Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dionyseus (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 25 November 2006 (→Leaving mesages on protected talk pages?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Dionyseus in topic Leaving mesages on protected talk pages?
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    information Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)



    Primetime = plagiarism

    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Also editing as 67.2.145.xxx, 67.2.148.xxx, and 67.2.149.xxx)

    Confirmed sock puppets:

    Likely or suspected sockpuppets

    We just discovered many Primetime sockpuppets, some dating back to January (he was banned May 12 2006 [1]).

    Virtually every significant contribution Primetime has made is plagiarized. When confronted, he lies, blusters, and refuses to add sources or produces oddly formatted bibliographies of old books. Typical sources for him are online reference sources (World Book, Grove's Music, etc) that require special access and are not searched by Google. He'll keep insisting he has written the material himself until confronted with proof, when he becomes contrite and promises to repent. Primetime is a true troll, picking fights to cause disruption.

    His general areas of interest recently have been encyclopedias and other reference works, letters of the alphabet (esp. A, J, T), the Spanish language, Latin America, World Heritage sites, Third World countries, and China. He has participated as a staunch inclusionist in AfDs, especially those for list of slurs. He's even created MOS guidelines (also clearly plagiarized) and tried to get them adopted.[2]

    This new crop of sockpuppets have been accused repeatedly of adding inappropriate material or even plagiarism, but no one guessed the connection. Anytime we suspect plagiarism and it's being vigorously denied we should consider that it may be the work of Primetime. -Will Beback 08:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    BTW, I can help out with the subscriptions. I have World Book, Grove's music/art, AccessScience, Britannica, MacquarieNet, ABS, Safari Books Online, NetLibrary and more. Contact me if you need me to check something in future. --nkayesmith 08:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I was contacted by someone who admitted to using a large number of accounts, but denied being Primetime. After further investigation I've decided that he is probably correct. I've asked him to refrain from using socks in the future and have unblocked his main account, Balthazarduju (talk · contribs). -Will Beback · † · 19:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Ta bu shi da yu getting married!

    Latest comment: 18 years ago17 comments15 people in discussion
     
    So you're saying I've only got until December 2nd?? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Hello all, apologies if this seems a little inappropriate for the AN board. Figured that I started this noticeboard off, might as well be one of the many to misuse it :-)

    Anyway, this is just a short note to let everyone know I will be getting married in Sydney, Australia on the 2nd December! Email me through the email this user toolbar URL for details if you want to come to watch the big event and I vaguely know you :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    zOMG! Congratulations, ta_bu. Very happy for you. :D — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Congratulations. Its nice to read something positive here for a change, I'm sure no one minds the noticeboard abuse distraction.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Congratulations! I wish you the best! (Radiant) 10:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • SlimVirgin: Yes, you've only got to 2 December. However, if you lose the latter part of your name to Ta bu shi da yu before 2 December, there might be a serious problem with Nick's head becoming unattached and suddenly being Radiant and appearing in Ta bu shi da yu's fiance's brain during her dreams about clowns causing her not to sleep. Please be careful. Congrats Ta bu shi da yu :) --Durin 14:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Fiancée, Durin, not fiancé, big difference there ;) – Chacor 15:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply


    Chacor, how can you assume which one it is? yandman 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    LOL, yandman. We all know ta_bu is straight.  :) — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Congratulations, ta bu. I wonder whether we might prevail upon you to confine your honeymoon to one day lest Category:Non-free image copyright tags, Category:Images with unknown copyright status, and Category:Images with unknown source should develop backlogs; I'm certain your wife won't mind... Joe 05:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Congrats! Best of luck. =) Nishkid64 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Congratulations! --Ixfd64 08:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Big fat congrats, TBSDY! This won't affect your editing, I hope? ;) Best of luck! – ClockworkSoul 00:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Congratulations, TBSDY! Now make sure you go on a honeymoon where there's no Internet connection! --Deathphoenix ʕ 10:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Figured I'd give reverse psychology a try...Reply

    Block of AOL ranges per m:Meta:No open proxies

    Latest comment: 18 years ago90 comments39 people in discussion

    I have blocked the three open proxy ranges of AOL, 64.12.96.0/19, 152.163.0.0/16, and 205.188.0.0/16 with anon-only, account creation enabled, for being effectively open proxies. These address can be exploited by anyone by installing and using the now-free AOL software [3] . More information on how AOL distributes IP address through the proxy server is located at Wikipedia:AOL. Anonymous editors on these ranges are encouraged to create an account. Naconkantari 01:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    • I endorse this. I think it's kind of a shame but was inevitable. Chick Bowen 01:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I endorse as well. It's much less effort to create an account than it is to keep up with the ridiculous amount of malicious editing from AOL proxy IP addresses. —[admin] Pathoschild 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • comment: do you have to use class b's, or would class c's work? further comment: as somebody who worked in aol's netops, i can tell you any traffic you are getting on port 80 from them is through a proxy (or more than one). so trying to block proxies from their space is useless. ... aa:talk 03:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    No, unfortunately I can't give that kind of information out. I think it would be more productive to find another way to avoid the disruption than to wholesale block users. Do we have any figures for how many users are originating at AOL? What I'm getting at is, we need to determine how many users are affected by such global indiscriminate blocking. ... aa:talk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Okay, I'll be the one to post a somewhat naive question here - and I'm neither supporting nor opposing the decision to block these ranges, just asking a question. How much of a problem have bad edits from these ranges been in reality? I don't mean bad edits from AOL anons in general, I know that's a problem - but are problematic edits from the now-blocked ranges more common than those from any other AOL range? I thought the reason open proxies are blocked is because there's no way to trace edits for purposes such as blocking vandals ... but I thought we were resigned to that situation in the case of AOL anyhow. Is there reason to fear the situation here would be worse than usual? I assume this is a bit of a naive question, as I said, and that the answer is yes or this wouldn't have been done, and I claim no technical expertise, but I'm interested in a little more of the thinking here, if only because I was once an AOL anon and if I hadn't been able to edit for a little while from there I probably wouldn't be here now. Thanks to whoever can clarify a bit. Newyorkbrad 03:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    First, AOL only rather recently began to provide this completely free service. Before, someone would get a free CD in the mail, use slow dial-up and would then consume their free hours. Now it can be simply downloaded, used on high-speed, fast-loading connections, and used limitlessly.
    I don't know why only these addresses were blocked, there are other AOL proxy addresses that would seem to warrant blocking under the same reason. This is almost all of them, though. Note that AOL client IPs are much less of a problem. Whereas with the proxy IPs every single page request may go to a different proxy, if the person is not using the AOL web browser he is confined to one client IP until he disconnects and re-dials. With the proxy IPs someone can download the AOL software for free, or hook into it with some vandalbot software and their edits will jump around across the range. This happened even when the service was not so free. This does happen, and just like other open proxies are used to circumvent blocks, the same will be done with the free AOL download.
    Anyone using AOL is still able to edit Wikipedia by using Internet Explorer or Firefox, not the AOL browser, as those will use the relatively unchanging AOL client IPs, or they can use the SSL connection or change their proxy settings. —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    So what you're saying is that some browsers are more equal than others? ... aa:talk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Of course. When "browser" = "abusive open proxy software", then it's very clear why not all browsers are equal or should be treated equally. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I would just like to say that open proxy software is not inherently "abusive". It is a tool that can be used for various purposes - some abusive, others not. Open proxy software can protect privacy. Even though Wikipedia will not disclose your IP address without good reason, assuming you register for an account, the communications between you and Wikipedia can still be eavesdropped upon. However, since open proxies can also be used for negative purposes, it is reasonable to expect users intentionally using them for privacy reasons to register an account and deal with the autoblocks. As for users unintentionally using them, I don't think I'm part of the majority opinion.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Point taken, and well said. I should say instead that, in general, not all HTTP software is the same or should be treated equally. Some of them are begging to be abused (AOL's browser, open proxies), and some don't lend themselves especially to abuse (Firefox et. al.). They're all tools that have good uses and which can be abused. When we can tell what tools are being abused and what aren't, it's reasonable to act on that. Equality of access is an issue, but one that has to be weighed against the harm it can do. We don't give everyone admin tools after all. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Also, since the AOL proxies are now open proxies, shouldn't we be disable account creation from these ranges? It would seem that most people who would deliberately use open proxies to hide their IP addresses would also be willing to create accounts if necessary. John254 14:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Also along the same lines, but never announced on WP:AN (only on IRC), I've been preemptively blocking Google Web Accelerator proxies with a link to Wikipedia:Advice to Google Web Accelerator users. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I personally oppose ("strongly" seems appropriate, if redundant) this move. It's abject laziness to not find a more appropriate way to prevent the vandalism. ... aa:talk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      And what do you consider more appropriate? We can't somehow modify human behaviour so any change will have to be technical, this seems to give us two options (1) prevent access from ips which are known to be sources of large quanities of vandalism or (2) Pre-validate all edits. Both have downsides. --pgk 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I must agree; it's easy to say "your solution stinks", but it's hard to say "here's a better one." As a vandal-fighter, I can tell you that many countless hours are wasted zapping vandals using public IPs that could be much better spent doing things like contributing to an encyclopedia. Do you have a better solution (an honest question)? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I did in fact say "your solution stinks." As an editor and contributor (my feelings on vandal fighting are well known) it isn't my job to come up with a better idea. I think the proposed (or indeed implemented) solution is a bad one, and it would be less harmful to remove the blocks and counter vandalism on a case-by-case basis, rather than block users wholesale. Secondly, as a professional programmer, network admin, and so on, I can tell you that such better solutions do exist. Consider, if you will, the myriad vandal fighting scripts sulking around this project. If those scripts are capable of tagging vandalism for a fingers-and-eyes review, or indeed reversing it (as I see occasionally on my watchlist), then we need only to apply such a solution to these ranges. If we block four class B's, that's over a quarter of a million IP addresses. Solutions therefore exist, and this solution, as I said, is one of abject laziness and/or hostility towards users of the much maligned AOL service.
    Continuing, has anyone produced metrics determining how much vandalism is being prevented, and how many positive edits are being prevented? Ironically, during my time at AOL, one of my responsibilities was divining metrics from vast heaps of data. In this case, such vast heaps of data exist (or checkuser would not work), and nobody is putting the data to use by mining it for metrics. Imagine, if you will, AOL making a decision that it would only support users on DSL or faster connections. At the outset, this seems like a good decision. However, with something crucial on the line, such as a revenue stream (or constructive edits from a quarter million IP addresses), it would be foolhardy to unilaterally act without having a firm understanding of what the downstream effects are.
    I don't have any personal vendetta against the proponents of this decision, but again, I must call it what it is: abject laziness. If people spent as much time coming up with a solution as they do playing cops-and-robbers, we would have a solution already. Consider the jig. When one discovers a problem that will require repeated, consistent results, one does not simply sigh and resolve to complete the task ad infinitum. Rather, the intelligent person will analyze the problem, find its common points, and build a mechanism for doing the work for them. This way, you wind up watching many automatons doing your work for you, and your bandwidth available for accomplishing said tasks is remarkably improved. For those of you taking notes, it is possible to distill this down to one common adage: work smarter, not harder. Instrumenting such large blocks is quite the opposite: it is not working (as in trevail rather than sufficient) at all. ... aa:talk 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I support this move... we've had nothing but repeated problems due to the bizzare setup of AOL proxies. Anything to stop the massive vandalism spree by AOLers is fine by me.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Strongest oppose possible - this is ridiculous. --Ixfd64 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Could you explain why? This isn't a vote but rather a discussion, so you've essentially said nothing. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    This will not prevent abuse by AOL users at all. Vandals will simply create accounts, which will make things even more difficult for us. --Ixfd64 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Which is why we should not only block anonymous editing, but also block account creation on the AOL proxies, as we would for any other open proxies. Existing users could continue to edit Wikipedia through the proxies; new users could bypass the proxies, and edit from their own IP addresses, by using an external web browser instead of the browser in the AOL software. We certainly wouldn't be preventing anyone using AOL from editing. Is there some compelling reason not to fully enforce Wikipedia:No open proxies against the AOL proxies? John254 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, a new (hypothetical) situation. Somebody from AOL wants to start editing Wikipedia. They can't edit under the blocked IP from AOL. So they go to create an account. They can't since account creation is blocked. So they go to IE or something like that. Problem is, AOL parental controls blocks all external browsers. any ideas? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    As the AOL page says, they can use the Wikimedia SSL service, or they may be able to change their proxy connections. They could also create an account at school or at a library. —Centrx→talk • 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I strongly, strongly endorse this. Frankly, we should've done it a long time ago. I also concur with John254 on this point and am sorely tempted to reblock with account creation disabled. We don't owe AOL a damn thing. Mackensen (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • Did they ever actually enable the XFF headers after they said they would? —Centrx→talk • 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
        • No, they didn't. And if they did, it's not effective for the ranges I blocked. I originally was going to block account-creation, but decided against it after some discussion on IRC. Feel free to reblock with account creation disabled if this would be better. I personally would support blocking account creation. Potential editors can use the SSL service to create an account (provided there isn't a problem server-side with an increase of traffic there) or use a public library or a friend's computer. These three ranges are the ones I have found are the most used through personal experience. Naconkantari 05:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
          • If I remember correctly, they did, only that our XFF whitelist doesn't have CIDR support. You should probably ask Tim Starling on IRC about this, though. Titoxd(?!?) 05:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
            • About account creation enabling/blocking - you could compromise and block account creation on some percent of them. This will allow a persistent person trying to register to do so if they are patient enough to wait for their exit proxy to change to one with account creation enabled, but make it harder on anyone who wants to register a large number of accounts. (Note that I am actually opposed to disabling account creation because of the people using these proxies as part of their regular internet connection.) Just a thought, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Perhaps we should get Jimbo's say on whether AOL proxies should be blocked. --Ixfd64 06:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    • I agree with blocking anon editing, but disabling account creation as well seems to go too far. Most of AOL seem not to be malicious vandals, but the immature and silly kind. (Radiant) 15:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I've directed Jimbo to this discussion. I think that AOL forced our hand on this one so to speak. This isn't just an example of a set of open proxies now but a set of user-friendly open proxies. To allow them would lead to so many different problems even aside from vandalism. I'm normally a strong proponent of letting anons edit but this is way over the line. JoshuaZ 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Holy blasphemy, why does everything we do require Jimbo's approval? Editors with good intentions are regsitering accounts, vandals are being stopped, so feel free to whine and complain about something that's justified and has support, but you are just wasting your time. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Agreed with Pilotguy. 98% of computers with AOL have another browser (question: if the user can't figure out how to open the other browser, can they figure out how to edit Wikicode properly?); and what's more, they're not blocked from editing - they can register a user account. In the cost/benefit analysis, I believe the encyclopedia has far more to gain by soft-blocking these IP addresses. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Administrators can now edit the block reason at Template:AOLblock. If you do edit it, please keep it as short and simple as possible, and remember that many AOL users don't have a strong understanding of proxies and may believe they are personally targeted. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Indefinite blocks?@#!@?#@???? I regularly edit (logged out) using AOL - and prefer the anonymity for sevearl reasons. In the last couple weeks; however, I have found fewer and fewer pages available to edit as the blocks are now being placed indefinately. This is bad for Wikipedia.

