages for speedy deletion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's an easy change to make. As long as they are listed in the main category, I don't expect any major objections to doing this. Vegaswikian 00:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Inspired by you, I just made the blank DB notice more forceful. Dragons flight 00:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of cases where an article may not exactly fit one of the criteria, but is still clearly eligible for speedy deletion. Granted this template should be used sparingly, and only when the reason for deletion is overly obvious, but I think it is useful. --Hetar 19:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Giving no reasons is useless - it's saying "I think this should be deleted but I expect someone else to work it out why for me". People can give multiple reasons, of course - but remember that, if they have to argue for an article to be speedy deleted, then it isn't a speedy delete. And, if they nominate an article for deletion when it clear doesn't fit a criteria, they are asking the deleting admin to take on the risk. The admin has to justify the decision to the angry user. Tagging for PROD or AfD or clean-up and telling the user is harder work, but at least doing that doesn't just pass the responsibility down the line. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If you do NP patrol, and I do. You quickly realise how much crap comes in. An increasing amount of it is spamverts - or bios of the 'he's a CEO of a two-bit company' . (This will increase with the growing fame of wikipedia). If everything that that doesn't technically meet the CSD was sent to prod (which the spamvertsier just unprods) or afd, we'd be overwhelmed. Sooner or later, we'll have to accept admin 'shoot on sight' policies, or further limit article creation. --Doc 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I do NP patrol daily - and I'm also often the admin who sits alone for hours of each day clearing CAT:CSD. So, I agree with you: let's let admins shoot on sight. But, of course, the rules as they stand don't allow it. You must shoot-on-sight-and-answer-the-hate-mail.
Breaking the CSD criteria helps nobody. Editors get used to speedying articles without giving reasons (making admins do the hard work). Admins get used to deleting what they like and then get brought up short when they make a mistake. What we need are better and more comprehensive CSD, not a license to delete-what-we-like-so-long-as-no-one-complains-too-loud.
That latter option - which is what exists at the moment to a degree - confuses users and editors (and other admins) and muddies the water. Plus, we're busy not having a "CSD-A10: Spam" criterion because 90% of users think we already have it. Yet it is clearly listed at WP:CSD as a reason for not speedy deleting.
No, I'm sorry, Doc - I respect you as an editor and I respect your experience... but I think your views on this are counterproductive, shall we say, when we could be channeling energy in to making CSD better rather than stomping all over it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I modified {{db-reason}} to look like this [14], but Hetar reverted. I think putting a stronger request for reasons is a very good step in the right direction. An admin can still choose to act even without a reason, but the tagging users should be strongly encouraged to have one. Dragons flight 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hetar, you need to think beyond your use of this template. I'm sure you do use this template sparingly. The problem is, it is being used hundreds of times a day by other people, who are scattering all over articlespace so that admins cannot tell if it is being used abusively, cluelessly, or ignorantly. You have the space in db-reason to make an argument for deletion if you need to (but I repeat again - if you need to make an argument for deletion, then it ain't a speedy). I'm going to revert to Dragon's version and I'd rather you built on that than just reverted again. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deleted pages to be merged

Some redirects were recently deleted that had histories that weren't merged into the (former) targets. In order to fix this, should I post to Wikipedia:Deletion review or Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves? Ardric47 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Ardric47 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Report on lengthy litigation

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun was just closed. Briefly

  • Minun is banned 12 months
  • Minun is not allowed to use accounts for block circunventing
  • Minun is placed on personal attack and revert parole, and probation.

-- Drini 02:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've applied the 1 year block. --pgk(talk) 11:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

The area for reporting complex vandalism appears underused, undermanned, and looks like reports there could just as easily be left at WP:ANI. How would it sound to remove the complex vandalism reporting area and simply refer people to ANI for complex vandalism? Cowman109Talk 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

AN/I is way too cluttered as is now, since people forget it's a noticeboard and use it as a discussionboard. Splitting good. -- Drini 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well unless I'm mistaken, an administrator hasn't responded to the complex vandalism reports area in a month... Cowman109Talk 05:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I did raise this here a while back, and no-one replied. Basically I think RFI serves a useful purpose and is worth keeping, but only if more admins pay attention to it. I helped set up RFI in its current form, and since then I've been the only admin to do a significant amount of dealing with reports to it for long periods of time (I've been completely away for last two weeks and on semi-wikibreak before that, hence the lack of action on that page for the last month). It would really help if more admins could watchlist RFI and deal with reports there; I'd be happy to assist anyone if they need help with that (ask me on my talk page, or the RFI talk page). On the other hand if admins continue to ignore reports on that page there isn't much point having it (I certainly can't keep up with it on my own all the time). Petros471 10:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Undo move

In order to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles, I moved Dr. Robert Young to Robert Young (naturopath). Would it be possible for an admin to undo that move, so I could tag Dr. Robert Young with {{db-repost}}? (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Robert Young)? Thanks! -Medtopic 06:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Criterion G4 allows speedy deletion of already deleted content no matter where it is in wikipedia. I've therefore added a speedy deletion tag to Robert Young (naturopath) explaining the situation. Graham talk 11:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to tag the redirect as well. Geogre 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please, please, please help...

(Just to clarify, this is me)

Okay, this is going to be very long and complicated; not only that, but I am typing this without the internet and will have to copy and paste add links and such later. So please forgive and fragmentation you might see and bear with me: The problem is with this page. The page is, simply put, a vote that will show the general thoughts on letting anons edit. I, as an anons advocate, hover around the page and try and keep it fair. I do not own the page, but the person who made it has not been editing often, and I haven’t been able to ask permission of them to keep the peace. My opinion is that Wikipedia would not exist were it not for the anons. User:Hildanknight’s opinion is that you should be required to register. He follows the page even more than I, which is saying something. He has gone to the point of commenting on almost every single vote to allow anon editing, sometimes adding ‘no comment’ when he can’t think of anything to say. Needless to say, I was upset. So I tried to handle it nicely. I left a comment [15] on his talk page that simply said anons are Wikipedians to. It was at this point he decided to retire, then un-retire. For months I kept going back to that page, checking to see if he’d reply, but he did not. It was only after my internet connection had been cut and restored that I discoverd he had replied, needlessly harsh, I might add[16]. I added my reply [17], then waited. I was surprised to find that instead of reply on his talk page, as he normally does, he edited my userpage, stating that it was time to register, and I would soon know why he hated anons[18]. I then added a new message on his talk page [19], saying that I would stand for anons no matter what the cause. I then came up with an idea, inspired by his comment-I would keep track of the IP’s I had to use on AOL. Growing excited with the thought, I [20] told him of it. Yes, it was mean. I was angry. He reverted it. [21], calling me an 'annonomous vandal'.Now, the reason he doesn’t like IPs is that Singapore, as a whole, has one single IP address. I can see the problem, but that’s no reason to abuse me. After my idea popped up on his talk page, my userpage suddenly was vandalized [22] by the Singapore IP. Coincidence? I don’t think so.The edit was reverted [23] by Mr. Lefty. I thanked him, and moments later discovered that my talk page had been vandalized-again, by the Singapore IP. [24]I knew it was him. There is no question about it. Angry, I left him a message. [25]. Yes, I used a bad edit summary, but I was (and am) really peeved. He, of course, reverted me. [26], calling me a troll. As if that wasn't enough, he contacted an admin, and had him block me! [27] And then decided he wanted his talk page protected to I couldn't protest! [28] He told the admin that blocked me he deserved a barnstar, and requested my good IP be blocked! I have 2,500 constructive edits on that IP! Oh, was I mad. Before his page got protected, I blew up. [29]. The admin who was considering semi-protected promptly reverted and protected the page. [30]. So he thanked the admin and again requested my good IP be blocked. [31]. And to top it all off, one of his pals came along and told him I'm a moron and he should ignore me. [32]

That was confusing, was it not? Now, am I in the right in assuming that his page should not be protected and he should recieve a warning for his behavior? I'm not saying what I did was great, heck, I insulted him. But he got off free. I got blocked. Can somebody help here? --172.191.63.212 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I really could care less anymore. 69.145.123.171 Hello! Sunday, August 13, 2006, 08:33 (UTC)


[edit] Conrad Devonshire

Conrad Devonshire (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

My former username was "Conrad Devonshire", but I have since changed it to Edmonde Dantes. This user may have created this account to imposter me, though as I officially retired last night, I'm not sure whether or not this name is acceptable. Even if it technically is, I recommend that this user create a new account because its block log shows the blocks I received as "Conrad Devonshire".--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 13:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, could an administrator please protect User:Edmonde Dantes?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 13:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm that Conrad changed his name to Edmonde Dantes via WP:CHU (although I haven't looked up the diff). The current account should be blocked as an imposter. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like the imposter's blocked already. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] CopyrightedFreeUse template abuse

{{CopyrightedFreeUse}}

I was cleaning out the {{nosource}} category and noticed that many of its images are tagged with the abovementioned. I suspect that there may be actually a further widespread abuse of the tag out there, is this potential problem being mass-worked on? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

When I come across the images in the Random Image search, i'll help clean some out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a very problematic set of images. Many images so tagged have been done on the assumption that something published somewhere is automatically free for any use. It is difficult to "mass work on"; the mechanism for deleting sourced ones if there is uncertainty is either Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Copyright problems. A more efficient approach if one wants to do a a few hundred at a time is to simply remove the template from any image that doesn't give such a license at the source, and tag the image with {{nld}}. If one does that, however, many of the images will wind up with a spurious fair use template on them. Jkelly 17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I also encountered a bunch of images with the norightsreserved tag. (and were definitely not free images) A fair use template at least is more realistic concerning those images. Garion96 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The template, if I understand correctly, was to avoid the possible legal issue that it may be impossible for someone to release something to public domain, even if they wanted to. Thus, its to signify that it is not in the public domain, but close. With that said, copyright tag(any copyright tag) abuse is massive. {{GFDL-self}} and {{PD-self}} are abused like crazy (they don't have to provide a source then if they claim to have made it themselves). If you look at WP:PUI, you'll see whole groups of images people have put up because a person uploaded two dozen images from a website and tagged them all as PD-self or something. With that said, please make sure you visit WP:PUI occasionally to delete the images that have sat there for 14 days and are clearly bad. Kevin_b_er 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Willy on Wheels again, persistent vandal?

A user, User:B&W Anime Fan appears to be an intractable vandal, having vandalized userpages [33] (I have since reverted his perverted edits) and other pages before. Recently, however, he seems to have favored (or is) the style of the longtime vandal Willy on Wheels, adding this image(a trademark of Willy on Wheels) to his own talk page, and leaving messages such as Eeeeeeeeeeeeverybody shake your body do the Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilly. He hasn't yet begun leaving these messages on pages other than my userpage yet, and does currently have a 24-hour block currently applied to him, but I think this case merits some investigation. I'd really appreciate it if some administrators could help me out. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 19:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably yet another copycat. I'd just keep an eye on him. Deco 19:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It's getting worse. As of this edit, he stated: POW! I just punched kungming in the face. (My username, of course is Kungming2) - this is getting really serious and I'm afraid B&W Anime Fan will continue to relentlessly vandalize my userpages after his 24-hour block expires. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Panic not. He is claiming to be WoW. That means, when his block expires and if he vandalises again, he will simply be blocked forever immediately. Ignore him, go back to productive editing and be happy to know that he has blown through all the WP:AGF and chances he will get. If he attacks you again without provocation, he'll be gone. But let's let him jump off that cliff, rather than pushing him off it. There's a nicer, warmer, justicy-feel when they do that. Happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Deco, Redvers - administrator Goldom blocked him indefinitely for the various reasons, and esp. for further posting nonsense on his talk page. That's what I find so great about Wikipedia - it's such a supportive community! –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

Heads up, the case was just closed. Basically

with other provisions in case of reincidences. Check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick for the details. -- Drini 22:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyde indef blocked Nathanrdotcom

This is a discussion which has been archived. Please do not post anything more to it. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Odd Glitch at Portal:Current events

I'm not sure if any admins know what's responsible for this, but there is a strange glitch that has begun to occur on the Portal:Current events/July 2006 and Portal:Current events/August 2006 pages. As you can see, as long as the glitch is there, beginning at the July 10 and August 10 sections, the edit, watch, and history links have become corrupted, thereby corrupting the entire page. I know this didn't occur last month and so I'm curious if any changes have been made that could have caused this. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The page making this line is:Portal:Current events/DateHeader2, perhaps a syntax error. This should not require a sysop to fix. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's it. That page hasn't been updated in over a month (and, for what it's worth, I was the one who created it). Also, the August 10 section looks perfectly fine at Portal:Current events and at Portal:Current events/2006 August 10. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
When I changed the header to only have the edit link [34] it fixed the page, I've reverted it back, but that does seems to point to the potential problem. There may also be an unmatched </div>. — xaosflux Talk 02:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help (although I'm quite certain it's a glitch). Perhaps just leaving the edit link would suffice for now. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; it's out of admin's hands. The bug has been reported elsewhere too and it looks like they're on their way to fixing it. -- tariqabjotu 13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I probably need to be blocked, as I'm about to violate WP:3RR and not care

I am currently engaging in a sort of undesirable "edit war" that I don't intend to be any sort of war, except the 3RR rule should have kicked in long ago, and nothing is happening in response to the 3RR report. Another editor systematically deletes all the content I add, with no explanation, or covertly in combination with another edit. The material has been deleted six times so far - the first four deletes in a matter of a few hours.

I left a report at the 3RR noticeboard two days ago, and it has been unacknowledged. I guess the 3RR rule is either arbitrary, or doesn't matter, or no one cares. I don't believe I have a WP:POINT to make, other than that the WP:3RR rule doesn't mean squat if it's impossible to get it enforced. In the meantime I'm going to keep on reverting (though I expect I'll do so slowly, as all the reverting is such a waste a time) and I will probably deserve a 3RR block as well. Someone, please let me know when the 3RR rule will continue to be enforced, so I will know when to stop breaking it. Thanks Reswobslc 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a rant. You don't provide any information about the conflict itself or where it is. --mboverload@ 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is Temple (Mormonism)--66.143.167.203 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed a rant. It's probably a silly one at that, and definitely a hasty one, because I normally take the time to provide good links. The contributor I'm complaining about is seemly also doing good article edits elsewhere, and a block is now belated and possibly counterproductive. I needed to get some frustration out, and this was a non-destructive way to do it. All the information about "where the conflict is" is on the 3RR notice board (diff after diff and then I stopped posting additional diffs since nobody's listening anyway... section here. I haven't been blocked for 3RR either yet, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Reswobslc 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You yourself say "The contributor I'm complaining about is seemly also doing good article edits elsewhere"; so maybe just maybe it is not that no one cares but that those who care believe you are both good wikipedians who will wise up without outside help to better uses of your time than reverting each other. WAS 4.250 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are edit warring because you feel emotional about the subject, the best thing is to leave the article for a while and work on something else. Remember: Wikipedia needs you and there are many other articles to be started! (You could also try the random article button and improve whatever article comes first). Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unreferenced articles

I was hoping to get more comments about what to do about articles with the template {{unreferenced}}, since the category that it put articles into, Category:Articles lacking sources, has been deleted. This makes it very difficult to work on fixing unreferenced articles, since the only way to see which articles have the template is to click on "what links here". People tend to work on topics that they are interested or have knowledge in. Using what links here makes that difficult, especially since there are now 16,650 articles (1.28% of all articles) with the template. I suggest that the template put articles in a category again and that a project be started to work on articles without references. Failing that, I suggest that the template be removed from any article it is on by a robot, since without a category and an organized project, there is unlikely to be any significant work done on fixing unreferenced articles, let alone keeping the number of articles it is on from getting higher. Please give your opinion here. Thanks, Kjkolb 06:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems an odd deletion indeed, since the Whatlinkshere feature doesn't allow alphabetical browsing of the category. This should probably go to DRV. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Consensus for deletion was not clear since in the CfD discussion there were equally good arguments for keeping the category. I just started the DRV process on this. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 14. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please look at my revert job on Horseshoes

I happened to notice a couple of nonsense vandalism edits of the Horseshoes article. Being bold, I decided to try to revert it myself. Could someone please check to make sure I did it correctly. I added the {{subst:test-n|PageName}} template to the two users' Talk pages, User_talk:Cucci04 and User_talk:Mapleleafedge. Was there anything else I should have done? Thanks. JanesDaddy 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything looks good. You can do it yourself by comparing your version and the version you attempted to revert to by selecting the two version and clicking the "Compare selected versions" button on the history page. -- Natalya 23:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Possible problem with User:MarshBot

See diff].

Haven't looked into its contribs to see if this happened elsewhere, but I can't block it anyway (I'm not an admin). --SB_Johnny | talk 00:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I found a couple more like that in just the first page of contributions, so I've blocked it and left User:W.marsh a note. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --SB_Johnny | talk 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be taken care of now, and I've manually fixed all the edits (I think). I got stuck behind an autoblock or I'd have responded here sooner... --W.marsh 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Vandal army" wiki

Regarding this: editthis.info/the_alternative_universe, linked from the user page of User:VandalKiller666: is this a Wikipedia vandal recruiting site set up by the "Bobby Boulders" vandal? It might be worthwhile contacting the whois contact for editthis.info, who appears to be Rob Kohr of http://www.robkohr.com/

Note: Searching for "ISV vandalism" finds the following: http://www.solvalou.com/messages_view.php?mid=1118, User_talk:Bobby_the_Godbuilder, User_talk:Gorgeous_George, and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:207.200.116.6 : see here for the diff. Unsurprisingly, the editor who made that edit came from an AOL proxy. -- The Anome 00:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

editthis.info is registered to Robert Kohr. Yanksox 01:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
"editthis.info/the_alternative_universe" added to spam blacklist. Naconkantari 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Profanity and Offensive Remarks by Teknosoul02

In response to a factual statement: "Rutgers is a virtually unknown school to people living in California, and probably has a similar reputation to UCR - this is consistent with the similar peer assessment score"

Teknosoul wrote: Lisren dips*it, you don't know what you're talking about. DON'T YOU EVER INSULT MY ALMA MATER. THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR, A$$HOLE. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Riverside&diff=69715747&oldid=69715486

..."you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Riverside&diff=69716249&oldid=69715862

..."And i don't give a s*it if you think Rutgers sucks b/c it's ranking is "low" in the US News Rankings"...and he goes n to insult US News and World Report as "fradulent" because his alma mater was not ranked high. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Riverside&diff=69720613&oldid=69716758

I personally found his remarks very offensive. While Teknosoul02 has repeatedly made uncivil and inappropriate comments in the past, I think he has gone too far this time. Thank you for your attention. UCRGrad 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I found UCRGrad's statement to be remarkably offensive as it does nothing but disparage my alma mater. However, in the interest of civility, I have deleted those remarks. I said those out of complete anger and emotion. I was completely out of control and I apologize for using such profane statements. However, I also ask UCRGrad to apologize for insulting Rutgers. I worked hard to get a good education there and he has no right to denigrate a school that helped me to achieve my goals in life. Thank you. Teknosoul02 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not the first time Teknosoul02 has violated WP policies and insulted and disparaged his editor peers. His remarks were obscene beyond what I believe can be repaired with a mere apology, especially one that is conditional (that I apologize for making a true statement). UCRGrad 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You KNOW you did not make a true statement. All you did was make swipes towards Rutgers, that's all you did. However, b/c I admit that my temper got the better of me, I have deleted those offensive remarks (to the best of my knowledge). Teknosoul02 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've given warnings to both of these people on their talk pages. Hopefully, they'll now stop it. On initial viewing, neither has been completely "clean". Apologies on both sides would go a long way towards improving my patience, but at the very least I'd like to see this behaviour discontinue. Metamagician3000 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Metmagician3000, if you don't mind me asking, what exactly have I done that you object to? I've re-read the talk page and I could not find any profanity or obscenities on my part. thanks UCRGrad 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll reply on your talk page. However, the main thing is that the "discussion" between the two of you has stopped for now. I have no wish to have it continue here. Metamagician3000 08:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Linkspam

All of Jedistud's edits consist of adding links to www.achieve360points.com to Xbox game articles. I've cleaned up the August 5 ones that weren't already done, but there is a whole slew of August 15 ones. Any auto-reverting admin make sure to check for ones that have had edits since (I've seen links left behind, in that situation).--Drat (Talk) 11:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Given him a {{spam4}} warning. ViridaeTalk 11:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've gone through and dealt with all the articles where there are subsequent edits and the link was not removed. If an admin could auto-revert the rest while the iron is still hot, it'd be handy.--Drat (Talk) 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2nd Bundesliga article

Can an administrator deal with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Fußball-Bundesliga 2006/07? It's been up a few days now and it's really annoying seeing the notice on the main page. Kingjeff 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

By "main page" do you mean Main Page? Because looking at Special:Whatlinkshere it doesn't seem to be linked from there. It certainly could be speedy closed without contest as it's a 'technical nomination' and no-one is arguing for deletion, I'm just wondering what the reason is. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I've closed it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the main article page. Kingjeff 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Admin Barnstar

Discussion at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-15 21:41Z

The da Vinci Barnstar
{{{1}}}



The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work (programming and tools, bot building, admin or sysop work, link repair, Mediawiki developers, etc.)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard vs. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Is there a good reason to have both Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. They both seem to have the same types of notices. Nobody really seems to be able to figure out which one to use. --John Nagle 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideally AN would be used for (relatively infrequent) messages we really truly wanted "all" (for some value of "all") admins to see, and AN/I would be for the kind of stuff that currently appears there (and here): active crises or issues in need of attention. The only thing that would actually make that happen would be for someone to aggressively start moving messages around, probably. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
AN generally is quieter (most of the time). Thatcher131 (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I figured AN was for things you wanted to notify admins of, like when I blocked an IP for 24 months. ANI is for people to notify admins of *that need action*, rather than simply "this is a heads up". --Golbez 04:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's how it works. -- Drini 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
And Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard is for threads like these. ~ PseudoSudo 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page are rather confusing. Also the template at the top comes out a bit garbled on IE6 and low res screen. "Admin" is far right and "Noticeboards" is on the left on the line below, but the word "abuse" appears in front of "Noticeboards" on the same line. Tyrenius 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:EGG

What do you think?--EggplantWP:EGG 18:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that's a redlink--64.12.116.200 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the deletion log, Wikipedia:Eggplant was deleted by Zoe as nonsense. --TeaDrinker 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Incorrect APA Citation

On the citation page for articles, the APA format is incorrect. There should be no period after the URL. The period is only there for non electronic sources, so as to not confuse the period as part of the URL. 69.87.155.91 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but for further reference, you should only post messages here that require administrative intervention. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Turns out it does, according to SoccerCore11. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the message left on my talk page:
I sent this in as a bug, but I was told right away that it was not a bug, rather I should talk to an admin about getting it fixed. robchur@gmail.com forwarded me the link to the admin board, where I reposted it. If you would like to see the bug post, check http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7024
I guess this is a bug that needs administrative attention. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob accidentally put MediaWiki:Cite-text rather than MediaWiki:Cite_text on the bugzilla page, of which the latter is the actual pagename. I put an {{editprotected}} request on that talk page too.. Kevin_b_er 04:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Suspicious user

Quill E. Coyote (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) signed up 5 days ago and has made 20 edits so far but is already quoting WP policy, participating in RfAs and AfDs and using wikipedia lingo like "wikify". Seems very suspicious to me. Could have been an anon user who just signed up after a while editing under an IP but I am not sure. ViridaeTalk 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The user has made a couple of comments (and an Oppose vote) on my RfA, apparently connecting me to some conspiracy with User:Isopropyl to violate the 3RR (as though I can monitor all edits at once). The user's edits to the Slashdot article and fishy quoting of policy have me concerned. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a small chance this is just an experienced anon who finally decided to login? Anyway, I wish the toolserver was replicating enwiki, so someone could run a query to show which users have edited most of the same pages. --Interiot 04:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Experienced, yes, but not in a very positive way. Consider what the user was doing to the Slashdot article. He/she was repeatedly removing something referring to the reason behind the site's name, saying that the only source for that information was the site itself, so it failed WP:OR and WP:RS. Considering that the creators of the website are probably the best and only authority on the website's name, it sounds like complete rubbish. Add in the strange reasoning behind his opposition in my RfA (I am applying for administrator and therefore I must know and deal with everything that's happening on the Wikipedia at all times), and you have pretty good reason for suspicion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
And I'm not bitter about the oppose; my e-esteem is doing just fine. I just dislike this uncivil conduct and apparent attempts at provocation. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Reminds me of an editor that was blocked around the time this user started editing. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-16 06:17Z

Sigh, Quill E. Coyote is now repeatedly unstriking a Support vote in my RfA that was added by a banned user (sockpuppet). This banned user seems to have used said support vote in order to illicit my help in a dispute they were having. Coyote also added a test template to my userpage because of my restriking of that support vote. Can someone external please deal with this person? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Quill E. Coyote for 24 hours for a personal attack for the time being. Tyrenius 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Admin needed for speedy keep

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic management topics --Nexus Seven 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In actuality, I think that article can be speedy deleted. I'm tempted to do it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Even though I don't fully agree with the speedy keep guideline (especially the first point), it does serve to illustrate some cases where a speedy keep is appropriate. I don't think this AfD necessarily qualifies for a speedy keep. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: User IP 61.68.101.25

I am a member of the RCP who has been reverting edits by this IP. They have vandalised 2 articles, Laminate and Trachea, adding some extremely rude & offensive stuff to the pages, please see the edit history on Laminate for an example. I have skipped the test templates, since this user is obviously blatantly vandalising, not testing, and have gone straight to the {{blatantvandal}} template on the user's talk page. Could the admins please keep an eye on this one, since its on my watchlist, but I am not always on. Thanks Thor Malmjursson 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional info: - Please add the ip 220.239.93.166 to this as well, they are vandalising same articles as the previous IP. Thor Malmjursson 10:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of stuff that you would want to post on WP:AIV, I'm keeping an eye on these users, though. You can always skip test1 and dip to test2 or test3 if it's severe. I'm looking through their vandalism, and it's pretty average stuff (stupid vandalism). I'm going to warn them and block if they continue. Yanksox 11:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:SOCK violation?

User:Dwain has been actively editing from 2 accounts: User:Dwain [35] & User:Pitchka [36]. User:Pitchka redirects to User:Dwain and you can see his reasoning for using 2 accounts here, but I don't think his reason meets the definition for acceptable use of 2 accounts under WP:SOCK. I didn't take this to SOCK reporting because the user is not engaging in any abusive use of these 2 counts, but it should probably be suggested to him that he pick one account and edit from that one, while the other is locked. He could use the userpage of whichever account is active to link back to the history of the other account if he wants "credit" for his earlier work. I'd suggest this to him myself, but as can be seen from the AfD link above (as well as the message left here earlier by User:Bschott, it is reasonable to assume that my suggestion would not be welcomed coming from me...--Isotope23 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK has indeed been recently changed (I think mainly from a blacklist of disallowed uses to a whitelist of allowed uses). (Also, I personally disagree with the change on the basis that listing all the legit uses is impossible.) Dwain doesn't say any reason why he is still editing from his old account, though, I'd keep suggesting he use one account. —AySz88\^-^ 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"pitchka" is an offensive term for "vagina" in Slavic languages. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-16 17:06Z


[edit] Eteled

The very first edit of Eteled (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) was to nominate an AFD discussion page for deletion. Further edits have included vandalizing userboxes, nominating Te Atairangikaahu for deletion the day that she died, and random vandalism. There does not appear to be a single useful edit in the contributions history. The username is, of course, "delete" spelled backwards. I suspect that this account was created to make a point of some kind, rather than to make any actual contributions to the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AFD templates

There's been discussion on the AFD talk page about reducing the size of closed discussions on the daily log page by removing the discussion section and just leaving a summary of the result. The suggestion met with a fairly negative reaction due to the fact that it was seen as more work for the admins in an already tedious process. I've had a play around with the template and think I've got a solution that would mostly involve less work while achieving the desired effect. I wondered if any regular AFD closers would take a look and give their opinion on these possible replacements to the AFD top and bottom templates. The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#voodoo. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

This arbitration case is closed. The full decision is at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I might be dense... (UFO Article)

There is a dispute going on over at Talk:UFO about a proposed move. I'm beginning to think the move request was in bad faith. Could someone review whats going on and tell me if A. I'm right or B. I'm an idiot.?

The user basically wants to move UFO to Alien Spacecraft because they believe the UFO article only deals with Alien Spacecraft. The fact that Aliens are not even mentioned for the first quarter of the page hasn't deterred this user one bit. :( ---J.S (t|c) 22:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are 6 votes for "delete" Vs. nil. There's nothing to worry about. Don't forget to assume good faith. Good luck. -- Szvest 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Ugg... looks like he slapped the rewrite tag on the page and is demanding all mentions of aliens be removed from the page. ---J.S (t|c) 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sockpuppet vandal

Brandnewuser (talk • contribs) is making changes to signatures on an enormous number of talk pages: [for example]. Apparently a puppet of "wonderfool", whom I am not familiar with. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Brandnewuser#Editing sigs?. Thanks for bringing that to light, whatever it is. Luna Santin 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, lemme know if you figure out whatever it is :) (I didn't want to ask on the talk, as it looks like a wikistalker, and I don't need one of those). --SB_Johnny | talk 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

We need more eyes and comments at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Transwiki problems...

Wasn't sure where to ask this, so I asked it here. I won't go into the whole thing again, but I need admin help to get the contrib histories from a few now-deleted articles so I can copy it over to wikibooks. SB_Johnny | talk 02:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Benzmit - false picture info

This user has added dozens of pictures with seemingly false licence/copyright info - he seems to claim that all is his work when it clearly isn't - is there some bot or suchlike that can sweep and delete his multiple entries - I ahve removed some manually but it takes ages Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FYI, Closed AFDs

I misread the section on non-administrators closing AFD discussions and marked a few discussions as closed with a "DELETE" result, I see now that non-admins are only supposed to do that for "KEEP" or "RENAME" outcomes, sorry about that. I'll avoid doing it in the future. RainbowCrane 07:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've reviewed the delete-closed AfDs and have deleted the relevant articles. Please continue to help with the obvious keeps; we appreciate it. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of guitars

Admins with more knowledge and time than I have at the moment may be interested to have a look at ESP Guitars and go through the list of guitar models in the article. Most of the articles linked (50+) are one-line substubs with an infobox. My guess is that most of those should be outright deleted, but if there are some truly notable models then these could be merged in a single article. Regards -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • What administrative actions are required here? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is an admin issue (at best, it is a mass prod or AfD which anyone can initiate) but I have left a message for the user inviting him to participate in WikiProject Guitarists so we can open a dialog with him about notability for guitar articles. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The thing is I saw some of the models the other day tagged as CSDs. Since I don't have much knowledge of the guitar world I thought I would give interested admins a heads up. Sorry for not explaining myself better. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] question about new media wiki block software

Is it possible to block account creation from an AOL range, but still allow IP edits? Everytime an AOL creates a stupid name just to bait a username block, it winds up creating collateral damage for AOL IPs, rather than the other way around. can this be avoided?--152.163.100.200 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • On a side note, the current un-official policy of "If someone using AOL complains about an autoblock, they must be a vandal and should be blocked" could use some work as well--152.163.100.200 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    An example of this? I've unblocked 1000's of AOL autoblocks --pgk(talk) 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would think the point is that if there were a way to disable autoblocks, then you wouldn't need to unblock 1000's of AOL autoblocks in the first place--172.129.113.165 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Erm I'm not sure how you get from that question about some "un-official policy", to it being a point about not having to unblock autoblocks. Autoblocks serve a useful purpose, since unfortunately there are a few idiots in this world who seek merely to make an annoyance of themselves. --pgk(talk) 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • On a similar, yet 100% unrelated note, is the autoblock feature, now used in dozens of templates, such as {{Userblocked}}, capable of handling this many frequent hits without using up server resources? I notice that it's been lagging a lot lately, probably from severe over use--172.129.113.165 23:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The lagging is due to the hundreds of thousands of people acessing the site right now. No particular page should be hit worse than that others to my knowledge with the current implementation. Sasquatch t|c 03:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well according to the stats I have it is barely in the top 50 of page hits on the toolserver for August and has transferred around 25mb of data, that's pretty trivial. I can't imagine that the page is that popular as if only has an appeal to a narrow audience when compared to something like the edit counter. Regarding lag, it isn't (and by the looks currently never will be) totally up to date, it should generally be within 5 minutes. --pgk(talk) 06:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Immortal Black Metal band.

Someone has decided to temper and include certain facts and Jokes about the band on thier page, calling them satanist, ect.