    1. AOL attracts mainstream (i.e. non-computer geek) internet users. Forcing them to create a username to edit is just one more roadblock and goes against what I feel is a fundamental value of Wikipedia - allowing anyone to edit (who does so in good faith)
    2. What may seem like a simple task of creating a username is not one. I (being a known computer-geek) am often asked by those over 50 (which I see regularly in my vocation) if people on the internet can track you - if I tell them my name can they com find me - if I give an email address what can they do to me. And although I reassure them it isn't that scary and give them guidelines. Forcing these users to register means we will lose many of them - and the valuable contributions their age and experience can bring to the project
    3. Occasional editors (like me) who value the anonymity that AOL brings (through the use of an open proxy) - where 1) every edit I make has to stand on its own - my edits are subject to increased scrutiny because of the IP address, 2) I can edit where I want without being harrassed on my talk page (note I know that this can be a bad thing because of vandals) - and can make edits without the baggage of a "reputation" or a POV - I can ask hard questions to positions I may even support without risking my reputation, etc. These editors make substantial contributions to Wikipedia.
    If we want to allow open proxies for anonymity or whatever then we should allow all open proxies. I don't see any reason to single out AOL open proxies. Such a move is patently unfair... Nil Einne 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    There are many technically less skilled people who do not understand what "proxy" is or where to change the settings, yet they can still write good texts .... their contribution will probably lack wikilinks, categories and such stuff, but still may be valuable if they are experts on some topic (Much smaller expertise on article topic is needed for tasks like adding links or categories, so potentially many users can fix such article).
    Also, due to new measure against impersonation, it is sometimes hard to register - when registering this my name, I got many messages like "Ook! Ook! is too similar to existing user Hhkkhhkk" till I gave up, picked up some nonsense name and headed to request a name change. There are many users here and this similarity detection quite limits what you can pick up .... many user may be discouraged by this for editing.
    --Ook! Ook! 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reverse these indefinite blocks. Normally about 1/10 pages I try to edit, I am blocked from editing - I just go on to the next thing - no problem. But lately about 9/10 I am now blocked from editing. This is bad policy and reverses the long standing tradition of allowing editing from AOL. Thank you for listening. Abeo Paliurus 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    As far as I'm aware, this change shouldn't affect you at all. If anything it might make things better. Also, if this does cause problems for you, your only real option is to ask AOL to either use a different proxy for their subscribers, allow you to not use a proxy, or go back to the pre-open proxy days. If my ISP in NZ or a friends one in MY forced me to use a proxy which also happened to be an open proxy, I am pretty sure that I would have had no luck in convincing people to unban the open proxy so I don't get why we should make an exception for AOL. BTW, I guess you've read Wikipedia:AOL and tried it's solutions right? (since you have an an account I really don't get why you have any problems, just login from secure or use a different browser which doesn't use proxies) Nil Einne 13:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Endorse. Open proxies should be blocked no matter how many people use them. Provide a decent explanation and rewrite Wikipedia:AOL in a form that assumes good faith and tries to be helpful to AOLers instead of starting with "Abusive users from America Online (AOL) can be difficult to deal with". Kusma (討論) 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • May I remind the mob that these are not open proxies, but rather the original poster has said they are effectively open proxies. Any proxy on the internet is "effectively" an open proxy if people are able to use it, as they are in this case. Why the distinction between "i have to enter said proxy into my browser's configs", or "i have to be added to an ackle" and this situation? In any of the above cases, it's a trivial effort to make use of the proxy. By that logic, I could say that any keyboard can be utilized to vandalize the wikipedia, all you have to do is go to BBUY and attach it to your machine. Yes, I am aware of reductio ad absurdium, but indulge me. ... aa:talk 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • Do you realize that this change was precipitated by AOL making their client software free so that anyone can now use (or abuse) their proxy network at no cost? That makes their network an open proxy, i.e. an internet proxy that effectively anyone can use for free. AOL's proxy network was always problematic for us, but it didn't get blocked until they decided to make it open. So now it is blocked like many other open proxies and proxy networks on the internet in accordance with our long standing policies. Dragons flight 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
        • Do you understand there is an important semantic difference between "an open proxy" and "effectively an open proxy"? There's a critical step here. One that requires forethought and malice, which we do not assume of anyone. Even AOL. This is completely inane. It's a damn lynching. ... aa:talk 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
          • Then I have no idea what distinction you see between what AOL has now done and any other open proxy. Dragons flight 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
          • But most normal open proxies have legitimate users (why would you create a proxy if you weren't intending to serve users) who may be forced to use said proxies by the ISPs. The issue here is no assuming anything. People who edit using normal open proxies, even if they are not legitimate users of said proxy may not be doing it because they want to vandalise. They may be doing it because they want anonymity, because they are banned from wikipedia at their school/work/whatever etc. Nil Einne 12:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
        • Fine then, it IS an open proxy. If I am able to edit from it without having to pay for the service and it masks my real IP address, it's an "open" "proxy" which is to be blocked. Naconkantari 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Endorse these blocks per the commenters above and m:Meta:No open proxies. AOL users can use our secure login ala Wiktionary or standard browser as already mentioned. Yamaguchi先生 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Endorse we have a clear policy on open proxies and I have yet to see any good reason to ignore it. And might I respectably suggest that some users appear to have failed to understand the issue. AOL only recently changed their service to make their proxies effectively open proxies. Whatever has happened in the past is therefore irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have a policy intended to prevent problems before they occur and we are simply abiding by the policy. Nil Einne 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • If we're doing this, we should do what Wiktionary does and put advice to AOL'ers at the top of the Main Page. I'm not too sure about the move in general, but I can't think of anything better for the time being, so it's probably best just to get the documentation sorted. --ais523 13:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Probablly wise to speak to the devs before putting something like that on the en main page (or even the blocked page), I belive secure.wikimedia.org is served by only a single server. Plugwash 13:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I don't see much point they will find any instructions when they try to edit. Otherwise no need to advertise AOL on the main page.Geni 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Endorse and more fully impliment. Indeed we do have a clear policy on open proxies and we need to follow it here. Account creation needs to be blocked from AOL's open proxies too. Then we can work on technical solutions such as making sure the XFF headers work or that people can use the secure login to identify the actual IP address. - Taxman Talk 14:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Centrx neutralised account creation on the 21st. I think that settles the matter unless someone can come up with a better solution.Geni 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I use AOL. This means I...have to go...to Mozilla Firefox? Just to edit WP? No! TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    You'll wish you never looked back... MER-C 06:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Endorse per above. MER-C 06:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Hallelujah! per sanity. This should have been done as soon as the blocking software was upgraded. Proto::type 09:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Does this conflict with autoblocks from a registered user using AOL? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Yes it overrides it, IIRC autoblocks are bottom of the pile, so these have the effect of stopping autoblocks impacting signed in users in those ranges, given the dynamic nature of the IP addresses autoblocks served little purpose on AOL so this is what we would want. --pgk 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    My concern was that a signed-in user would be blocked (for vandalism or something). Then that user tries to edit and is autoblocked on an AOL iP. Does that shorten the "indefinite" block of the AOL IPs? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The effect of this is to make autoblocks irrelevant, a user gets blocked and that block lasts as long as the admin puts in, if an autoblock occurs these blocks being higher up just keep the IP blocked but don't blocked signed in user. (The block of the user is higher up the tree again so the account which was blocked remains blocked for the correct duration). --pgk 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment. I'm not sure what my feelings are on this. Is this proposal to ban ALL AOL users from using Wikipedia unless they register an account? (And I should note from personal experience that registering an account does NOT make one immune from IP blocks, having been knocked offline a dozen times over the last few years). While I can understand the rationale, I think if you're going to block one particular ISP's ranges, then we might as well once again restart the debate over banning non-registered users from editing Wikipedia, period, an idea I personally support. 23skidoo 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      Other ISPs don't provide access for free. AOL does through their new broadband software. Naconkantari 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      This is not about blocking one particular ISPs ranges, as noted above AOL users who use FireFox etc. get allocated a semistatic IP outside of the ranges of these proxies and can edit without issue. The problem with these proxies is that AOL has essentialy opened them up and made them available to anyone regardless of the ISP they pay and without passing the originating IP details through, i.e. they have become anonymous open proxies open to everyone. --pgk 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I can't let Ta bu shi da yu steal the show...

    Latest comment: 18 years ago17 comments17 people in discussion

    So here it is...

    I'm getting married on December 22, so if anyone is around, so anyone around Guadalajara, Jalisco is more than welcomed. -- Drini 03:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    hmm I see love is still only a B-class article.Geni 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Two bad faith efforts

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    There's currently a thread going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Violation of good faith by user Shamir1 about users asking for unprotection in a dispute, though it wasn't over, in order to get their version reinstated (at least one was apparently successful). This seems like a severe breach of good faith to me - is there any procedure for this? Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    The same dishonest behavior is continuing. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad faith behavior by Shamir1 and Amoruso (continued). --Zerotalk 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Requesting a block (on yourself)

    Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

    Some organizations NAT outgoing connections to appear from a single IP and have users who vandalize Wikipedia with some regularity. Is there any policy in place to allow those organizations to request a permanent block on anonymous editing from the IP addresses for which they're responsible? If so, I'd appreciate someone pointing me to it. If not, could such a thing be done? Furthermore, if such a thing were to be done, where would the IP addresses be listed?

    Thanks! - Jonathan 07:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    It has been done for schools in past. Clearly we need some verification that it is someone responsible rather than just someone trying to be "clever", so I believe they were emailed in originating from an official email account. --pgk 08:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The folks at WP:ABUSE and m:OTRS-en have been involved with this sort of thing at the past, you might want to check with them. FreplySpang 15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I admit, I'm always rather surprised that this is really a problem. It seems to me better monitoring/logging, good company policies and active enforcement within the company are the real solution. Make it abundantly clear users should not be disruptive on the internet or violate policies of any websites they visit. You can even include vandalising wikipedia as a specific example. If it still occurs, track down the perpetrators (with good logs, it shouldn't be hard) and call them up for violating IT policies. Dock they pay or whatever. BTW, I'm not an admin and have never been involved in this sort of thing, but I assume normal practice would be to contact your organisation via the listed contact for your IP. Nil Einne 11:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Our AUP already forbids things like vandalism online, but our IT department can't and shouldn't be responsible for monitoring all web usage and determining what could be vandalism. Wikipedia only contacts the owners of IP addresses in rare cases (the [[WP::ABUSE]] referred to me above seems to be a quasi-policy on the subject), and tracking individual cases of vandalism on Wikipedia down to the user would be ridiculously time-consuming anyway. I'm in contact with the IT Dept at the organization in question; it's WikiMedia that I'm trying to reach now. (I think you might have misunderstood my message; if so, sorry for the flame.) Anyhow, I sent a message to the WikiMedia info address, so we'll see what they have to say. Jonathan 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

    A handful of editors and myself have been removing links from Wikipedia to the YouTube website. I think we’ve hit about 2000 or so articles so far.

    A user has raised concern that the project doesn’t have enough "admin" oversight. (see my linklist talk page) The user in question is concerned with our methods. Basically what I’m doing (and I can’t speak for the other users) is running AWB with a find/replace function. For each link that comes up I look at the context of the link. If suspect its copyvio (music videos are the most often) I remove the link. If the context implies some reliability (Band’s profiles mostly) I leave the link. After that I keep an eye on my contributions list. If (Top) drops off the list I go see why. If I was reverted I look deeper into the situation, review the movie and make a comment on the talk page. Fortunately, (outside of the previously mentioned editor) happened only a half-dozen times that I’m aware of.

    (I’ve been dancing around mentioning the user’s name, and I’m not really sure why. The user is Cindery.)

    I have encouraged Cindery to open a RFC (with a promises also to sign it), but Cindery politely refused... So I’m bringing the discussion here. I’d like to verify that I’m acting with the support of the community I had previously assumed I had. (I based that assumption on a post on WP:RS, a post here on WP:AN and several conversations on #wikipedia) ---J.S (t|c) 20:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Yep. No issues. Carry on. JoshuaZ 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I agree (but I'm not an admin so who cares). There is too much to be reviewed to make it possible to do this without deleting the odd valid link here and there. As long as we are not saying that every link should go forever and are carefully considering them if restored this should be OK. Spartaz 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Since one of the members of the "YouTube project" is Dmcdevit, an arbitrator, I'd say you're covered. Thatcher131 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    "But I'm not an admin so who cares" - Actually, admins don't get extra consideration over us commoners. :P
    I intentionally didn't want to mention Dmcdevit... didn't want to bias anyone's evaluation. (Let me coin a new phrase... "respect bias" :)) ---J.S (t|c) 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    They do not make barnstars big and shiny enough to reward such heroic work. Carry on and may the face of Jimbo ever shine upon your edits. 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)
    I disagree ... they make barnstars the size of, well, barns. But I agree that the work is important and should continue. --Cyde Weys 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I think how the project is being conducted is a clear violation of copyright policy, which states "it is not the job of rank and file Wikipedians to police copyright violations," and that suspected cr vios should be mentioned on talkpages of articles, or reported to copyright problems. The possible YT exceptions, and the steps that need to be taken to affirm that content is licensed under GDFL, are not being explained; a source bias is merely being propagated--the links are being mass-deleted on the assumption that they are not GDFL, not proof that they aren't. I am especially concerned regarding the accusation of OR levelled at the user who verified a GDFL license. Please see discussion at NOR. I think there is a need for adjustment of this project--until last week, they were conducting the purge more slowly--by placing a template first in iffy cases. A new template should be used, which is less biased against YT, and which refers editors to policy pages and boards (where updating is needed re valid uses of YT at NOR, RS and V). Respect for talkpage discussions should also be in effect, when the cases are not clear cr vios, such as recent pop songs. Cindery 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    You seem to be completely missing the points. This has nothing to do with GFDL. We have a specific policy on external links, see here Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Also, the policy states "It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page." It says at least. It doesn't say you are forbidden from removing it yourself without discussion on your talk page. My understanding of the "police" thing is that it means we don't continually monitor articles very carefully to ensure there are no copyrights. This is important because if we do, we would be more responsible for copyright violations. However it is still important that we make resonable efforts to prevent copyright violations and when users identify problems, they are still expected to do something about them. As with all things, it's up to the contributors. Continually removing content without explaination or discussion is usually disruptive, especially if there is no legitimate reason to remove the content. But in this case, it appears the people involved in this project are making a resonable effort to ensure they only remove external links which violate copyright and they have amply explained. Note that wikipedia is by it's nature source biased. We only want high quality, reliable sources. We don't link to jewwatch, except when specifically discussing them for example. In this case, there is nothing specificly wrong with youtube, but a lot of it's content is circumspect. If you can show us a resonable number of examples where the links that were removed are not copyright violations, then perhaps we need to look in to this further but currently, your only concerns appear to be due to a misunderstanding of policy. Nil Einne 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    The problem is that the technicality they're using is a recent change to the EL guideline--they're not deleting under C (or looking at the links very carefully). Their edit summaries say, "EL--sites that don't provide licensing information." Instead of inquiring re the GDFL license, they are deleting on the assumtption that the Wiki publisher and the YT publisher are not the same, and that therefore the GDFL license is reasonably doubtful (and giving no info to editors about what to do about that, i.e., how to affirm GDFL license.) The problem with that is GDFL is not reasonably suspect--self-publishers publish on YT under public ___domain/want their work freely disseminated. So no, they are not making a reasonable effort to to ensure that they only remove links which violate copyright--they are mass deleting on the assumption that they're erring on the side of removing some legit links to get rid of a larger number of illegit links. That would still be fine, if they were deleting under C--but deleting under EL doesn't give anyone with an objection info about how to use YT for the benefit of Wikipedia--EL currently gives the erroneous information that YT is prohibited, period, in contradiction to C and V. The same people who changed EL two weeks ago are conducting the purge. (Dmcdevit and Barberio had a disagreement because Dmcdevit changed the EL guideline while it was protected, and wouldn't revert his edit and discuss--D claims he had consensus on the basis of three editors. Three editors against one doesn't seem to me to be adequate discussion or consensus to railroad a guideline change through for the purpose of immediately enforcing it as policy in mass deletions...) As long as they continue to do it/as long as the EL policy contradicts C and V, I will probably continue to monitor what they are doing--the egregious examples so far I would say are Barrington Hall, Brent Corrigan, and the International Fair Trade Association. In my opinion, Guy Goma was handled very badly, with no assumption of good faith and some newcomer biting. Unfortunately, I think the spirit of the project is unnecessarily hostile, and that as a "raising awareness" about copyvios initiative it's misguided--telling people en masse that YT is prohibited under EL is confusing and erroneous. Copyvios are prohibited under C. Cindery 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    And regarding policy for doing something about copyvios, I think it is very clear that because some cases will be false alarms, and "if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL," deleting without discussion merely on "licensing information" is not appropriate. If there's some evidence--such as an url--that a YT link is a copyvio, the YT link could be pre-emptively deleted as a copyvio. (I think for recent songs/music vids, not even an url is needed.) But licensing "suspicion" is not reasonable doubt for pre-emptive deletion without discussion, and the procedures outlined in C aren't being followed. Perhaps there is a need for an accelerated removal process for music/vids songs?--that should be established at C. Making up a quickie technicality at EL and treating all the YT links as if they were music vids isn't just a hassle for the editors at pages with legit links, and a problem because the confusion might result in the loss of some good legit links, but because it doesn't do anything to enlighten anybody about how to use YT usefully, it just misinforms them that YT is prohibited on a licensing technicality, when it's not.

    It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

    Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Wikipedia. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future.

    If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.

    If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page. Cindery 01:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

    Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

    Is that fair use image appropriate not only for that article but also for the Main Page? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I'm sure a free image could be found, it's a white house dinner, so some goverment images should have been taken. Jaranda wat's sup 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    It's a White House Correspondents dinner. I don't think it's at the White House, and regardless I don't think the White House will be releasing any images of Stephen Colbert. This is a still image of a television broadcast; the fair use for this is rather strong. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Not at the White House: "The dinner and awards ceremony in the Washington Hilton ballroom honored..."[6]. This is a press affair. The people taking pictures are doing so for commercial media companies. —Centrx→talk • 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    WHy the hell do we still have that crap article? Undue weight. And Colbertcruft, which has caused problems enough in the past. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Perhaps participation in the featured article proccess would help. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    In response to Guy and HighinBC, there were some strong arguments against it on its FAC review. From the talk page history, it appears that Raul654, the FA director, supports the article on some level: Raul decides whether articles are promoted to FA, based on the FAC consensus. You could bring your concerns to WP:FAR, but many of the reviewers there discourage reviews strictly based on POV unless attempts to address the POV have been tried and failed first - FAR is not dispute resolution. If attempts are made to deal with the Undue weight and fail, FAR would be appropriate. On the other hand, if the article fails other points of WP:WIAFA, an immediate review would be appropriate. Some of the sources might be examined per WP:RS. Sandy (Talk) 15:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Hey, now that was informative. Thank you. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago36 comments16 people in discussion

    Original complaint

    I am asking other editors for help with this problem as this has gotten way out of control and, in my opinion, amounts to nothing less than harrasement by another user. The matter of copyright material, my edits, images, and my user page continues to fester and User:Durin has launched into nothing less than a stalking campaign against every image I have uploaded. Recent activities include:

    • Declaring two gold circles next to eachother a copyright violation against Paramount Pictures because they resemble the Star Trek insignia of Lieutenant. Clearly ridiculous as anyone can draw geometric shapes and Paramount can not possible hold the copyright on a picture of two gold circles [7].
    • Demanding personal information about the people who either a) verified that a photograph was public and not copyrighted and b) insisting on specific contact info (down to the name, address, and phone number) of the people who took the photograph [8]. In two cases, one contact was a friend of my late grandfather and the other an ex-finance. Even when told this, Durin demanded to contact both and have thier personal info posted on Wikipedia[9].
    • Targeting every edit and every image I have recently been involved with [10]. (Also See:User:Durin/Husnock images).
    • Durin intejected himself into a totally unrelated issue on Pharaoh and Cleopatra regarding housing image graphics appearing in the game [11]. I was attempting to resolve a fair use issue with another user and was working with a 3rd user to reach a compromise. Durin appeared, posting about the image and questioning me about my edits. In that rare case, Durin was actually correct in what he was saying, but I was distressed that he was following my edits this closely and becoming involoved in an article that he otherwise would have paid no attention too but become intersted only becuase I was associated with it. This is, in my view, "following me around" to different articles: the very definition of Wiki-Stalking.
    • Durin completely freaked me out when he posted for all to see that my last name was visable on a user pic I have on my page [12]. I must add, unless someone is looking really closely, that would probably go unnoticed. I can only assume that Durin downloaded my picture and zoomed in on my name. Granted, he then provided me with a picture where my nametag was blanked out, but why look in the first place?
    • Simple put, Durin needs to leave me and my user page, and my edits alone. I have told this user at least 3 times that I am a member of the military deployed to the Middle East and could lose my access to Wikipedia for weeks or months at any given time, depending on my deployment schedule. Durin has not made a single response to this and has even posted messages to my talk page, then demanded answers if they were not there within a 24 hour time frame [13]. He has also openly stated that he will continue to follow my every edits and that he sees me as a "problem user" [14]. I am an Admin on this site and have written some great articles. Durin seems to have targeted me based on an original dispute regarding flags displayed on my user page. This user needs to back off and leave me alone. Other editors, please help. Thank you. -Husnock 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Responses

      • My only question is this: are you confident that your images are properly tagged and identified? Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
        • No, I'm not. Some of them are wrong. I am just feeling that my edits are being targeted by this user based on an original dispute about flags being displayed on User:Husnock/Travel. I at first listened to Durin and tried to find images I could display. When I began posting these, I think Durin had an idea that I "outwitted him" and began this campaign. -Husnock 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
          • No. The seals and flags that you have been putting on your page would be absolutely fine if you had requested release under a free license from the various copyright holders of the images. I have on a large number of occasions pointed out to you that this needs to be done. I have pointed to the templates that you can use in requesting permissions. I have outlined the policy that supports this. Recently, I have asked you three times what permissions you asked for. You have refused to answer saying that since you are on deployment, you can not check. It's a simple question, and does not require checking. In general, did you ask for a free license release or did you ask for permission to use on Wikipedia? To date, there's no answer. From what evidence I have seen, it appears that what was asked for was permission to use on Wikipedia, which is not compatible with our policies. I've been trying hard to get confirmation from you about this, but I have not been able to get a response. I even offered a compromise position where we revert back to fair use, and you send the permission letters to m:OTRS when you had opportunity, so OTRS could evaluate and retag, allowing a third party to evaluate what permissions you received. I have been trying hard here to get these permissions clarified, but have been completely unsuccessful in gaining any response from you on this. --Durin 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • we need an efficient "image police". and Durin didn't 'completely freak out' here. But I tend to agree that this edit of his wasn't brilliant. All in all, not much to see here, recommend that Husnock tag his images watertightly from the beginning, and that Durin might give him a break over tiny Starwars rank insignia. Both users are admins, so neither needs to be afraid of "biting a newbie", and reasonable maturity, and properlly tagged image uploads, should be expected. dab (ᛏ) 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Re: Two gold pips Husnock himself in an earlier edit acknowledged that the original came from Paramount. He created the tag {{PD-StarTrekRank}} (which has since been deleted as wholly improper) which contained the text "This image is that of a rank insignia used in Star Trek. Over the past 40 years, Paramount Pictures have released most such images to the public ___domain. Also, such rank designs normally consist of stripes, geometric circles, and other shapes which can be easily recreated and hence are ineligible for copyright." Can a circle be copyrighted? No. Can a rectangle be copyrighted? No. Use them together with particular colors in a design? Absolutely. The notion that simply because an image contains geometric shapes that it can not be copyrighted is utterly false. I don't really care if that counts as brilliant or not. It's blatantly obvious from Husnock's earlier own taggings that the image is originally Paramount's.
    • As to the rest of this, I'm starting an RfC. This situation has gone on long enough, and despite my best efforts to work collaboratively with Husnock and keep things calm and cool, it's exploded. --Durin 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • As stated four times now, I am at present in the Middle East and could lose access to Wikipedia tonight, tomorrow, or next month. I would not have time to follow an RfC or post to it or check it everyday. That is one of the points, you knew I was deployed and yet did this image targeting campaign and demanded answers if they were not posted within a day. Start it if you want, but I doubt I will be able to contribute. -Husnock 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with dab and add that stating in public that Husnock's identity was visible in an image was a mistake. Maybe innocent, maybe not, but a mistake nonetheless. yandman 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Husnock has uploaded an image before that contained his last name (in addition to the one already mentioned), this one in the title of the image. Since apparently me noting an image that has the name would be a problem, I am not going to note it here. But, it's out there. He has substantial personal information on his userpage that could readily lead to identifying him. I provided a copy of the image that did NOT have his last name so that he could better conceal his true identity. When I made mention of it, I did not state his last name. To date, Husnock has not used this image in lieu of the image that has his last name. If he was so concerned about the revelation of his last name, he would have deleted the original image and used the image that I provided him that did not have his last name on it. The claims that I am violating his privacy by revealing his last name are utterly false; he's the one doing so. I tried to HELP him not reveal it, but he's refused the help instead allowing the name to appear. --Durin 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Re: Husnock on deployment: That a user is on deployment does not in any way mean that we should suspend operations here on Wikipedia. There are more than 50 problematic images uploaded and/or modified by Husnock. Are we to let these problems sit forever if he should vanish from the project for a year due to being on deployment? What if he vanishes and we don't know why? Do we let copyright violations sit forever? An argument before a judge where we said we did not correct the copyright problem because the user that generated the copyright problem was no longer with the project will not hold water. We fix problems as we find them, regardless of how active or inactive the user who created the problem is.
    • Re: RfC I do NOT want to start an RfC. I really don't. But the reality is that this situation has been going on for months and months and months. I am not the only person who has approached Husnock regarding copyright issues. I have tried desperately to keep things amicable. Despite all my efforts, the situation has exploded. I don't know what else to do. These copyright problems exist. If I correct them, I'm stalking him. If I talk to him about them, I'm not assuming good faith. If I note that he is the source of the copyright problems, I'm conducting a personal attack on him. If I create a user subpage of mine to help me work through the images he has uploaded and/or modified, it's the "most insulting thing I've seen on Wikipedia from another established user". At most points (not all, but most) of this Husnock has been obstructionist and antagonistic. Now I'm being accused of revealing personal information....which he revealed himself. Not only that, but I tried to help him NOT reveal the information, but I'm still accused. If anyone has any suggestions on a route other than RfC, I'm all ears. --Durin 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Stepping forward as a Global War on Terrorism veteran and an admin, I think the fair thing to do would be to open the WP:RFC with the disclaimer that this editor's Internet access may be interrupted due to the deployment. Let the RFC proceed at a more flexible pace than usual. DurovaCharge! 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I do not have the expertise to review the images tag-by-tag but I would like to see this resolved if possible without an RfC, without undue distraction to an armed forces member on active duty, and without further dispute or dissension. Would it be possible for this to be addressed by temporarily removing any problematic images with the understanding that copies would be kept somewhere off-line and Husnock would be given an opportunity to re-post and retag them upon his return from duty? If this is agreeable then perhaps an image-savvy admin without prior involvement in this dispute could be responsible for determining which images need to be removed temporarily. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Either way is fine with me. DurovaCharge! 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Suggestion to resolve this dispute

    I've been chatting with some admins regarding a way to resolve this and we seem to agree that an RfC would be an unnecessarily long and drawn out process.

    As such only solution I can see is as admins we get both of you to agree to leave each other alone (so Durin stops direct activity on any and all Husnock's images) and then we get an independant admin that knows image policy really well (Geni comes straight to my mind for example) to look over Husnock's existing image contribs as well as a review of the methodology he uses to tag future uploads - with an agreement that the decision made by this admin be fully binding by you both (so if the admin decides Durin is over-reacting and trolling Husnock's images he will drop the subject - or, on the flip side if he/she decides to speedy delete the lot per WP:CSD then Husnock will also drop the subject and live with the decision.)

    I cant see a better way to resolve that will be agreeable to all parties personally... thoughts?  Glen  18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    The problem I see with this is that it implies some sort of impropriety on Durin's part. His actions have been entirely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. Assigning someone else to this seems unneeded and likely to impair the proper enforcement of long standing copyright policy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Creating a project page about me to expose any and all of my image edits to scrutiny, insisting that I post information on Wikipedia which I a) dont have time to research or b) isn't available to me since I now live in the Middle East, demanding e-mail addresses and phone numbers for every person I have ever talked or written to about photos, following my every edit and stating he will tag and delete images even if I'm not here to defend or update them, and last but not least openly accusing me of breaking copyright law, implying that I am knowingly posting false information on Wikipedia and perhaps even telling lies about my sources, and then bringing to the worlds attention that my last name is visable not once, but twice, on Wikipedia...these actions are not entiely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. -Husnock 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • 1) Your edits are already open to scrutiny via Special:Contributions/Husnock.
    • 2) We expect people to provide contact information for images released under a free license from a copyright holder. You've been informed of this multiple times by people other than myself. Regardless of your current status, we need that information. If it can't be provided, you can always upload the images later when you do have it at the ready. Further, I asked you for one contact point; the copyright authority whom you contacted at City of Corpus Christi. You wouldn't provide it not because you don't have time to research but because you felt it violated privacy of a municipal copyright authority whose telephone and e-mail contact information is publicly available on a website I previously referenced.
    • 3) I have followed your image edits, in complete compliance (not violation of) Wikipedia:Harassment where it says "(stalking) does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." In conducting reviews of your image edits to date, I have reviewed 146 images. 58 of them have or had problems of one sort or another, or approximately 40% of them. If this is not justification for reviewing all of your image edits, I do not know what would constitute such.
    • 4) Not being here to defend an image is not an affirmative defense in court. If it's a copyright violation, it's a copyright violation whether you are here to defend it or not. The work of Wikipedia must continue regardless of your availability. We can't suspend work here while you are on deployment.
    • 5) I have never implied you have posted false information and have clarified that to you before. I have stated and continue to maintain that we do not know what permissions you asked for. You refuse to provide this information. I have never maintained that you did not contact the respective agencies, nor have I ever claimed or even inferred that you lied about your sources.
    • 6) I provided you with an image that did not have your last name. If you were concerned about the privacy of your last name, you would delete your original (at least) and use the alternate image I provided to you. In effect, it's as if you spilled a drink on your shirt, I noted that you did, provided you a towel to clean it up, and you blame me for spilling the drink. You uploaded the original image that contained the name, not I. I observed to you that it contained your name, and thought you'd remove the image. Note that in bringing this to your attention I never mentioned your name, just that it was there. By deleting the image, you would have removed the name. Instead you chose and continue to choose to not delete the image and continue to host it on your user page. Additionally, another image still in use by you has your last name in the title of the image. These facts juxtaposed with your insistence that I violated your privacy can not be reconciled.
    • I recommend you accept the proposal by User:Glen S and the proposed mediation by User:Zscout370. If you seek some sort of condemnation of my activities with respect to you, I respectfully submit (as per the top of this page) that you are in the wrong forum. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment is the next step. --Durin 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Chairboy, thanks but no thanks :) The dispute with Husnock is sufficient that I do not feel further interactions with him by me on these issues is likely to be a pleasant experience for either of us. This is work that can be done by a third party, and done in such a way that causes less offense (I hope). --Durin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Ah, also Zscout370 comes to mind as a good choice as a third party also... :)  Glen  18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • This is all acceptable to me. I'll now continue my review of his images at User:Durin/Husnock_images but will not conduct any work as a result of those reviews. This will make the work that Zscout370 does, or whomever takes this on, considerably less. --Durin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • I'll accept the task of mediator/third party. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
        • Pointless addition from me: I've looked at Durin's edit pattern and, frankly, I can't see anything objectionable; quite the reverse - Durin has acted properly and conscientiously to protect the project. The edits can be defined as "stalking" or as "proper actions by an experienced and respected editor". Only the latter makes for the building of an encyclopedia and only the latter is correct. Just my tuppenceworth. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    See my comment above the section semi-break which might possibly be helpful, I hope. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I suggested a variation on this; that the images in question be retagged as fair use, and Husnock could present to m:OTRS with what permissions he asked for and received on each image and let OTRS retag the images away from fair use as appropriate by their reasoning and reading of the permissions received. I suggested this to Husnock yesterday. He's ignored the suggestion, and given that he has responded to this thread since your proposal was put forth and since Glen S's was put forth, it appears he is not accepting these proposals either. So what now? --Durin 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    For the record that's exactly why I made the suggestion above - simply because without an independant 3rd party Husdock will never agree to Durin's suggestions as he believes there's malice invloved Glen 00:10, November 22, 2006 (UTC)