I imagine you mean Immortal (band)? Yes, that spoof photo that makes them look like constipated badgers is really a terrible joke. I'm shocked, shocked. Middenface 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I reverted today's edit saying that the drummer would be replaced by a goat. If there's anything else that isn't true, feel free to remove it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Creator of a speedy delete canadate removed tag

User:Funsand, created a page with the same name as his username. Another wikipedian added a speedy delete template and he removed it when told not to. "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.". I readded it, and he deleted it agian. -- Selmo 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Friday whacked it already. :) Syrthiss 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Avoid personal remarks, eh? Oooooh, nevermind *blush* Friday (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You did that and still had time to delete the page? Syrthiss 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
For general info in the future: {{drmspeedy}}. --Kevin_b_er 04:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Multiple user accounts

I came across these when doing CFD: Acacix (talk • contribs) and Acaciz (talk • contribs)

They have virtually identical userpages. Looking at the contribs, it seems that one account was only used in March. Any ideas on what to do with them? --Kbdank71 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They haven't done anything wrong - they appear to simply be harmless sockpuppets. Unless the user is using the sockpuppet abusively, there's no real reason to do anything. They seem to have been inactive for a few months anyway. Cowman109Talk 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I figured as much, just wanted to make sure. Thanks. --Kbdank71 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Public Tendering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_Tendering Request for deletion review. The tally does not appear to be a consensus. Votes changed and the majority seems to be a tie if the comments are read carefully. A merger was also suggested as a way of avoiding censorship of interesting and important information.--Wiki The Humble Woo 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be one of those admins who says snarky things, but WP:DRV is that a way. Syrthiss 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Renaming of RfD

Redirects for Deletion has recently been renamed Redirects for Discussion, apparently in keeping with the same change being made to CfD. Unfortunately, that doesn't make sense. Since category moves and renames are nominated on CfD the broader "Discussion" is appropriate. This is not the case with RfD. Anything aside from a deletion can and should be discussed on the redirect's talk page and/or enacted by a suitably bold editor. RfD only concerns whether or not a redirect should be deleted, regardless of what happens to the redirect afterwards. This new name could potentially gum up RfD with fuzzy redirect "discussions" that belong on talk pages. I have brought this up on the RfD talk page, the Village Pump, and the talk page of the admin who made the change, and have heard no reason it should stay. Seeking an admin to change it back. --Nscheffey(T/C) 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Mind you, part of the motivation for these name-changes seems to be a continued attempt to get away from the idea that XfD is a deletion vote – as happened when VfD became AfD – because of the whole "voting is evil" thing. However, the truth (at least for now) is that all of these pages continue to be, essentially, votes of some kind; usually for deletion, though as you correctly pointed out, CfD caters for a broader range of things. Anyway, my point is that I don't think the name change will actually affect the way the page is used, at least not significantly. People will most likely continue to use it as they did under the old name – Gurch 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Double jeopardy? (Note: as of now the issues below are resolved)

Despite his having been blocked yesterday relative to a report filed against me Deuterium (talk • contribs) has again filed the same twice reviewed report with hopes that an inexperienced administrator will block me. Would someone take action against this editor's bad faith demonstrations? Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • He has been warned by several admins. Note as per Blocking policy, blocking is not meant to be punative but preventative.--Arktos talk 02:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • His display of this report on his user page is just a furtherance of his POINT violation. Even his report is false, "but they all amount to inserting OR tags or commenting out a widely accepted section". The section in question is not widely accepted. (→Netscott) 02:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • He actually toned down his claim of "Consensus". Total nonsense. (→Netscott) 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been resolved. (→Netscott) 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bliss ninny

Can somebody help me? I deleted this article as nonsense, but then I found out that only the last edit was vandalistic nonsense. I undeleted all of the previous versions, but the article says there is no history. What did I do wrong? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Never mind, it was a cache issue. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Zmanm407

I'm concerned about Zmanm407 (talk • contribs). A quick look at his talk page, I think, makes it clear the cause of my worry. Despite several editors attempting to talk to him about his image use, he seems to have made only minor corrections to his modus operandi and OrphanBot continues to notify him about images he's uploaded. He also has not written one word to another editor that I can tell, be it on his talk page, our talk pages, or article/image talk pages. Not even a single edit summary, as far as I can see.

It's not that I want to see him blocked or anything. It'd just be nice if he acknowledged the presence of other editors beyond token attempts to modify his behavior, and started actually following procedure for fair-use images (that is, providing a fair use rationale so OrphanBot stops bugging him).

Any ideas how we can get through to him? Powers T 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Email? ForestH2 t/c


[edit] Zeq banned from Wikipedia for one week

Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Enacted (6-0) at 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copyvio - to history or not to history

I have now read in one place that we leave copyvio history in place unless the copyright holder requests that we remove it, and in another place that I should delete the article and restore the non-copyvio history. Which is correct? --Aguerriero (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The latter. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
confirmed copyvios should always be removed. Although I guess an article with 5000 revisions... makes not easy to remove it ;) -- Drini 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Personal attack

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stockholm#Stockholm_is_not_the_biggest_in_Nordic and on my talk page with fake accusing.

This (User:Magore) seems to have a very immature way to discuss on. The user has also fake accused me, on my talk page. --Comanche cph 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Since I seem to engage in personal attacks, I would like to add a couple of comments, along with a few questions. First of all, I have not called this user a 14-year old. I pointed out that discussing things with him is a bit like arguing with a 14-year old, since he refuses to accept that we build Wikipedia on a foundation of facts, and not personal views, opinions or assumptions. (Arguments presented by me and other editors, along with undisputable facts was obviously not good enough, as they conflicted with this users view on things.) I also asked this user to refrain from editing certain pages if he couldn't bring himself to understand or accept why we don't put opinions before facts. (That is what all this is about, essentially.) Now, I have a couple of questions. What fake accusations are we talking about here? What fake charges or accusations have I brought up? /M.O (u) (t) 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a really silly argument. If your that mad Magore, you can take it to arbitration but really it seems as though Magore has a point. No, he doesn't have a very immature way to talk on and I agree with Magore; if you haven't settled a dispute you need to stop editing the pages. Both of you, I should say. Let other editors take care of it. I'm going to post this on both of your talkpages. ForestH2 t/c 03:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Coordinated Vandalism at Rutgers University

A series of editors have been targetting the alma mater section of the Rutgers University article (now protected), violating the three revert rule, altering information that is cited with information that is uncited and unverifiable, and interrupting wikipedia to make a point (albeit a feminist/political correctness agenda). The edit history at Rutgers University shows that the page has altered the official, cited lyrics of the alma mater, to those inserting words that are not official, as shown by citation, and practically every other site on the web discussing the lyrics of the alma mater... and while not vulgar, these parenthetical insertions are annoying and disingenuously perpetuating an inaccuracy.

The following individual users have been warned repeatedly of their conduct and have continued over the past few days in this conduct with blatant disregard for warnings or referring them to Wikipedia policies governing their conduct. Blocking their accounts from editing, along with their IPs, may be the only recourse to prevent such defiant insubordination.

I further suspect that these individual user accounts may be a coordinated sockpuppet effort, and request a CheckUser to be conducted on their accounts. ExplorerCDT 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to file the request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are instructions on how to do it on that page. -- Vary | Talk 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I am moving this to RFCU.Voice-of-All 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard vs. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Is there a good reason to have both Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. They both seem to have the same types of notices. Nobody really seems to be able to figure out which one to use. --John Nagle 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideally AN would be used for (relatively infrequent) messages we really truly wanted "all" (for some value of "all") admins to see, and AN/I would be for the kind of stuff that currently appears there (and here): active crises or issues in need of attention. The only thing that would actually make that happen would be for someone to aggressively start moving messages around, probably. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
AN generally is quieter (most of the time). Thatcher131 (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I figured AN was for things you wanted to notify admins of, like when I blocked an IP for 24 months. ANI is for people to notify admins of *that need action*, rather than simply "this is a heads up". --Golbez 04:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's how it works. -- Drini 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
And Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard is for threads like these. ~ PseudoSudo 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page are rather confusing. Also the template at the top comes out a bit garbled on IE6 and low res screen. "Admin" is far right and "Noticeboards" is on the left on the line below, but the word "abuse" appears in front of "Noticeboards" on the same line. Tyrenius 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:EGG

What do you think?--EggplantWP:EGG 18:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that's a redlink--64.12.116.200 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the deletion log, Wikipedia:Eggplant was deleted by Zoe as nonsense. --TeaDrinker 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Incorrect APA Citation

On the citation page for articles, the APA format is incorrect. There should be no period after the URL. The period is only there for non electronic sources, so as to not confuse the period as part of the URL. 69.87.155.91 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but for further reference, you should only post messages here that require administrative intervention. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Turns out it does, according to SoccerCore11. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the message left on my talk page:
I sent this in as a bug, but I was told right away that it was not a bug, rather I should talk to an admin about getting it fixed. robchur@gmail.com forwarded me the link to the admin board, where I reposted it. If you would like to see the bug post, check http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7024
I guess this is a bug that needs administrative attention. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob accidentally put MediaWiki:Cite-text rather than MediaWiki:Cite_text on the bugzilla page, of which the latter is the actual pagename. I put an {{editprotected}} request on that talk page too.. Kevin_b_er 04:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Suspicious user

Quill E. Coyote (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) signed up 5 days ago and has made 20 edits so far but is already quoting WP policy, participating in RfAs and AfDs and using wikipedia lingo like "wikify". Seems very suspicious to me. Could have been an anon user who just signed up after a while editing under an IP but I am not sure. ViridaeTalk 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The user has made a couple of comments (and an Oppose vote) on my RfA, apparently connecting me to some conspiracy with User:Isopropyl to violate the 3RR (as though I can monitor all edits at once). The user's edits to the Slashdot article and fishy quoting of policy have me concerned. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a small chance this is just an experienced anon who finally decided to login? Anyway, I wish the toolserver was replicating enwiki, so someone could run a query to show which users have edited most of the same pages. --Interiot 04:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Experienced, yes, but not in a very positive way. Consider what the user was doing to the Slashdot article. He/she was repeatedly removing something referring to the reason behind the site's name, saying that the only source for that information was the site itself, so it failed WP:OR and WP:RS. Considering that the creators of the website are probably the best and only authority on the website's name, it sounds like complete rubbish. Add in the strange reasoning behind his opposition in my RfA (I am applying for administrator and therefore I must know and deal with everything that's happening on the Wikipedia at all times), and you have pretty good reason for suspicion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
And I'm not bitter about the oppose; my e-esteem is doing just fine. I just dislike this uncivil conduct and apparent attempts at provocation. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Reminds me of an editor that was blocked around the time this user started editing. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-16 06:17Z

Sigh, Quill E. Coyote is now repeatedly unstriking a Support vote in my RfA that was added by a banned user (sockpuppet). This banned user seems to have used said support vote in order to illicit my help in a dispute they were having. Coyote also added a test template to my userpage because of my restriking of that support vote. Can someone external please deal with this person? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Quill E. Coyote for 24 hours for a personal attack for the time being. Tyrenius 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Admin needed for speedy keep

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic management topics --Nexus Seven 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In actuality, I think that article can be speedy deleted. I'm tempted to do it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Even though I don't fully agree with the speedy keep guideline (especially the first point), it does serve to illustrate some cases where a speedy keep is appropriate. I don't think this AfD necessarily qualifies for a speedy keep. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: User IP 61.68.101.25

I am a member of the RCP who has been reverting edits by this IP. They have vandalised 2 articles, Laminate and Trachea, adding some extremely rude & offensive stuff to the pages, please see the edit history on Laminate for an example. I have skipped the test templates, since this user is obviously blatantly vandalising, not testing, and have gone straight to the {{blatantvandal}} template on the user's talk page. Could the admins please keep an eye on this one, since its on my watchlist, but I am not always on. Thanks Thor Malmjursson 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional info: - Please add the ip 220.239.93.166 to this as well, they are vandalising same articles as the previous IP. Thor Malmjursson 10:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of stuff that you would want to post on WP:AIV, I'm keeping an eye on these users, though. You can always skip test1 and dip to test2 or test3 if it's severe. I'm looking through their vandalism, and it's pretty average stuff (stupid vandalism). I'm going to warn them and block if they continue. Yanksox 11:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:SOCK violation?

User:Dwain has been actively editing from 2 accounts: User:Dwain [37] & User:Pitchka [38]. User:Pitchka redirects to User:Dwain and you can see his reasoning for using 2 accounts here, but I don't think his reason meets the definition for acceptable use of 2 accounts under WP:SOCK. I didn't take this to SOCK reporting because the user is not engaging in any abusive use of these 2 counts, but it should probably be suggested to him that he pick one account and edit from that one, while the other is locked. He could use the userpage of whichever account is active to link back to the history of the other account if he wants "credit" for his earlier work. I'd suggest this to him myself, but as can be seen from the AfD link above (as well as the message left here earlier by User:Bschott, it is reasonable to assume that my suggestion would not be welcomed coming from me...--Isotope23 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK has indeed been recently changed (I think mainly from a blacklist of disallowed uses to a whitelist of allowed uses). (Also, I personally disagree with the change on the basis that listing all the legit uses is impossible.) Dwain doesn't say any reason why he is still editing from his old account, though, I'd keep suggesting he use one account. —AySz88\^-^ 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"pitchka" is an offensive term for "vagina" in Slavic languages. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-16 17:06Z


[edit] Eteled

The very first edit of Eteled (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) was to nominate an AFD discussion page for deletion. Further edits have included vandalizing userboxes, nominating Te Atairangikaahu for deletion the day that she died, and random vandalism. There does not appear to be a single useful edit in the contributions history. The username is, of course, "delete" spelled backwards. I suspect that this account was created to make a point of some kind, rather than to make any actual contributions to the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AFD templates

There's been discussion on the AFD talk page about reducing the size of closed discussions on the daily log page by removing the discussion section and just leaving a summary of the result. The suggestion met with a fairly negative reaction due to the fact that it was seen as more work for the admins in an already tedious process. I've had a play around with the template and think I've got a solution that would mostly involve less work while achieving the desired effect. I wondered if any regular AFD closers would take a look and give their opinion on these possible replacements to the AFD top and bottom templates. The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#voodoo. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

This arbitration case is closed. The full decision is at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I might be dense... (UFO Article)

There is a dispute going on over at Talk:UFO about a proposed move. I'm beginning to think the move request was in bad faith. Could someone review whats going on and tell me if A. I'm right or B. I'm an idiot.?

The user basically wants to move UFO to Alien Spacecraft because they believe the UFO article only deals with Alien Spacecraft. The fact that Aliens are not even mentioned for the first quarter of the page hasn't deterred this user one bit. :( ---J.S (t|c) 22:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are 6 votes for "delete" Vs. nil. There's nothing to worry about. Don't forget to assume good faith. Good luck. -- Szvest 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Ugg... looks like he slapped the rewrite tag on the page and is demanding all mentions of aliens be removed from the page. ---J.S (t|c) 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sockpuppet vandal

Brandnewuser (talk • contribs) is making changes to signatures on an enormous number of talk pages: [for example]. Apparently a puppet of "wonderfool", whom I am not familiar with. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Brandnewuser#Editing sigs?. Thanks for bringing that to light, whatever it is. Luna Santin 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, lemme know if you figure out whatever it is :) (I didn't want to ask on the talk, as it looks like a wikistalker, and I don't need one of those). --SB_Johnny | talk 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

We need more eyes and comments at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Transwiki problems...

Wasn't sure where to ask this, so I asked it here. I won't go into the whole thing again, but I need admin help to get the contrib histories from a few now-deleted articles so I can copy it over to wikibooks. SB_Johnny | talk 02:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Benzmit - false picture info

This user has added dozens of pictures with seemingly false licence/copyright info - he seems to claim that all is his work when it clearly isn't - is there some bot or suchlike that can sweep and delete his multiple entries - I ahve removed some manually but it takes ages Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FYI, Closed AFDs

I misread the section on non-administrators closing AFD discussions and marked a few discussions as closed with a "DELETE" result, I see now that non-admins are only supposed to do that for "KEEP" or "RENAME" outcomes, sorry about that. I'll avoid doing it in the future. RainbowCrane 07:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've reviewed the delete-closed AfDs and have deleted the relevant articles. Please continue to help with the obvious keeps; we appreciate it. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of guitars

Admins with more knowledge and time than I have at the moment may be interested to have a look at ESP Guitars and go through the list of guitar models in the article. Most of the articles linked (50+) are one-line substubs with an infobox. My guess is that most of those should be outright deleted, but if there are some truly notable models then these could be merged in a single article. Regards -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • What administrative actions are required here? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is an admin issue (at best, it is a mass prod or AfD which anyone can initiate) but I have left a message for the user inviting him to participate in WikiProject Guitarists so we can open a dialog with him about notability for guitar articles. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The thing is I saw some of the models the other day tagged as CSDs. Since I don't have much knowledge of the guitar world I thought I would give interested admins a heads up. Sorry for not explaining myself better. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] question about new media wiki block software

Is it possible to block account creation from an AOL range, but still allow IP edits? Everytime an AOL creates a stupid name just to bait a username block, it winds up creating collateral damage for AOL IPs, rather than the other way around. can this be avoided?--152.163.100.200 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • On a side note, the current un-official policy of "If someone using AOL complains about an autoblock, they must be a vandal and should be blocked" could use some work as well--152.163.100.200 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    An example of this? I've unblocked 1000's of AOL autoblocks --pgk(talk) 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would think the point is that if there were a way to disable autoblocks, then you wouldn't need to unblock 1000's of AOL autoblocks in the first place--172.129.113.165 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Erm I'm not sure how you get from that question about some "un-official policy", to it being a point about not having to unblock autoblocks. Autoblocks serve a useful purpose, since unfortunately there are a few idiots in this world who seek merely to make an annoyance of themselves. --pgk(talk) 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • On a similar, yet 100% unrelated note, is the autoblock feature, now used in dozens of templates, such as {{Userblocked}}, capable of handling this many frequent hits without using up server resources? I notice that it's been lagging a lot lately, probably from severe over use--172.129.113.165 23:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The lagging is due to the hundreds of thousands of people acessing the site right now. No particular page should be hit worse than that others to my knowledge with the current implementation. Sasquatch t|c 03:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well according to the stats I have it is barely in the top 50 of page hits on the toolserver for August and has transferred around 25mb of data, that's pretty trivial. I can't imagine that the page is that popular as if only has an appeal to a narrow audience when compared to something like the edit counter. Regarding lag, it isn't (and by the looks currently never will be) totally up to date, it should generally be within 5 minutes. --pgk(talk) 06:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Immortal Black Metal band.

Someone has decided to temper and include certain facts and Jokes about the band on thier page, calling them satanist, ect.

I imagine you mean Immortal (band)? Yes, that spoof photo that makes them look like constipated badgers is really a terrible joke. I'm shocked, shocked. Middenface 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I reverted today's edit saying that the drummer would be replaced by a goat. If there's anything else that isn't true, feel free to remove it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Creator of a speedy delete canadate removed tag

User:Funsand, created a page with the same name as his username. Another wikipedian added a speedy delete template and he removed it when told not to. "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.". I readded it, and he deleted it agian. -- Selmo 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Friday whacked it already. :) Syrthiss 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Avoid personal remarks, eh? Oooooh, nevermind *blush* Friday (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You did that and still had time to delete the page? Syrthiss 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
For general info in the future: {{drmspeedy}}. --Kevin_b_er 04:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Multiple user accounts

I came across these when doing CFD: Acacix (talk • contribs) and Acaciz (talk • contribs)

They have virtually identical userpages. Looking at the contribs, it seems that one account was only used in March. Any ideas on what to do with them? --Kbdank71 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They haven't done anything wrong - they appear to simply be harmless sockpuppets. Unless the user is using the sockpuppet abusively, there's no real reason to do anything. They seem to have been inactive for a few months anyway. Cowman109Talk 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I figured as much, just wanted to make sure. Thanks. --Kbdank71 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Public Tendering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_Tendering Request for deletion review. The tally does not appear to be a consensus. Votes changed and the majority seems to be a tie if the comments are read carefully. A merger was also suggested as a way of avoiding censorship of interesting and important information.--Wiki The Humble Woo 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be one of those admins who says snarky things, but WP:DRV is that a way. Syrthiss 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Renaming of RfD

Redirects for Deletion has recently been renamed Redirects for Discussion, apparently in keeping with the same change being made to CfD. Unfortunately, that doesn't make sense. Since category moves and renames are nominated on CfD the broader "Discussion" is appropriate. This is not the case with RfD. Anything aside from a deletion can and should be discussed on the redirect's talk page and/or enacted by a suitably bold editor. RfD only concerns whether or not a redirect should be deleted, regardless of what happens to the redirect afterwards. This new name could potentially gum up RfD with fuzzy redirect "discussions" that belong on talk pages. I have brought this up on the RfD talk page, the Village Pump, and the talk page of the admin who made the change, and have heard no reason it should stay. Seeking an admin to change it back. --Nscheffey(T/C) 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Mind you, part of the motivation for these name-changes seems to be a continued attempt to get away from the idea that XfD is a deletion vote – as happened when VfD became AfD – because of the whole "voting is evil" thing. However, the truth (at least for now) is that all of these pages continue to be, essentially, votes of some kind; usually for deletion, though as you correctly pointed out, CfD caters for a broader range of things. Anyway, my point is that I don't think the name change will actually affect the way the page is used, at least not significantly. People will most likely continue to use it as they did under the old name – Gurch 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Double jeopardy? (Note: as of now the issues below are resolved)

Despite his having been blocked yesterday relative to a report filed against me Deuterium (talk • contribs) has again filed the same twice reviewed report with hopes that an inexperienced administrator will block me. Would someone take action against this editor's bad faith demonstrations? Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • He has been warned by several admins. Note as per Blocking policy, blocking is not meant to be punative but preventative.--Arktos talk 02:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • His display of this report on his user page is just a furtherance of his POINT violation. Even his report is false, "but they all amount to inserting OR tags or commenting out a widely accepted section". The section in question is not widely accepted. (→Netscott) 02:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • He actually toned down his claim of "Consensus". Total nonsense. (→Netscott) 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been resolved. (→Netscott) 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bliss ninny

Can somebody help me? I deleted this article as nonsense, but then I found out that only the last edit was vandalistic nonsense. I undeleted all of the previous versions, but the article says there is no history. What did I do wrong? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Never mind, it was a cache issue. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Zmanm407

I'm concerned about Zmanm407 (talk • contribs). A quick look at his talk page, I think, makes it clear the cause of my worry. Despite several editors attempting to talk to him about his image use, he seems to have made only minor corrections to his modus operandi and OrphanBot continues to notify him about images he's uploaded. He also has not written one word to another editor that I can tell, be it on his talk page, our talk pages, or article/image talk pages. Not even a single edit summary, as far as I can see.

It's not that I want to see him blocked or anything. It'd just be nice if he acknowledged the presence of other editors beyond token attempts to modify his behavior, and started actually following procedure for fair-use images (that is, providing a fair use rationale so OrphanBot stops bugging him).

Any ideas how we can get through to him? Powers T 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Email? ForestH2 t/c


[edit] Zeq banned from Wikipedia for one week

Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Enacted (6-0) at 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copyvio - to history or not to history

I have now read in one place that we leave copyvio history in place unless the copyright holder requests that we remove it, and in another place that I should delete the article and restore the non-copyvio history. Which is correct? --Aguerriero (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The latter. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
confirmed copyvios should always be removed. Although I guess an article with 5000 revisions... makes not easy to remove it ;) -- Drini 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Personal attack

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stockholm#Stockholm_is_not_the_biggest_in_Nordic and on my talk page with fake accusing.

This (User:Magore) seems to have a very immature way to discuss on. The user has also fake accused me, on my talk page. --Comanche cph 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Since I seem to engage in personal attacks, I would like to add a couple of comments, along with a few questions. First of all, I have not called this user a 14-year old. I pointed out that discussing things with him is a bit like arguing with a 14-year old, since he refuses to accept that we build Wikipedia on a foundation of facts, and not personal views, opinions or assumptions. (Arguments presented by me and other editors, along with undisputable facts was obviously not good enough, as they conflicted with this users view on things.) I also asked this user to refrain from editing certain pages if he couldn't bring himself to understand or accept why we don't put opinions before facts. (That is what all this is about, essentially.) Now, I have a couple of questions. What fake accusations are we talking about here? What fake charges or accusations have I brought up? /M.O (u) (t) 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a really silly argument. If your that mad Magore, you can take it to arbitration but really it seems as though Magore has a point. No, he doesn't have a very immature way to talk on and I agree with Magore; if you haven't settled a dispute you need to stop editing the pages. Both of you, I should say. Let other editors take care of it. I'm going to post this on both of your talkpages. ForestH2 t/c 03:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Coordinated Vandalism at Rutgers University

A series of editors have been targetting the alma mater section of the Rutgers University article (now protected), violating the three revert rule, altering information that is cited with information that is uncited and unverifiable, and interrupting wikipedia to make a point (albeit a feminist/political correctness agenda). The edit history at Rutgers University shows that the page has altered the official, cited lyrics of the alma mater, to those inserting words that are not official, as shown by citation, and practically every other site on the web discussing the lyrics of the alma mater... and while not vulgar, these parenthetical insertions are annoying and disingenuously perpetuating an inaccuracy.

The following individual users have been warned repeatedly of their conduct and have continued over the past few days in this conduct with blatant disregard for warnings or referring them to Wikipedia policies governing their conduct. Blocking their accounts from editing, along with their IPs, may be the only recourse to prevent such defiant insubordination.

I further suspect that these individual user accounts may be a coordinated sockpuppet effort, and request a CheckUser to be conducted on their accounts. ExplorerCDT 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to file the request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are instructions on how to do it on that page. -- Vary | Talk 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I am moving this to RFCU.Voice-of-All 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CenturyTel range block

I've blocked 72.160.0.0/16 in an attempt to slow Blu Aardvark down and perhaps give him an opportunity to go outside or something. The block should only affect anons and account creation. Having scanned the whole range, I don't think this is going to cause much if any collateral damage. The block is set for one week. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Clock Crew

  • There's been quite a bit of nonsense at Talk:Clock Crew lately, the talk page of a deleted article. Its mostly poorly written nonsense about bringing the article back, despite no new evidence or anything meeting WP's standards. Would it be appropriate to delete the talk page and protect it? Wickethewok 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, its on WP:DRV#Clock_Crew right now, with only endorses so far. Wickethewok 13:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's probably better on Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --TheM62Manchester 20:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk pages of deleted articles should be deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So, how come nobody did delete it? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    Technically talk pages are exempt if "they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere" (WP:CSD). So it depends if you consider "If there is a real contemporary art, that appeals to the young people and that is made by young people, the CLOCK CREW surely take part on it and are certainly worth of a great article and further study" to be "deletion discussion". --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 200.121.200.200

User 200.121.200.200 has been removing tags and thereby in essence vandalizing the following 2 pages: Wrestling Spirit, Extreme Warfare. In doing so, they've also violated 3RR. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/200.121.200.200 . Please take appropriate action. Thank you.JB196 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You've both violated 3RR, and good. It'd be nice if you two could stop the reverting, and come to some sort of agreement, please. Otherwise, you both may be blocked. Also, don't call edits made in good faith vandalism, because they're not. Let's just be nice, mmkay? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Other established users such as Yanksox and James Kemp seem to consider it vandalism judging by their past edit summaries on the pages.JB196 14:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This user continues to be belligerent in their edits to these two pages, disregarding points made on the talk page and continually removing tags even after compromises have been made. They claim that sources they are giving are valid and establish notability yet the sources they cite generally fall under the exceptions given in WP:SOFTWARE.JB196 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I left them a message telling them to stop revert warring, to discuss on talk pages, and also to see this discussion. Hopefully they open their eyes and come to some sort of agreement. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, Mr. Lefty. I just added a report a few moments ago to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism right before I saw that you had responded here.JB196 19:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Transwiki needed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constructionism and reductionism (wiki). I closed that debate as transwiki. I, unfortunately don't know how to transwiki articles. Could someone who is more knowledgeable in this regard do this? Thanks, ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a whole lot to it actually. Create an account (unless you already have one) at the Wiki where you are going to be sending the article. At the new Wiki, create an article called "Transwiki:Constructionism and reductionism (wiki)" without the quotes. Paste the Wikipedia article into the new article on the new Wiki. Then, go back to Wikipedia and copy the history of the article. Then go back to the new wiki, go to the talk page and then paste the history of the article in. Then just delete the article from Wikipedia. Simple as that. I'd do it but I think you should give it a whirl. :) It's easy. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm also new to this type of move. How do you copy and paste the history? Do you have to individually add each of the revisions to the other wiki? alphaChimp laudare 05:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it simply means copying the list of reversions and pasting them into the talk page of the new article, as has been done here. m:Transwiki should give you any more help you need. Raven4x4x 06:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand transwiki. Thanks Woohookitty. -goes to do it- ~ c. tales \\tk// 20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. I think I did it right.... m:transwiki:constructionism and reductionism (wiki) ~ c. tales \\tk// 20:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it showing up at the other end of that link User:Pedant 21:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
m:Transwiki:Constructionism and reductionism (wiki) (case sensitivity!). You did it right as far as I can see :) --james(talk) 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A serious problem with transwiki (illegal?)

I didn't know how to do that either, but actually I'm rather shocked that that's how it is done, since that is not GFDL compliant. The cut and paste history shows who has worked on the article, but it does not show who is responsible for which bit of text - any of the editors mentions could be the substantial writer (and thus copyright holder) of the text. I'd like some reassurance here that I'm missing something. --Doc 08:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that since all authors are credited it is not required to point out who did exactly what. However yes in terms of the GFDL our current transwiki process sucks.Geni 11:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What do we mean by credited. This method can't distinguish between the substantive creator, the guy who tags it, the pedant who fixes a comma, and the vandal who blanks it with some obsenity. No way does that comply with the GFDL's accreditation. I'm no proces wonk, but if we can't comply with the legal requirements, then all transwikis should be stopped immediately. --Doc 11:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Doc on this one. An ideal solution would be if the software allowed a page to be exported together with it's history from one wiki and imported to another. Now this however may pose attribution problems (missing/colliding usernames) unless the Grand Unified Login is implemented. Misza13 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately a lot are moved without pagehistory at all... I recently had to have WP admin open up a series of deleted files to copy the histories to the WB pages.
There is a tool available for moving things wholesale (currently enabled for Wikiversity, which is moveing things from wikibooks and meta), but for whatever reason not available for "plain old everyday transwikis". It a conversatin gets started somewhere, please let me know because it's been bothering me for months. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If an external body chooses to use wiki material, I understand they have to show GFDL licensing, but not the whole page history in the way it can be accessed on wikpedia, so in a transwiki process, couldn't/wouldn't the same conditions apply? Tyrenius 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but if the external user credits wikipedia - then the actually history can be found here. But with a transwiki, the actual history is deleted. --Doc 12:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not necessarily so... plenty of things get tw'd to wikia and other wikis, then deleted. I try to watch AfD for how-to material for wikibooks, but I might be the only one doing that, and don't always have time, so I suspect a lot of it ends up in non-foundation wikis rather than wikibooks. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be good to hear from a lawyer (never though I'd say that) --Doc 12:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Or just ask FSF? --SB_Johnny | talk 13:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Special:Import/Special:Export is the best way to do transwikis but a) you need to be a sysop on the destination wiki and b) I think it's disabled on most WMF wikis (it's enabled on the English Wiktionary and Wikiversity as far as I'm aware). I also think it was broken at one stage, not sure if that's still true. Either way, this does need a good looking in to. --james(talk) 13:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. The legal requirement is to list principal authors (at least 5) plus a list of previous versions (by title and author). There simply is no legal requirement to explain what different people contributed to the work. I agree that it is better to have the full history (both more useful and ethically superior by ensuring complete attribution), but the existing transwiki process is not illegal provided the complete author list is used. Dragons flight 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An AfD bot to hide closed discussions

Discussion began here and here, prompting me to concider bot request, in which I brought it up for discussion here. I'd like a further consensus before posting to WP:BRFA since discussion has almost died down.
  • Summary: Bot would pick up on a closed AfD, remove discussion from the log, only leaving behind a link or template to the discussion. It would run anywhere from 1-6 hours, or so discussion is showing.
Opinions would be appreciated on AfD talk. Thank you. SynergeticMaggot 20:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
How are you planning on removing the discussion from the log without being an admin? And admin bots are forbidden. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Umm, the log page can be edited by anyone, so I don't see why the bot would need admin access; it's not actually closing the AFDs themselves, so even that's not an issue.
Having said that, I'm not sure how useful this would be in practice. Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd actually like to reserve the comments for the AfD talk page, as to not fill AN with this, but oh well. What were the actual objections to the bot? And no, it wouldnt be an admin bot. The bot would just remove the uneeded words from your screen, but allow to to view the AfD discussion so long as you wish to, by clicking the link. SynergeticMaggot 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to get the comments deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Never! And no need to apologize. :) SynergeticMaggot 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thankless job - NOT anymore

I'm awarding this award to the Admins here, considering WHAT they have to deal with. This is MY way of thanking them. They have also been of GREAT assisstance to me as well.