    Just a few suggestions for Durin here. If in future you find an image with someone's name on it, and you are in a discussion like this with them, it might be best to approach the issue more elliptically. I was going to suggest you ask someone you trust to point it out to them instead, but that is fraught with ethical problems. The way you handled it, you might have thought you were doing a favour, but something like "are you aware that some of the images you have uploaded have your name visible on them?" and then waiting for a response, might have been received better than a "it's this image here, and I've done a new version for you". The 'waiting for a response' bit is crucial to avoid the scenario where the other person gets affronted and feels you've overstepped the mark. I personally don't think Durin did anything wrong here. Getting others involved earlier might have helped. Carcharoth 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    • For the text transactions of how I notified him, please see User:Husnock/Durinharrass#Privacy_concerns. I did almost as you suggest above, with the exception that I did point out the image in the first message. I can see your point, but not telling him which image would send him on a needle in a haystack chase; he's worked on over 1500 images. We did try to get others involved on several occasions. First, it went to Image_talk:Corpus_Christi,_Texas_flag.svg on 14 November. Nobody responded there other than ourselves. From there, Husnock took it to Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Outside_assistance on 16 November. One person responded there. Seeing such little traffic, I took it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive62#Input_on_copyright_issue_requested on 17 November, where two people responded. My opinion; most people do not like to deal with these copyright issues, so they get little attention. It wasn't until today, when it positively exploded, that it got attention. --Durin 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • Yes, it is getting attention now isn't it. Getting more people working in this area would be a good idea. Image copyright does seem to be one of those areas that really needs more people, but is chronically understaffed. My sympathies are with you in this dispute. I don't think the accusation of harassment is warranted. I do sympathise with Husnock as well, as he obviously does feel aggrieved, but it should be clear to him now that it is notjust you that has concerns about image tagging and copyright issues. Carcharoth 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Mediation by Zscout or even Geri would be fine. To clarify something, I'm actually not so upset about the images being wrongly tagged...some of them probably are. The whole point here is that this user seemed to target me and did a massive campaign to investigate every edit I have ever done. I will always feel this is becuase he wanted to "teach me a lesson" or had something against me stemming from the original dispute about flags on my user page. He then demanded immediate replies and posted tags stated that all these images would be deleted in seven days if enough info was not provided. I told him over and over again my time on this site is short and I would have to research this more deeply, needing much more than 7 days to fix these images. He dismissed this, saying I was using my deployment as an excuse. Its not an excuse, I am helping to fight a war in the Middle East, normally work 12-16 hour days, and only get on Wikipedia when I can. Then, when I arrive to enjoy the site, I find this user creating a policy page about me and demanding answers to questions posted the day before, before I had any time to review or research them. Then we get to this whole contact thing- I provided Durin with basic contact info. I told him I had written cities, had gotten some e-mails and letters. I told him I would have to check, again it would take time. I also talked to JAG officers and PAO officers with the Navy who assured me that the United States Navy had every right to copy and distribute city images of Japan and Korea which had been released by thier government to ours. This was all dismissed. Specific info was demanded and, when I couldn't provide it right away, I was being evasive or when I DID give the info, Durin would make a blanket statement that it was wrong or he would need names, phone numbers, and e-mails even for images uploaded years ago. Let us not forget, he hs not said a word about the image whre I flat out provided everything he asked for...the name, address, and how to contact the photographer (this was my ex-fiance). he uses the Corpus Christi case over and over, but that contact who gave me the city info is an elderly woman who works part time in the city office and got the info for me as a favor. No way was I going to hand over her name and number to Durin or post it on this site. So, in the end, others feel free to review my images. I will fix them when I can and provide info when its available, robably over a 6 or 7 month time frame. As for Durin, he can kindly leave me and my edits alone and his project page on me should be deleted. -Husnock 10:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    We appreciate your efforts, but you are not being persecuted. Every image needs to follow the image policy, and when someone sees a substantial portion that do not, it is absolutely correct to proceed with further efforts to fix the problem. That has been explained to you, so please stop acting like you are being persecuted. I recommend stepping back from the emotions of this and just working to resolve the problem. - Taxman Talk 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I agree, I don't think anyone is targetting you. What I think may have happened is Durin noticed one or a few of your images were of concern. Given this, he or she probably decided to do a review of all your images. This is not about targeting you, it's about targeting a serious of images which the editor has belief to be may be of concern. Similarly, many RC and other vandalism patrollers will look through the contribs of someone who has vandalised or added other inappropriate info (NPOV, copyvios eyc) to see if this is the only instance and to correct any vandalism which has not been corrected and perhaps provide further warnings or even request a block if it's merited. Again, this is not about targeting anyone but about identifying a problem. Having identified possible problems, it is normal practice for an editor to take steps to correct them. There are several requirements for images and if any of yours didn't appear to meet them, Durin and other editors can and should make an effort to correct this problem. Generally speaking, the best way to do so is to approach the author first. I'm sure you would have preferred this rather then Durin just tagging them for deletion Nil Einne 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Question: as part of my mediator status, can I recreate some of the images that are in dispute? The problem I see with most of the flag related images that despite getting permission from the cities in question, the flags were drawn for the FOTW website by people who expressed their work not to be used commercially (which has been disallowed by Jimbo since May of 2005). Plus, some of the symbols drawn by Husnock are from other countries, such as Japan. We need to clarify that situation, so we could use some assistance with users from Japan. I am at college now, so I will not have time in the next few days to crack out images and upload (Durin and Husnock, email me). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Begging for help

    On 22 November 2006, User:Taxman and User:Mindspillage left notes on User:Husnock's talk page indicating to him that he was in "inappropriate territory" [15][16]. Prior to this, Husnock made a claim that he feared I am revealing personal information about him to outside parties (see User:Husnock/Durinharass#Original_actions item #9). Since these comments by Taxman and Mindspillage, Husnock has further expanded on this "fear" and continues to maintain that I not only am I doing this, but that his family is possibly in danger ([17], third paragraph and [18] second to last paragraph).

    This is a completely unfounded accusation. I have done no such thing nor would I ever do any such thing. Husnock himself contacted a number of different city agencies attempting to get permissions to use various different images. From his posting of the content of one of the response letters, it is a fact that in at least one of those contacts he used his USN rank and last name (see Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg, second section, quoted text). His release of his own name into the public therefore has factual basis.

    Husnock has made no less than 10 distinct accusations against me, ranging from personal attacks, to slander, to stalking, to threatening his family. I have repeatedly asked Husnock to stop making accusations like this against me. Nevertheless it continues apace.

    I have been told by a number of parties through various conversations that continued interaction with Husnock is not likely to bring any light, only heat. Agreed. I have been told by the same than an RfC is not likely to bring any light either. Additionally, I have been told by Husnock that he can not participate in an RfC.

    I'm begging others to step in and please, please, please stop this ceaseless onslaught upon me. I am not recommending specific actions. Just that something needs to be done. --Durin 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Durin, I really think there is no need to worry. As far as I can see, you have acted appropriately throughout. I can vouch for the fact that you were not "targetting" Husnock, since I know that you have, for months been removing non-free images from user space, not just Husnock's. (With a slightly red face, I have to admit that I was one of the careless people that you had to do it to!) Most of the people who do that (Jkelly is one example) provoke a lot of indignation from a very small number of users, regardless of how "right" or how civil they are. In every case where Husnock has made accusations about your behaviour on Wikipedia, your behaviour stands up to scrutiny, with one small exception (see next paragraph). In the case of your behaviour off Wikipedia, he has not, as far as I can see, actually made any accusation, just a hint that you might have released his name publicly. I can't imagine that anybody here will seriously think it's possible that you did, and he admits himself that it "probably isn't you",[19] so what are you worrying about?
    Where I think you may have been wrong, though certainly without malice, was in telling him publicly that his last name was visible on a certain photo. It would have been more prudent to have said that in a private e-mail. However, it is now a week since you told him that. He has admin powers, and could easily have deleted that photo. (You were kind enough to offer him a replacement where his name could not be seen.) Instead, he chose to leave the photo there, and to post on this noticeboard the diff where you tell him which photo it is.[20] An admin who was really concerned about that potential risk to his privacy would have deleted the image immediately, and then complained about your post and about the possibility that people could have gone to the image in the few minutes or hours that elapsed between your drawing attention to it and his deletion. Since he has not deleted it, and has drawn extra attention to it as part of his list of accusations against you, it's hard to believe that he's all that concerned.
    Another point is that when an admin such as Durin is conscientious enough to take on the extremely thankless task of enforcing copyright policy, it's absolutely normal that when a user resists him, reverts him, protests, etc., that the admin will then look into his other images to see if there are other problems. That is not harassment or stalking.
    A final point is that the "ex-fiancee" argument and the "friend of my late grandfather" argument might increase sympathy, but cannot change policy. If an image source cannot be verified, the image should be deleted until such time as it can be verified, or until it can be replaced by a properly-sourced image. My understanding is that Jimbo is anxious that copyright policy be strictly enforced. Full sympathy to someone who doesn't want to pass on details of his ex-fiancee or his grandfather's friend, but are those images really essential to Wikipedia? Is it really essential that images without proper source should remain simply because we sympathize with the reasons for not providing the source?
    I agree that something need to be done, as this is getting out of hand, and I urge others to give whatever help they can in this situation. AnnH ♫ 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I must clarify that I never said Durin had threatened my family or had revealed info to the outside world. Tha is simply untrue. I stated that I was afraid he had revealed info about me when he e-mailed Corpus Christi about thier image, but didnt know for sure. I then stated to him that I was getting scared of this whole situation becuase someone had emailed an nrelated contact, asking who I was using my last name, statng that I "worked for Wikipedia" and "wanted to find me". I NEVER said that was Durin and even clarified twice on his talk page that it probably wasnt him. Also, in resposne to concerns that he was getting fried up, I toned down the language of my sub-page User:Husnock/Durinconcerns removing references to harrasment and instead clarifying that it was a record of the dispute. I did all this to defuse the situation as I am leaving Wiki after the holidays and probably wont be here to continue this dipsute until next year. I am leaving this to ZScout and others. I am allowed to think what I think and I think I was targeted by this user for various reasons and that he was unreassonabe and unrealsitic in demanding such information ASAP even when told it would take weeks or months to verify in light of my situation. My supage speaks for itself, the record is there of what I believe he has done for the benefit of mediators and others. Durin is also concerned I am border-line making legal threats which simply isnt true either. I ahve never made a legal threat against Durin and it would silly to do so since I live overseas now and couldnt reasonably pursue it. I leave everyone with this scenario then and perhaps they can see my side of it:
    "You are a United States servive member working overseas in the Middle east. You love Wikipedia and log on when you can and edit it. One day, someone questions where your article images are coming from. You try to answer them, but your answers aren't good enough. You give the best information you can, but there is always something that is either stated to be wrong or simply "can't be the case". You're then told a third of your images will be deleted in 7 days if proper information is not given. You tell people that you are overseas, you ask for more time. You are told no time can be given, a deployment is not "an excuse". You are then asked for very personal information like the phone numbers and addresses of those close to you or of people yo've known in the past. You then discover a page where every image you have ever uploaded is listed for "review", as if you've committed some kind of offense to Wikipedia that must now be looked at. And, lastly, you get an e-mail saying someone is out there, in the real world, asking questions about you and trying to find you because you've edited on Wikipedia."
    Thats where I'm coming from, maybe now people see why this is disturbing. With that, I leave this to others. Happy Turkey Day and I'm off to do duties elsewhere. -Husnock 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    That being the case, then you should find no problem removing a number of entries you have made since they have nothing to do with me yet you've tied them to me. In particular you should remove:
    Since these things have nothing to do with me, per your assertions above, then continuing to allow their presence here does not make any sense, would you not agree? --Durin 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    SpongeBob Episodes

    Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

    List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes was accused of copyvio. Discussion is going on at the bottom of the talk page: Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. I created a Temporary page, am I allowed to move the information back since the Temporary page has all copyvios removed? -AMK152 02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Well, the copyvio had to be deleted before the good stuff could be moved over, but I've done this. Near as I could tell, the copyvio material was added on Jan. 1, so I restored the edits from before that to complete the history. Chick Bowen 03:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Can you restore the history from after the copyvio? -AMK152 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Not without including the copyvio, which we don't want (even in the history). Chick Bowen 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Why, was there anything in particular you wanted back? Chick Bowen 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    WP:GFDL is the only reason. What was the copyvio anyway? -AMK152 03:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    There were episode descriptions taken from various websites, mixed in with the others so that it would be very hard to sort out which was which. I don't know if there are more edits that can be salvaged or not--there are 2200 deleted edits, so it's not easy to go through them. Chick Bowen 04:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • It's possible (but a lot of work) to take the most recent deleted version, remove all parts that are copyvio, and save the page as such - then copy/paste the "deleted" edit history onto the talk page to keep the GFDL-required records. (Radiant) 11:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Technically, it's not a GFDL issue at all, because the current version of the article doesn't reflect those edits. This is similar to when an article is transwikied or copied onto a non-wiki website or paper version: you don't need to keep updating the contributions if you're not using them.
    • It is a shame for the good faith editors who contributed to the article after the copyvio was introduced, but they can always go back in and re-add. One way to ameliorate the situation would be to view the deleted revisions and send talk-page messages alerting them to the deletion, and the reason it was done. But as far as restoring them, that's probably not a good path to take. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 16:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply


    More general question about page histories and GFDL

    This type of situation, in which deleting a history due to copyvio, libel, etc. concerns or as the result of a move raises GFDL concerns in some people's minds, comes up from time to time. Obviously we want histories preserved where possible, but we don't need admins driving themselves crazy checking every edit, either. Two questions occur to me:
    1. Is the concern that leaving names out of the history could violate GFDL a significant real-world issue, as opposed to a purely theoretical or philosophical one!?
    2. Going forward, is there a small tweak that could be made to the license language that would address this issue? Newyorkbrad 15:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    My responses:

    • 1. For any Wikipedia article, you need to provide a list of the authors. This doesn't, as far as I know, apply to edits deleted by oversight, but I'm not entirely sure. Of more concern than deletion of edits, in my mind, is people copying and pasting stuff from other Wikipedia articles. The page history makes it look like they wrote the text, when in many cases it was someone at the other page who wrote the text. Technically, the page history only records who added the text to the article, not who wrote it. That is where the lawyering starts.
    • 2. Tweaking licenses after the fact cannot be done if it changes the meaning of the license. You can start a new license and encourage people to use that instead, but you have to get the people that released under the old licence (ie. every person who ever contributed to Wikipedia) to re-release under the new licence.