The da Vinci Barnstar
This is awarded to the Admins here for their outstanding work on WP:AN.
Martial Law 21:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. I know some of you find the job of admin rewarding. Well, thank goodness for that. It is not everybody's cup of tea. Wikipedia will be better when there is less need for hundreds of people to spend their time doing some of what admins now do (because more sophisticated means of ensuring quality are in place); but until then, thank you for "keeping down the fort". WAS 4.250 01:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have some idea of how to get to where we don't need to expend that kind of time and effort, please do let us know. Jkelly 06:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I did a bit of research into that exact thing a few months ago and discovered that User:Eloquence (and others) are literally years ahead of me in terms of thinking through the various options. Stable versioning systems, trust metrics, and other validation schemes of varying degrees of automation are discussed at articles here. WAS 4.250 08:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
And are, in general, rejected as not in the keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No. But valid concerns are making sure that progress is slow and careful, as it shoud be. The Cite program, whose article is listed on the page I indicated is doing great; and Jimbo himself is pushing for progress this year on stable versioning. We are progressing thoughtfully in the direction of being MORE open to encyclopedic contributions and LESS open to unencyclopedic contributions and we are characterizing this as Wikipedia becoming MORE open. WAS 4.250 21:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] disambiguation page

I have set up a disambiguation page King_George_School_(disambiguation) for links of King George School which redirects to several other schools with similar names. However, I can't get it to redirect and I am not sure how to solve it.

--Cahk 09:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the disambiguation page to King George School, with 6 schools having similar names and 3 of them having articles, I thought a disambiguation page at the main page would be better than having it as a redirect to one of the schools and putting up a link to the disambiguation page at the top of that article. I rewrote the disambiguation page using the name of the city the school is in for disambiguation, since that is what Calgary uses (the Hong Kong school link is actually a redirect to King George V School, also the article might need moving if an article is written on the Sutton school, since it has the exact same name, although it is probably much smaller than the Hong Kong school (the town of Sutton has about a thousand people and the HK school has 1,700 students, so a link to the other school might be better). -- Kjkolb 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

This arbitration case is closed. The full decision is at the link above.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ip posing as a robot

71.134.246.54 is posing as a robot with all of the edits saying "robot ..... interwikilink". This could be a legit robot from another wiki but without an account. So, should this user be blocked and forced to get a bot flag under an account? GeorgeMoney (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a bot logged out. I've blocked the IP anon only so it can continue when it is logged in. Naconkantari 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
NPOV disputes, Images on Commons and Overpopulated categories

[edit] CAT:NS

CAT:NS among other other image cats are backlogged by five days. Should be directly link these cats from the speedy deletion page to speed things up? It seems lthat a great number of admins are not aware/intimidated by image deletions. Perhaps this is because Orphanbot does the tagging, so people don't touch them until they have to be deleted.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T:DYK

It's been 8 hours now since the last DYK update, and given the updating patterns prevalent in the last days, the next update won't come in the next 6 hours. There is a significant backlog in submitted DYKes, so I believe the DYKes should be refreshed as often as possible, which means every 6 hours. Currently, only one admin at a time takes care of that, and the admins that are interested in doing these tasks live in Canada and Australia, which means that they cannot possibly update DYK every 6 hours if they want to maintain a reasonable sleeping schedule :D

So the result is that only two DYK updates per day take place, and the one that would fall in the middle of the day European time is missing. Thus, European Wikipedians end up seeing the same DYKes all day and the queue is building up! I was wondering whether other admins might be interested in updating DYKes, especially those from the European/African time zone. Moreover, perhaps the DYK queue size and the "time since last update" (with a notice that it is time to update the template) could appear in this fabulous backlog box as seen in this page?

One last thing - what's with Wikipedia:Recent additions? The link on the main page in the DYK section (or more specifically, the link in the DYK template) leads there, but of recent DYKes are being archived in T:DYKT - so somebody who clicks the link to the abovementioned page sees neither recent additions nor a DYK archive.

Sorry for bothering you, but I guess since this is on the main page, it is a fairly important issue. Regards, Bravada, talk - 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Could some admin on duty take a look at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, there is an important issue concerning the DYK. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Seems like this isn't generating too much interest - does anybody actually READ that page? I would say it's pretty important... Bravada, talk - 03:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General

[edit] Gnetwerker removing archives

Gnetwerker (talk • contribs) has moved his talk page to a subpage, thereby removing links to his archives. In doing so he is concealing previous discussions about ArbCom rulings involving him and warnings against personal attacks and revealing other users' personal information. I have a previous history with this user and do not want to get in another blow up, so would someone else be able to take a look at this? Paul Cyr 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand. User_talk:Gnetwerker/hist seems to just be a list to his archives. Is this information not archived, or am I missing something? Cowman109Talk 04:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Er, the page you linked to does not exist. Nevermind, it was speedied then undeleted. In anycase, that page is not linked to anywhere on the main talk page. Without knowing the specific page name (or looking through the main talk page history) there is no way to find that page. Paul Cyr 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He's now had that page deleted and recreated without any archives. Paul Cyr 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandals gaming blocks

An important warning about a vandal getting his IP unblocked to continue creating abusive accounts. Accounts User:Scareslamfist and User:Sakura Avalon both have no actual contributions, and both were repeatedly able to get an IP unblocked that created dozens of vandalizing and bad-username accounts. Sometimes these accounts would even vandalize or attack the "nice" accounts, perhaps in an attempt to make it look legit. The vandal accounts would be blocked, then either of these two accounts would post an {{unblock}} request saying they were the victim of collateral damage from an IP autoblock. An admin would come along and unblock them, and the cycle would continue; the IP would invariably be autoblocked again for creating vandal accounts and a couple hours later, sometimes even minutes, they would post another unblock request; again they would be unblocked, etc. These are just the couple accounts that I know about.

This happened several times for each; unblocking administrators seriously need to look more carefully at such unblock requests. These user's "contributions" were just User talk edits, mostly to their own pages, and one even had some screed about being a reformed vandal. There is no reason to remove an autoblock when the user that purports to be adversely affected is not going to do anything related to the encyclopedia anyway. This should not be happening. —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we block the IP from creating accounts, instead of the username? Isn't this what the IP-only "account creation blocked" feature is supposed to eliminate? Kimchi.sg 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The behavior of the two accounts named shows that they are the accounts of banned users who have continued to disrupt Wikipedia. At best, these particular accounts would continue to be annoying and disruptive; at worst, they are just two of many sleeper accounts from that IP that would flare up into blatant vandalism. The IP has been highly disruptive, and there have been no complaints about the block from legitimate users, but it is blocked for 18 days because it may not be static. —Centrx→talk • 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
"The behavior of the two accounts named shows that they are the accounts of banned users..." I cannot speak for Scareslamfist (not reviewed contribs) but in the case of Sakura Avalon, in which of these diffs (all made to [template/user/project] talk pages not his own) showed behaviour similar to Bobby Boulders or any of his sockpuppets? (For completeness' sake) Can't we wait until they shoot themselves in the foot? Would there be grave, severe and irrepairable consequences if we allowed the guy more than just 34 hours and 43 minutes of editing? And at the end of it, I'm not even sure your (auto)block will end the creation of BB socks. Kimchi.sg 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I specifically blocked the associated IP Special:Contributions/151.196.186.191 Block log, which had similar behavior (most of which in now-deleted pages) and was mentioned in the unblock requests. The Sakura account has had 4 days to make any sort of contribution, he is an admitted previous vandal, the IP was used to create vandal accounts. I think since this last post you have seen some of the strange behavior. He would be, at best, a previously blocked/banned user trying to play a joke, but there is no reason to believe that he is not the very same person who created the vandal/sock accounts, and there isn't an exception to the blocking policy for having a pseudo-legit, but totally non-contributing, account in the foreground, while vandalizing in the background. Perhaps we could migrate the Sakura socks back to their own category (which I moved into BB), but whether the name is correct doesn't change the person's actions. —Centrx→talk • 02:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Karmafist

Has anyone seen his post on wikipedia review [39] ? I used the search function on wikipedia and couln't find past reports about it so I am reporting it now. Karmafist basically tells how he is sneakily adding tons of intentional misinformation as some planned attempt to destroy wikipedia. He states:

"Best case scenario -- several new Siegenthaler Crises are made, thus destroying the credibility of Wikipedia, and its funding, forcing it to either become a corporate shill or charging users for an account(thus removing any pretense of being a "free and unbiased encyclopedia") or forcing them to reform."

Then he says: "Worst case scenario -- the majority of articles on Wikipedia are either protected or abandoned(again, removing the "free" pretense), and all new users are seen as potential suspects, creating an atmosphere where they are unlikely to become wiki-addicts and possibly spread the word of the poor behavior of the Cabalists."

I am quoting him in case the forum deletes it. Basically, this type of vandalism is obviously far worse than Willy on Wheels. Willy did stuff easy to discover as vandalism.

The thing is, I see no long term abuse for this. We need a page to help track Karmafist's vandalism so it can be spotted and not left to linger. Anomo 08:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Until I see some on-wiki evidence that something is happening, I think we should just look out for it. Ian¹³/t 09:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
That was my point, it's hard to track this type of action unless someone finds a pattern to it. Anomo 09:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
That is a really sad and disturbing post by Karmafist and a sad thread (I was unaware that Karmafist had started to vandalize Wikipedia, for one thing (assuming that it is really him on the website)). What is especially disturbing is that they take pleasure and find purpose in attempting to destroy the hard work of other people. Hard work that they do not get paid anything for and that they do for the betterment of the world. Another sad thing is that Karmafist has been negatively affected as a person due to his involvement with Wikipedia.
Of course no one on Wikipedia Review realizes that if Wikipedia fails, they and people like them will be at least partly at fault, and depending on the reason it fails, perhaps mostly or even entirely at fault. They complain about the quality of Wikipedia, yet they try to make it worse through systematic vandalism. If they want Wikipedia to be better than it is now, they should stop vandalizing it so that we can concentrate on making it better instead of trying to detect vandalism, reverting vandalism and dealing with vandalizers (talking, blocking, dispute resolution and arbitration). If all forms of vandalism stopped or were significantly reduced, we could make large increases in quality, breadth, neutrality and accuracy.
I have trouble seeing how Wikipedia Review members who vandalize Wikipedia think it is okay. It might be because they think that it is just a website and because it is easier to think that it is a victimless crime, especially since they do not see the victims. I have some hypothetical situations in which they would do what they do to Wikipedia to other entities and whether they think it would be justified. For example, would they burn down the Library of Congress because they disagree with the policy that members of the public cannot check out books (or would they vandalize the books or make books with fake information to insert in the collection)? Would they spray graffiti on a school's buildings because they think one of the textbooks it uses is biased? Would they vandalize pay phones, which are needed for the indigent and for emergencies because they do not like the phone company's policies? Would they kick over a child's sand castle because of its poor quality? Would they hack into the computer of a columnist whose opinion they disagree with and delete all of the articles he or she is working on? Would they steal newspapers from stands because they think some of the stories are biased? -- Kjkolb 10:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, probably. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
That commentary sort of misses the mark. They've already identified the purported source of Wikipedia's quality problems, to wit, the present power structure of Wikipedia. Since they know tey won't achieve the consensus necessary to make their desired changes to it, it follows that Wikipedia must be destroyed in order to build a new encyclopedia along the correct lines. Not an unfamiliar piece of philosophy... Choess 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
He's apparently recanted this particular plan, according to his recently archived talk page, so don't go firing up a lynch mob. Choess 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This plan is no different to any other vandalism, which standard procedures are in place to deal with. Tyrenius 03:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review looks like a complaint board, but there's shady things under the surface there, especially by those who run it (seen most easily if you try to register and don't give them all the personal information they demand). There's lots of criticism of wikipedia that criticizes it to improve it, but this site may not be one of them. I found karmafist's post some time after he made it, though as I very rarely read the forum, and I had assumed it was still current. Anomo 14:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] MyWikiBiz (talk • contribs) using AfD to shop for clients

I know that Jimbo Wales has had a "productive phone call" with this user, but is he authorized to vote to delete in AfD and then suggest that the subject would have fared better if it had contacted him? See also [40] [41] [42]

I checked his contribution history and he seems to be visiting AfDs for business subjects, voting delete and suggesting that the article could be saved if written differently, that is when he's not just suggesting they contact MyWikiBiz.com. JChap2007 16:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Dreadful conflict of interest, just as many people predicted when he appeared. I suggest a strong warning is given to him on his talk page that, in light of his input on AfD, articles written by his company for those companies would be subject to deletion. And strike his contributions to AfD as well? And yes, I know we don't have a rule that says anything about either of these, but it looks like we need one. Time to reawaken Wikipedia:Conflict of interest anyone? ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Although he states that he would never accept business from a company he nominated for deletion, I just find it a little bit alarming that he is involving himself in the deletion process, given the obvious conflict of interest. I'd back the motion for a strong warning against using AfD for advertising, or nomination of companies. alphaChimp laudare 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course, one fears wheel-warring with Jimbo over this (if you're gonna even appear to wheel-war, don't do it with the guy who owns the shop) so perhaps someone could bring this to his attention? It might be above us and more of an Office thing? ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I fail to see why unless Office explicitly involves itself. I don't think Jimbo's "deal" over MyWikiBiz's writing of articles prohibits us from taking action over other disruptive actions, such as advertising in AfDs. You shouldn't reverse an Office or Jimbo action, but not doing something because you think Jimbo might object to it is another thing entirely. Of course, he's removed the comment suggesting the writer of the spam article should have contacted him following the message on his talk page, so that might be dealt with. Whether his nomination of company articles constitutes a WP:POINT violation will depend on how many of them actually merit deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Lighten up, guys. He did it once, and he made it clear it was a humorous comment. Let's not over-react, eh? Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not just one comment though, it's a whole string of the same type of nonsense. I'm inclined to block indefinitely. I see a huge conflict of interest here. He spouts the names of various Wikipedia policies to try and justify his comments but what he's really operating from is a desire to save articles he's been paid to write and delete articles of businesses he hasn't been paid to write. --Cyde Weys 14:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Plus the ";)" he puts after statement doesn't negate the content of the statement. It's a bit like saying "I didn't call you a dick, I cited m:DICK." JChap2007 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Now with arbitration goodness. --Cyde Weys 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moe Epsilon Vs Kingstonjr userpage

Hi Administrators' noticeboard , after a very long time keeping my userpage, user Moe Epsilon has undertaken removing my gallery from my userpage claiming it is a violation of wikipedia policy concernng serpages. I am willing to review the images, removing any of which are demed unfree and thus must be removed. I find the userpage neccesary as a basis for my work and ethics in wikipedia. Moreover, it acts as a synthesis of work which i am a keen contributor to, adding these images to relevant articles, editing images and generally as a workstation for wikipedia. This is not an isolated incodent with userpages such as User:Markaci, User:Cyde, User:Ac1983fan, User:Ewlyahoocom and a seperate project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery, where my user-page also features. For these myriad arguments it is important to keep this userpage as it is or if neccesary edit the gallery removing unfree images, otherwise I believe a unjustice will have been served. i take this problem pwith the Administrators' noticeboard with the confidence that it will be resolve fairly in the interest of all.

Thank you KingstonJr 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy on copyright. Links are acceptable, inclusions are not. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue Kingstonjr wants to bring up for discussion is the censorship of materials on his userpage. The majority of the images are free content. ~ PseudoSudo 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We we also need to consider the guideline of WP:USER, I guess at least part of the question is, is trying to make a statement concerning censorship a reasonable use of "his userpage"?. --pgk(talk) 19:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If he's making a statement about censorhip on wikipedia yes. if he was making a statement about censorhip in Random High School's weekly newspaper. no.--Crossmr 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, the key issue is that Kinstonjr needs these images for his work on wikipedia. As a user page is intended to provide information about the user, these images don't seem to be appropriate, so the obvious solution is to create a sub-page, where they can be stored (the free images only of course). Tyrenius 04:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I would have no problems with these being placed on a sub page per the examples cited by KingstonJr, with links only to the non free images. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you to all, it seems that the decision would be to create a subpage, which I must say that you have as i believe come to a fair decision. KingstonJr 12:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Usernames

The blockers missed a few:

  • User:Pilotgirl
  • User:Betachimp
  • User:2ne (that was from a while ago)
  • User:CD R W
  • User:ERECTIONS!!

69.158.48.138 02:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

This case is closed. See the decision for more information.

Dmcdevit·t 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 69.76.206.218 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log)

This static IP is used by the vandal Randallrobinstine, who has recently resumed vandalism via sockpuppets. Seeing as it is static, I recommend that it be blocked indefinitely, as Wikipedia's blocking policy sllows indefinate blocks of static IPs used only for vandalism. Doing so might put an end to this vandal for good.--67.67.217.220 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Straw Poll

Due to the recent turmoil on community pages, a large community straw poll is being conducted. Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll is now open for voting. Despite resolutions made on this page, many others are facing turmoil similar to what this page is, or once did face. In an effor to solve the issue, I invite all Wikipedians to vote there by September 18th on this page following the procedures and ballot instuctions explained there. Thank You. Ericsaindon2 06:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] suspected sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock

hi, I wanted to bring your attention to User:What123, who I suspect to be a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. User:What123 seems to follow the same pattern of edits to articles around the Israel-Arab conflict, depopulating articles relating to abarigional conflicts for Category:Conflicts in Canada, etc... but the diff here (the use of "Cordially" at the end of his comment) is what makes me sure it's him Mike McGregor (Can) 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just reviewed What123 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)'s edits and this is an obvious sockpuppet. Editing on Dog, Nazi, Canadian and war related articles as well as the usage of "Cordially" at the end of talk page comments makes this a slam-dunk irrefutable sockpuppet. I recommend immediate indef. blocking on this user as a sockpuppet used to evade a permanent ban. (→Netscott) 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
SSP case been closed. Iolakana•T 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the rapid response folks. (→Netscott) 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Another evil poll: Removing Warnings

The issue of whether or not users should be allowed to remove warning messages from their talk page (and under what circumstances) has been a running dispute for the better part of a year now. In an attempt to bring wider community input to the issue, a poll has been created: Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll. Dragons flight 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio user

For the fourth time (and they've been blocked once already for it), 203.166.232.83 (talk • contribs • count) insists on copy and pasting from the author's web site into Michael White (author). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Checking on deleted articles

KRBN (talk • contribs) has speedy delete tagged a number of articles, some of which probably don't meet any speedy criteria. I received a request on my talk page to review his tagged articles to see any that might have been deleted.

However, it appears to me that if an article has been deleted, that any edits would no longer show up in the User's contributions. Is there a way to do such a review without manually checking every entry in the deletion logs?

— ERcheck (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Try this tool out. A disclamer: It is affected by both replication lag and the corrupted toolserver database, so it is not completely accurate. It should help though. Prodego talk 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Great tool! — ERcheck (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Myself

Hello,

I made a mistake and deleted warning messages from my talk page. user:Brat32 has subsequently given me three warnings without actually indicating what policy I was violating. He finally did it on his own talk page, after he gave me a third warning. Is this appropriate? Significantly, he's citing me for removing a warning about a change I made to a page that was subsequently reimplemented by the reverter (reverting the reversion). 132.205.93.88 04:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I looked into the situation and thought that your edits were made in good faith and User:Brat32 was just a bit quick to jump the gun in warning you. I left a message on his talk page to the effect that I believed you were acting in good faith and that he should remove the warnings he left you, as his understanding of the guidline in regards to not biting the newcomers seems to be lacking a bit. I hope this will clear things up and that you will continue to edit Wikipedia, as you're certainly welcome to! Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing problems on José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas (13 April, 2006 to 4 June, 2006) determined that SqueakBox (talk • contribs) and Zapatancas (talk • contribs) (formerly Zapatero (talk • contribs)) had engaged in edit warring, personal attacks, and mutual campaigns of harassment focussed on their dispute on José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles. Both editors were banned from Wikipedia for one month, banned from editing this and related articles for one year, and put on personal attack parole.

Problems continue, however.

A new editor Hagiographer (talk • contribs) started editing on 25 June and on 5 July made edits to Zapatero's early years (1960-2000), Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election, all of which had been originally created by Zapatancas and then made into redirects by SqueakBox in May, to recover the article versions. He also edited José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to refer to those articles.

A strong suspicion exists that this is a sock or meat puppet of Zapatancas, but Checkuser evidence is not conclusive.

More recently a new user Pura Paja (talk • contribs) has edit warred with this editor. Despite strong suspicions, checkuser evidence suggests that this isn't the same as SqueakBox.

But SqueakBox and Hagiographer meanwhile are engaged in mutual campaigns of harassment. There has been little or no significant editing of the subsidiary articles except by SqueakBox, Zapatancas, Hagiographer and Pura Paja and these are the only editors who have ever edit warred on those articles.

A longstanding principle of identification on Wikipedia is that editors who are engaged in similar behavior may sometimes be treated as a single editor with sock puppets. This is expressed as follows in the recently completed arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick:

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior, they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

So as a matter of enforcement, I seek consensus that editors acting in ways similar to SqueakBox and Zapatancas in this particular context (to wit, Hagiographer and Pura Paja, and anyone else who engages in warring, tendentious edits, personal attacks and harassment related to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles) should be treated as subject to the same remedies as SqueakBox and Zapatancas, and that this should be noted on the talk pages of those articles. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • The principle makes sense but it seems to leave the possibility that it could be broadened too far if used indiscriminately, so whenever this remedy is proposed in the face of inconclusive CU evidence I'd like to see the case made rather strongly that they (the editors in question) are giving a strong appearance of acting in concert. But that should not be taken as opposition to the principle. Support ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony's request is consistent with previous arbitrations, and also with our community standards. Checkuser has never been the only way to identify puppetry, and it kind of doesn't matter who they are. The problem is what they are doing. The editors are acting in the same way, on the same pages. I think applying the same remedy is appropriate. I would be concerned if this were happening on different pages, or if we were trying to broader a particular arbitration into binding policy. Tom Harrison Talk 15:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong agree - I have came across these users before many times and the users that are similar to them are always suspicious. --Kilo-Lima 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Anybody who reads RFCU and WP:ANI for a few weeks can get a pretty good idea of how to make sockpuppets look unrelated. I agree with Tony's proposal to treat Hagiographer and Pura Paja as sockpuppets, per the "if it quacks like a duck" aspect of the sock policy. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I blocked indef User:Pura Paja do not unbloc him, if anything due to the username (pure wanking in spanish) -- Drini 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess we have a fairly strong consensus here. --Tony Sidaway 04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented this. It has also emerged that SqueakBox evaded his arbcom ban in June by socking as Skanking (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I have reset his ban, adding it to the one week block I had already applied one another matter. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copyvio user

For the fourth time (and they've been blocked once already for it), 203.166.232.83 (talk • contribs • count) insists on copy and pasting from the author's web site into Michael White (author). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Checking on deleted articles

KRBN (talk • contribs) has speedy delete tagged a number of articles, some of which probably don't meet any speedy criteria. I received a request on my talk page to review his tagged articles to see any that might have been deleted.

However, it appears to me that if an article has been deleted, that any edits would no longer show up in the User's contributions. Is there a way to do such a review without manually checking every entry in the deletion logs?

— ERcheck (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Try this tool out. A disclamer: It is affected by both replication lag and the corrupted toolserver database, so it is not completely accurate. It should help though. Prodego talk 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Great tool! — ERcheck (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Myself

Hello,

I made a mistake and deleted warning messages from my talk page. user:Brat32 has subsequently given me three warnings without actually indicating what policy I was violating. He finally did it on his own talk page, after he gave me a third warning. Is this appropriate? Significantly, he's citing me for removing a warning about a change I made to a page that was subsequently reimplemented by the reverter (reverting the reversion). 132.205.93.88 04:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I looked into the situation and thought that your edits were made in good faith and User:Brat32 was just a bit quick to jump the gun in warning you. I left a message on his talk page to the effect that I believed you were acting in good faith and that he should remove the warnings he left you, as his understanding of the guidline in regards to not biting the newcomers seems to be lacking a bit. I hope this will clear things up and that you will continue to edit Wikipedia, as you're certainly welcome to! Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising

Is Parc wiki researcher advertising? I feel he is-trying to get more people to do his little survey; and he's spammed about 100 talkpages. ForestH2 t/c 14:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been inactive for some hours now. I've posted a cease and desist notice on his talk page. Let's hope he hets the message. --Doc 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. ForestH2 t/c 14:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey content

User:Pedant:I looked over the survey, thought others might want to know what I wanted to know, so:

The project is a surveymonkey survey, participants are asked to rate 14 wikipedia pages from (7 options) low to high, 3 categories: 'conflict' 'vandalism' and 'quality', with comments/feedback text. the text of the survey:

====1====
 
Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research survey.
 Our goal is to understand how conflict arises and is resolved
 in Wikipedia articles. To achieve this we need the help of expert
 Wikipedians like you in identifying the types of conflict that
 arise and the degree of severity of those conflicts.

On the following pages you will be provided links to current
 Wikipedia entries and will be asked to rate the degree of conflict
 that the page is in, as well as the amount of vandalism and the quality of the page.

You will be asked to rate 15 Wikipedia pages in total. Thank you
 again for helping us collect this vital information.
 Next >>
====2====
Please read the consent form below and check the box at the
 bottom to indicate your agreement.

----------------------

DESCRIPTION: You are invited to participate in a research study
 that evaluates the effect of conflicts and controversies on
 Wikipedia. We’re interested in the degree of conflicts and how
 they are resolved on Wikipedia. The experiment involves surveying
 and asking you questions about various conflicts that exists on
 Wikipedia and your opinions of them.

RISK: There are no known risks associated with participating with
 this study.

TIME INVOLVEMENT: The total time for this experiment will be less
 than 1 hour. The survey will first ask some simple non-identifying
 demographic questions about your computer and internet use
 (just a few minutes). The primary portion of the survey will ask
 you to look at various topics in Wikipedia and estimate the degree
 and type of conflict that existed on these pages. We estimate that
 this will take about 40 minutes, depending on how much material you
 examine to arrive at your answers. You are free to take a break any time you like.

PAYMENT: You will receive no payment for your participation in the experiment.

SUBJECT'S RIGHTS: If you have read this form and have decided to
 participate in this experiment, please understand your participation
 is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent or
 discontinue participation at any time without penalty. You have
 the right to refuse to answer particular questions. Your individual
 privacy will be maintained in all published and written data resulting
 from the study. You may report any objections or concerns about the
 conduct of the study to Peter Pirolli, Chair of the Human Subjects
 Committee, PARC, (650) 812-4483.

If delivered on paper, the extra copy of this consent form is for you
 to keep.

If delivered digitally over the Internet, you should keep an extra
 copy of this consent form for your own records. Clicking on the
 Agree button below constitute your agreement to participate in this study.
 
*  
1. Please check to indicate you have read and agreed to this consent form:
 I agree
 << PrevNext >>
====3====
 
2. Wikipedia username
 
   
3. How long have you been active on Wikipedia?
 
   
4. On average, how many hours do you spend on Wikipedia-related
 activities each week?
 
   
5. What are the major types of activities that you participate 
in on Wikipedia?
 
   
6. Please check if you would like to receive a "PARC Research"
 star on your user page in appreciation for your help
 
 << PrevNext >>
====4====
 
On the following page you will see 15 links to Wikipedia articles.
 Clicking on a link will open the relevant article in a new browser window.

For each entry, please examine the page history, discussion history,
 and anything else you deem relevant for deciding about the degree
 of conflict, vandalism, and quality of the page. Then rate it
 according to the scales provided.

To get an idea of what constitutes high vs. low conflict, please
 examine the following two pages. Pet skunk has been rated by other
 Wikipedians in the past as a very low conflict article, while
 Intelligent design has been rated as an extremely high conflict
 article. These pages will open in new browser windows; when you
 are finished examining them please continue to the next page.
 << PrevNext >>
====5====
 Note: You can save your progress and resume it later, but
 if you choose to do so you need to click on the "Prev" button for
 any changes you made on this page to be saved. Otherwise if you
 just close the browser window without clicking "Prev" any changes
 you made will be lost. You can resume your progress by following
 the link you were originally provided (you must use the same computer however).
 
 
*  
7. Looking at the history of each article below, please rate the following:
 Conflict Vandalism Quality  
2005 Atlantic hurricane season  
Capitalism  
Transhumanism  
Islamofascism  
Hinduism  
Germany  
Noam Chomsky  
Ayn Rand  
Iran  
American and British English differences  
William A. Dembski  
Canadian English  
KaDee Strickland  
United States Navy  
 
   
8. Please provide any comments you feel were not captured in
 the above ratings here
 << PrevNext >>
====6====
   
10. Please describe the process by which you made your decisions
 about the ratings in this survey

 
   
11. What kinds of tools or research do you think would be most
 helpful in understanding and dealing with conflict in Wikipedia?

 
   
12. Please let us know any other feedback you might have:
 
   
13. How much time did this survey take you?
 << PrevNext >>
====7====
Thank you for participating in this survey. Your answers are a
 vital component in our continuing research. The results will
 be in an academic paper, which means when it is published, it
 will be essentially freely available. We will also put it on
 our website. To find out more about our work or to get more
 involved, please email us at wikiresearch@parc.com.
 << PrevDone >>

[edit] comments

Personally, it looks real fishy to me, like someone is out for material for another exposé on wikipedia. I think the user Parc wiki researcher should be permabanned, but I haven't a clue what actual policies are being broken besides WP:JERK, and even that might not be considered true by someone else. User:Pedant 21:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Why would the user be banned, assuming he stops spamming talk pages? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, shouldn't this be on an RfC or something rather than taking up huge amounts of space on AN? --SB_Johnny | talk 22:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You need have no fear about "another exposé". No journalist would ever bother doing this, and the info requested is not anything any journalist would ever be interested in. Tyrenius 22:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I would disagree with a perm-ban. What reason? I've participated in the survey, which is to gain an understanding on mediation/dispute resolution. Although it borders on spam to talk pages, this was not the intention. SynergeticMaggot 23:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I also disagree with the idea of a perm-ban, and to the fearmongering over-reaction. This is NOT the sort of information gathering any journalist I can imagine would be doing -- WAY too inefficient and diffuse data for any kind of "exposé" story -- and exactly the sort of research data a sociologist might gather.
  • And, notice, that the researcher is being completely transparent about the process. And, as far as I'm concerned, if a transparent process requires using multiple talk pages to solicit a wide range of opinions/data sources, then it ain't spam and they ought to go ahead and do so, policy nitpickers and process queens be damned. I also took the survey and I have absolutely no second thoughts about doing so. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • yet another researcher. While some of the questions are marinarly original I feel that they would benifited from more work. Other than that non issue as long as they stay within the rules.Geni 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We should take a positive view of this, work with it, and see if there are helpful insights from the survey that could benefit our practice. Let's treat it as a gratis consultancy and ask for feedback. We can ask for verification of the individuals concerned if necessary. Tyrenius 19:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • rather a lot of past experience suggests we will never see the results. I'm not quite certian why but these things always appear to go extreamly quite after the initial period.Geni 23:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate all of your concerns and thanks to the admins who have supported the study. I have just posted a request on this noticeboard with more information on our research, our preliminary results (which are online now from our first study), and our request. Thank you! Parc wiki researcher 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sarastro777 banned from posting on ANI and AN until September 20

Sarastro777 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has been banned from posting on ANI and AN for one month, to run from August 20 to September 20. If he should violate the ban he may be promptly blocked by any admin. It is suggested that such blocks be kept to 12—24 hours, but hoped that they won't be needed at all. Please see this discussion on ANI. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

How can you ban someone from posting on an incident board? You assertation that you or any of your cabal has any power to prevent a user from posting reports on this board are both ludacris and unfounded. Since when do you and your cabal of rogue administrators control Wikipedia?--Oiboy77 07:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oiboy, please read Wikipedia:Banning policy, with particular attention to Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban, number 1. Thank you. -- Avi 15:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Avi, do you really believe that the pile on by editors who POV edit on the same articles as Sarastro777 (see their edit history, you included) are a consensus?--Oiboy77 07:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Death threats