    Anyway, those are my views. Carcharoth 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    The GFDL requirement is to maintain a certain amount of attribution 4b "...together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement." Determining the principal authors of heavily edited page is of course difficult there maybe nothing left of one person contributions even if at one time they covered 95% of the text. We maintain the edit history and cover all authors, that means we are in compliance since we list all of them. Oversight is not an exemption (the GFDL wasn't written for us, the term oversight is meaningless in the GFDL context), but since the use of oversight is generally to scrub a contribution in it's entirety that's not an issue, if we aren't publishing material that the person wrote we don't have to credit them. --pgk 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Ah. But what does "author of the Document" mean in this case? If someone writes a sentence, and then someone else copyedits it, who is the author? Either, neither, or both? I wasn't aware of the "at least five of the principal authors" bit, thanks for that. Am I also right in thinking that "the Document" here only concerns the present version, and not past versions? ie. Wikipedia is only "publishing" the present version and not past versions? And any document could be analysed so you can see who added each letter/word/sentence/paragraph/section, and then list those people. If your contribution got rewritten, you wouldn't be credited, is that right? Carcharoth 17:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Well multiple people contributing makes for joint authorship. Document there refers to the version you are taking to modify. Through history you can get to any version, so wikipedia is of course publishing multiple versions. If your contribution got removed or replaced a credit may not be required, although of course you may have arguably contributed to the version in question in other ways, such as the structure and layout of the document. Because we retain the full history many of these are non issues and if you want to get "good" answers (not definitive) to actually use, then you need to talk to a lawyer (rather than some editor on wikipedia.) --pgk 18:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Replaceable fair use

    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 7 November 2006 - all of these images should have been deleted a week ago... Hbdragon88 04:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Done. About 250 deleted. There were quite a few that were tagged for deletion that should not have been, as they were fair use (e.g., of someone who was dead, or of a group in the 80s / sportsman playing in the 70s etc), and so not replaceable. Proto::type 10:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Cool. Can someone keep up with it? November 9-15 should also be cleared now as well. Hbdragon88 03:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Pat Capponi

    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    Pat Capponi was created as an apparent copyvio. I rewrote it so that it is no longer a copyvio, but another user reinstated the {{copyvio}} tag. Could an admin please delete the original version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Capponi&oldid=89259235 from the history and the copyvio notice one, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Capponi&oldid=89339906 , and restore the correct version, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Capponi&oldid=89362805 --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I took a whack at it. My first time doing such a delete and restoration. Did that work the way you wanted? Metros232 05:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It was not "apparently" a copyvio, it WAS a copyvio -- period/full stop -- part of a series of a dozen lifted directly from a publisher's website which I tagged as such. And full-on copyright violations get deleted -- period/full stop -- before brand-new articles can be put in under the original titles. If User:TruthbringerToronto would bother to familiarize himself with the policies, guidelines, and procedures -- as he has failed to do often in the past -- BEFORE acting or complaining, he might know this. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User talk:NoRCaLD503/Archive

    Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

    Once an editor (NoRCaLD503) archives their talk page, is it still acceptable for them to use CSD U1 to have it speedily deleted? See the talk page and User talk:Kukini for legal threats by NoRCaLD503. I'm not quite sure what to do at this point, after adding a {{hangon}} tag onto the archive page. --Daniel Olsen 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    The editor now is also requesting a right to vanish [23]. Kukini 05:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It wasn't moved there, the edit history on the orginal talk page is still intact. I don't see a huge issue with it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    My concern is that the editor archived it then nearly immediately requested it be deleted. The notices should be left available for review. Kukini 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Page histories remain available, so deleting the archived page won't lose the information. If further assistance is needed in the case, you can reference the history of warnings (most dispute resolution asks you to use diffs anyways). Shell babelfish 07:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    If indeed the warnings/notices were still current (such that removal would be disfavored by whatever portions of Wikipedia:Removing warnings command—as promulgated elsewhere—a consensus), then the excision of such warnings on the talk page should be reverted; if not, there seems, per Shell, to be no problem. There are users who elect not to archive their talk pages (by which many in the community are, as I, irked but of which there is surely no proscription) and simply blank from time to time, and, because the archiving here was effected via copy-and-paste rather than via move, the effect of the archive's being {{db-userreq}}ed would be the same (in view of the preservation of the history at the primary talk page) as of the talk page's being blanked. To be sure, the archiving-and-then-speedying bit is a little gauche but, inasmuch as the effect is negligible and as the user apparently intends to leave, we need not, IMHO, to be concerned... Joe 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Question

    Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

    Hmmm I came across an admin deleting a bunch of articles straight out. They were almost all all 100% no brainer deletable crap, but they hadn't been tagged. Is this normal? It makes me a bit nervous. But maybe it's necessary to keep Category:Candidates for speedy deletion from being inundated. Is this standard practice, or what? Herostratus 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Things don't need to be tagged to be deleted. Tagging is just a convenient way to bring them to the attention of admins. Things are eligible for speedy deletion (as opposed to slow and painful deletion) if they fall into certain categories of things which can be deleted without discussion, "on sight" as WP:CSD puts it, and they can be deleted at any time.
    Note that some images may need to be tagged for a certain amount of time before they become eligible for speedy deletion (which IMHO is a hurdle for anyone addressing copyright problems, especially now that we have image undeletion) but once they are eligible they can be deleted on sight, regardless of tags. --bainer (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Oh. Really. Hmmm I thought that everything had to be tagged first, on the theory that two sets of eyes should see an article before its deleted. I clear out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion now and again and I find that about 5-10% of tagged articles are not properly speedies - of those, some are properly ProD's, some AfD's, some acceptable articles with a few minutes work, some acceptable articles as is. It makes me a little nervous to think of articles being deleted on one person's say-so... but I can also understand the benefit of avoiding needless steps, so if that's the way it's done, OK. Thanks for the reply. Herostratus 07:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Yes but those that tag arent admins and therefore may not know policy 100% - those that delete are (and as such are meant to know policy) Glen 07:14, November 22, 2006 (UTC)
    Admins can optionally tag as well to request a second opinion from another admin. --Ligulem 09:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    There are some admins, IIRC, who hold themselves categorically to the tag and permit another to delete standard, and I can't imagine why such standard shouldn't be propagated generally; whilst admins are surely meant to know policy, it is not inconceivable that every admin has erred as regards speedy deletion at least once during his/her time here, and whilst proscribing an admin's speedying an article not previously tagged by another editor as meriting speedy surely will not serve to remedy most errors, it might serve to prevent some. An editor is generally to be at his/her most circumspect when he/she deals with candidates for speedy deletion, and I would suppose that we'd want admins to be exceedingly careful in the realm of speedy deletion, if only because the fact of a deletion's being wrongly undertaken is not always readily apparent (as against that, for example, of a block's being wrongly applied or an AfD's being wrongly closed). Joe 18:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    There's nothing wrong with instantly speedy deleting an article if you're sure; likewise, there's nothing wrong with adding a tag and waiting for a second opinion if you're not sure. Much speedy deletion is housecleaning of utter nonsense or articles to which the words "non-notable biography" don't do justice; such uncontroversial maintenance work doesn't require admins to be "exceedingly careful". --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I never tag articles for speedy deletion; if they meet the criteria, I delete them outright. I believe this is common practice. The purpose of the tag is to bring the matter to the attention of an administrator; if the reviewer has the technical capability, he may delete the article himself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Admins were speedily deleting nonsense well before there even were categories! I happily delete stuff that is evident nonsense, if I feel it needs another set of eyes, I'll stick it in the category. Morwen - Talk 10:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Big backlog in CSD

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    350 items. Everyone lend a hand at C:CSD. - crz crztalk 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I've got it down to 80, but now I'm really bored. Proto::type 16:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I think CSD is long overdue for a radical reform - it appears that having 100+ items pile-up is now a regular occurrence, and I can't even remember the last time it had fewer than 10 items. 05:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    Attention needed - Jack Chick

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I have some concerns about this article. Firstly there is a complaint, supposedly by a JC representative, see Talk:Jack Chick#Legal Notice. Although this is obviously in the wrong place and doesn't really give enough info seriously to consider it, I do think someone needs to properly reply to it rather then the sarcasm it has been met with (none of them appear to be admins). Of course, it's probably a joke and may have no merit whatever the case but we should be safe IMHO. However an issue I have greater concern about which doesn't strictly need admin attention but I thought I'd mention here anyway is that the actual article has a notice that most of the biography is from the JC site. Obviously this leads to NPOV concerns but more seriously someone should make sure there is no copyvio. Nil Einne 15:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I've replied under the assumption that it is a serious complaint (if it's a joke, then it is of no importance, so it's best to assume otherwise). I've linked to the relevant policy pages and explained why I don't think there is anything we can do to help them. --Tango 15:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Image:Heart of darkness cover.jpg, the replaceable fair use deletion criteria and how it works

    Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

    Okay, I have removed a replaceable fair use tag on the image above, since I don't feel it meets the speedy deletion criteria. As an admin I believe I have been entrusted with the ability to make that call, as I would any other page tagged with a template which makes them a candidate for speedy deletion. The template for replaceable fair use states that an image tagged "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created". In this instance the claim was made that Since the book is in public ___domain, it should be possible to find a public-___domain cover from an early edition. I dispute this, it may not follow that the image can be replaced. There may not exist public ___domain editions available freely. Now I have been told I cannot remove the tag, because the template states Do not remove this tag. Now if images are tagged incorrectly, what are we supposed to do? I have again removed the tag after it was re-added with no attempt to discuss the issue with me, but I will now respect whatever consensus emerges here. However, I would like the issues surrounding this explored. Can a speedy deletion template really say that it cannot be removed? As admins, how are we supposed to act with incorrectly tagged articles or images? Steve block Talk 17:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    The tag tells you what to do if you disagree: you add the tag {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} without removing the original tag. Same as with non-image speedy tags: if you disagree, you don't remove the tag, but you add {{hangon}} instead. —Angr 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, as regards some/most non-image speedy tags, this is quite wrong. See, for instance, {{db-bio}}, which provides, in pertinent part, that, if the page does not, in the estimation of a reviewer, meet the criteria for speedy deletion, he/she may remove th[e] notice; he/she is only enjoined from removing such notice on pages that [he/she has] created [him/her]self, to which the application of {{hangon}} is then appropriate. If an admin engaged in speedy patrol finds an article tagged for speedy that is not speediable but nevertheless might be deficient encyclopedically, he/she ought, IMHO, to AfD it or alert the original tagger in order that the latter might AfD, and so the analogue here, I think, would be an admin's (e.g., Steve's) removing the tag and listing the image at WP:FUR or WP:IfD (see my edit-conflicted post below). Joe 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    (after edit conflict) I imagine that the tag should be treated as any other the presence of which an admin undertaking proposed deletion or speedy deletion patrol might consider, such that, should an admin find the tag to be wrongly applied, he ought, even in the absence of a {{hangon}} (here, more specifically, {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}), to remove it, having determined the image not to merit deletion consistent with the tag. Just as AfD is often counseled in such situations as an admin reviews a SPEEDY candidate and removes its tag, so too might a listing at fair use review be appropriate where there exists some disagreement apropos of whether a fair use image is replacable with a free image; IfD might even be considered. In any event, though, it seems altogether silly for us to have a template that asserts that such template should not be removed; such provision presumes that the initial tagger is necessarily correct and that, in the absence of a {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} objection, an admin should delete the image consistent with the tag, his/her own conclusions notwithstanding. Most of our speedy tags provide that they should be removed should the articles on which they are applied not qualify for speedy deletion (except by page creators, who are to use {{hangon}}; for a discussion of why removal in the former instances is appropriate, see, e.g., the mailing list thread beginning here), and I think {{Replaceable fair use}} should be styled similarly; certainly it is wholly nonsensical for us to say that a template asserting that a fair use image is replacable with a free one, once applied, can never be removed, and where there is disagreement betwixt admins, as here, some discussion to which members of the community might weigh in ought to be undertaken. Joe 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Perhaps it should say "Do not simply remove this tag" instead. Clearly if there is a real disagreement on whether or not the image violates fair-use policy, the speedy deletion tag shouldn't remain on forever; but neither should the person who disagrees simply remove the tag and not do anything further to address the issue. Adding {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} during the 7-day waiting period is probably the best approach; if the admin going through images at the end of the 7-day period finds an image he considers to have been improperly tagged (as in this case), then removing the tag probably is okay so long as the admin then also does something to address the issue, such as taking it to WP:FUR, WP:IFD, or WP:PUI. But simply removing the tag and not doing anything about the original tagger's concern isn't acceptable IMO. —Angr 17:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    With that I agree entirely. Just as I am troubled when an editor removes a speedy tag from an article that, whilst not speediable, is likely irremediably unencyclopedic and neither himself acts to {{prod}} or {{AfD}} the article nor informs the original tagger in order that the latter might so do, so too would I be concerned were an editor to remove the {{Replaceable fair use}} tag and partake of the discussion no further. Where an editor has in good faith and with some justification applied the tag and where another editor has in good faith and with some justification removed the tag, there is clearly a substantive issue to be discussed, and such discussion ought to take place at any of the several pages Angr, as I, suggests. Joe 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The tag question is one, the image is another. Fair use applies to book covers when they provide useful information about the book--a reprint does not. This one was not fair use, and I deleted it and replaced it with an image of the author himself. Chick Bowen 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I think that might be your reading of fair use, but I now withdraw from the debate. Steve block Talk 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Steve has pointed out to me that my actions here were rather abrupt. That's true, and I apologize for it. Chick Bowen 20:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Possible indefinite block

    Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    Noahlaws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was going around adding links to Noahide laws to every article he could find, reinserting them when they were removed, and ignoring requests for discussion. So I blocked him for 24 hours and told him he had to respond to the complaints on his talk page. He has responded, but as you can see, the conversation has not been productive. So now what do I do? He kind of called my bluff. I'd appreciate others to weigh in before I block him permanently. Chick Bowen 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    He doesn't seem to be picking up on what we are trying to do very quickly but that doesn't justify a jump to an indefinite block. Give him a chance when the current block runs out, explain to him what is allowed and that he will be blocked again if he can't follow our policies. Then extend the block as justified by the edits. For non malicious edits, step it up to a few days perhaps then a week then more, depending on how he responds. But certainly not right to indefinite. - Taxman Talk 20:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Heh, I was going to say the same thing. He's a POV pusher, not a blatant vandal. The temporary link-spamming block seems fine, but I don't think an indef block is in order at this time. Let's see if he can learn to edit collaboratively and follow WP:NPOV. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks to you both. I can only request that other admins keep an eye on him. His talk page is getting very long indeed, and it's hard to sort out the advice from debates about the nature of religion, so I think I'm going to wait until the block wears off (in a few hours) and see what he does. Chick Bowen 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    More on AOL

    Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    OK - here are the last 10 pages edited prior to the indef block from the 3 IP's I couldn't edit from today, before giving up and logging in (100% blocked this time)

    Special:Contributions/152.163.101.8

    • N/V/? Not vandalism/Vandalism/not sure
    • U/R   edit Unchanged/Reverted from article
    • N * U * 22:42, 16 November 2006 Mary Anderson - added useful information about inventing windsheild wipers
    • N * U * 12:10, 16 November 2006 Talk:Frederik Willem de Klerk - removed own comment
    • N * R * 12:10, 16 November 2006 Talk:Frederik Willem de Klerk - added comment to talk page
    • N * U * 05:28, 16 November 2006 Mark Starks' Martian - added quote
    • N * R * 22:53, 15 November 2006 Ashlee Simpson - added rumor re 3rd album
    • N * U * 03:00, 15 November 2006 Abraham ibn Ezra - properly categorized article
    • ? * R * 23:25, 14 November 2006 All or Nothing (Cher song) - changed sales from 250->750,000 (could be subtle vandalism or mistake)
    • N * U * 04:47, 14 November 2006 Citric acid cycle - removed own vandalism
    • V * R * 04:43, 14 November 2006 Citric acid cycle - juevenile vandalism re bunnies
    • ? * U * 22:48, 13 November 2006 All or Nothing (Cher song) - duplicated info already in article Hot 100 vs Hot 100 singles (could be subtle vandalism or mistake)
    • N * U * 21:36, 13 November 2006 Essex County, New Jersey - identified ___location of park (town)
    • N * R * 10:42, 13 November 2006 InuYasha - remove statement "as he is with her..."
    • N * U * 10:39, 13 November 2006 InuYasha - remove speculation re depression of character
    • N * R * 10:36, 13 November 2006 InuYasha - age 150->15 - article now explains age better
    • N * R * 03:36, 13 November 2006 Lupe Fiasco - reverted own edit - future album name later removed from article
    • V * R * 03:35, 13 November 2006 Lupe Fiasco - added potential vandalism to name of future album

    Special:Contributions/152.163.101.11

    • V * R * 02:01, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
    • V * R * 01:59, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
    • V * R * 01:58, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
    • V * R * 01:56, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
    • V * R * 01:56, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
    • V * R * 01:54, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
    • N * U * 02:35, 9 November 2006 Christina Aguilera - change undoubtedly -> possibly - this was a good edit as the phrase is per original research as it draws a conclusion - a better edit would have been to remove the speculation
    • V * R * 01:30, 9 November 2006 United States general elections, 2006 - added image of Burro to article
    • V * R * 00:21, 9 November 2006 Wayne Static - standard vandalism
    • N * U * 23:22, 8 November 2006 Once Upon a Time in the West - added punctuation
    • V * R * 19:51, 8 November 2006 Minor characters from Aqua Teen Hunger Force - removed all the "B" minor characters
    • N * U * 14:59, 8 November 2006 Mary Warren - corrected own grammer
    • N * U * 14:59, 8 November 2006 Mary Warren - added useful information
    • V * R * 08:23, 8 November 2006 Christina Aguilera - standard vandalism
    • V * R * 08:23, 8 November 2006 Christina Aguilera - standard vandalism
    • V * R * 08:22, 8 November 2006 Christina Aguilera - standard vandalism
    • V * R * 05:00, 8 November 2006 Christina Aguilera - standard vandalism
    • V * R * 03:32, 8 November 2006 Carmel High School - copyedit own work
    • N * R * 03:30, 8 November 2006 Carmel High School - copyedit own work
    • N * R * 03:29, 8 November 2006 Carmel High School - added non-notable and not sourced info on a school show
    • N * U * 09:53, 7 November 2006 Talk:Midnight movie - Explained deletion - notably the changes discussed remain as well

    Special:Contributions/152.163.101.136

    • No edits - blocked without any vandalism / edits

    How AOL works

    AOL works in a way that helps stop abuse. When editing with AOL - everypage you edit is delivered through a different IP address. Thus blocking the IP is very effective in that it will stop any AOL user from editing the article they were vandalising. Thus a quick block is very effective against AOL users - I would recommend any IP that makes the same change to any article be immediately blocked.

    Additionally, since the IP assignment will remain for a while assigned to a specific page - it allows the AOL user to be responsible for their edits to that page - as well as provides a history that prevents gaming of the system like using differnt IPs to edit the same article.

    Finally, users can not easily vandalise in an automated fashion since using the AOL browser limits ones ability to run attached programs through the browser.

    Action

    I urge the admins to carefully consider this change to the longstanding tradition of not blocking AOL as a proxy. As you can see above - there is vandalism from AOL - but there are many good edits as well. Do not prevent the unsophisticated users from editing wikipedia. I urge you to continue the open nature of the encyclopedia. Abeo Paliurus 18:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Like I've said before, these ranges ARE OPEN PROXY RANGES. Your actual IP is masked and it costs nothing to use. This kind of activity is not allowed per Jimbo here. "In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses." (bolding mine) People in that range can either log in or not use the proxy range. Naconkantari 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    We see helpful edits from open proxies all the time. That doesn't change the fact that they are open proxies. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Agreed. That fact is you don't know how AOL works any better than the rest of us. What we do know is that these are open proxies (if not, they might as well be), and open to abuse. We are following policy. We are not ignoring it. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Found a suicide note posted by a user

    Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion

    I ran across a disturbing post which you should be aware of. The note was posted on the person's user page and talk page (see the fifth item on the list, inside comment markers): [24] and [25]

    Trinity Skyward 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    She has had some problems recently. The Esperanza guys (even though I don't agree in some of their ideas) have been working hard at comforting her. However, I am not really sure what admins would be able to do in this case. -- ReyBrujo 02:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Not something the admins can deal with, unfortunately. – Chacor 02:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I have to agree here. It seems (s)he's getting as much support as possible from fellow Wikipedians, which is awesome... however I don't think it's necessary nor appropriate for an administrator to intervene here. I think it's best we just let it be seems to be the best course of action here. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 02:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Agreed, she seems to be getting plenty of support. I think her comment was one of those rare occasions caused by stress when you say something that you're really not considering. Dionyseus 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Huh? I saw the visible message, and was worried enough by that to add some words of support on the user's talk page, even though I don't know the editor. I never thought to look for hidden comments like that. That's... well, I'm speechless. My general philosophy is to steer clear of things like this, as online interactions can be very difficult to get right in emotionally charged situations (well, that and other reasons), and I now wish I had stuck to that principle. Carcharoth 16:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    It's understandable for her, from what happened to her (read the note), but I can assure you, that she isn't suicidal at the moment, she's doing fine. Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?) 01:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Oh dear. I... don't quite know to say. Really, I didn't mean for anyone to notice that, let alone post it here! It wasn't really a suicide note, more like a personal acknowledgement of the things going on in my head. Suicidal thoughts are a symptom of clinical depression, and whenever I fall particularly low they certainly do occur. However, they are only thoughts. I have always been a logical person, and always will be; suicide is not a logical thing for me to do when I have people who need me. At this time some of those are other Wikipedians going through tough times, and I will not loose the will to live as long as anybody needs my help.
    You may note that I said in the message "Due to recent events and their repercussions I may do any of the following". May, not will... it wasn't a suicide note, I promise you that. I am not currently sucidal, thanks to the Will that helpful Wikipedians have given me. This community is the reason I'm alive and functioning today (suicidal tendencies when I first left because of this, but this pulled me through), and I would never leave you like that.
    All I can say is thank you all for caring, and for acting so quickly. Knowing that people care is really extraordinarily helpful at a time when you feel like you are all alone and feel (to quote Kyoko who quotes Grey's Anatomy) "all dark and twisty inside". I can not say enough how much it means to me! Thank you, thank you, and thank you. Your support means the world to me, in a literal sense as well as figurative. My love to all :-) — Editor at Large(speak) 02:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I think a nice wikibreak would be in order here; maybe come back after you've sorted out your personal issues. It's just really not productive when we have this kind of thing spilling over onto the administrator's noticeboard. Remember, Wikipedia is not therapy. --Cyde Weys 04:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Mr. Weys I am totally shocked and appalled at your lack of sympathy for our friend. How can you suggest to someone that is obviously grieving to naff off, we don't have time for you here unless you are ready to work. You need to apologise. Pynopoulous 05:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I don't think Cyde meant to be offensive, he was just thinking with productivity in mind. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 05:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    No harm done. I've seen Cyde around enough to know that he's extremely honest, I don't take it personally ;-) I'd just like to mention that I didn't request it be placed here. My comments were in comment markers, hidden within a message at the top of my talk page: I honestly wasn't thinking at the time I added it (depressive episode) and didn't believe anyone would find it. As I stated above, it wasn't a suicide note as much as a personal admission of what was going on inside my head. When editing my userpages I often forget that many people have them watchlisted, or even that other people see all my contributions. I'm a webmaster, I'm not used to that ... plus I'm just absent-minded ;-)
    Regards, — Editor at Large(speak) 10:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

    We have a legal threat sighting here. I haven't dug too deep yet. What is the customary protocol for this? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I haven't looked either, but if he made the edits then it's GFDL, and he can't do anything. If he didn't, then treat as copyvio, imo. – Chacor 03:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Can't find copies on google. Eh find out what the copyright status of the text is would be the first stage.Geni 03:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It appears he made a long unsourced addition with this edit to Malta New York. When subsequent large and unsourced edits to other pages were reverted, he decided he wanted to retract the Malta, New York edit. His retraction was reverted as apparent vandalism and then he made his legal threat basically claiming ownership of the unsourced material. Since it's unsourced anyway, I say let it stay out, eh? Does this get referred somewhere anyway? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Wait, never mind on the unsourced material being added back in. So basically, I have no idea why he made a legal threat. He just didn't want his unsourced material on Wikipedia but no one was fighting him for it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, it looks like he added a paragraph about the town of Malta, New York in August [26], became disenchanted today with Wikipedia for unrelated reasons [27], and now wants his paragraph back. [28] The legal threat was in response to a vandalism warning he got after he made the deletion. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    From just below the input screen when you edit: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." (emphasis in original) Maybe someone should point it our to him? Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    If his edit were useful, maybe. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The choices are either to repost the paragraph on the principle that we're not going to allow people to revoke their contributions under GFDL, or live without the paragraph on the ground that as noted above it's unsourced, plus it was never going to be a candidate for paragraph of the year anyway. I would not recommend a block for the legal threat in this instance, at least not at this stage, as it would probably only enrage the user just as he is seemingly heading out the door. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I'll second that last part. For the content iself, I vote leave it out. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Does wikipedia have import?

    Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

    An if so, could I get a list of articles transwikied from de.wikipedia? They have an excellent series of articles on phytopathogens (plant diseases), while our articles are rather sparse and in several cases just plain incorrect. I can translate them, but I was wondering if they could be imported to give credit to the contributors on de.wp. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I don't think that's possible. The interwiki link if followed though, will allow people to see the history from de.wp pschemp | talk 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Special:Import - "No transwiki import sources have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled." --pgk 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Import on Wikipedia is disabled. Last time I checked the import code in Mediawiki was actually broken, but I'm not sure if that is still the reason or not. Dragons flight 16:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It's not broken... we have it on wikiversity and wikibooks :). Word around the campfire is that they're worried about misattribution before SUL comes into play. I was just hoping it might have been turned on from that project, since the de.wikipedia has so much material in the physical and life sciences that we don't have here. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 16:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I've done one import, but it was entirely by hand -- took an article from the Spanish Wikipedia (Raphanobrassica), dumped it through BabelFish, then copied and pasted to a new article, with whatever editing was needed done. The article has grown some since then, though, so you'd have to look back through the history to see the original version. Haikupoet 06:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Those projects have Import because the developers have turned it on at the community's wish. The developers could to the same for the English Wikipedia, if there was support for the action. Dmcdevit·t 07:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Is there a way we can set up a discussion to see if the community wants it or not? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Simply list as a source a link to the revision you took. This will provide a link to the edit history of the version you used. We have a Cite this article link, they will have something similiar. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Wikipedia is not a telephone directory

    Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

    Is it really appropriate for all these schools (such as York House School) many of which have no claim to notability, to have telephone numbers listed? We don't exist to provide directory information for every school in Canada, plus the potential for abuse of these numbers is very high. I don't think they should be included, but they already have been on hundreds of pages. Certainly a link to the school website or whatever gives enough info for someone to find the phone number, but our mission here should not be to publish such information. What should be done about this? pschemp | talk 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I have to agree that telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, and perhaps even the physical address are not appropriate. Unless those data and information are crucial and appropriate to the article (i.e. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the White House), then they shouldn't be included. They are not encyclopedic, and as far as I know, none of our other articles on locations (excluding schools) have any of this information, nor do any of our articles on living people. We don't provide contact information; we provide encyclopedic articles. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Apply gentle pressure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Education which seems to be in charge of maintaining those infoboxes, and ask how this fits WP:NOT#DIR. If nobody can provide a good encyclopedic reason for including these phone numbers I agree they should be removed. Femto 17:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I think most of the school articles are completely non notable and unencyclopedic anyway, but given that we need an overwhelming consensus to delete, it isn't going to happen. There's nothing wrong with listing the actual address of the school, I'm pretty sure most articles on buildings will have an indication of its address or map reference. There's no need for contact details such as telephone, fax or email though, when a link to their website should suffice. - Hahnchen 18:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    No. Physical addresses on casino infoboxes were removed and we were directed to put that kind of stuff on Wikitravel. Hbdragon88 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I'm not too sure I'd agree with that, I think the physical ___location is quite important. I'm not too familiar with articles on building to be honest, but I know King's Cross railway station and Jordanhill railway station both include map references in, why shouldn't casinos? - Hahnchen 00:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Ok well, we're actually talking about phone numbers on school articles here, so if people would like to comment, a discussion has been started on the project page here. pschemp | talk 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Improperly closed MfD

    Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

    I nominated Wikipedia:Extreme article deletion for deletion here about thirty minutes ago after somebody mentioned the page in the administrators' IRC channel. Though my first reason for deletion may seem a bit point of view-y, I think my second was perfectly valid. I'm not sure if the administrators in the admin channel think this nomination is a joke or what, but it was a serious good faith nomination that was speedy kept per WP:SNOW, which isn't even a policy, 14 minutes after it was started. The closure was reverted, and the nomination received a delete and fourth keep before Misza reclosed it. Administrators have added a score of some sort to the page; I think this shows quite well how serious they think this is. A few people's opinions are being allowed to speedy close an MfD that should be allowed to run its course; anything wrong here? JDtalk 20:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Just a note: even good faith nominations may be speedily closed - these two things do not exclude each other. And my decision stands: not a snowball's chance in hell for it to be deleted unless we incite a site-wide movement to delete the the plenty of humorous and relaxing pages. Misza13 20:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    You closed it fourteen minutes after I started it; it wasn't even given a chance. What proof do you have that there wasn't "a snowball's chance in hell"? I see it as a bad faith closure of a good faith nomination; and things that were being said in the IRC channel don't help. JDtalk 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    3 speedy keeps in first four minutes, 1 delete = speedy snowball close. --Majorly (Talk) 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    3 keeps and 1 delete (2 if you count the nom) is certainly not a situation to apply a "speedy snowball close". -- Steel 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The score was only intended as a bit of harmless fun in keeping with the spirit of the original page. I've removed it. (Which is just a shame, as bringing it up here probably earns you extra points). I have no opinion (perhaps leaning towards keeping the page), but I've reopened the nomination because I don't want J_Di or anyone else to turn this into a dispute. Misza13, I don't disagree with what you did, in fact I supported it. I guess perhaps we should wait a little longer in future before snowball closing – Gurch 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Even speaking as a keep voter, snowball's chance doesn't quite apply here... too few votes and this article hasn't been nominated multiple times for MFD before... other articles as old as this one have been MFDed and deleted before. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) However, if you want to do something right, you have to do it extremely, and a snowball close is an extreme close. I'm torn here. Extremely torn. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Snowball is generally applied in situations that are not controversial. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Backlog at WT:AWB/CP

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    There's a big backlog of users waiting to be approved by an admin. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    • So I see... I'm not quite familiar with this tool, but the guide on its main page says we should approve users with a clean record and significant (>500) contributions to mainspace? Looking over the nominees I find that their records appear to be clean, but most of them fall short of the editcount criterion. I'm not much for editcountitis, though, so I would like to ask if this is really a problem. (Radiant) 12:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I don't understand why these articles are repeatedly deleted

    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Articles about ChefMoz (a website at [29]) have been deleted twice, as logged at [| this ___location].