I deleted a death threat and an invitation to leave further threats on User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back.[43] TacoDeposit reverted this as "schoolmarmery".[44] After another couple of reverts, TFMWNCB has restored the threat, but with a discouragement to leave more of the same.[45] He finds it amusing, but other people who have received such threats certainly don't, and leaving it in place can only serve as an example for more elsewhere. I would choose to delete it and enforce that, but, as that has been challenged, I am seeking a wider response. Tyrenius 03:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you seeking wider response. I will respect consensus and I'm sure TFMWNCB will as well. And I apologize for using the term "schoolmarmery" which you found insulting. But I don't see how the section on TFMWNCB's userpage would encourage others to leave other death threats elsewhere, and believe he should be allowed to keep it if he finds it amusing. TacoDeposit 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Lots of users display links to vandalism received on their user pages. I think that in most cases, a user should be able to create his/her user page the way he/she sees fit. Perhaps a nice compromise would be to use a numbered link like this, [46], to display examples of user page vandalism? hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not just simple vandalism, nor merely an insult, and should not be treated as such. A threat to kill someone is an illegal act. The only likely effect of its continued display as humour is to encourage more such threats, by providing the idea to copy and suggesting that action will not be taken against the perpetrator. Tyrenius 08:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What Tyrenius said. Leaving a message like this up only gives users ideas to violate policy (and applicable laws). It's just a bad idea. Or so says the "schoolmarm" in me. I also wouldn't run with scissors. --Firsfron of Ronchester 08:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a serious problem for some users, as you can see in this discussion, and its outcome. Tyrenius 09:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I hoped that my compromise would solve the concerns of both parties. The blue link hides the actual vandalism from being prominently featured and the user is allowed to keep track of vandalism to his user page (again, this is a very popular feature on many user pages). The vandalism itself should be dealt with in the appropriate manner, of course, but the user vandalised should not be sanctioned or chastised. I believe Tyrenius is reading a bit too much into the situation, as the user page will not encourage rampant Wikipedia-wide death threats (for one, most individuals possess consciences that prevent them from making such threats). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A person who obviously has a sense of humor has named himself User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back on a popular site that anyone can edit. So 210.80.185.196 tries to get in on the joke and be funny by saying "u are a fat fuker i kill u bitch" but why he believes a threat against the man's female dog is funny goes right over my head - Whoooosh - None-the-less User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back does get the joke and thinks its funny enough to put on his user page with the title "Inarticulate death threats (further contributions are officially discouraged)" and S-man finding the hilarity too much to resist adds "Parking lot. 8:00. Be there." Enter Tyrenius who knows unencyclopedic and threatening behavior when he sees it and like the dutiful wikipedian that he is, he tries to improve the situation with a variety of carefully chosen tactics approved by Official Wikipedia Process; the last tactic of which is to create this subsection and involve the rest of us in The Case of The Joke Some of Us Don't Get Because Death Isn't Funny. We are faced with a serious situation in that death threats of female dogs is literally against the law and we should report this to the police, because what if the jokester is actually planning on killing the dog? what then? WHAT THEN? Could we ever live with ourselves if 210.80.185.196 turns out to be a chef with a Chinese cookbook? Oh, the horrors! I suggest we lie in wait and see if he tries to capture the dog for his culinary delights. Let us pretend none of this ever happened and if he goes for the dog we spring our secret trap, hand him over to the police and pet the dog. Shhhhh! Not a word of this to 210.80.185.196. WAS 4.250 12:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And how exactly do you come to be in possession of the privy information that 210.80.185.196's intention was to refer to a dog and not use the word otherwise — as an abusive term for a woman, for example? Is there something we should know about your connection with 210.80.185.196, or are you merely trolling? Tyrenius 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You might like to check out the illustrious record of the prankster you are so keen to champion, and also explain this edit away. Tyrenius 13:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Some people's internet connections seem to come with a built-in filter filtering out all humour, irony, and sarcasm. Lupo 13:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The threat looks to be the work of perhaps an immature individual not understanding the gravity in general of such a statement. In my view User:Tyrenius acted properly in this case. Even if there was an understanding between editors regarding such language and their talk pages it would not be acceptable. Realizing that Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech it is worth noting in this case that this type of speech is not protected. (→Netscott) 14:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am emailing the IP which appears to be a religious college in Australia. Tyrenius 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to regret using the term "death threat." Solipsist3's comment (or that of his supposed "friend") was simply a childish, boneheaded instance of vandalism that made me laugh. Now it seems you are literally getting his schoolmarms involved. I am in no place to question your disciplinary role, but somehow I think wikipedia will get along just fine without ironfisted protection from mishbehaving schoolchildren. "u are a fat fuker i kill u bitch" is hardly the stuff of David Berkowitz, and to think that my immortazliing such a silly statement (in a clearly ironic way) will somehow incite other editors to mayhem is a pathetic underestimation of the average Wikipedian's good sense and maturity. Take a step back and try to appreciate the absurdity of his threat, and then, perhaps, of your reaction to it. Obviously, stupidity and vandalism should not be tolerated on wikipedia, but you shouldn't try to impose your humorless outlook on those who find occasional levity in such nonsense.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You've misunderstood the problem. It will not incite average Wikipedians. That is not an issue. It will encourage those who are more easily led or who already have such a propensity, but in the wrong direction. There's enough problems with vandalism and stupidity without displaying it. Furthermore, threats of violence, even apparently in jest should not be taken lightly. You never know which of them are for real. Tyrenius 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back laughed at (ridiculed) but otherwise ignored an idiotic post. Tyrenius has chosen a different approach to the same objective. Laughing at and ignoring is sometime more efective at stopping behavior than many competing methods. Laughter can be seriously effective. Tyrenius, you are a good guy. You just need more tools in your toolbox. Not everything is a nail. WAS 4.250 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your criticism of my sense of humour, which you have no knowledge of. I wasn't using the criterion of whether I find it personally amusing, or there's a lot of vandalism I would leave in place: however, I doubt that doing so would be effective in stopping that behaviour. I was assessing whether it was the proper use of a user page, which is for material helpful to creating an encyclopedia, not for self-expression. You might like to check out WP:User page. I am surprised you are expending so much energy defending the retention of vandalism, which has been already been deleted by 4 editors, including 3 admins. Tyrenius 22:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not criticise your sense of humor. I suggested to you that you are misperceiving the situation. You are still misperceiving the situation. Your response to idiocy, vandalism, threats is not the only useful appropiate response. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's response was entirely within the range of acceptable responses. It may even have been a better response in terms of producing positive effects. Then again, maybe it wasn't. But it was his user page so it is reasonable for him to make that choice. You misperceive his behavior as only having bad consequenses and mispercieve your competing method of dealing with the idiocy (that wasn't funny and didn't refer to a dog - regardless of how you misunderstand my earlier post) as only having good consequenses. Human reactions are not so simple. I expend no energy to defend idiocy. I expend energy to promote a wider diversity of tools in response to idiots than are currently acceptable to you. I am sorry my efforts to help you have been in vain. But Fat Man might have appeciated my appreciation of his way of doing things. And maybe others have been reminded that humor is a tool too. Ridicule goes a long way in many societies to create conformance. Maybe we should use it more. WAS 4.250 10:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Charles Knight

(moved from Wikipedia_talk:Administrator's noticeboard, this is probably still not the right place for it, but is more likely where the user was trying to post.) --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Tonetare's talk page where the content dispute can continue without interrupting this board. Shell babelfish 14:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Eagle 101/WikiVoter

What is up with this? Is it so onerous to require a person who wants to actually contribute to AfD to actually go to the article in question, read it, click on the link to the AfD and edit that? This is just too obviously an end run around actually performing due diligence towards the deletion discussion process. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Something just feels wrong about this tool. I can't quite put my finger on it either. Maybe it's an automated form of canvassing? —ptk✰fgs 03:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Knowing the people associated with this, there is no ill will involved. —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Idea: try it, see if you like it. Bear in mind that it's a work in progress, and that changes can be made. I can certainly understand why you're concerned, and I sincerely appreciate that you're looking out for the best interests of Wikipedia... but to be perfectly honest, having used it some, I don't see any potential for abuse that wasn't already inherent to the entire AfD system. Users with fewer than 250 edits can't use the program (requirements can be changed/developed, if necessary). Sockpuppetry will still be just as easy to catch. Obviously uninformed or misinformed votes will still be ignored, just as they always have. A team of WikiVoter moderators will be available to respond to any complaints of misuse, and will be able to ban users from using the program if necessary. If this doesn't address your concerns, please let me know of any concrete problems or potentials for abuse, so that they might be resolved or improved. Please try WikiVoter and see what it does, before you decide, that's all I ask. Luna Santin 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've used this software a bit and find it useful for doing all the things Zoe describes. It's current version allows the user to access the article, the AfD nomination and outside search engines by clicking on different tabs. It makes informing oneself on the relevant issues easier and (in my opinion) encourages editors to do due diligence. I guess I could see how it could be abused, as the voting feature would make it easy to just go through and vote to keep (or delete) every article, but I haven't seen any evidence that that is happening. Of course, I could be missing something. JChap2007 04:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It certainly makes it easy to do the things it does. But the real issue is whether doing only these things can lead to a good contribution to a debate. Too many people rely only on "the Google test" when "voting" (they should be discussing) on the article at hand; I would suggest that having these built into a program would diminish the amount of actual research or investigation that people do into a topic before contributing to the debate. So it certainly makes certain tasks easier, but we should be asking whether they are actually behaviours we want to facilitate. --bainer (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Reliance on the "Google test" (which is of very limited usefulness/applicability outside of internet subjects in my opinion) is becoming a real problem. No argument there. To take one of many examples, there were quite a few comments on a recent AfD for a 19th century member of the Italian parliament (who obviously meets WP:BIO) that followed the "D, no ghits" line of reasoning. However, Google can be a useful resource if you can use it to find resources online to establish notability for a subject where the article lacks sources. JChap2007 13:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried using it a bit and it makes it incredibly easy to get a crapload of "quality RFA" edits without even thinking. Just scan down the list of RFAs for each day, look at the ones that have a high percentage one way or the other, and just pile on. Along with VandalProof, AWB, and other such programs we're reaching the point where anyone can get the "required number" of edits to meet most people's minimums at RFA. Also, this has really steadied me in my resolve to ignore numbers on either side and just look at the reasonings. The inconvience of "voting" in AFD has become so low nowadays that you just see a bunch of people saying "Keep" or "Delete" without any reasoning whatsoever. I think we do need some sort of change to the process, like a policy that allows us to just strikethrough "votes" with no reasoning. --Cyde Weys 04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any tool can also be abused. If a fellow were to smash a man's head in with a hammer, do we blame the hammer, saying "it made it easier for the fellow to cause the damage?" This program's usefulness far outweighs any potential abuses; abuses which can be dealt with as they arise. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I listed this for MfD, and User:Tawker speedy closed it inappropriately. I reverted his close, he re-reverted, so I have listed it at WP:DRV. Let the discussion run its course, Tawker is harrassing me for my contribution at Eagle 101's RfA page, he seems to have a vested interest in keeping this open and Eagle 101 an admin. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only person who finds it toally ironic that we're "voting" on this -- I thought that was what we were trying to avoid. I speedy closed because if we went thru this we'd have to list every single javascript on this site and then some, it's pandora's box. It was in the user space for goodness sakes, looking at the rationales listed there was no reason to keep it over. The MfD could easily be considered making a point and therefore was closed. As for my so called Vested interest... ok, I'm vested in trying to keep this site going, I'm guilty of a horrible crime... I need to be shot :o -- Tawker 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well since Zoe is not complaining against deletion debates including a vote element, then no I can't see the irony. The general tone here seems out of line, I'm sure Zoe also strongly believes that she is doing the right thing to keep this site going, you don't have exclusivity on that. You'll have to let me know which point was being made to make it an early close, since it isn't immediately obvious to me. Regardless of the worth or otherwise of the software/page (noting we can't stop the software existing and being used by removing the page), I can't see why an MFD couldn't have been let run longer than 1.5 hours. --pgk(talk) 06:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I might give it a try myself, it'll allow me to quickly scout out some AfDs with inadequate participation. As to the detail, does anybody rely solely on the Google test? The point of the Google test is that it is a rough-and-ready guide to significance; zero Googles is usually a sign that there is a problem. Just zis Guy you know? 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the Google test misused, such as here, with some people claiming the sexual slang term is more notable than the Senator based solely on Google results. Powers T 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That could have just as easily been a mistake or typo. Its not off by much if you loo at the numbers. (real results 22,900 - mistake 23,700). SynergeticMaggot 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Google can never decide how many pages it has, two searches same term 10s apart can return radically different numbers. Don't ask why or how but it does. The Google test on something non notable is usually pretty good though -- Tawker 19:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A request that an admin mentor someone

At this point, with mediation being a bust and the same problems still occurring, I'm making the plea that someone with the knowledge, ability and patience to do so while not being involved in the recent wikidrama caused by the last few days offer to mentor User:SynergeticMaggot on many of our various processes. If he wants to help, that's excellent, but he is in need of some direction, and seems to only think the direction that's warranted would come from this segment of Wiki society. Please help out. Thanks. --Badlydrawnjeff 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you like a mentor? Having looked at your talk page I notice that your recent actions have upset quite a lot of editors. --Tony Sidaway 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced I need one. You've upset more people than I could even be capable of, do you need one? If you're not offering, then please stand aside for someone who might, and if people who weren't involved in the issue (and you were, Tony) aren't willing, then we'll explore other options at that time. No need to spin the topic around to draw attention away from the issue.--badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It's just not clear how we go from two-party mediation to one party "volunteering" the other for mentoring. (or, if that really is a logical step, then volunteering the other way seems equally logical) --Interiot 12:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It's me trying to avoid taking steps that would otherwise be drastic. I want to see this editor be productive, especially since his motives are otherwise noble, but that he's not doing it the right way. He's said he doesn't accept the criticism from non-admins, so let's see if he'll take some coaching from those he claims to accept. That's all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Normally we'd consider a mentor if a person's actions were disruptive. Jeff seems to have a problem with rather a lot of SynergeticMaggot's closes, but looking closely at those closes I don't see a problem--most of them were obvious keeps and that user did an excellent job, overall, of helping us to catch up with our sizable AfD backlog. I don't see any justification for Jeff's request except a wish to score points of a user with whom he has an unrasolved dispute. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This is probably the most farcical request I can think of. Jeff is not contesting the outcome of the closes, only the speed. Why? Why bother bogging down an overloaded process just so we can say we waited five days before keeping something, when the result was obvious after one? Fuck process. Just zis Guy you know? 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, JzG. If this is how you feel, where have you been at speedy keep when I was trying to adjust things? Will you be okay when someone says "Fuck process" while trying to keep libel on a talk page? I think the lines are clearly dranw on these issues for a reason, and we have a very simple way to solve these issues if our processes don't currently work within them, and it doesn't involve ignoring them. --13:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Jeff, because WP:V and WP:NPOV are policy not process, and that's what underpins the guideline WP:BLP which allows removal of libel. Have you really not noticed the amount of crap which has been thrown at me for policing that particular edict? There is, to a good first approximation, no connection between that and the closure of an unambiguous keep on a verifiable geographical location. Process is your enemy, policy is your friend. And here I mean you, specifically. Check out Tony's past closures of AfDs and DRVs. Just zis Guy you know? 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes. Deletion policy is policy like verifiability policy is policy. The intents may be entirely different, but the expectation that they be followed, maybe not to you, but are the same to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Which article are you contending was deleted against policy? Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone archive this now? Its clearly a waste of time. Oh and close it per SNOW. SynergeticMaggot 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That was sarcasm by the way. SynergeticMaggot 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Spam-a-rama

See this list [47] of links to chabad.org, a polemical website. Many of these links are inappropriate (in Christian topics, for example, where the Hasidic view is not really relevant). I am not sure what to do about this. Hundreds of links always lights up the spam radar. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Zap the lot of them, and enjoy it! --kingboyk 12:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all it is not a polemical website. It is one of the largest Jewish websites out there. Each link is an important resource which belongs there under WP:EL. An example of a link which he removed is this link from the Psalms article, which is the Judaica Press (Non-Hasidic) translation with the commentary of Rashi. I have restored those links. Which christian topics does it have links by? I could not find any. The Problem of evil which you removed a link [48] is applicable in Judaism as well. etc.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that it carries heavily politicised pro-Israeli editorial content, then? Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It has a few article which are very pro-Israel, but that is to be expected from a Jewish site. In fact every Jewish site out there has pro-Israel articles, are we going to start removing links to all of them? The links that are in the articles are to specific sections of the site that deal with the content of that article. For example in the Psalms article it links to the transalation and commentary of Psalms, not to any Israel related content. The Israel content is a tiny fraction of a percent of the site. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC) In addition its Pro-Israel articles focus less on politics and more on prayer, charity, and good deeds. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that it carries heavily politicised pro-Israeli editorial content, then? And the translation with commentary is indeed problematic, as is the fact that the copyright status of the commentary is somewhat unclear, and the fact that it is surrounded by adverts selling off the page (see the shopping cart icon?). Oh, and the text "at chabad.org" is weblinked not internally linked. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

About the Pro-Israel content see above. Why is a third party commentary Rashi problamatic? There is no problem with copyright. You can write to Judaica Press to ask them. and a small advert on the side offering someone to buy a hard copy is quite reasonable when you are making the entire copy available online for free. I don't know, but perhaps Judaica Press asked them to place a link there as part of the agreement. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Chabad-Lubavitch is a popular and well-known Jewish movement, and chabad.org is a popular Jewish website - for example, it gets an Alexa ranking of 10,786, significantly higher than other popular sites about Judaism like askmoses.com (15,200), aish.com (15,930), ou.org (66,439), and jewfaq.org (68,141). I daresay it is the most popular site about Judaism on the internet. The fact that it carries a small amount of material about Israel is almost inevitable (just about every Jewish site does), though it's not clear what makes this content "heavily politicised". In any event, most of the links appear to be not to content that has anything to do with Israel at all, but rather to relevant pages on Jewish thought on various topics. In particular it's hard to imagine what is objectionable about the links to Jewish translations of various books of the Bible, along with Rashi's commentary. The Judaica Press translation is generally recognized as one of the most scholarly Jewish translations (it's not a translation done by Chabad, btw), and Rashi is the pre-eminent Jewish commentator - observant Jews almost never read the Bible without using his commentary. All in all, these links are a rather valuable service provided to the Wikipedia reader. Oh, and regarding "copyright" issues, Rashi wrote the commentary in Hebrew in the 11th century, so I suspect his copyright has expired at this point. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course it ranks highly at Alexa; it is spammed across every other Wiki page in existence.