    The second version of the article, which I created, should legitimately have been labeled a stub (I don't recall if I labeled it as such), but I do not see any basis for its speedy deletion, which apparently occurred several months ago (I was not notified, possibly because I apparently had no e-mail address in my profile). Note that I added the article in order to populate a nonfunctional link from [| another wikipedia article]. My recollection (for some reason, there is no log of this contribution at [| my contribution log]) is that the content I added included both an external link to the ChefMoz website and an internal link to the Open Directory Project article.

    At the time that I created the ChefMoz article, the [| Open Directory Project article] included a functioning link to an article about MusicMoz, but I see that the MusicMoz article also has been deleted (yesterday!), as logged at [| this wikipedia page]. There is no reason given for deleting that article, and I cannot immediately discern a reason for speedy deletion. 

    --orlady 23:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I finally found the procedure for disputing deletions. (Earlier when looking for the procedure I found this page instead.) --orlady 00:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

    Would this statement on User:BhaiSaab's talk page constitute a legal threat? (→Netscott) 23:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, and blocked accordingly. Naconkantari 23:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Naconkantari, thanks for the prompt response. I wasn't sure if that qualified but in the future I will unhesistatingly recognize such statements for what they are. (→Netscott) 23:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Hold on a second, do we know if any of there is any truth to this? I'd be upset too if this were the case. Might even call the cops. — CharlotteWebb 00:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Actually I'm not sure if it is true... I just noticed that User:BhaiSaab up and retired today and so I did some back tracking to try and understand it and came up with that. I think Wikipedia:No legal threats doesn't allow for a legal threat on the Wiki regardless... but I'm not super familiar with that policy. (→Netscott) 00:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I think given Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s block log that Naconkantari's block duration caps "the final straw". (→Netscott) 00:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I would like to clarify here that I did indeed attempt to call and email a student by the name of H. Kelkar at the University of Texas in order to identify whether or not User:Hkelkar was really him and ask some questions regarding Physics research. The details for the email address and phone number are easily available with a Google search of Kelkar's full name, which he has publically posted on Wikipedia himself, in his first edit here. The contents of the email and call were not threatening at all, and any claims that state such are fallacious or misinterpreted. My primary intention was to establish contact with the person so I could confirm whether or not the Hkelkar on Wikipedia was really who he stated he was. This should be taken into consideration. When an admin told me that conducting such research independently was inappropriate, I stopped. Again, although the contents of the email/call were not threatening, I can understand how a user may feel insecure if anyone tried to establish contact with him or her outside their normal comfort zone, i.e. Wikipedia, and I did not take Hkelkar's threat seriously since neither the call or email were sent in a threatening matter. BhaiSaab talk 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    {edit con)BhaiSaab has been stalking Hkelkar. See User_talk:Fred_Bauder#HArrassment_by_BhaiSaab . BhaiSaab has a nice block log as well. Now we know he's engaged in stalking. BhaiSaab should be banned, and Hkelkar's remarks were absolutely justified. I have to wonder why Netscott is backing a POV-pushing wikistalker, though given his attacks on me [30] and perpetration of lies its not surprising. All Hkelkar's comment shows is that he was sick of being stalked, and this is another ploy by Netscott on behalf of BhaiSaab to get Hindu users out of BhaiSaab's way.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I have asked Nakontari to unblock. Based on the above admission, there is at least room for misunderstanding, and both Hkelkar and BhaiSaab are participants in an ongoing arbitration case that has been extremely unpleasant on both side. Thatcher131 00:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conf.) Lets all calm it down, please? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop#Unblock <---- temporary injunction proposal. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Also, I would like to note that that I did not attempt to contact his supervisor - I attempted to contact him directly as the phone number on his website was listed under his name, not anyone else's. Thanks. BhaiSaab talk 00:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    In general, it is just a good idea to the first make off-wiki communication foray by e-mail, and respect requests for cessation, regardless of how accessible the user's information, just a courtesy and an implicit nod to the separation of "real" life and wikipedia. At least in my opinion. -- Avi 00:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    As some administrators know, I did attempt to do a few weeks ago before and unfortunately received no response. I then attempted the only other means I knew of. BhaiSaab talk 01:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Since I initiated this thread I'll take the opportunity to state the same thing that I did here and say I completely agree that attempting to contact someone directly offwiki is inappropriate and particularly so when one is in conflict with that other party. That said I do respect BhaiSaab's forthright admission of his attempt to contact Hkelkar directly. (→Netscott) 01:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I've removed the block after discussion. Naconkantari 01:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Articles in Category:Proposed deletion deleted too early

    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    The oldest non-deleted prods are dated 20 November, but there used to be articles prodded on the 18th and 19th, and those shouldn't have been deleted yet. What has happened here? --Derlay 01:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    It's 5 days for an article to be deleted not 7. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, I know it's 5 days, but look at the deletion log:
    • 20:20, 23 November 2006 HereToHelp deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 19 November 2006"
    • 05:52, 23 November 2006 The Epopt deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 18 November 2006"
    • 20:48, 22 November 2006 Crzrussian deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 17 November 2006"
    • 08:50, 22 November 2006 Quarl deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 16 November 2006"
    • 07:41, 22 November 2006 Quarl deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 15 November 2006"
    • 06:57, 21 November 2006 Crzrussian deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 14 November 2006"
    • 07:37, 19 November 2006 Srikeit deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 13 November 2006"
    • 15:03, 18 November 2006 Winhunter deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 12 November 2006"
    • 19:24, 16 November 2006 UtherSRG deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 11 November 2006"
    • 05:17, 16 November 2006 Crzrussian deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 10 November 2006"
    Notice how early the categories of 18th and 19th were deleted compared to the others. None of the articles that were in the 19th category can have been there full five days (that is, 120 hours), and probably neither were most in the 18th category. --Derlay 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think it's a big deal if they deleted proded articles after 4.5 days instead of 5.0 days. Anybody can de-prod at any time so it's not really gameable. Any extra "eyeballs" benefit lost is 1/n (as opposed to all-or-nothing discretized benefit). —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-25 07:57Z

    User User:Ryulong closing unblock requests even though he is not an admin

    Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

    What up wit that? Its not like he can grant them anyway. So why bother? Damn, man! Pynopoulous 07:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Based on this users other contributions he was blocked as a trolling account, or at least one that may be linked to a banned user. Additionally, per WP:ADMIN, "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions." I am not the only non-admin who will often check CAT:RFU to see if there are any blatant refusals or malformed requests for unblocks that can either be fixed or help the user in question.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I totally agree with you, but removing comments (even if they're wrong!) is inappropriate. Pynopoulous's post contains no personal attacks, so replying is more productive than removing it. Conscious 14:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    He removed mine and told me to create an account whilst I was using another AOL IP address after I was autoblocked. Um... I sorta can't create an account while while blocked. --172.190.199.101 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Do we still practice leaving AC off when blocking AOL? – Chacor 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I just stumbled onto this, but it does seem like rather poor form, in that what's the use of reviewing the block if one has no power to reverse it in the first place. Plus there lies the potential for misleading others. Cocunuthead 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    To throw in my two cents, Ryulong has been immensely helpful in procesing unblock requests. I usually first notice them when Ryulong alerts me to them on IRC. If something's an obvious decline, I see no reason why a non-admin shouldn't be permitted to decline it (much like non-admins are permitted to close deletion discussions if they are obvious keeps). --Slowking Man 03:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I was going to suggest that someone just go and nominate him for adminship and we can be done with it, but I see that he's already been through two unsuccessful RfAs, the second only last month, so I guess that's not a good idea. While it's okay for non-admins to close obvious keeps in AfDs, I don't think non-admins should do unblock declines. The whole purpose of the unblock request is to get a second administrator opinion on the appropriateness of the block (and perhaps an examination of the blocker's motives), so non-admins should not be sticking their noses in. It opens up the possibility of collusion between editors (not that there can't be collusion between administrators) to keep an unfairly blocked editor blocked. I have no doubt that Ryulong here is doing good work here, but the issue is that justice must not simply be done, it must be seen to be done. And for that, a second administrator opinion is really necessary. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 04:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with this assessment. Closing unanimous keeps is very different from denying unblock requests. What may be an obvious rejection to a non-admin may not be the same in the eyes of a second, neutral admin. Don't think we should be condoning non-admins handling unblock requests. – Chacor 04:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Several of the unblock requests I have been dealing with are simple usernameblocks where the user does not know how to register a new account, malformed unblock-auto requests where the user is either directly blocked or there is an autoblock and the user needs to provide more information, unblocks that can't be done (such as those who use Google Accelerator to edit), or blatant denials that go along the lines of "no, you are not getting unblocked by calling [insert administrator's name] a faggot" (you can ask Khoikhoi of how I assisted him in the past week or so). I am not the only non-admin who goes through CAT:RFU, and as Slowking Man himself said, I help more people out than I deny sockpuppets or other things. I will not go through all of the unblock requests. There are those I know I should not touch. However, any of the above I have done in the past few weeks, as you can see from my contribs in the user talk space.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Ah, no not really. If you view Ryulong's first "RfA" in early August 2006, you can see that his closing of "unblock request templates" was an issue back then. So when he says he's only been doing it for the last few weeks, he's being disingenuous at best. Furthermore, it is rather troubling from a review of the "history" of this AN that Ryulong himself attempted to blank this thread about 3 times before finally being forced to respond by the community. So the bottom line is, is he going to stop like many admins have recommended, or not? Cocunuthead 17:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Unusual delete request - not sure where else to put it

    Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

    Being a complete idiot, I added a comment to User:JRSpriggs instead of his talk page - in the process creating the page. I realised my mistake and blanked the page - now I wish for this page to be speedily deleted. I don't want to put the normal deletion tag up because it's not my user page! I hope someone can help me with this, sorry for being an idiot. Rawling 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    You're not "an idiot". Most experienced editors (probably all of them) have made a similar mistake at some point. Don't worry about it! --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I agree, honest mistakes are simply an matter of time. The important thing is your determination to repair your mistakes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I still do that sometimes... Snoutwood (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Marking our sources

    Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments10 people in discussion

    A proposal has been made here to mark sources in (eventually, all) articles with 'A', 'B' or 'C' depending on their quality. Since no objective definition of these three has been given, some people fear that this may cause revert wars. Others say the idea is good but the execution is not. The author of the proposal now basically calls for a test run; I believe it would be useful of some more people gave feedback on whether or not this is a good idea. (Radiant) 09:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    • This user has already implemented his idea on several pages (Compass_rose, Wolfenstein_3D and Miles Davis). Is this useful, irrelevant, or harmful and removable? (Radiant) 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • An interesting idea, but I think that the definitions need to be solidified more. What makes an A, B, or C grade source? I also worry that it adds an extra layer of complexity into the mix -- Samir धर्म 09:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
        • If it is to be done, it should be done on the talk page, not the articles, to avoid cluttering the categories. And, more importantly, it really shouldn't have begun (not even a pilot) without gaining community consensus on both a) the idea itself, and b) what objective criteria to determine whether sources are A/B/C grade. I note on compass rose that two new (red) categories have just been dumped on the article, with no clue as to what they mean, no references to them on the talk page of the article, nothing. Not acceptable. I'm going to revert the category additions until some form of consensus is gained (personally, I think it's a sucky idea). Proto::type 11:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Bad idea. The last thing we need in a place like Anarchism or New Antisemitism (or any of the perpetual edit wars) is a quality scale for references. Endless new edit wars.Thatcher131 12:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I can't see any objective way to do this, and if it's done subjectively, it violates NPOV. I can't see any way this can possibly work. --Tango 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Ack, what a bad idea. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all. Invites lame meta-edit wars over how to grade sources in places where edit wars are already ongoing over which sources to use, and provides yet another large-scale tagging project for people to rack up thousands of edits doing, essentially, nothing at all. Given the ongoing citation-creep problem, looking in my crystal ball tells me that FAC will contain comments like "oppose, whole paragraphs without A-class sources". As Tango and other point out, this is entirely a matter of subjective interpretation and inherently violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR, foggy everything-is-subjective metaphysical speculation on the talk page left aside. Opabinia regalis 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Absolutely agree, a waste of an idea. It's going to add another layer of needless bureaucracy to an already hulking mass. - Hahnchen 00:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Bad idea, just list the citation that a dubious on the talk page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Whereas I applaud the boldness of the user, this really is a non-starter. For one, it looks crap, it's presenting data that should be on the talk page to the reader, and secondly it's another needless layer of bureaucracy. Which is only going to get worse when some webmaster finds out that their website has been labelled C grade. - Hahnchen 16:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The grading categories certainly shouldn't appear on the article itself. The purpose of categories is to allow navigation between related articles. I can't imagine readers wishing to see other "C-sourced" articles, even if they know what that meant. Similar categories and templates are placed on talk pages and that is where this type of evaluation should go too. -Will Beback · † · 21:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Template:Wr deleted, what now?

    Since this template/warning has been deleted, what should we now do when editors continually alter warning messages? This came up just minutes ago when I saw this edit which changes a blatant vandal warning message into a praising thank you note. What now? I sent a {{notyours}} message, but that's really not the template's purpose. -- AuburnPilottalk 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    Possible Block Evasion

    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    I'm not sure on what happened with User:Agravity as the page has been deleted and recreated to obviously remove the content was there, but I noticed a link on Levitation changed from that users page to a yahoo group by an anon IP[31] who's been repeatedly adding an essay to the talk page of Levitation[32] [33]. Perhaps an admin can look into it and see if this is indeed this user and deal with him appropriately.--Crossmr 20:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    3rd addition from another IP, [34]. Same ISP.--Crossmr 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I vote if this happens one more time, semi-protect Levitation and Talk:Levitation. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Kennethtennyson

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    I direct the attention to JFD and Kennethtennyson, who closely follow me committing harrasment under WP:stalking. Kindly observe this, this, this, this and I can provide a lot more.

    If you take a look into the record you'll see that when I make an edit into any article first. The group follows me there and stalks me. One member of the cabal in particular, kennethtennyson has contributed next to nothing in any actual article in which he stalks me. All he does is, walk in here, violently revert and then log out.

    Kindly note Kenny tried to fake the content in the Encyclopedia Brittanica citation , remove a citation and a section without any explaination whatsoever , removes an entire section without one word of explaination and fraduelently claims that the citation has anything to do with Sengchou and Huiguang .

    This has become very painful. Kindly stop it as early as possible. The amount of WP policy violations they get away with is amazing. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Help on wikipedia editor review

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I recently put myself forward for wikipedia editor review, but in doing so I think I messed up with the page as my name isn't on the list. I first put my name forward in the wrong way (by simply editing my name onto the page then saving in) and in doing so I think that I have broken the way the page moves. Please could someone look into this for me. Ryanpostlethwaite 23:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    You did nothing wrong. Maybe it was a cache issue. Your review is now in the page, good luck! -- ReyBrujo 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    A statement on the state of your Wiki

    Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

    (I am saying this because I honestly feel that Wikipedia needs to wake up and improve, this is not meant to be a blanket finger-pointing but rather pointing out problems that need to be fixed.) Hello, for those of you who don't know me I was an administrator here until recently. I have long observed and cringed at the way many good faith contributors were treated by some admins, driving them to burst out in anger, which in turn leads to their indefinite blocks. There is no environment here to cope with people's mistakes, the only thing people do is chase away some of the better contributors, even if they are brand new. And I am thinking more of the actual article contributors rather than skilless janitorial work (that I sadly admit make up most of my contributions). I have seen good faith contributors be blocked indefinitely just because they did not quite understand how things are done and lost their temper in response to pushy admins, while regular contributors are often allowed to go around treating people harshly and calling good faith editors trolls with no consequences. I have seen admins swear at new users in big capital letters during content disputes, tell me, who would want to stick around after being yelled at?

    I have seen many people argue against Citizendium - saying that it will not succeed or is structured wrongly. You might be right on that, though I have already long started contributing there instead of here because I can do so in a calm atmosphere. I tell you right now that even without any major drive for contributions it has attracted several hundreds of contributors, over 100 of them holding PhDs, and several hundred articles have been improved from the state they were at Wikipedia (a lot of these changes are quite major too, in some cases re-written from scratch). So look at this, and think how has this Citizendium pilot, which is only in its early days and not even open to public, has managed to get to this stage and is much more active than Wikipedia was when it first started? Why do these people (many of whom are busy Professors and the like) even feel the need to give their real names, give the real life credentials and link to a CV when they could have just come here and contribute with a click of an "edit" button on the much more well known Wikipedia? Admit it, Wikipedia has huge problems, and they need fixing.

    Now no doubt some people responding to this will jump at me and refer to the ridiculous Arbitration case against me, where one of the active arbitrators is the blocking admin, and another kindly proposes to ban me for a year. (I have no intention of obeying any such bans, although if I will want to contribute something to Wikipedia I will come back and I will improve Wikipedia even if it is against the desire of the ArbCom). This is not what I am referring to, I am referring to the general state of Wikipedia, and the spirit of the ArbCom is only barely related to that. The Community of regular contributors is at fault, even more specifically I think it is the contributors who do a lot of maintenence work rather than article writing.

    As for me, I have long given up my +sysop and do not intend to return to Wikipedia any time soon (I am only here because of the Arb case, but due to the fresh air of toxicity introduced by Fred Bauder, I think it is time for me to drop even that). I do hope Wikipedia can improve, though I am not optimistic.--Konst.ableTalk 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Wikipedia has some issues, but doesn't every Internet or real life community have its problems? We're not a utopian society, and neither is any of the other societies that exist (including Citizendium). Ideally we want to make changes and fix problems, but we must look at reality. Reality was meant to be in sharp contrast to ideality, and we must accept our current predicaments and expect corrections of problems are not bound to happen. Nishkid64 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I can't imagine too many people willing to give their real names at Citizendium. You're hanging yourself with that one. Your expert editors are limited to people that don't give a damn about their privacy. In that case, I wouldn't trust the expertise there any more than here. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I know very well about that as well, which is why I was cynical about it myself. I won't try to argue that this is irrelavent, because I am myself not completely convinced on the naming issue, but what I admire about the project is that it acknoledges that there is a problem and tries to fix it. I don't think Citizendium is any harm to Wikipedia either, even if Citizendium has some initial success and then flops (though I hope it doesn't), there is no doubt that there will be at least something produced out of the experience that will be useful to Wikipedia (even if it is just the mainspace contributions that can be transferred here, but I am thinking more of the community structure). But what I am saying that the concerns raised by Larry Sanger and a bunch of other people are legitimate concerns that Wikipedia should try to address rather than ignore.--Konst.ableTalk 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    As a rule, I tend to disapprove of places that require loyalty oaths, uses weasel terms like "compendium of knowledge", and a focus on bullshit terms like "family friendly". Not to mention the idea that things like notability or NPOV is based on "the preponderance of opinion in the English-speaking world". Spare me. The concerns raised by Larry Sanger are there to attempt to criticize Wikipedia and benefit from the publicity, while not acknowledging their own ideals are likely to piss people off in huge groups. Insulting the contributors who do the maintenance work here only reinforces for me the idea that the ArbCom came to the right decision concerning you. Enjoy Sangerpedia. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    A bit confused by your statement. I think if you look through my contribs you will find that most of them are maintenance work and probably only several hundred are actual non-maintenance article contributions. I would never insult anyone doing maintenance work as that would make me a hypocrite wouldn't it? I am just saying actual article contributions are more valuable. And it is quite skilless, I mean to write a wonderful article such, as say Demosthenes, and pressing a block button on vandals doesn't really compare in skill levels does it? That does not mean in any way that people should not do maintenance work, or that they are idiots or that they are wasting their time. But I do regret not spending as much time on articles as much as I did on janitorial work. I see no offense in what I said.--Konst.ableTalk 03:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I have to say it's odd that you take such offense at someone linking you to WP:DNFT and yet you return to another public forum here attempting to stir up the beehive again - i.e. trolling. Why does everyone insist on expounding to the uneducated masses on why they left Wikipedia and why we're all doomed? It's getting very cliché and boring. Why not just leave quietly? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Even if he's got a few possibly-valid points, he comes off as pretty whiny and petulant. *Dan T.* 03:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    If you don't like what I'm saying, fine, feel free to ignore it. If it's getting cliché then maybe there is a problem don't you think ;-) Wknight94's attempted ad hominem strawman arguments in putting words in my mouth don't even warrant a response.--Konst.ableTalk 04:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

    Schrodinger82 is banned from Bowling for Columbine and related pages and talk pages for one year. This may be repealed if the Arbitration Committee feels that his editing of other topics demonstrates significantly improved understanding of Wikipedia's core principles. Violations of the article ban shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine#Log of blocks and bans.

    For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Right to Vanish and deletion of talk page

    Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

    Can folks please look at User talk:Wakemp and its history? It looks to me like there's no reason not to delete the page, and yet... several admins have decided not to. I am confused; what's the reason for not deleting this, especially in light of the points made on this version of the page...? -- SCZenz 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User pages are no problem, and they're done routinely, but user talk pages are a different issue. Since you're mostly deleting other users' contributions, not the departing user's, then the CSD don't really apply. A courtesy blanking would be uncontroversial, IMO... Titoxd(?!?) 07:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    (Ed. conf.) Only rare exceptions for user talk pages, since they contain information about the user's past activities. I think blanking the user talk page for leaving members is the best thing to do. No real reason to delete it unless there's material which needs oversight. – Chacor 07:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Please see:
    ...all of which indicates that deleting a user's talk page can be done when a user wishes to vanish. --Stéphane Charette 07:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    From Wikipedia:User page: "As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally (see also m:Right to vanish)." Emphasis mine. It has very little support within the community except for OFFICE matters. – Chacor 07:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The guideline, as well as m:Right to vanish (in addition to Jimbo's comment when this recently came up!) all seem to indicate that it is perfectly valid. I understand it isn't done often. So if I have to ask for just such an "exception", then consider this my request. The user in question left Wikipedia after a very stressful time dealing with bitter AfDs. He specifically requested that his user page and talk page be deleted. Right-to-vanish guarantees a user such rights. We should honour the user's request. --Stéphane Charette 07:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    And he can request that. And he can easily have his user page deleted. But user talk pages are very specifically NOT deleted under most circumstances, as Chacor said, generally for OFFICE matters. The fact that several admins have chosen NOT to delete the talk page further reinforces this: it's just not done. You can blank it and move on. If you want to vanish, leave: if you're not planning on coming back you shouldn't care what your user talk page says. If he really cared, he could request a bureaucrat change his user name. But in essence you've already made the request and it's been denied by several admins. Since when do we go admin shopping here? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Interestingly, it looks like S charette broke 3RR on the usertalk page in question. – Chacor 07:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I'm certainly not "shopping". I am curious to know why the page had been deleted when the user in question left Wikipedia, and now more than a month later the page suddenly re-appeared. People blanked the page and the request for deletion. I reverted it to get back the explanation and the user's request to delete. You're not going to all of a sudden claim that I'm in violation of 3R while we blatently ignore the the right-to-vanish rule that specifically allows talk pages to be deleted, are we? m:Right to vanish specifically states:
    However, if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection. [...] Delete your user, user talk and subpages
    --Stéphane Charette 07:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I feel this is unresolved. We either need to modify the right-to-vanish page and the guideline to explain that right-to-vanish is not supported by the community, or someone who can delete pages (IANAA) needs to delete the page in question. We cannot claim that we have something, yet not provide when we're asked. --Stéphane Charette 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    wikisky.org

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I would like assistance from an administrator with issues relating to an external website named wikisky.org. Two users, Friendlystar and Kostya30, are promoting linking all Wikipedia articles on astronomical objects to the external website using the infobox templates on the objects' pages. A discussion on their actions and whether or not to do this is proceeding on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Both the users who want to link to wikisky.org appear to have a vested interest in the website, so I am worried that their actions may run afoul of Wikipedia's spam and external links policies. I would appreciate having an administrator look over this problem and provide advice on this issue. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Comments left on Talk page, referring to external links guidance. (aeropagitica) 14:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Project page vandalism

    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Hi, The project titled 'Neutral Coverage of Sri Lankan Crisis' or WP:NCSLC has been vandalized again. Please check this diff's page which points out to almost the entire page being blanked out by two IP's which apparently have worked in tandem. This is the first IP 59.92.88.135, which appears to be a completely dud IP created only for vandalizing such pages. The second IP 125.238.104.244 seems to be a professional tailormade-vandaluser IP which has involved in personal attacks, racial slurs and also foul language in Wikipedia all of which can be found in his talk page.

    I kindly request the admins top please check both the IPs for all the malice that they have created. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 11:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    125.* blocked for 31h, 59.* has been given bv warning. Next time when you have a simple vandalism like this please go to WP:AIV board, they are able to act faster Alex Bakharev 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks a lot for your prompt action. However considering that the 125* IP has involved in a series of such actions, shouldn't it warrant a more stern action. I see a lot of disgusting comments in his own talk page and even in 125.238.104.244's contribution page there are comments like 'faggot' and others. This is FYI. Thanks again. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Personal Information in Shirley Phelps-Roper

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Earlier today, Nlu attempted to remove personal information posted by User:63.226.199.142 and User:Zoraks from Shirley Phelps-Roper. However, Nlu's page history deletions did not actually remove the personal information, and falsified the edit history to make it appear as though I was posting the information, when in fact I was removing it. I request that this information be properly removed from the page history of the article. Thank you. John254 15:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Done. Chick Bowen 17:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Vandalism + Whole list of nonsense pages

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    See this edit. Dupek73 (talk · contribs) replaced the page Israel with a redirect to Mateusz Małota, which is a redirect to Łukasz Hajduk, which is a redirect to Skurwysyn, which is a redirect to Huj, which is a redirect to Anal, which is a redirect to Anus. He also created Kamil Stemplowski. That's one account of vandalism and creating 5 totally useless nonsense redirect pages. This edit which was his first is also not very promising. Neither is this. Thus, I am requesting a long ban, since this user has very strongly indicated that the only reason why is here is to vandalize. Also, his userpage says that he does not understand English. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Deleted all the redirects, blocking him for disruption for 48 hours. Since he has only two warnings, I am willing to give him a new opportunity, but anyone else can change that to indef if necessary. I will keep an eye on his future contributions. -- ReyBrujo 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Leaving mesages on protected talk pages?

    Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

    How do I leave a message on a protected talk page? The page in question is User talk:John Reid. I thought protecting a blocked user's talk page was only done in extreme circumstances? Carcharoth 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    That was my understanding as well. I've suggested to the blocking admin that he might want to bring this situation to the noticeboard for comments. Newyorkbrad 17:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I see no clear justification for the talk page protection, and no explanation on the talk page of why this is done. Is it common practice to pick on blocked users these days? Friday (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Note that there is some colloquy in deleted/reverted edits on that page that makes the story a little easier to follow. Newyorkbrad 17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    There is an explanation from Philwelch there: "If you're blocked for disruptive editing of a talk page, you don't get to use your own talk page as a surrogate." I do think that Philwelch should have sought a second opinion on all this though, as he was clearly involved in a dispute with John Reid at the time. Ironically, on the talk page of WP:WHEEL, so if other admins do get involved, someone will inevitable use this as a WP:POINT example... Carcharoth 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Note that the user, as a matter of principle, requests that other admins not unblock, but comment on the block and/or consult with the blocking admin. It's an odd situation, overall. Newyorkbrad 18:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I have had unpleasant memories of User:Philwelch. Some months ago he went on some power trip and blocked some editors he had a content dispute with. Other administrators warned him not to abuse his blocking tool, but he went on and blocked some more including me. Dionyseus 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Do you have any diffs or links to show that? Carcharoth 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    [35] [36] [37]. Dionyseus 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Responding to Newyordbrad: that is indeed a general principle that John holds. One that I agree with. No-one should feel, especially for short blocks, that it is something worth wheel-warring over if the blocked user himself doesn't feel that way. Much better to suggest the blocking admin reconsiders and undoes the block himself. So if anyone does feel the block is unwarranted, please do say so. And ditto for the protection of the talk page, though that is probably a separate issue. Carcharoth 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    In general though, shouldn't there be a way to disable the ability of a blocked user to edit their talk page, rather than completely protect the talk page? That leaves non-admins unable to leave messages, when the aim seems to be rather to prevent the blocked user from using the talk page to carry out personal attacks on the blocking admin (which wasn't the case here, in my opinion). ie. have two blocking options: (1) Ordinary block (everything except user's talk page); (2) Full block (including user's talk page). Protecting a user's talk page must be covered in the guidelines somewhere, surely. Anyone have a link? Carcharoth 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=90061750"