I'm with Jay on this one. That said, the chabad.org site does not in every single instance represent the mainstream Orthodox Jewish viewpoint. In those cases, alternatives may need to be sought. But I don't support blanket removal of all links simply because an editor (an admin in good standing) once added them many months ago. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with French Main Page

Can someone please fix the French wikpedia welcome page. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueil

I get a message that it is trying to "download a file" onto my computer instead of opening the page as normal. It appears to be some kind of vandalism.

Thank you for your help. foros 14:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not something that should be posted here. Try WP:VPT —Mets501 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Picture name

I don't know where to post this, so I'll do it here: The picture [49] should be renamed into something like "Hitler coloured movie shot" as the current title violates NPOV (in a non-serious but still annoying way) and the title alone helps to inflame tempers at the Hitler article. Str1977 (smile back) 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that image also contains a strange and unreferenced copyright status claim. It should probably be taken to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. It is very difficult for us to disprove that a photograph has been published, which seems to be what we're basing this claim upon. Jkelly 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The copyright issue gets slightly stranger too, it is acknowledged in the tag that movies and such get longer copyrights then the 50 years for photos... this is a... screenshot for lack of a better word, from a home movie filmed by Eva Braun. This should be deleted, then let DRV sort it out now that we can undelete images.-Mask 00:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Problematic Move

The correct name of the book at War (book): Opposing Viewpoints (2005) is War: Opposing Viewpoints; a request to move the article to War: Opposing Viewpoints was made on the talk page. However, war: is a language prefix (perhaps it was not a good idea to use a common word as a language prefix). So the question is, what's the best thing to do with this page? -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "War, Opposing Viewpoints" or "War - Opposing Viewpoints", with a note at the top (similar to what appears on userpages for editors who want lowercased usernames and can't have them) that the punctuation is slightly off for now due to "technical reasons"? BTW, what language is "war"? Newyorkbrad 01:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a language spoken in the Philipines. See Waray-Waray language. Unfortunately there's not much we can do in this situation short of leaving it at the flawed title War- Opposing Viewpoints (2005). — GT 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Featured picture deleted

I feel the need to report this here, because it was a pretty significant action. I just had to deleted a featured picture, Image:Milopengtibet2.jpg, because its source reveals it to be licensed CC-BY-NC 2.0, i.e. noncommercial use only. User:Angr 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Darn, I liked that picture. :) Did it get uploaded with a fraudulent tag, or did nobody bother to check the page? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Or was the license changed? Does Flickr have a facility for tracking changes to the license? —ptk✰fgs 21:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, Flickr has no facility for tracking changes to the license, so there's no way of knowing now whether the tag was correct at the time or not. But it is the case that at the time the picture was uploaded, and even at the time the picture was featured, it did not provide a link to the Flickr page. The source said merely "Photo by Milo Peng. Taken on September 13, 2005 / Tibet, Lake Yamdrok Tso" with no link. It wasn't until last week that someone finally noticed that isn't an adequate source and put {{nsd}} on it; then someone else found the Flickr page and listed it as the source; then someone else looked at the Flickr page again and changed the tag to CC-BY-NC 2.0, making it a speedy candidate. User:Angr 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Meier banned from Islamophobia for three months

Under his probation in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom, I have banned Karl Meier (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) from editing Islamophobia for three months because of his disruptive editing (his last eight edits, at least, were all reverts). The ban expires 22 November, 2006. --Tony Sidaway 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec -- his last edit was August 15, six days before the RFA closed. Kinda ex-post-facto there. --jpgordon| 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
His disruptive editing didn't stop just because there was an arbitration case running. If you want to go into details, the motion was laid before the arbitration committee on 26 June and reached a majority on 29 July. Of Karl's latest four edits, in mid-August, two of them were reverts of non-vandalism on that article. He keeps blanking some polls that some other editors think should be there. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, invoking the arbcom decision to justify that ban doesn't seem proper. ArbCom did not decide to ban him from the article for his past actions, as far as I can tell. --Jpgordon 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence#Reverts by Karl, notice that this article is in that list. You think he's stopped his tendentious ways? I don't. Just zis Guy you know? 23:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "past actions" here. All actions that we know of are past actions. If an editor has continually edit warred on an article, then it's reasonable to conjecture (in the absence of the power to see his future actions) that there is not likely to be a change. I also emphasize that the decision to place this editor on probation was made before the edits, and that the decision was made on the basis of what was known about his behavior at that time. The decision of the committee was obviously correct. Even so, knowing that he was to be placed on probation, Karl Meier contined to disrupt that article. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused here too. The page says the decision to place Karl on probation was "Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)". The last edit was made August 15. How was the decision made before the edits? --Nscheffey(T/C) 23:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Is the effective date of an ArbCom decision now when one of the articles in the decision has a majority vote of the arbitrators, or is it when the case is actually closed? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The decision was made on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed decision. The decision was passed Monday when the closing arbitrator (Dmcdevit) performed an edit to transcribe the passed motions from that page to the main case page. In any case that's just nitpicking. Administrators have always been entitled to draw reasonable conjectures on Karl Meier's disruptive behavior, and plan to ameliorate it using their whatever powers are at their disposal. The availability of the new powers under Karl's probation simply makes it easier to handle such disruption. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"Nitpicking"? Not at all. When is the effective date of an ArbCom decision? It's a crucial question. For example, a common ArbCom decision is "Jpgordon is banned from editing XYZ for six months...if he violates this ban, he's subject to being blocked". So now can someone reach back and block me because I edited it a week before the decision? --jpgordon 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This "made/passed" dichotomy seems needlessly unclear. The RfArb page clearly states when the motion was passed, and hence when Karl was placed on probation. Also, this is the same day Karl was notified he was under probation. It appears pretty straightforward that this is the day he was placed on probation, and not before, To ban him from a page based on previous actions is the definition of an ex post facto law, and I don't think pointing that out is "nitpicking". If Karl continues his behavior, by all means block him, but don't use his new probation status to punish his pre-probation behavior. Isn't the whole point of placing someone on probation to see if they continue the disputed actions? --Nscheffey 23:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In that, this is ex-post-facto. Thing is that all the above arguments seem to be treating Wikipedia as some kind of procedural forum like a law court. Could somebody explain what the problem is? This guy was a problem editor before the case was brought, otherwise there would be no evidence. The remedy is now applicable and has been applied. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is your reasoning for the ban. You stated that you banned him "under his probation in the case...because of his disruptive editing." Since he was not on probation when he made those edits, this ban appears to be void of logic. --Nscheffey 00:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
He wasn't under probation, but he was still disrupting the article. Your objection seems excessively legalistic to me. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I know of the history surrouding this issue User:Karl Meier's latest edits relative to the Islamophobia article stem primarily from new User:Deuterium's tendentious influence on it. As a long term editor on that article I should know. Even I have had to deal with this User:Deuterium's disruption there myself (User:Jacoplane would verfiy my statement about Deuterium as being true generally about him). I'm not going to try to act as a lawyer in Karl Meier's defense but I do agree with the ex-post-facto arguments of others. Although User:Karl Meier's last edits there haven't been in accord with the later agreed upon disruption clause of ArbCom's ruling he has made numerous beneficial edits to the article to which I commended him. (→Netscott) 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've moved my reply to this to my talk, as Netscott deleted my reply from his talk page. Deuterium 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Deuterium, why the need for deception? Who moved the pertinent content to your talk page? Hopefully User:Tony Sidaway will again remove this unrelated talk from this thread. (→Netscott) 05:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You deleted it, regardless of whether you decided to move it to my talk page or not. I'm glad you admit that this whole discussion is off topic, so you wouldn't mind if I deleted your original comment which started this, an unprovoked personal attack against me? Deuterium 05:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove my commentary. This version of the "Karl Meier" section of your talk page provides the diffs to support my above statement. (→Netscott) 05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
But you said "Hopefully User:Tony Sidaway will again remove this unrelated talk from this thread." Do you expect to your personal attacks to stay, but no reply from me? Deuterium 05:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
What concerns me is that such editors who are seen as commendable for a while sometimes go off the rails and get into a revert cycle. They don't actually contribute to Wikipedia when they do thst, they make it a nasty place to edit in.
I've asked the Committee for clarification on whether the basis on which I made my decision to ban was appropriate. Of course if they agree with me there will still be the matter, which you have touched upon, of whether the ban is necessary. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. (I have no opinion whatsoever regarding the ban itself, as I'm unfamiliar with the case; I was just trying to reduce the amount of ammo that we provide to people with authority problems.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
After clarification from ArbCom this has been rescinded. (→Netscott) 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Challenge of the GoBots

Due to various page move vandalism looks like we've lost the edit history to this page, can someone restore it please? Thanks. exolon 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Prodego talk 02:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! exolon 09:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User page move

User:Lysten Syngatykc, who appears to be the same as User:Josh West, created a page at User:Josh west, but that user does not exist. I put up the "Josh west" page for CSD U2 at first. However, it seems appropriate that the page at User:Josh west be moved to User:Lysten Syngatykc who created it and has no user page, but I felt a little uncomfortable moving user pages. Gimmetrow 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Issue handled. Thanks. Gimmetrow 13:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Note from Padawer regarding Qmwnebrvtcyxuz

At The Anome's request, I am posting to the Administrators' noticeboard regarding Qmwnebrvtcyxuz. A rising third-grader whose intellectual capacity is far greater than his years, Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (the name being a QWERTY keyboard pattern) is my son.

Despite Wikipedia not being a site intended for social networking, he managed to meet several other children here. Unfortunately at least two of those other minors are accused (perhaps with cause and perhaps not -- I am unacquainted with their controversy or history) of discussing possible vandalism to one or more project articles. My son was not implicated in such discussions, and neither was he accused of same, but he was initially banned from Wikipedia by The Anome along with a list of other children who were socially acquainted while their interaction history was disentangled.

Some intercalary background for Administrators: I introduced my son to Wikipedia, and he became enamored with the site immediately. He is a very unusual child, evidencing palpable cognitive ability, and such difference is perhaps best illustrated by the fact of his having memorized 230 digits of Pi (so far), entirely on his own and much to his mother's and my shock. Congruent with this curious achievement, he has edited articles regarding the number Pi (examples: PiHex which he largely authored in its entirety [note the article's unsigned edit history under IP address 71.199.39.144] and the related smaller Bellard's Formula article which he created), among other minor contributions.

Returning to the topic at hand, I quizzed Qmwnebrvtcyxuz at length, and following some fairly difficult moments here at home which alternated between empathic counseling, interrogation, and internet investigation, I finally drew the conclusion that my son had simply become swept up in an online version of what we sometimes see occur in schools daily: The boy got into trouble, not because of anything he had particularly done, but because of who his friends were. Now, speaking as a psychologist as well as a father, I would like to quickly add that I am very grateful that this lesson is being learned with a computer and an internet site NOW rather than with drugs and dangerous real-life encounters a few years hence. The overused heuristic is nonetheless so true: If you hang out with dogs, you're more likely to catch fleas.

I had the pleasure of interacting with The Anome subsequent to his investigation, and he ultimately removed the ban from my son and from our household's IP address. Throughout our contact, he was very concerned but polite, careful but eminently respectful, and entirely lacking in rigidity as he worked his way (and probably continues to work his way) through these complicated events involving so many junior project participants. For my part, I have pledged to supervise and/or closely review my son's participation here, and my son understands that I expect to review his URL history (which is cached in my password-protected router for such purposes) daily for the foreseeable future. In any case, this event has also been helpful to me as a father: The internet is not universally safe, and I have unfortunately allowed my son too much unsupervised freedom despite his very young age.

Speaking professionally again, I would like to offer an uninvited and unneeded defense of The Anome. Clearly his actions were courageous and very likely to elicit uncomfortable questions like: 1) Were the children banned simply because of their ages? 2) Were they banned for discussing, rather than actually effectuating, possible vandalism? 3) Was the net cast too widely, ensnaring other children who weren't actual parties to the questionable activities? (Etc.) I would offer this in return: If a group of children look as if they are planning to engage in misbehavior, responsible adults SHOULD intervene, mindful of the fact that minors do not enjoy the same due process rights accorded adults in civilized societies everywhere (and I would enjoy hearing about the inevitable exceptions). At the same time, such adults need to be willing to shoulder some additional responsibility, as The Anome has done, through their willingness to work with the parents and other Wikipedians in order to see any investigation through to its logical conclusion.

Finally, I will close with a request, which I have redundantly posted on my and Qmwnebrvtcyxuz's user pages: If anyone observes Qmwnebrvtcyxuz engaging in behavior which is harmful to Wikipedia, an eventuality which I believe is very unlikely although anything is possible given his age, I would very much appreciate being alerted -- padawer@gmail.com.

I apologize for the article length, and thank you.

padawer 02:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

With continued observation, I think the situation is fine. The Anome's actions cast a wide net, but this seems like the exception to the rule. Ral315 (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please can I be unblocked?

My username is Woody1003, and I have been accused of vandalism due to a shared IP, caused by a user with the name "Ooeeooaaaadingdangwallawallabingbang." Now I have been blocked from editing, and I feel this is unjust. I have read what to do, and it is unclear how to resolve this issue. Please can I be unblocked?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woody1003 (talk • contribs) 05:06, August 23, 2006 (UTC)

If you're posting here, you are unblocked. Shimgray | talk | 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Should any admin have a moment, they might try contacting Woody via email. It's possible he posted this from another location (local library, school, what have you). Woody, if you're still reading this, you should at least be able to post to your own talk page. If you, from your normal editing location, are still blocked due to a shared IP, you might post a message confirming this on your talk page. I believe there's also a template you can use to attract admin attention, but I don't recall what it is. --InkSplotch 21:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
{{helpme}} attracts somekind of attention. Syrthiss 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
{{unblock}} is better for unblock requests though. --pgk(talk) 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
ya ya :) Syrthiss 21:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks both Shimgray and InkSplotch. Firstly, it seemed to just be a temporary block, but it lasted a long time. Sorry to raise the alarm. InkSplotch, I have mostly been using the same PC, however I have done some edits from school, but that seems a totally different matter. Thanks anyway. Woody1003


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger

This arbitration case is close and the decision has been published at the above link.

  • In the absence of challenge, non-controversial material obtained from the The Hunger Project website, http://www.thp.org/ may be included in the article. Such material may be added by Jcoonrod or any other user associated with The Hunger Project. If such material is contested, in good faith, by any other user the material shall be removed unless a reliable published source is available for the information. In this context, a good faith challenge requires some reason to doubt the validity of the information.
  • Critical information may be included in the article only if it is supported by verifiable information which has been published by a reputable source. Material lacking an adequate reference may be removed by anyone without discussion. Such removal is an exception to the three revert rule. Critical information shall be attributed to its source and be placed in context, in other words, practices which are alleged to have occurred during the organizational or formative stages of the Project shall be identified as such.
  • It is presumed that, using the suggested guidelines we have made, Jcoonrod, Smeelgova, and other involved editors can edit responsibly without sanctions which restrict their editing of this or related articles.
  • The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction of this dispute and may, on its own motion, or on the motion of a concerned user, reopen it for further consideration.


For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Template:Copyrighted

Hello, this template is protected and i cant had a new interwiki (fr:Modèle:Restreint à Wikipédia), is it possible to add him ? Another think the begin on this template is "This image is copyrighted, and used with permission" and his name (Template:Copyrighted) is not realy representative of this content. but i dont know. Its possible too that fr:Modèle:Restreint à Wikipédia is not the same as Template:Copyrighted. Do what it need to do. Thanks a lot. fr:Utilisateur:Bayo 16:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Link added by Duncharris. ~ PseudoSudo 23:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus

This arbitration case is close and the final decision has been posted at the link above.

  • It is recommended by the Committee that Dionyseus (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) consider carefully the suggestions of others regarding punctuation and other matters he is not familiar with. It is no use arguing about well established punctuation conventions.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_Archive55_aa0c.html"

Static Wikipedia (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu