Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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.

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

Start a new discussion

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
Transwiki to Wikibooks and Wiktionary

Requested moves, Vandalism in progress, AfD cleanup, Copyright Problems and Requests for page protection

Moved conversations

A lot of conversations were moved during the purge. Please list their new homes here. Please keep this list as short as possible: most recent at top, and after a few days, remove their listings so that this section does not become burdensome. Try shooting for a magic number of eight.

Remember! Shoot misplaced topics on sight: or at least, move them to the proper page.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive13#Willy on Wheels legal action? → Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels#Willy on Wheels legal action? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Announcements

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sometimes there are conversations that admins should take a look here. Then, make an announcement here. No more than eight announcements here at a time, most recent up top. please don't reply to announcements. If your announcement makes nine, delete the oldest one, but be courteous (don't delete one that was just created an hour ago, maybe you should wait a little bit). Remember, there's always user talk pages.

Template:

* '''[[Link to Subject Page]]''' - Short Summary (not more than a paragraph) ~~~~

Special:Log/newusers - See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Newuserlog. Originally posted by cesarb 22:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC) moved by — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 23:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)Reply

I, AllyUnion, in my official capacity as programmer-in-particular, hereby bestow upon the Wikipedia, the mighty and presigious Reset Button for all Sandboxes, including the templates "Please leave alone" templates. For any questions regarding this particular reset button, please let me know. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

General

New users log

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Take a look: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Newuserlog. --cesarb 22:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think Special:Log/newusers is an excellent idea, but could we take it out of Recent changes? Zoe 23:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with putting it there. All you have to do is make an option that allows for it to not be in there. By the way, # (User creation log); 19:22 . . Dysphenctional (Talk) (newusers: Created the user "Dysphenctional" (Talk; Contributions)) is a bit wordy, don't you think? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 23:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer it on recent changes, just in case a long term vandal shows up, so you can block right away. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I love it! Thank you devs. And I think having it on recent changes is a good idea; swat the baddies as they go by. (I suppose it could be visible to admins only, or toggled on/off; many options possible) Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's awesome, but can we get block links right there too? Is that possible? - Taxman ^Talk 21:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Bah, all of my links have a block link :-) L upin 21:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ahhyes, I found your popups tool after I asked the above. I suppose that relives a developer from adding a block to the log. Not everyone is going to find that tool though. Anyway, thanks for working on it. I like it so far. - Taxman ^Talk 23:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've created a monobook.js script that adds additional links to the Newusers log: User:Func/wpfunc/nupatrol.js, including a block link. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I also monitor New user log on my bot in #en.wikipedia.vandalism I flag the rather more suspicious ones. --Cool Cat ^Talk 11:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The MilkMan situation

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The MilkMan promises to be nice. He claims that he is not Willy after all, and that he has seen the error of his ways. So I unblocked his last account MilkMan_New_And_Improved (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which didn't turn out to be uncontroversial, as might be expected), and hope that assuming good faith works. However, obviously we should keep an eye on him. If he vandalizes again, feel free to come down upon him like a ton of bricks, but that would probably only mean hunting his socks again, and I hope that everyone agrees we have better things to do. We can avoid that if he really wants to be a good editor. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Update: He has now chosen a less controversial name for himself, Milky Way (talk · contribs). Of course above caveats still apply. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

He basically made that same statement on User talk:MilkMan Has A New Route. And I basically reminded him of the famous quote, "Heav'n hath no rage like love to hatred turn'd, nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn'd" Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

why do some people think the world must be so terribly interested in them? dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm willing to assume good faith on in terms Milky Way turning over a new leaf, so on the assumption that he is being a good user we need to start dealing with all the people trying to impersonate him and sully his reputation even before he has a chance to build up a good reputation. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Kurdish people

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

People are keeping on restoring baseless statistics. Can you interfere? --Cool Cat ^Talk 00:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just interfered by adding a lot of references for these statistics. Could you on the other hand, stop deleting important information, just because they doesn't suite you personal PoV, Coolcat? -- Karl Meier 09:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thats false not one mentions numbers you posted regarding at least europe. It is baseless and unsourced. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Statistics should be discussed on the article's talk page. I have half the mind of zapping it there right now. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree but Karl Meier prefers senseless reverting and avoids all discussion. --Cool Cat ^Talk 02:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Special:Listusers

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Can we get some user accounts deleted? Looking at just the first page of Special:Listusers isn't particularly pleasant right now. violet/riga (t) 09:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

yes, with all the throwaway vandal accounts, these start to clog up the database. I imagine that, likewise, all the indefinite blocks will affect performance. It would probably be safe to delete all indefinitely blocked accounts with less than 20 edits or so this would rid us of documents like [1]. dab (ᛏ) 10:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

it would be posible to create 50 accounts that fill the first page.Geni 15:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

For GFDL reasons, we can not legitimately delete any account that has made a contribution, even if they are subsequently permanently blocked. I would have no objection to deleting accounts that are old and have never been used. For the blocklist, recent inquires were made about whether the 4000+ entries are slowing down performance, and the conclusion was that checking this only amounts to a couple percent of present processing time per action, and so is not currently a good target for improving performance. Dragons flight 16:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

What if their contributions are also deleted? If they just made a user page, it can be deleted; if they vandalized an article, can't it be deleted and then every revision but the vandalism and its reversion restored? ~~ N (t/c) 16:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

At a technical level, such contributions should probably be removed from the database, not just deleted, if the account that made them was also going to be deleted, so that the edits could not be restored. This is a technical capacity that only developers have currently. At a legal level it would be necessary to check (probably by hand) that there were absolutely no future versions of any article or talk page derived from any edit of the person in question. This means not only checking that the edits were reverted but also that no one later put any of that material back. I think that the legal morass would plainly outweight the benefits in all but the unproductive cases of vandalism (e.g. WoW). For someone like Willy who frequently does absolutely nothing of benefit, deleting his "contributions" and those accounts is probably okay in most cases, but it would also mean erasing most records of what he had done. I am inclined to believe that having a record of his actions is probably better than removing a few accounts from Special:Listusers. However, as above I have no object to removing accounts that have never been used at all. Dragons flight 16:58, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am aware that it is not a trivial matter, but those accounts whose edits were all reverted, the edits can be safely removed from the database, and the account deleted, GFDL or no GFDL. That will need quite some churning, I imagine, but I imagine if we want to do it, such a db cleanup process could be running in the background, and slowly remove traces of those account that left no trace in article texts anyway. A better approach would be to not block vandal accounts, but block their IPs instead -- the vandals don't care if their throwaway accounts are blocked, so why burden the blocklist with those? For this, admins would need access to the IPs of logged-in vandals. This would also allow us to put temporary rangeblocks on the ISP on re-dialling logged-in vandals. dab (ᛏ) 11:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

What about account name squatting? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the accounts could be renamed to something else though. -- Joolz 00:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

AfD for 3 September seems messed up.

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Anyone know what's gone wrong on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 3. Maybe it's just me but there are scores through everything (including page controls). I don't get this on any other wikipedia page that I have tried. JeremyA (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think it's just you. It looks ok to me at the moment. -Splash 18:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, you're probably right because it looks fine to me now too. I think that maybe one of my AfD closures messed it up for some reason, because after I closed another one it was fixed. JeremyA (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Please help!

Latest comment: 20 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

Acharya S is subject to repeated harassment and threats from religious fanatics. Wikipedia is being used to disseminate personal information about the author. I doubt the creators of Wikipedia envisioned that it would be used in such a way. It is akin to publishing the whereabouts of Salmon Rushdie, or abortion doctors, then feigning innocence as to the implications.

Please help!

24.64.223.203 21:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This sound like Tawana Brawley to anyone? How about some evidence? I hate to break it to anyone but there have been far more persuasive and damaging critics of Christianity than her tired and derivative stuff. You can find similar books claiming Christianity is a fraud or a rehash of other myths remaindered every day at Barnes & Noble. Even Pat Robertson can do more damage to Christianity in a single speech than you have in a lifetime. Find another hobby. alteripse 22:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to complain about the behaviour of the above admin Alteripse. He has not helped in resolving the issue, instead choosing to inflame it even more. It should be obvious that the author in question does not want her name published, otherwise she would not have published under a pen name. In addition, in one of the articles linked to on the page, she notes that her name was originally published without her permission.

The author does not limit her subject matter to Christianity; she writes about religion in general, including Islam. It is a very controversial subject, and her privacy should be respected! She has received threatening emails along the lines of 'we know who you are' which link to the Wikipedia article in question. It's disgusting that Wikipedia would be used this way. When I point this out, his response is along the lines of a dismissive 'I don't believe you.'

In addition, besides refusing to remove her name, (and in fact, inserting it back in after it was deleted... in bold no less!), the above admin Alteripse has acted (I believe) inappropriately in his (or her?) capacity as an admin in other ways. For instance, he replaced a list of the authors credentials:

Acharya S was classically educated receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, and received her Masters Degree from Franklin & Marshall College. She is a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. She has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete. Acharya S has traveled extensively around Europe, and speaks, reads and/or writes English, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German, and Portuguese.

with:

Acharya S is... an American critic of Christianity, and amateur "historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archeologist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acharya_S&diff=23158313&oldid=23156577

When confronted with the above not-so-subtle attempt to smear the author, he says:

"I am curious as to why you think calling her an amateur is a "smear" or is inaccurate. It means she doesn't work as a professional religious studies scholar or academic classicist. It changes the standards by which we judge an author's work. Why is that a smear?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S

Oh phuleease! That's not what my dictionary says...

All this leads me to suspect that Alteripse is biased and has an axe to grind. However, that's not for me to decide. I am just writing to alert you to his behaviour. As it stands, he has agreed not to repost her name, for which I am thankful.

Thank you for your attention.

James, BC Canada

24.64.223.203 20:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

you have an odd dictionary. I'm an amateur admin (we all are).Geni 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

You will have to make allowances: lots of words seem to mean something different to James than to the rest of us and he has a little trouble with accuracy. I did not replace the paragraph but moved it one paragraph further down because it was less important than the one he put it front of. alteripse 22:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Acharya S is not an 'amateur'. She is a professional. Consider her credentials. She is highly trained, and gets paid for researching and writing books. I realize you are amateurs; this is wikipedia after all. I just expected that efforts would be made to help protect the privacy of living authors who are routinely threatened by religious fanatics, from different denominations, due to the controversial nature of her work. BTW, I hear that Natalie Portmans privacy was protected here on Wikipedia. Please extend the same courtesy to this author!

24.64.223.203 22:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious, if her name is publicly available, not something somebody dug up, what is wrong with having the name (in the current initialized form) in the article? As for Natalie Portman, her article DOES provide her real name. --Ragib 23:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm asking as a courtesy. Her name was originally published without her permission and against her wishes. She receives a steady stream of hate mail and threats due to the controversial nature of her work. While her name is disseminated on fringe Christian websites and message boards such as 'RisenJesus.com', I was hoping that the admins here would not allow Wikipedia to be used for that distasteful purpose.

(Also, I understand that Natalie Portmans privacy was respected for some time, but I wasn't there.) 24.64.223.203 00:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your requests are unreasonable. We can't "remove" information, because it's still stored in the page history. Thus, we'd have to delete it. However, the person in the article appears not to fit into deletion criteria: she seems to be notable, no one has nominated the article for deletion yet, so it would against the goals of Wikipedia to remove the article. Publishing a persons last name, books they have written, and a brief background of academic endeavours is not an unreasonable look into someone's life for any Encyclopedia article. And last and foremost of all, this belongs on the pertinent article's talk page. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Can admins delete words from edit summaries?

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi admins, I was just wondering if any of you can delete an edit summary, I mean in this one [2] (it might be an insignificant thing, but I'm really proud of this article :) and I don't like vandals :( Alensha 22:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Short answer, no. Long answer, no, because we don't have the technical capabilities to do it, and the developers (if they have the capabilities, which I'm not sure they do) are unwilling/unable to do it because edit summaries are supposed to be a permanent record and may be important in GFDL citations, etc. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Alensha 22:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

A partial solution is to delete the article, and then undelete all revisions other than the vandalised one (and perhaps the reversion of that vandalism). This will stop it showing in the page history, but it will still be visible at Special:Undelete. Angela . 22:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Please fix forked talk page

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

For what seem to me transparently disruptive reasons, the rejected policy proposal WP:TOBY now has two forked talk pages. Although one claims to be a version of the other with images removed, this is in fact not the case; discussion has forked, with people replying on one page or the other.

This state of affairs is disruptive.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, J. Random User like me can't fix it with a couple of page moves, because of the (perfectly reasonable) restrictions on page moves. (I actually haven't tried, for fear of breaking it worse.) So it needs administrative attention.

The current state of affairs is likely to lead to or worsen a dispute, since there currently is starting to be a bit of Bad Reverting Behavior on the proposal page itself, over whether the page is a {{proposal}} or a {{rejected}}. In order to resolve disputes we need to have a working talk page without anyone bozoing it up with "censorship".

The idea of a "censored talk page" is contrary to Wikipedia policy anyway.

So would some fair-minded administrator please move the "uncensored" page to Wikipedia talk:Toby and the "censored" one to something like Wikipedia talk:Toby/"Censored" Archive? Or something? Anything?

Thanks much. --FOo 23:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

If anything, do it the other way around, because the censored page has more (and more recent) discussion. Also, if one page is "transparently disruptive", it's the uncensored one; I don't want useless images of syphilitic genitals staring me in the face while I debate a policy. ~~ N (t/c) 00:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't give a damn, honestly, just as long as there is one (1) -- eine, un, odin, uno -- talk page. Not two. --FOo 01:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the harm in having two, seeing as the uncensored one hasn't gotten any edits in days. ~~ N (t/c) 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:Sam999

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Looks like User:Sam999 is back as User:RememberOctober29. Vandalising pages with the same Apple employment racism allegations. AlistairMcMillan 19:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User has been blocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:Uriah923 SEO block

Latest comment: 20 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

Hi, I've blocked this user from editing, and I am quite sure he is going to complain loudly. I believe I was very justified in making the block based on the user's continued and very clear history of SEO and linkspamming. It is clear his only intention is to get as many links to Omni Nerd as possible, in fact promotion is one of his roles at that site. Please read through User:Uriah923/OmniNerd (the bottom is pretty easy to start with and follow the user's contributions. I very clearly warned the user that I would block him if he kept up spreading his links all over, and that is exactly what he did [3] [4] [5] [6], for the most part on userpages of editors less likely to be familiar with our linkspam policies. So, if someone doesn't like that I did the blocking, go ahead and unblock but only if you've reviewed the situation and are prepared to block him yourself. I also reverted the linkspam from those four edits, which in hindsight wasn't the best idea, so I'll fix that in a minute, but still remove the link. - Taxman ^Talk 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

To add a bit more, I was the one that unblocked this user when Dmcdevit blocked him for similar behaviour. Since then the very clear consensus emerged against the user's actions and I left a very clear warning on the user's page. Based on that I feel involvement in the situation was not a big enough problem to avoid making the block. - Taxman ^Talk 17:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry Taxman, anyone familiar with the preceding events and discussions knows that Uriah was pretty much just a role account, and deserved to be blocked on that score anyway. If the consensus on the ON discussion page was any indicator, you have the general support of the editors who were involved. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just want to add a comment to express the consent from this non-admin's point of view that Uriah definitely needed to be banned. The promise on his talk page that the bans will get longer and longer until they are permanent must be carried out unless he spontaneously decides to edit Wikipedia for purposes of creating an encyclopedia rather than adding links. Uriah doesn't respect Wikipedia policies at all, so complaints from him or anyone else that Taxman was too "involved" with the situation to ban him are laughable or uninformed, and certainly disingenuous coming from Uriah. Taxman's "involvement" has been only that of an admin enforcing Wikipedia policies. We need quicker and swifter action like this against linkspammers. Jdavidb 20:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

After a subsequent 72 hour block by Happycamper, Uriah has agreed not to promote ON at all. In return I've agreed not to post to his talk page. But some of his recent contributions look like they could be copyvio's also, but simply from better sources. Or it could just be more ON material. Anyone mind taking a look? In one case it just seems like too much added material from one source to not be a copyvio. - Taxman ^Talk 17:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Who is the "taxman posse" he refers to on his talk page archive? Am I considered part of your "posse" because I signed the ON log? I certainly did not agree not to post on Uriah's talk page, and I will definitely do so if he continues to vandalize wikipedia, as should any other editor on that list. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I believe the so-called "Taxman Sophist Posse" refers to Taxman, me, and Jdavidb. Posse or not, any user who knowingly inserts copyrighted material into Wikipedia repeatedly constitutes a liability for Wikipedia. Not to mention spamming.

Consider this scenario: A user inserts copyrighted material into a whole bunch of articles from various sources. Say, a paragraph or two, snug in an article somewhere. Let's say, they do this, knowingly or not. A few weeks later, someone (possibly the same person) claims "copyright infringement". How are we going to handle this?

The reason why we have this situation here today, is because we have here a perfectly grey area, and an extremely messy beehive to tame. Notice how my posts to the user were constructed to reflect this. The fact that the semantics were not lost indicates that these vandals are extremely keen - and they are quite aware of it. It will be a tremendous mess to clean up, and I indeed consider this a form of vandalism that is exceptionally chronic and extremely malicious. I can see no reason for it other than to hurt Wikipedia, or for selfish promotion.

My suggestion? Lay low, don't do anything, and just observe. The first edit that crosses the line, we'll ban the user indefinitely. Then, most certainly due to the controversy of it, there will be copious discusson on the user's talk page. We can only do this, provided that we are prepared to devote time and energy to to explaining the block. Regardless of whether the user understands the ramifications, once we have explained Wikipedia's position, there is no need to further negotiate or listen to the non-compliant user. In this case, this user has had plenty of chances to do this, and I am inclined to feel that we should not prolong this situation any further by allowing compromises. Take a look at his talk page right now for example. Links to that site everywhere. Does that constitute enough of a violation for a ban? I'd be willing to bet you that they were posted deliberately to test the boundaries of permissible activities on Wikipedia. Their defense will be as follows: "You dare do this to me, you'd better do this to everyone else! Hah!". To counter this, essentially, we need to explain the interpretive difference between equity and equality, and how it has been applied specifically for this user.

Now, we don't need to do things the way I have outlined them here. It's only one of many alternatives I'm considering at the moment. Right now, our priority is to put on our super-sleuthing hats and track down whether these edits are copyvivos or not. If they are, we'll take quick action. Sound good? --HappyCamper 18:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

As I think he has removed all pretenses of good faith now, I blocked him for 2 more weeks for linking to ON on his user page. It becomes clearer each time that his only goal is to get links to that site, and he is just brainstorming different ways to try to get away with it. I didn't have time to confirm, but it looks like some of his recent contributions are copyvios too. I suggest we extend the block because he hasn't shown any desire to contribute according to our policies, but I'll leave that to someone else. - Taxman ^Talk 12:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

That may be more on the edge. Generally I think we pretty much allow anyone to link to any websites they want from their user page, right? As long as he's not linking to ON from articles or wasting time campaigning for ON links in articles on talk pages, I think we should've let him keep going (and see if he wants to play by the rules or not). Jdavidb 16:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I support Taxman's decision to ban for 2 weeks. In fact, I think we should stop babysitting the user's contributions and ban permanently. Not because of the recent insertion of links to the userpage, but due to the premeditative nature of using Wikipedia as a launching platform for that site. I will elaborate. Give me 24 hours. There is a lot of work ahead... --HappyCamper 03:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what the significance is, but this user threw in a link to ON today. Jdavidb 19:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think you made a mistake in checking the diffs. The link was replaced with this edit by Variant that was supposedly fixing other past vandalism. I didn't look through the rest of the diff to sort it all out. It wouldn't surprise me if Uriah goes and adds ON links from IP's but that doesn't seem to have happened here. We should probably see if there is a reliable way to list any places in Wikipedia that do link to ON in order to be able to watch for more spam. - Taxman ^Talk 20:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oops; never mind. I think I got confused and assumed the last editor had added the link. My bad ... I'm on cold medicine today. :)

In the past I have simply googled for "site:wikipedia.org badurl.example.com" to hunt down link spam, or maybe occasionally "site:wikipedia.org link:badurl.example.com" . Not perfect, but it works. Jdavidb 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

You are on cold medication today too? Same here! (And what a coincidence...) Anyway, if you browse around on that site, you will realise that it is an emerging one that has explictly stated that they are trying to gain more prominence. Many of the threads on that site talk about this explicity. See for example this. Also, in here, MarkMcB says "...let me be the first to encourage all of our readers to promote the site....Little things like dropping our link on other sites,...will help us tremendously....So if opportunity knocks and you get a chance to promote <our site>, please don't hesitate. We'll definitely appreciate all the help we can get."

Our fellow user seems very likely to be this person, and if you browse through the "who's who" on that site, this person plays apparently plays a role in generating publicity for it. Here we see that "...crusaders may want to keep their eyes out for valid and justified places to link to <that site> WP page from other WP pages." "WP" here meaning "Wikipedia".

As far as I'm concerned, we need to express the sentiment clearly that Wikipedia is not open to be used for promotional purposes. There are other venues for it - using the encyclopedia and its associated resources for this is simply not acceptable.

It is not a coincidence that MarkMcB edited on the 26th, during Uriah's block. What I think we should do is block these two users indefinitely, and place a template on their pages identifying them as using Wikipedia in an unacceptable manner. If they wish to talk about this further, they can always do so on their talk pages, or on the mailing list. However, the fact is that their contributions on Wikipedia were not intended to further Wikipedia - they were premeditative and intended for promotional purposes.

Finally, Wikipedia is not a babysitting service. It is exceptionally draining having to monitor a user's contributions for extended periods of time to ensure that they are in compliance. The amount of leniency shown has been more than adequate over this 3 month period, and I feel very comfortable in enforcing a ban here. --HappyCamper 00:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wow:

I've been described on more than one occasion as a 'last-word man' in response to my argument style. I like arguing - and I like to keep arguing until every possibility has been explored and every reason examined.

Yep; that's our Uriah, all right.

Do we already have such a template for users who have misused Wikipedia? I'd been thinking as part of my linkspam project that a category for such users (perhaps as part of a template) might be appropriate, although it might also be offensive to some people. If we don't have such a template, maybe we should go ahead and make one for future use.

Also, I support adding "Wikipedia is not a babysitting service" to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Seems to me, though, that he should have latitude with his own user page. I will readily admit that part of why I link to my own personal web site from my user page is to publicize it, and I imagine that is true of hundreds, if not thousands, of Wikipedia users. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

He had an email to me where he seemed sincere, thus I have unblocked him and I will be watching over him closely. I know this failed with Adamwankenobi and his promising to be good, but we can still try this. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's part of his pattern, but ok if you're willing to watch him closely enough. If you follow his contributions more closely it would have been obvious why I could no longer assume good faith with him. Not sure why you'd want to waste more of yours and other's time giving him yet another chance though. He is going to continue to find ways to exploit Wikipedia, and I still haven't had a chance to see if his recent contributions are copyvios like his previous ones have been. There is a difference in how long standing positive contributors should be treated vs repeat offenders. - Taxman ^Talk 23:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

First, I apologize if you feel I've wasted anyone's time. Really, I think this all could have been accomplished much more quickly if someone had been willing to have a decent and straightforward conversation with me instead of screaming 'spam!' and erasing everything. I was doing what I thought would be a win-win for WP and ON. In my mind, WP needed content that ON had and ON could use the links. However, it is now clear that ON articles aren't wanted, so I will (according to the agreement) not promote them.

Next, the recent edits I've made are from an established philosophy textbook. All of the information I added has been reworded to avoid copyright violations and I've included the book as a reference. As far as I know, that's how WP is supposed to grow. But, it wouldn't be the first time that I've done something that I thought was within policy and found out later it wasn't. If that is the case here, just drop me a note and I'm open to discussing it.

Lastly, two admins (Jmabel and Jdavidb) both are at least not opposed to me including links on my home page to articles that I've written. I have authored three articles that I'd like to include on my user page: The Soy Switch, A Talk on Latter-Day Saints' View of Modern Day Revelation, and Cheap and Effective DIY Underground Sprinkler System Installation. I also have oil paintings displayed in two different articles that I'd like to include: Three Oil Paintings and Second Round of Oils. I really don't think there should be a problem with this (as Jmabel said, hundreds if not thousands of users do this), but if it's going to cause another big raucous, then I'll refrain. Uriah923 01:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I feel the problem is you have acted in such an irresponsible and actively unhelpful manner in promoting your site at all costs that you now give up the right to link to it. There were many straighforward conversations, you simply ignored all of them. You had many many chances to have let this end in a better way, but you chose again and again to waste everyone's time instead. As for contributions, if you take too much material that is not fact from a single text it is still a copyright violation. This has also been explained a number of times to you. - Taxman ^Talk 12:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

It would be irresponsible of me to unblock someone and not watch over them, and so watch over them I will. NO linking to ON, not even on your user page. Kthxbai R e dwolf24 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

That sounds good. --HappyCamper 02:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Avengers (comics)

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is so lame that I hesitate to mention it. But here's a basic history. Avengers_fan (talk · contribs) created the New Avengers article, which is based on a comic that is a continuation of the old Avengers book. I proposed that it be merged with Avengers (comics), and despite vocal opposition from him, the consensus was that the articles should be merged, and it was done. In the process, a large portion of the writing in New Avengers was removed, because it was already summarized in Avengers (comics) in a paragraph or two which, as far as I'm concerned, retains all the essential information.

Now, Avengers_fan (talk · contribs) is insisting on reinserting his expanded edits, even though I and another editor have broken down his edits and explained why they should be condensed, are redundant, etc. Tempers are fraying because of this, but there's no 3RR because the edits are being inserted and revered about one every 24-48 hours or so. My question is: how do we deal with this? And can someone else objective have a look at it and offer an opinion on this? The Talk:Avengers (comics) page contains the arguments that have been going on. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Could someone please weigh in on this or suggest a course of action? I don't want to take any admin action myself because I'm one of those involved, but having to revert this guy's edits every 12 hours or so is getting ridiculous. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Take New Avengers to WP:AFD, if need be. The deletion or merging of the information through WP:AFD should be sufficient enough, presuming community consensus backing on your support, for an Administrator to take appropriate action should the article be recreated. You can try mediation as well. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

policy vote

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material. If you saw the backlog on WP:CP you would have to admit that we need this.Geni 11:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

New speedy deletion criterion

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

A reminder: Jimbo recently set a new speedy deletion criterion:

Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded. [7]

So he is asking us to go ahead and clear out those cats as soon as possible. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Important: Remember to change all of the pages listed in "File links" before deleting the image. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I was under the impression that the more important perogative was to delete them to alleviate Wikipedia's potential exposure to legal problems? --HappyCamper 02:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

no need to mess up articles if it can be avoided though.

Plus the fewer annoyed users you need to explain the action to the more images you can get deleted. :) If anyone needs someone to go discuss the matter with an irate user whos pet images have been deleted, please drop me a line on my talk page or on IRC. --Gmaxwell 03:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is there any semi-automated way to get a list of images in the suspect category that are orphaned? Nandesuka 16:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I would also like a nice generated list with all the orphan images in those categories. That would be fun. In the meantime, there's Special:Unusedimages, and I have a generated list of orphan images by user at User:TheCoffee/Orphan_images. Coffee 16:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Images that would now fall under the new CSD criteria but which are currently listed at WP:PUI or WP:IFD should be left to complete under those processes. It would seem only fair to the uploaders in these case since they would have been previously notified and given their last chance to provide source/copyright info. Otherwise, I'm in full agreement with the new CSD criteria. RedWolf 18:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:JarlaxleArtemis indefinitely banned

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

JarlaxleArtemis has been banned indefinitely. If he emails you asking to be unbanned, do not allow him. Look at User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis for more information.

Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Indopedia

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know if this article is even notable, but I had added it to give recognition to that website. Is it legally able to do what it is doing? Does anyone know about this - which even the former deletion edits did not show me that anyone was aware. Please look at their homepage [8] here. Tell me of anything going on on my talk page please, Molotov (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

You haven't explained what illegal thing you think that site may be doing. They're largely a wikipedia mirror; they don't properly comply with the GFDL, but they're no worse than many of those listed in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. They don't seem to be abusing the wikipedia trademark (in that they're not claiming to be wikipedia). Wikipedia has no monopoly on the -pedia suffix. The article, however, makes no assertion of why it's a notable website, so it's quite likely someone will nominate it for deletion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Indopedia is a particulary bad mirror in that they they aren't really compliant and their "About" page is the same as ours with a find and replace on "Wikipedia," resulting in botched statements like "Indopedia was founded by Jimmy Wales and is a trademark of Wikimedia". However, this was brought up to Angela and I think the legal mailing list and it doesn't seem to be a big priority, at least not that website in particular. As to the article, there was a Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Indopedia where it was deleted. While it is different content, would this be speedyable? Dmcdevit·t 22:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

GordonWatts

Latest comment: 20 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion

I usually ignore all this crap but the early closure and the page protection of this nomination smack of censorship. Wikipedia's purpose is to create a trusted encyclopedia, with these Wikipedia namespace pages mostly only existing to provide structure to the wiki and some order to the chaotic creation process. However, despite disagreeing strongly with Gordon on his pet issue - i.e. Terry Shiavo's guardian (her husband) should make decisions on her behalf and if the parents had any proof they should have brought it before the judge ruling on whether he could remain guardian instead of pulling all the political shenanigans etc - his nomination deserved to run the normal time - and the comments on it (as well as ending it early) show that idealogy is an important deciding factor for some. Now I don't have time to know all the things he did - but the early closure and protection speak volumes about some within wikipedia's desire to control debate. I find it completely unwiki. Back to editing anonymously-Abeo 20:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is standard on RFA to prematurely close discussions which have overwhelming oppose votes. --cesarb 21:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, there's no point in wasting time on nominations when it's very clear that there will be no consensus for adminship. Tuf-Kat 21:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Agreed with Cesar and Tuf-Kat. Holding a nomination open, when the overwhelming majority votes to oppose, has no useful effect on the community, and only serves to spread poison and ill-will. I fully support early close of these affairs. When there's a huge negative pile-on it only hurts us. Antandrus (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I know that ending the debate early is the standard - and I hadn't followed or voted because I assumed it would end quickly. However, he seems to want to hear the criticism - hopefully to be influenced by it. And doesn't seem to be phased by the vitriolic nature of some of it - a better man than me. If one purpose is to protect the nominee, and the nominee vehmenently opposes it, I see no reason to force it closed with a page protect - let it run its course - and let Gordon waste his time responding - I doubt many of those opposed would bother to read his stuff - then it will whimper out of existence. I see no logical reason for not letting him use the page to respond to the accusations, and ending it early just makes everything more suspect and supports the cabel accusations - when it is 4/100 it will be clear that there are not untapped masses waiting to support his adminship. And if socks gather - those will be easily discovered.

In other words what purpose does it serve to not just let it run its course? Whose time does it waste? Abeo 21:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Quoting from the RfA page: Nominations that will clearly fail may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will. Paul August ☎ 21:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's pretty clear that continuing with a request for adminship is not going to succeed at this point. Hm. An RfC seems to be the proper forum for general criticism—perhaps an informal one similar to the one Bmicomp has set up? I don't know. But it has ceased to be a viable request for adminship, and if Gordon just wants a community forum for criticism, he can set one up somewhere else. RfA is not the place for general discussion of a user's editing behavior or philosophical debate. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

(Quoting selected statements from above -and commenting)

"this nomination smack of censorship" Yes, it does, and you follow John 13:15 in having followed your namesake's example and role model.
"despite disagreeing strongly with Gordon on his pet issue...i.e. Terry Schiavo’s guardian (her husband) should make decisions on her behalf" Incorrect: I opposed his appointment as guardian because he went above and beyond the (questionable) removal of the feeding tube and denied regular food and water, which is a class II felony where the crime of denial of food and medical treatment was committed: 825.102(3):"Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult" means: A caregiver's failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care...including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services..." --and also Matthew 25:31-46, which says in relevant part that: "for I {King Jesus} was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;...And these {who denied the least of the brethren and sisters food and WATER, like Terri Schiavo hello} will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
"when the overwhelming majority votes to oppose, has no useful effect on the community" Yes, it does: It can prevent others from having to endure this: "If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk" --Thomas Paine [9]
"and only serves to spread poison and ill-will." No one is forcing editors to read the page; If they do and have ill will, it can only mean they have a guilty conscience; A clean conscience would not be bothered: The RfA page is for the uneducated, and -since it is not the "main page" in Wikipedia, it won't disrupt anything; you are unnecessarily superstitious and uncertain of your case if this little page will rock your world; Are you sure you're not feeling guilty for not supporting me?
Updates here: User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA -if you can handle seeing massive policy violations.--GordonWatts 00:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any evidence that any of the people you quote have at any time edited wikipedia.Geni 00:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

"I can't find any evidence that any of the people you quote have at any time edited wikipedia." Are you talking to me, Geni? The quotes appear in the paragraphs immediately above my post. Do you not see them? I boldfaced the excerpts and put quote marks around them -just like I did your quote. Look at the top where it says: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts|GordonWatts and then scroll down to see who I quoted and what I had to say.

PS: I tried to post this last night, but Wiki was down.--GordonWatts 10:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

J.O.K.E. I'm pretty sure whoever wrote the gosple of of john never edited wikipedia. Dto Thomas Paine (Ths is wikipedia. You have no "rights"). The people who make the descission that a vote should end eary (basicaly buracrats and admins) belong to a group large enough to make sure that anyone who they don't want as admin doesn't become one (well unless jimbo or the comitte intervens). Your RF was going to fail (at an absolute minium you would have needed 68 support votes). Complaints about it being removed atchive nothing other than provideing cover for someone who really did want to abbuse the system by removeing one (and for that the cabul thanks you). Your Editcountitis bit is odd since your data shows that people with far less edits than rejected candidates can get through (to mess up your claim even further I had only 1200 edits). The raw number of admins thing ignores the role that non admins can play in looking after pages. FWIW Jimbo can pretty much do what he likes. Live with it or try and get elected to the comitte.Geni 12:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

'J.O.K.E.' OK, I missed that -I must have been too logical, like Mr. Spock, lol. "Your Editcountitis bit is odd since your data shows that people with far less edits than rejected candidates can get through..." You miss the point about how I have only edited 200 or so pages, and have about 11.7 edits per page; That is what I mean: People criticize an editor if he or she has "concentrated" on a few pages, but that does not make one a bad editor: 200 is still quite a large number, even if it is not as much as some people have edited (some people have edited around a thousand pages -wow -get a life people!)--GordonWatts 13:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I was going to avoid commenting on this whole sordid affair, but I can't let this pass. Get a life? You're doing yourself no favors here. android79 13:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Get a life? You're doing yourself no favors here."I am actually quite busy cleaning my room, looking for a job, but also trying to help people get straight on some lingering Wikipedia abuses; No, Wikipedia is not evil, but it have major problems, but I think my advice to them "super-editors" (get a life) is good advice for me too; Thx for weighing in; I hope to take your advice.--GordonWatts 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Doing the stuff admins powers are useful in helping in will as a matter of course mean that you edit a large number of pages rather than sticking around on a relitivly small number. We hve no use for more paper admins.Geni 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just hope that no court judges what is a felony and what isn't based on what the Bible says. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
- — JIP, I was directing my commentary about the Bible to the original poster, because he believes in the Bible like me; You don't have to believe like we do, but I think it would be good --even for the judges, because the way this World is getting evil, maybe they need to make some changes, and "Thous shalt not kill, tell lies, commit adultury, cheat, or otherwise be bad," would probably help this evil, crime-ridden world.--GordonWatts 13:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
  - Sorry, I did not notice you were directing your comments to a fellow believer. I mistook them to apply generally. "Thou shalt not kill, tell lies, commit adultery, cheat, or otherwise be bad" are all good ideas and I wish judges would hold them as ideals. However, this is because they're good ideas on their own right, not because they're in the Bible. "It's in the Bible" should never be used as a blanket statement in verifying or proving anything. — JIP | Talk 13:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
    - No big deal, — JIP, and you're right: It's correct because it's correct, not because it's in the Bible. But that old book does have a good track record for having good advice in many cases, even if some of it's hard to understand in modern culture. Thanks again for your feedback; You all have a good one.--GordonWatts 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Imitation of user on Expansion theory

Latest comment: 20 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

Someone, who has been engaging on a single-handed revert war, has imitated my username on Expansion theory. In particular there are four reversions: [10], [11] [12] [13], by somone who has a user name that appears identical to mine, but who is not in fact me. Clicking on the imitator's talk and user page lead to an empty talk and user page, yet I can't tell the difference between our usernames. Salsb 12:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's User:SaIsb, with a capital I (eye) as the third letter. You are User:Salsb, with a small l (ell) as the third letter. I will temporarily block him for now, other admins might investigate whether he should be blocked permanently for impersonation. — JIP | Talk 12:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Imitating another username with the intention to impersonate is clearly prohibited by the username policy. I have blocked indefinitely. Carbonite | Talk 12:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I blocked him for 24 hours 4 minutes after you blocked him indefinitely, because I had not yet seen your comment. Is there any harm in this? — JIP | Talk 12:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Probably not. I'm not 100% sure about the way blocks interact with each other (especially with MediaWiki 1.5), but I believe the first block takes precedent. If this isn't the case, any admin can reblock should they see the fake account editing again. Carbonite | Talk 13:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Unless this has been fixed very recently (say the last month), then it is a quirk of blocking that the shortest block takes precedence. Hence it is necessary to clear the short block before adding an infinite block. I have now done this for this case. Dragons flight 14:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I added the {{impostor}} template and protected the user page. Not even that creative an impostor – he didn't even bother to copy your user page text! android79 13:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks everyone! Salsb 15:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked the following additional impostor accounts:

SaIsb_( (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Salsb_( (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Salsb: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note that the last one fits the following pattern:

Phroziac: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikibofh: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sasquatch: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tony_Sidaway: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Any idea which user(s) recently interacted with any/all of them? There may be a bigger pattern here; watch out for further activity. --MarkSweep✍ 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

A partial pattern appears to be that the people impersonated have all edited Talk:Expansion theory, except Phroziac (talk · contribs). Because Phroziac was targetted, I suspect this could be a disguised Marmot incident.--Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

While we're on the subject, I noticed I am a potential target for impersonation myself. So I thought, since I'm an admin, why don't I create the obvious impersonator user myself, then log in to my real account, and immediately block the fake impersonator indefinitely? AFAIK you cannot create a user with the same name as an already existing one, even if it's been blocked indefinitely. — JIP | Talk 09:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why woild you need to block it? If you have a sleeper account, nobody can create it, so you should be OK with a good password. I only ask because I also have a lowercase l (ell) in my username, too. Filiocht | Talk 10:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

As far as new user patrol is concerned, any accounts that are not supposed to be used (whether created by impostors or to prevent impostors) should be blocked so that they don't show up as suspicious accounts on anyone's radar. Better yet, don't create any doppelganger accounts: it's unlikely that you'll cover all the bases (with Unicode, there are just way too many options), and it just creates more work for everyone. Impostors are usually quickly spotted and blocked, so there's no reason for any preemptive strikes, IMHO. --MarkSweep✍ 18:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Doppelganger accounts. --cesarb 19:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

So it is not a bad idea, and no need to block? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

image deletion

Latest comment: 20 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

Per an exchange at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#User_talk:Zscout370.23Photos, the new image deletion policy is seriously annoying at least some users. One such user has proposed what I think is a great solution to the image copyright problem that may help avoid more hard feelings about it. Can we please make sure users are warned before deleting images they've contributed? And if an aggrieved user lashes out at you can you please respond in a sympathetic manner? Copyright violations are serious business, and we need to fix it, but let's try very hard to fix it in a way that is least annoying to our many, many, many good users. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are 12,000 images in one of those cats and uncounted many thousands in the other. Giving out messages is wildly unfeasible. As it is we have to check the images history to see that it was tagge >7days ago and then remove it from the article and then delete it, and give a delete summary for why. Adding more to the process is just too much. -Splash^talk 03:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The proposal is to sort them by user, and deal with them user-by-user rather than as a massive clump of unsorted images. user:Beland is quite adept at making lists of things - I've asked if he can do this. The request is to pause a bit to let this proposal play out. If we can achieve the goal (eliminate unsourced images) without alienating more users, I think it's worth a little inconvenience on our part in the interim. We may even be able to create lists sorted by user, showing the date of the user's last contribution. I'm unwilling to say "wildly unfeasible" until we've thought about it a bit. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think users should necessarily be notified, but these images should be deleted manually, I've already found and tagged a number of PD images (and reuploaded 1 that was deleted). For maximum awareness this project should be announced on the header of recent changes, maybe that will also get some people who know they have uploaded unsourced images to go back and check and tag.--nixie 04:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't do the grouping by user, but meta:DynamicPageList might be a better way to sweep. See, for a non-working example, User:Bovlb/no source which would display no-source images by last edit, oldest first, displaying the date they were added to the category. Bovlb 07:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This sounds like a perfect use of a bot for me. Bot gets list of images, sorts by user, gives user a notice, and a few days later checks and if necessary deletes the image. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. Two suggested tweaks: 1) bot checks uploaders contribs - if user hasn't edited in a long time, there's no point in warning them, and deletion can proceed immediately. 2) it's probably better for the bot to generate an "images to be deleted today" list (perhaps divvied up into handy blocks, so labour can be efficiently divided), as people might be squeamish about such an extensive deletion bot. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The deletions should not be done by a bot. Firstly, the images have to removed from articles, and I wonder if we have bot that is capable of searching the code reliably for a particular image and removing it without causing carnage. Secondly, just occasionally, there is some sort of info in/around the image that does indicate its license status (or likely status) and we wouldn't want to discard those. -Splash^talk 14:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I posted sample lists, linked from the above-mentioned Village Pump page. I also agree that user notification (but not irreversable image deletion) would be a good job for a bot. The upload form could also be better designed to prevent this sort of problem. Really, the thing to ask most people is whether or not they 1.) took the picture or made the drawing themselves, 2.) downloaded it from the web, or 3.) got it from an offline source. If 1, then we can presume GFDL based on a click-through license, unless they specify something different. If 2, we can ask for the URL, and then someone can find the copyright holder's original license, or at least e-mail their webmaster. If 3, we can ask for the name of the copyright holder, and whether or not the uploader has personal knowledge that the copyright holder has declared that the image may be used by anyone, for any purpose, without fee or restriction. I really don't think just tagging an image "CC" or "PD" or "GFDL" really gives enough information, especially if there's a dispute. I think due diligence would include at least trying to gather some evidence that the claimed license is correct, or having some way to verify that. There's absolutely no guarantee that the uploader will be around a month or a year or even a day from now to answer questions. -- Beland 05:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

To notify folks about this, how about if rather than a talk page message we include a note in one of the "trim" messages displayed with a user's watchlist (e.g. MediaWiki:Watchlistsub) or something similar to the "please donate" messages? Something like "NOTICE: Any images that do not have verifiable source and copyright information will be deleted on <date>. Please make sure this information is provided for any images you've uploaded. See <somewhere> for details about this." Where <date> is perhaps October 1 and <somewhere> is a page including at least a link to the upload log for the user. Seems like either of these would be noticed by pretty much anyone still actively editing. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think that is a great idea. We could edit MediaWiki:Watchlistsub or MediaWiki:Watchdetails. Coffee 16:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Here's the text I'm thinking about adding to MediaWiki:Watchdetails:

NOTICE: All images that do not have verifiable source and copyright information are being irreversibly deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please make sure this information is provided for any images you've uploaded (images you've uploaded can be found using this log - enter your username in the "User:" box). Also see Wikipedia's image use policy.

Any suggestions (in particular, anyone know how to get the current username so the upload log link can be the log for the individual user)? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

If we only do a blanket watchlist notification, I'm sure a lot of people won't get it. I certainly wouldn't - my watchlist is too large to check regularly. I'm sure many people who are unaware of proper procedure for image uploading don't regularly use their watchlists, either. Putting a message on the user talk page also has the benefit that you get the message even if you are doing casual reading and not intending on editing. The blanket notification is perhaps useful in the near term, but unidentified image deletion will be an ongoing issue, so I think a bot would still be useful. Having one would allow admins who want to clean these categories to just delete images that have been sitting there the requisite length of time without comment, knowing the uploader has been duly notified without having to check. -- Beland 03:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

P.S. - I've added a Wikipedia:Bot requests, though I don't know if I'll be able to implement it myself in the near future. -- Beland 03:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if we have bot that is capable of searching the code reliably for a particular image and removing it without causing carnage

Well, actually, all the bot would need to do is use the "What links here" and remove the image appropriately off the page. Such a bot can be programmed reasonably using the Python Wikipedia Framework, although it's a fair daunting piece of code work that would need to be done for it to do so properly. I whole hardly agree on the fact that the bot should not be deleting the image, but I think a proper solution is for the bot to post the list of images, what pages it is being used on, confirm the notification to the user, and indication of when it can be deleted assuming no response at a certain page. I am also in agreement here with Beland on the implementation of the bot, as there are several unresolved issues that need to be addressed before the bot can be properly programmed.

Although... I do have a thought for two separate scripts:

A script for the assistance of notification of unverified or unfree images
A script that removes the image from all linked pages where it is being used and generates a link for the deletion of the image.

Anyway... some food for thought. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Improve this article about Wikipedia

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As I just posted on the Village Pump, there's a journalist doing a story about Wikipedia, and is inviting Wikipedians to help edit part of his story (and I would encourage everyone to take a look).

Which means we should probably expect a steady influx of vandalism—so this is a heads-up to admins to be on the lookout for vandalism on Wikipedia:Improve this article about Wikipedia of both the obvious and sneaky varieties. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This has recently ended. -- user:zanimum

Cheese Dreams sockpuppet?

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I've received notification (via a private email) that 132.241.245.49) looks suspiciously like a sockpuppet of banned user CheeseDreams (to the point where the IP is even signing as 'CD'). Could someone look into this? →Raul654 23:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

California State University? Not all comments signed CD I don't know.Geni 23:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The problem with witchhunting is that you start seeing witches everywhere. There's no way this is CheeseDreams. CD is a woman, literate and, so far as I know, English. That should narrow it down for you, Mark. Grace Note 23:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Literate? That's debatable. - 211.30.187.224 03:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

WP:RM

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is now a three week backlog of requests at WP:RM. I've not been around to do the process much, and it seems that nobody else has either. violet/riga (t) 09:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:Anittas

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I wasn't going to bring this up here (or anywhere), but it might be worth forewarning people. I corrected some edits made by Anittas (talk · contribs), and copy-edited an article that (it turned out) he though that he owned (Battle of Vaslui). He reacted extremely aggressively and insultingly ([14]), and reverted my edits wholesale([15]). So far, so depressingly familiar. He's also gone on to try to enlist other editors and admins against my appalling behaviour in editing his articles (e.g., [16]),with little success, and then went in for a bit of stalking, leaving messages full of hysterical vitriol against me for editors with whom I was in disagreement (e.g., [17], etc. He's been trawling through edit histories, trying to find anyone with whom I've been in disagreement (mostly banned vandals such as Enviroknot (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets), and leaving messages on their Talk pages trying to enlist their help against me. A number of editors have tried to reason with him, but to no avail. At the moment he's just a nuisance, even mildly amusing, but it might escalate, so I'm explaining here in advance. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Where I come from being called a "nihilistic snob" is quite a compliment and his confusion over your rouge admin status bordered on vaudevillian... Or is it vaude-villain? FeloniousMonk 23:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hey FM, was rouge deliberate? ):- Moriori 23:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's a pun on Mel and a few others having been labled "rogue admins" some time ago by an editor with a history of misspellings. It's evolved into a running joke with it's own award... see my talk page for an example. FeloniousMonk 00:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sollog

Latest comment: 20 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Could someone remind me, is sollog banned or not? --fvw * 01:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

If you're referring to User:Sollog Fan, he's pretty blatently a troll/impostor of User:Sollogfan. --Carnildo 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked him indefinitely. --MarkSweep✍ 04:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --fvw * 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think anybody who has relations to sollog is banned for vandalising Wikipedia... not sure if it's written anywhere but that's my general impression. Sasquatcht|c 04:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

That might be a bit too radical, but I certainly don't see any problems with considering sollog and those who can reasonably be assumed to be sollog banned, which in effect is pretty close to that. --fvw * 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, pretty much if a user has "Sollog" as his/her name and likes to edit the Sollog article... you should watch them very very carefully... Sasquatcht|c 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

How can it be Sollog? Isn't he in jail? Everyking 04:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Iasson

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Iasson (talk · contribs), who is under a constantly reset 1-year block (currently set to expire on 20 September 2006), created a couple of obvious sockpuppets (one admitted (Hermodike (talk · contribs)) and the other obvious (Demodike (talk · contribs)). As per his usual practice, he used the user names as the passwords, so I have taken the liberty of changing the passwords. If this action was inappropriate, please let me know. And if the person behind either name or an administrator wants the new password, I will gladly send it along if they send me an e-mail. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

That action is fine.Geni 10:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The same old mistake and misunderstanding! Demodike is Faethon. Iasson never used his user name as his password! I just wanted to check, after such a long long time, whats happenig with Iasson's case, and I realized that some people are having an enormous obsession with him. They are patroling his rfc 24 hours per day! I added a comment in Iasson's RFC pretending that I am supporting Iasson's POV (which in reality I dont), and it has been reverted in a few seconds. FaethonAgain 11:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have indefinitely blocked FaethonAgain (talk · contribs) [18] for being either a sock or an imposter of Iasson/Faethon. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User SPUI

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I personally find User:SPUI talk page offensive. Can anything be done? 207.69.139.149 09:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Probably not. --SPUI (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

You go girrl. keep up the baiting and they will come. and don't ever let anyone tell you that your attention seeking is pitifull, just keep telling yourself that you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, over and over again. I love you just the way you are SPUI. don't ever grow up. ...Can anything be done?. Hee hee, Nice touch baby!! (although you could have picked a more creative ip). ROLFFLMAO.

User:MutterErde

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

This user appears to be using Wikipedia to store pornographic images. Check especially User:MutterErde/Nudity2; this page is a gallery of various softcore porn images (all apparent copyvios). I can't investigate this further right now; it would be good if someone went through his contributions and checked to see if he does anything OTHER than upload porn. If not, I recommend that he be banned. Note: I've been told on IRC that this user is banned from dewiki; might be an idea to find out why. Kelly Martin 14:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

See de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Archiv/Mutter Erde and de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Benutzersperrung/Archiv/Mutter Erde, also de:Spezial:Contributions/Mutter_Erde. The user was apparently banned for forging a signature and uploading porno. Lupo 14:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

MutterErde on de seems to be a hot topic. There's tons of stuff to read, a lot of nastiness, and I don't want to dig through all that. It might make sense to get a summary from User:Elian, she seems to have been involved. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I weeded trough the stuff in the German wikipedia (and it took me quite a while) and it's a little bit more than the offenses mentioned above (I would say it includes WP:POINT to a certain extent, amongst others), and will contact Elian right afterwards (although her wikistress level seems to be quite high at the moment, so let's hope she won't explode :) ). Let's see what she has to say. Lectonar 06:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jimbo added an indefinite block on MutterErde last night. Ral315 21:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Vandal on Hurrican Rita page

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Somebody is adding comments aboutthe hurricane being vengance on the infidel at the end of the first paragraph. However, this text does not appear on the edit page!!213.202.147.160 14:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Infinite block of an IP

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I have indefinitely blocked this IP address, 70.88.129.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

It has three edits on Sept 22, all vandalisms. This is apparently because it was blocked 48 hours on Sept 19. And possibly again on Sept 16.

Before September, it's quiet - two edits in August, then nothing til May. But in May, it has the exact same kind of vandalism - racism, with a dash of antisemitism.

January? Same thing. Same article. Same vandalisms. Its first edits were made in November 2004; I'm sure you can guess what they were.

This is nine months of constant vandalism from an IP address, and I really see no reason why we should put up with it. --Golbez 16:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

because IP's can be reasighned. Unless it is an open proxy don't block for more than a year.Geni 16:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

When it's reassigned, the new innocent person can contact us. However, a year is probably sufficient. --Golbez 16:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wait. Waitwait. LOOK AT THE BLOCK LOG.

# 15:37, May 24, 2005 Phils blocked "User:70.88.129.205" with an expiry time of 1 month (repeated vandalism, ignored warnings)
# 15:35, May 24, 2005 Phils unblocked User:70.88.129.205 (block period longer than allowed maximum, blocking for a month (see ANN/I))
# 10:33, May 24, 2005 Geni blocked "User:70.88.129.205" with an expiry time of 1 year (Repeated vanalism ignorded warnings)

# 10:10, February 2, 2005 Rdsmith4 blocked "User:70.88.129.205" with an expiry time of 6 months (IP has done nothing but vandalism for months)
# 10:09, February 2, 2005 Rdsmith4 blocked "User:70.88.129.205" with an expiry time of 6 months (Account has done nothing but vandalism for months)

My recommendation of an indefinite block remains. 6 months didn't stop him, why the hell would a year? I've dropped it to a 24 month block; I'd like to be notified if anyone considers this too long. --Golbez 16:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Of course, he never actually got a 6 months block since it collided with a 1 week block and our quirky software is such that shorter blocks always win. I agree with the others here though. IP blocks for persistent vandals can be long but not forever. Dragons flight 16:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I saw you reblocked for 24 months.. I think that's better than indefinite. At least it'll expire at some point. There's a vandal on a Comcast IP who I've been blocking for month-long periods for a while.. his IP changed recently, so I'm glad that I've only been doing month blocks. Rhobite 16:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I figure just block for a month and if he comes back at the end of the month, block for another month. That's easy enough without going out on a limb making an excessively lengthy block. Everyking 22:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:John Henry DeJong

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The following has just been left on my Talk page:

Mel -

I am the real, legitimate John Henry DeJong. Apparently, one of the losers who was jerking around with Chad Bryant's entries here a while back decided to use my name - among many others - to do it. I notice that you have placed a lock on this username. I would like to register with Wiki and perhaps contribute across a wide range of subjects including MS Access programming, web design, graphic design, web development, and most facets of popular culture, and I think it'd be real cool if I could do so under my own name (also thereby eliminating the various google hits containing my name which turn up in a search, all of which are tied to the insipid nonsense with the anti-Chads).

You may feel free to contact me by telephone at (919) 691-5425 at your leisure, or via e-mail at any one of the following addresses to verify my identity:

john at lowgenius dot com (this is the ___domain of my web design business; a quick look at www.lowgenius.com will show you the same phone number in the page footer)

webdesign at lowgenius dot com

domainregs at lowgenius dot com

john at roadlesstraveledtheatre dot com

lowgenius at gmail dot com

johnhdejong at hotmail dot com

lazaruslong.geo at yahoo dot com

You can also reach me via instant message: Yahoo! and MSN using the last two addresses above, AIM under the name 'jhdalg', or ICQ UIN 18076883.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

65.190.213.86 15:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

John Henry DeJong

Owner, Lead Designer

LowGenius Web Design

Information Director,

The Road Less Traveled Theatre, Inc.

Any thoughts/advice? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

He's perfectly able to use a variant of it, I see no reason why he has to use that particular name. --Golbez 17:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Registering as your exact real name helps increase your credibility on the wiki. It is one of the primary reasons why account renames are performed. I'm thinking about moving to my real name someday. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 20:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I thought the same as Golbez (I also wondered why a vandal chose to use this person's name...). Anyway, Curps has suggested that I ask a bureacrat to perform a bit of technical wizardry that only a bureaucrat can, and that's what I've done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Homosexuality in Singapore

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone please end the nonsense going on this article. There is a revert war going on that shouldnt. --Cool Cat ^Talk 01:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Urdu language, Bollywood, Bhangra

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

All three articles are under intermittent attack by a user whom I believe, on the evidence of shared obsession and shared anon IP and sock usage, to be Harprit/70.177.166.200/69.175.46.66/JusticeLaw/205.188.117.14. The IPs may be shared IPs at a large ISP, since not all the anonIP edits match Harprit/JusticeLaw's editing pattern, just some of them.

Problem at Urdu language and Bollywood -- Harprit seems to believe, contra ALL linguistic evidence, that Urdu and Hindi are two completely different languages. He shows no inclination to discuss, just reverts. In Bhangra, he's insisting on ranking Bhangra artists into categories based on whether he thinks they're great, good, or so-so.

Urdu language was protected once, and as soon as it was unprotected, Harprit resumed the attack. It may be time to protect it again. So far, I've been able to hold him off at Bollywood and Bhangra. Zora 07:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I protected the page, but that's not really the solution. How about opening an RfC on this? I agree with your point on the changes from 70.* being vandalism, but opening an RfC might help resolve this dispute. Thanks. --Ragib 07:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've seen the same behavior. He does it to Hindi sometimes too. Each time no effort is made to substantiate his position. Posts the to his talk page go pretty much ignored. - Taxman ^Talk 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:Joseph108 on Vishwa Nirmala Dharma

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would anybody care to step in? Joseph108 keeps removing sections from the article without so much as an edit summary. I have left a couple notes on his talk page which have gone unanswered so far. I have already used up my three reverts, so any help would be appreciated -- Ferkelparade π 10:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

On it, though I'm out of here in 5 minutes. But let's see if a word from someone else has helped. --fvw * 10:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

AOL IP Ranges

Latest comment: 20 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I'm beginning to question the wisdom of the 15 minute limit on blocks to AOL IP addresses. I don't know if this has already been discussed, but the lack of effective blocking on AOL IPs in general makes AOL vandals pretty much untouchable from an admin perspective. I'm also concerned that this limit may not be totally necessary. The idea, of course, is that AOL-dialup users can change IP addresses on every page load. However, the growing class of AOL-DSL users should presumably be the same as any other broadband users, and probably retain the same IP address until they manually renew it. Can we isolate out the block ranges for dialup users, and just list those on Special:Blockip rather than extending the block protection to all AOL users? If there is a more specific place for this discussion, please let me know. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that while individual AOL users may retain the same local IP address for their entire session (for DSL users, that may well be days or weeks) all of the AOL connections are passed through a limited number of proxy servers. It is the IP address of those proxies that we see on Wikipedia. Two problems seem to arise.

A large number of AOL users will pass through a particular proxy, making collateral damage due to AOL IP blocks severe.
In some cases, AOL will route a particular user through several different proxies on successive edits, making an IP block even less effective.

Correct me if I am mistaken in my understanding of AOL's network architecture.... :I'd love to be able to block certain IP ranges from anonymous editing; that would solve both problems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This may not be popular, but what I'd like to see is a block of all the AOL proxies with instructions on how to disable proxies in your browser. For the few people still using the AOL branded browser which allegedly forces you to use the proxies, either find some technical fix or educate them on how to use a different browser. It might deviate a little from the basic anyone anywhere anytime can edit, but it would at least force vandals to redial/re-dhcp/repptp/whatever and put a serious dent in AOL's unblockability. If they have any sensible IP assignment structure it might even be possible to block certain vandals by area, at least for the DSL customers, meaning they really have to find a different ISP or open proxy to continue vandalising. --fvw * 14:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

whenever I use AOL I go through firefox. My IP still changes a lot. The only way people could stop this from happening is to change provider.Geni 14:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure you're not editing through a proxy? I haven't actually used AOL dialup, but my experiences with other people using it suggest they do assign you a routable IP address and don't use transparant proxies. --fvw * 00:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I really like TenOfTrade's suggestion, that we allow AOL editors, but they may not edit anonymously. Is that even possible in MediaWiki? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, I've created a monobook.js script that indicates on the Special:Blockip page if an IP address is in the AOL range: User:Func/wpfunc/blockiphelp.js. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you could just revert them and not worry so much about excluding users? Just a thought. Yes, I know it's aggravating but it has to be a better solution than discriminating against AOL users. Grace Note 00:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:FlashAmI

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The majority of edits by User:FlashAmI are needless links advertising a site (interviews with band members, not really consequential to their wikipedia articles at all). Is there a fast way to remove these without reverting (which would remove any work done since his edits)? If not, I can go through and remove them all manually later today, but an easier solution would be great too. Kertrats | Talk 13:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK, if the article in question has been edited by someone else since the particular edit you wanted to remove, it is not possible to revert (or roll back) without loosing the changes done by other editors. I'm afraid you'd have to edit out the links concerned. Regards, Redux 03:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Porn star articles

Latest comment: 20 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Lately we've seen three articles about former porn stars publishing their real names and links to their personal (non-porn) blogs. I suggest that if this happens in the future, we remove the personal information both from the article and from its history on sight, and if all that remains is the porn star's pseudonym and a link to a porn site, delete the entire article. This would avoid discussions on this noticeboard and in WP:AFD. — JIP | Talk 14:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

No. I've every sympathy with the sentiment that we should remove personal info from article where that information isn't generally in the public ___domain (or where it's published in some very minor venue, such as a chatroom or non-notable blog). But where such information is in general circulation (which is really another way of saying that it's verifiable) we should include it. This was the test we applied to the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser. It's a policy consistent with our mission to collect published information (rather than publishing new facts). I don't think an actor's real name is merely trivial - we publish the real names of Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, and Marilyn Monroe, for example. On looking at our pornstar cats, we publish the real names of Tera Patrick, Silvia Saint, and Linda Lovelace. These are all generally well known (although there are spelling variances on Saint's real name). IMDb publishes them all, as do plenty of other sources. I think the real name of a person notable enough to have a wikipedia article is itself a notable fact (generally their address and where they work now and stuff like that clearly isn't). This test (the test of verifyiability) wouldn't have prevented us from removing the material from Jordan Capri et al (as they weren't from reliable sources). JIP's test (if taken literally, as some would be wont to do) would result in our removing perfectly encyclopedic information that's widely available from respectable sources. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Finlay. An encyclopedia shouldn't be trying to reveal well-kept secrets (e.g. Jordan's real name), but it also shouldn't hide from information that is already well-established in the public sphere. It is WP:V and WP:NOR that protect the real identities of these women, which is something that has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Dragons flight 16:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

To clarify my point, I'm certainly not in favour of publishing stuff like actresses' addresses or present occupations. That's a general policy we seem to have arrived at by (mostly unspoken) consensus over the years - we don't publish the same details about politicians, actors, movie stars, sportsmen, or anyone else. There's a few exceptions to that, where the information is itself notable - our article on The Dakota being such an example. I'm really saying that porn performers aren't a special case, and the same criteria for inclusion and exclusion should apply to them as to everyone else. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, furthermore, on looking at Capri's realname blog, she says "I became the second most popular softcore ameture gal on the internet". As I said, I'm not in favour of exposing someone's secret identity, but it doesn't look like she's trying terribly hard to keep the correlation between her old life and her new one much of a secret. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

To clarify my point, I am only suggesting removal of real names of those porn stars who haven't revealed it themselves. If we are the primary source of a porn star's real name, it must be deleted. But if another notable online source has already revealed it, it's not so important. I too have looked at Jordan Capri's personal blog. She blatantly admits to having been a famous porn star. However, as far as I have seen, her blog never mentions either her real name or her porn pseudonym. What I disagree with her in, is the "amateur" status. She had a full-time contract with a porn studio, and was earning more on a single photoshoot than I earn in a year. That makes her a professional, like it or not. — JIP | Talk 17:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

JiP's right. There's absolutely no way we should publish someone's real name if it's not available elsewhere. That would be a breach of the policy on original research and would make Wikipedia a primary source, which is something I hope we can all agree should be avoided. Grace Note 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. A verifiable source that predates the inclusion of the particular piece of information on Wikipedia is required. If there's none, it must be axed out. Regards, Redux 02:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Anybody think it would be appropriate to contact the girls in question and let them know what happened? If they weren't "out" before, Wikipedia is a very public venue, and the mirrors will be around for a while regardless of what we've done, so a heads-up might be in order. Isomorphic 07:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I thought of doing so by adding a comment on Jordan Capri's blog, but then I found out it required joining some sort of community and couldn't be bothered. Besides, by the looks of it, Jordan Capri has contributed to her own AfD, and thus is possibly reading this right now. — JIP | Talk 21:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

True. What about the other girl? Isomorphic 04:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jack Sarfatti dispute

Latest comment: 20 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

There's been a dispute at Jack Sarfatti. The article was nominated for deletion by JIP, and then was closed also by JIP as a keep, saying to "keep as rewritten by User:Hillman". User:JackSarfatti, who claims to be the person Jack Sarfatti, and other editors, mainly User:Hillman and User:Chan-Ho Suh, seem to be engaged in an edit war. User:JackSarfatti has made numerous legal threats, claiming that Hillman is someone attempting to slander and libel him. Please see User talk:JackSarfatti, Talk:Jack Sarfatti, and Jack Sarfatti for more information.

The reason I'm posting here is to have another administrator look over the dispute and my actions. After leaving a note with User:JackSarfatti, warning him about legal threats and informing him of the WP:3RR rule (which he did violate, but I felt there was no good reason to block), I proceeded to protect the Jack Sarfatti page. I would appreciate any input on this matter, especially since involves a (seemingly) geniune legal threat against a Wikipedia user. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Immediate input would be appreciated, as User:JackSarfatti seems to be logged in right now. He appears to be sincere about his legal threats: "On Sep 23, 2005, at 5:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti@pacbell.net) wrote to Tony Smith physicist/attorney:

OK Tony they locked me out. I will inquire with the Attorney General of Florida on Monday and if Wiki is incorporated there I fill file a formal complaint that, if successful, can result in the loss of their tax exemption with the IRS." (posted to my talk page, apparently referring to the protection of the page) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, the policy is to block (not ban!) people doing things like this indefinitely. --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

After asking on IRC, this was confirmed as true, and I have blocked the user. --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Good call, for what it's worth I agree with this block entirely. --fvw * 01:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, he's got to be kidding about the Attorney General of Florida, right? After reading the article and his rantings on the talk page, I refuse to believe anyone would take him seriously. Um, this laywer of his...is he from the future? ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 01:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Folks -- I've been seeing Sarfatti come and go for years. Do not bother trying to reason with him; he is immune. Do not try to make sense out of him either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
- I can confirm what jpgordon says. Just be grateful he hasn't responded with thousand-word screeds. --Calton | Talk 11:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

New development: [19]. Sockpuppet? --cesarb 13:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so. I think it's really one of his "lawyer" friends. This diff convinces me he's really copying those emails from somewhere, not making them up from scratch. Still nothing to worry about though. Superm401 | Talk 17:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yellowikis

Latest comment: 20 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Once again, I'm objecting to "transwikiing" to yellowikis. See Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here/yellowikis. this is the only non-Wikimedia project which has its own "transwiki" page. Again, this gives the impression that yellowikis is a sister project. And Uncle G, there is no point in you making any attacks on me here. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why does it matter that it is non-Wikimedia? It just means that they are mirroring our content. And considering that it is also MediaWiki and GFDL, it is just a mirror site with more documentation and compliance than most. You object to listing it on the TL? That's not a big deal at all, though I don't really mind. I also have a hard time believing Uncle G has attacked anyone, so what is that supposed to mean? 134.10.44.224 08:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Heh it means we know what has been coppied. What's the problem?Geni 15:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

So why do we care? If I copy an article to another wiki, I should let the world know about it at Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here? As I mentioned above, only yellowiki gets the privilege of having its own page, among non-Wikimedia properties. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

(That anon was me, btw). I have to admit this is the first time I've ever seen the transwiki log referred to as a privilege. Take a look at some of the horribly unencyclopedic articles that have languished there for months. The transwiki log exists for two purposes. To aid in the transparency of the traanswiki process, which is good ofr GFDL compliance as well. And to (in my dreams) serve as a place where such unencyclopedic articles that needed transwiki could be combed through and deleted/merged/fixed somehow. Neither of those are concerns that are only for Wikimedia projects, as they both apply to that wiki as well. Try to do some cleanup at the TL and you'll see that it isn't a privilege. Again, I simply don't see why it would even matter. Dmcdevit·t 00:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Because nothing has yet been transwikied to other non-Wikimedia properties. If you can find another GFDL wiki, feel free to start suggesting appropriate things be sent there. I doubt there was an official decision that Yellowikis is special. ~~ N (t/c) 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I find it somewhat disturbing to be literally handfeeding our competitors content. They can go collect their own editors, or take a copy of the next database dump. -Splash^talk 00:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yellowikis doesn't really strike me as a potential "competitor" of WP, and in any case we encourage "competition" by using the GFDL and producing database dumps. The idea of "competing" against other wikis seems so against the WP ethos to me. ~~ N (t/c) 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

(after edit conflict) Why should another GFDL wiki be seen as a competitor? Seems to me that we would inherently be friends with any other source of GFDL content. Which is not to say that I plan to expend energy helping them, but I don't see any reason to complain about people that do so. Dragons flight 00:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd say to be considered friends in this sense wikis should not only be GFDL but also once they reached a nontrivial size they should provide bulk content dumps. Otherwise any content placed there is effectively locked into only being availible in small peices not en-mass for re-use. Plugwash 00:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's irrelvant. Dumping large amounts of stuff on a wiki is quite an effective way to kill it. Wikinfo hasn't really taken off has it? Beyond a certian size you run into the problem that you don't have enough people to handle the size so all the imported article become a deadweight.Geni 01:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just to make my concerns clear: I have no problem with people copying GFDL content from Wikipedia to any other GFDL site in the world. My objections are to the use of the term "transwiki", which implies an official relationship, and the setup of an official page to indicate the copies. Just do it and don't mention it, why should anybody care? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well since "transwiki" seems literally to mean just moved from one wiki to another, I've never assummed the word was limited to just Wikimedia wikis. Is there some reason for thinking the word does imply an official or priviledged relationship, cause I've never read it that way. Dragons flight 04:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Come on. Did you read what I wrote above? I gave two good reasons. There is no implication of officiality. Indeed, I am highly suspicious that only I and two or three other editors ever look at the TL. And I don't see why this is even on the AN in the first place. It should have been brought up on the TL talk page, on individual editors' talk pages, or even the village pump or something. Bu it hasn't got a thing to do with administrators, and is not really important at all anyway. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Version deletion

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a brief section on deleting revisions from the page history to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I couldn't find any documentation on this ability, so I added some. It's very rough, and others should look over it, approve, and edit. Thanks! Isomorphic 08:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Copyright violation, Nablus and Shechem

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

User:Guy_Montag has been repeatedly and belligerantly posted material that User:Jebro has painstakingly documented as having come from copyrighted sources. I have not reviewed Jebro's evidence carefully, but Guy Montag has not in any way denied it. If this matter is not dealt with swiftly, I will contact the owners of the violated copyrights, and their lawyers can address it. Marsden 13:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think all the heated middle east articles need is lawyers in the mix. Are the normal procedures for copyvios being followed? Secret london 14:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The only normal procedures I know of for copyright violations involve lawyers. As you allude, it might be better to try address the problem otherwise. Marsden 14:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

You'd probably get better results if you didn't start threatening legal action against people who you're approaching for assistance. I'm just saying. I've left a warning on Guy's page. Do let us know if he does this again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I was never asking anyone for assistance. Please be very clear about that. If anything, I was helping Wikipedia avoid being involved in a crime. And someone ought especially to thank User:Jebro for all of his effort on this. Marsden 14:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The copyvio'ed material must be removed, which you did. Since he was edit warring to put it back, coming to us was the right thing to do. Based on his statements, and an assumption of good faith, I am going to assume he thought using that material was okay, but it clearly does not look that way. If he continues to readd it without some substantive proof that it is some how free content, then he should be blocked for a reasonable amount of time. If after that he still doesn't get the point, well Jimbo considers intentionally violating the copyrights of others to be grounds for a permanent ban, so admins have quite a lot of discretion in dealing with an issue such as this. Dragons flight 14:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Merging page histories

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

User:Coolcat moved the page on the Valkyrie and Norn Skuld to Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) some while ago and made Skuld into a disambiguation page. In accordance with the vote at Talk:Valkyrie, where a requested move by Coolcat was rejected, I have tried to restore the page Skuld as an article on the mythological Skuld. However, most of the edit history of the mythological Skuld is now at Skuld (Oh My Goddess!), and it should be moved to Skuld. I am not familiar with how to merge page histories and I wonder how to proceed.--Wiglaf 16:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are two mythological Skulds aside from the anime character. There is a very serious need for a disambig there. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

As for the princess Skuld, she is quite obscure, and does not warrant Skuld to be a disambiguation page.--Wiglaf 16:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Wiglaf. When one of the Skulds is clearly more notable than the other, perhaps you can just provide a short disambig sentence on top of the article, like at Barak. If there are several disambig articles for the same subject, it's much better to just create a seperate disambiguationarticle, like at John Doe (which provides a link to John Doe (disambiguation)). --Death phoenix 16:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC) forgot to signReply

Apparently, User:Phroziac agrees with Coolcat's old move. I have asked him for an explanation and reverted the move.--Wiglaf 17:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wells Fargo Center

Latest comment: 20 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

There is a senseless revert war going on this article. There are apperantly two Wells Fargo Center buildings in two different states, hence prompting the page Wells Fargo Center be a disambig page. Thanks. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

That looks really senseless. Is one of them the Wells Fargo Center? Secret london 16:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hey, what about the ones in LA, Sacremento and Seattle? I think they just call all their buildings the Wells Fargo Center. Dragons flight 16:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Are they all notable? Secret london 17:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not as far as I care. But if every high school in the world is notable, it wouldn't surprise me if someone wants to make that argument. Dragons flight 17:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

We've also got one here in Spokane, but the most notable thing about it is that the middle section of their lit sign on the top of the building was out for a few weeks, leaving a very large "WELL GO" quite visible from the northern half of the city. --Carnildo 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

On looking on the history of Wells Fargo Center, it looks like an anon did a cut and paste move to make room for the disambig. That needs to be reversed, the page moved, and a new disambig written. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have reversed the cut&paste move. I have not re-protected the page, as I assume that the "cut" part of the move was the reason for the reverts. Unfortunately, no-one has actually explained why they were reverting, so I cannot be sure about that; if the revert war starts again, someone should protect the page again. Eugene van der Pijll 17:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jack Sarfatti/Talk:Jack Sarfatti

Latest comment: 20 years ago26 comments7 people in discussion

Hi, I very, very foolishly got involved in a content dispute with Jack Sarfatti (the person) about his wikibiography, and this "dispute" has gotten waaaaay too crazy for me (legal threats, veiled death threats, mailbombing). So I cave. Or at least, I am trying to, but (more or less at my own request, a few days ago), User:Flcelloguy protected the version of the biography written (mostly) by me, so Jackhorner (apparently JS's latest sock puppet) can't change it back to the one JS wrote. I left a message on his talk page asking him to unlock the article so JS can change it back to whatever he pleases, but so far no response. Can someone please unlock the article? If that would violate the page protection policy, can someone at least revert the article back to Jack Sarfatti's latest version? I just want Sarfatti to stop bullying me, but he clearly won't do that until the biography is changed back to some version he approves of. Can someone help get him off my back? TIA---CH (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is a wiki. Even if it were changed back it's clearly not going to be protected forever. Other users will clearly edit the article and change its content. Secret london 20:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I understand that, of course. The point is, Sarfatti is threatening me because he cannot make the changes he wants. For all I care, you can revert to his 'approved version' and keep it locked. I just want to get him to stop harrassing me.---CH (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Legal threats? Mailbombing? Gimme a diff and I'll block him. No reason that should be tolerated at all. Or was it done in email? --Golbez 20:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hillman left me a request that the page be unprotected; I'm going to go ahead and fulfill his request. There's a huge mess at Talk:Jack Sarfatti, if anyone wishes to comb throught it. User:JackSarfatti was blocked indefinitely for making (numerous) legal threats. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I thought this name sounded familiar. No problem with unprotecting it now that the kook is gone. PS, here's a legal threat: [20] --Golbez 21:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

oh, wait, you say JackHorner is a Sarfatti sock or ally? Let's see here.. --Golbez 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:JackSarfatti has already been blocked for making multiple legal threats, both in Wikipedia and via email. User:Jack Horner may or may not be a sock. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and JackHorner is communicating his words and, vaguely, a legal threat by proxy. I say we treat JackHorner as a meatpuppet of Sarfatti and block him accordingly. Every single edit has been to parrot Sarfatti's words. --Golbez 21:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:Jackhorner has only edited on JackSarfatti topics. He says his name is Jack Horner and his email address is woodymarble@mac.com. I think block as a sock unless proven otherwise. He's certainly acting as a mouth piece. Secret london 21:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

That email address has 2 hits on google - one is this which is on a posting from Sarfatti to an unknown other. Secret london 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the talk page and there seemed to be two factual matters that needed to be fixed. I did that without unprotecting and I've asked them to confirm or to give further instructions. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've unprotected the page per Hillman's request. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's pretty clear that Jackhorner is a sock, but I don't care about that. I just want him to stop threatening me with lawsuits, death, etc. He's just way to crazy for me to deal with. And yes, he has apparently been mailbombing a whole bunch of people using his Pac Bell account with angry complaints and threats against me. You guys can't do anything about that.

Hmmm, actually, can you please yourself revert the page to Jack's 'approved' version and immediately relock it? Otherwise, someone else who took the opposite side in this dispute will revert it to my last version, and Jack will accuse me of having done that and continue to harrass me. I think what he wants is the ability to modify the page to his version and then protect it from what he calls 'vandalism' by people who dispute his account of his astounding activities/achievements. I am asking you to give him what he wants, in hope that he'll stop harrassing me. ---CH (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but you nor jack get to choose to have a non-community-supported version of an article, no matter what your motivations are. Note jack is currently blocked (by me, and I have yet to receive a single piece of mail from him. Some people have all the luck). --fvw * 21:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Giving up is no fun. I'll block him. Keep us posted if another one pops up. --Golbez 21:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

And if he's harassing you outside of Wikipedia, you might have legal options open to you. But if all he's doing is sending emails through Wiki, then change your Wiki email address. Let us know what he's doing, please. --Golbez 21:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't even know the details, but yes, I know he has mailbombed a whole buncha people in regard to the content dispute, and yes, he is apparently threatening me with lawsuits and other penalties outside of the Wikipedia. You guys can't do anything about that, and I don't want to deal with a lawsuit, however ludicrous it might be, so I am caving. Yes, it is not nice that I am caving under bullying, but that's the beauty of the law I guess---- bullying is effective, because at some point, to any reasonable person, so much trouble over one silly Wikipedia article just doesn't seem worthwhile.---CH (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked Horner. --Golbez 21:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, can someone please revert the entire article to his 'approved version'? Sorry, you'll have to search through the messy history or the messy talk page to find that. I don't want to touch it. Can some admin then temporarily lock the article to Jack's approved version? He seems to blame me for everything no going his way, plus some weird hate mail he claims to be getting (needless to say I have nothing to do with that, if he is indeed getting nasty emails and not just making that part up), so I am concerned some other user will revert the page to some version he doesn't like and he will blame me and keep harrassing me. I just want him to stop bullying me.---CH (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

P.S. and please explain very very slowly and clearly on the talk page that an admin has reverted the article to his approved version and reprotected it.---CH (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this is a matter to be taken to Jimbo or the foundation's lawyers; someone harassing an editor off-site so much that he wants it put back to a non-consensus version? --Golbez 21:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, exactly, he is way too scary for me (death threats, lawsuits). That is why I am asking am admin to revert to Jacks' 'approved version' (sic) and to lock it at least until he is convinced that I have indeed caved and stops harrassing me (and all those people he has apparently been mailbombing). He is way too scary for me.---CH (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh for heaven's sake, if he's sending you inappropriate emails just drop his email address into your idiot filter. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. Or just change your Special:Emailuser address. I can understand your caving to this obvious lunatic, but that shouldn't mean we have to. ~~ N (t/c) 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Tony and Nickptar, you both misunderstood the off-wiki harrassment, but never mind. Tony, thanks for making the factual corrections Sarfatti had demanded (you probably do understand why I don't want to edit teh article any more!). And Flcelloguy, thanks for unprotecting the article. I'll report back if I think I need help with anything else, but at least for now, AFAIK this episode has blown over, sheesh. Thanks again, you guys.---CH (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Rattlesnake Island

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This valid stub seems to have had a load of tinfoilhat stuff added to it - and then what appears to be a request from a lawyer demanding deletion, stating that the garbage was added from a IP in his client's office and his cliant has been getting legal threats. I've reverted to the stub - and suspect the letter may be bogus, but perhaps others should check it out. The version before my revert is here [21] --Doc (?) 21:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Lawyers generally don't send cease&desists by editing articles, just ignore it. --fvw * 21:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yup, that's probably right. --Doc (?) 21:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd be careful about this: the law firm exists and Jeffrey J. Weber apparently does work there. His e-mail address is available on their website if anyone wants to contact him to confirm that he made the edit in question and, if he did, to tell him where to send his notices. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Latest developement [22] - a request that the offending parts of the edit history are removed. I take it we don't do that? --Doc (?) 17:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I don't think that is a question for us to address. Even if we assume the situation is what it claims to be: i.e. an anon editor is being threatened with libel for statements he wrote in Wikipedia and now wants those statements expunged, then I don't think the answer of what to do is obvious. On the one hand, I doubt we really need that rant and removing it from the history may help the guy out. On the other hand, it is an ugly precedent (allowing people to withdraw their contribution is certainly not okay in general) and we might even be regarded as complicit in trying to hide evidence from the agrieved party. Since, we do not seem to be under any present legal obligation to act in this situation, I would suggest we do nothing except direct them to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Dragons flight 17:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I made that suggestion on the IP's talk page (after he left a strange message on my user page) --Doc (?) 17:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Winter Soldier Investigation -Unresolved Copyvio, opinions wanted

Latest comment: 20 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

This article had a copyvio pasted into it a year ago. There was a revert war over it, but mostly the copyvio stayed in the article for about a year. Eventually the page was listed on wp:cp and last month the material was (kinda) refactored. The page was never reverted to the pre-copyvio version (as per instructions at wp:cp). Also, over the last year there have been edit wars, page protections and at least one other (unrelated) copyvio. I've been trying to resolve the latest copyvio for the last couple of days, it's a big mess.

My question regards derivative works. For most of the last year about eight copied paragraphs existed in the article as it was heavily edited. The copied material was then somewhat refactored. I have two problems, the work to the article that went on in the midst of and related to the copyvio, and the refactoring that was so minimal that the eight paragraphs still say the same things in the same way and are structurally similar to what they came from. I think the whole article is now derived work in two ways and should be reverted to the pre-copyvio version, per instructions on wp:cp.

Most of the feedback on the talk page has been from the the anon doing the refactoring, but who claims not to be the same anon who originally inserted the the copyvio (they are both Earthlink ips I think). This editor thinks I'm way off base, so, I'm asking for other opinions from editors with experience resolving copyvios (haven't got much of a response on wp:cp). --Duk 23:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC) PS- i've no interest in this article other than trying to resolve old copyviosReply

There's no excuse for not having reverted to the version before the copyvio tag. Revert immediately to that version and don't tolerate any edit wars. The entire article is now an illegal derivative work. Superm401 | Talk 00:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

We need more than that. *All* incarnations of the work after the copyvio was inserted *must* be deleted. Just delete the article and selectively restore all earlier versions. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is something that confuses me. I agree that copyvio versions should be selectively removed. However, the instructions at WP:CP (which I refactored but did not write) say it is ok to rever to the last non-copyvio versions, leaving them in the history. Apparently, if someone wants them removed they need to ask specifically and will probably be reffered to the Foundation. The exception appears to be where a copyvio is in the article from the start, but is rewritten in place — in that case, the insrtuctions are to delete the earlier revisions. Is the revert option always wrong? -Splash^talk 16:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is often impractical to delete and selectively restore when there are a very large number of old revisions. If someone added copyrighted song lyrics to say, George W. Bush, as a prank, are you really going to delete and then spend half an hour clicking little check boxes one by one? If this is to be done systematically, we need a "selectively delete" option, not a "delete all and selectively restore". -- Curps 17:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Luckily there aren't all that many revisions to restore here. The article was started in February, 2004 as a stub and there are fewer than sixty edits before September. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

There's an easy way to do selective deletes, as opposed to selective restores. 1) Delete the entire article. 2) Restore just the versions you wish to delete from the article's history . 3) Move the article (whose history now includes only the newly-restored versions) elsewhere. 4) Delete that other ___location. 5) Restore the rest of the versions of the original article. Hey, presto, selective delete! :-) Noel (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

If you want to leave the deleted versions at the ___location of the original article, it takes a couple of extra steps. Omit step 4. Add the following steps: 6) Move the article (sans deleted versions) elsewhere. 7) Move the article consisting of the deleted revisions (created in step 3) back to the original ___location. 8) Delete it. 9) Move the article (sans deleted versions) back to the original ___location. Yes, it's a certain amount of hassle, but it's less work than clicking 999 check boxes! Noel (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for advice. I deleted and selectively restored, ~~but the history is showing one version, while this shows all the restored versions. I hope this is just a server delay. --Duk 17:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)~~ fine now --Duk 18:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

There's a bug which only affects the display of the history, not the history itself. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves, which I recently updated to cover the bug. Noel (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Munich

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Talk:Munich was recently vanadalized with what appears to be a person's telephone number. These changes should probably be deleted rather than reverted. Apologies if I put this in the wrong place. DirectorStratton 02:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This puts Robert McHenry's infamous analogy in a whole new light, doesn't it? :P I've reverted it, which is probably all that's necessary; if anyone thinks that a selective deletion is in order, that should be easy enough. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I do think a selective deletion is in order. We do not know where the vandal (for such they are) may have bragged about his little feat, and there is absolutely no place here for that kind of information, under almost any circumstance. I have excised the relevant revisions from the history. I trust that the admins are not about to adhere to WP:V and check the info they can see in the deletion log... If another admin thinks I have been too paranoid, they can of course restore the now-missing revisions to the public history. -Splash^talk 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that's overly paranoid. Deleting the information from history does no harm (there were no intervening edits except for my rollback), while keeping it there has a small but real chance of causing trouble. (The posting, if anyone's curious, was something like "So-and-so is gay, call [his cell phone number] for a good time". This was posted (unsurprisingly) from the IP address of a high school, so I suspect it was more juvenile stupidity than genuine malice.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Request for vprotection

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can the articles Adolf Hitler, Jocker City and Homosexuality all be vprotected. Vandalism on these is at a high rate. --Longboy69 09:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Note that longboy69 is this morning's incarnation of the Girls Aloud/obesity vandal - see WP:VIP#Manchester_.2F_obesity_.2F_Girls_Aloud_vandal. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

So, who likes deleting images?

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

According to the new speedy deletion criterion, we should be deleting orphan "fair use" images, since we can't claim fair use on images that aren't used. Here are some lists of images that contain the words "logo" or "screen", which probably means they're fair use images.

~~User:TheCoffee/Orphan images/logo (1407 images)~~ - 95.4% deleted
~~User:TheCoffee/Orphan images/screen (188 images)~~ - 94.7% deleted

Make sure that the image really is fair use and is an orphan before deleting it. If it isn't tagged as fair use, check if it should be. If it isn't tagged or sourced at all, it can be deleted for having no source or no license. The asterisk at the left of the filename is to indicate if the file has already been deleted. Blue asterisk means the file is still there. Red asterisk means it isn't.

I've already gone through and processed orphan images containing the words album, box, cover, dvd, and poster. Coffee 18:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

All done. Thanks to those that helped! Coffee 04:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

AI Arbitration case

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Arbitration case against AI has closed.

AI (under any username) is banned from Wikipedia pending the final resolution of all legal disputes with Wikipedia. Any edits AI attempts to make until this time, under any account or IP, should be immediately reverted. AI is instructed to use only this account, and no anonymous IPs. What editing constitutes AI's is up to any sysop to decide. If AI violates this, any sysop is authorised to ban them for up to a month for one-off offences, and up to a year for repeat offences. Further, AI is banned from refactoring dialogue on talk pages, or rearranging any talk page, including material which constitutes "personal comments" or personal attacks (this applies to all talk pages except AI's own user talk page), and also banned from editing any article related to the Church of Scientology. If AI violates either of these, any sysop is authorised to ban them for up to 24 hours for one-off offences, and up to a week per violation for repeat offences.

James F. (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

What if AI simply drops the matter? What happens then? Everyking 11:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, then "the final resolution of all legal disputes with Wikipedia" would be reached, and that part of the ruling would no longer apply. It's not rocket science. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Rush Limbaugh

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Edit war brewing over whether or not a paragraph is "clear" POV. I'm staying out of it, but an admin might wish to take a look at the situation.--chris.lawson 13:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Still getting personally attacked!

Latest comment: 20 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion

Giano is becoming a menace. Have a look at my talk page at his latest comments to me - I don't particularly like being called an infant. Is dealing with personal attacks and admin matter still? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ummm, what is supposed to be so offensive? Here is the "shocking" passage: "Regarding : "I've gone off the air " You have not gone off the air. From the very moment you theatrically announced your departure you have been constantly popping up and down like an agitated infant. Now if you've nothing constructive to say it's better to say nothing at all." I think Ta bu was compared to an "agitated infant," not called an infant. It's way too close to a bon mot to be a malediction. (One could even wonder if this AN/I posting isn't a little, well, theatrical.) Geogre 01:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Good grief. I can't actually be called an infant because my own picture would logically preclude that. If I decide to compare you to Nazi, this would be counted (quite rightly) as a personal attack. Comparing me to an infant is horrible. And so what if I wanted to come back under my account? Maybe one day I will. Right now I am under the radar as I'm editing anonymously - obviously people can see who I am because they can see the history of MDAC, but I switch around so many IP addresses that it'll be hard to track me down in a hurry: something I want. I did see the TFD, and put in my 2cents under this user account. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Any one with a hour to spare and an interest in bizarre history may like to follow the links backwards from here [23]. Which all result from this diff. here [[24] beginning line 349] Giano | talk 07:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I deleted it all and put it into my archives. Sheesh - I'm only logging in to respond to your comments. It's absurd though that I have to do this. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The best way for this to be handled is for TBetc. to put a brief, polite note on the talk page of the perceived finger pointer, "I consider statement X a personal attack. Please desist." Some else to put a brief note following that, "TBetc. has placed a note on WP:ANI regarding a perceived personal attack." Then everyone waits. If TBetc. gets called a baby again it's an attack.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not meaning to be quarrelsome, but I still don't get how there is even an insult involved, much less a "personal attack." Giano's statement was "the activity of coming back and going away is similar to the activity of an infant that can't sit still." I take no part in the disputes going on between Giano and Tabu, which is why I thought I could comment; I really don't see where any "attack" is happening, just a simile for an action. (Not that WP:AN is the right place for this at all.) Geogre 10:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to agree. If all criticism of a user's behaviour is to be called personal attack and forbidden, then we can have no debate at all. Alsu, Ta bu might remember Godwin's law before making comparisons like the one above. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

So what is being said here is that I cannot come back to editing this site under this username. After all, Giano has basically said that I cannot go away and come back again — I remember the days when highly stressed out Wikipedians would leave and come back to no abuse. Evidently the project has taken a turn for the worse and this is no longer the case. Try to remember that there are two reasons why Giano doesn't like me: I added the bio infobox to several of "his" pages (yes, that's right, he was getting them to FA status so they are now owned by himself and noone else can contribute - this is the way I see it). I had no idea he was the primary author, and it was never done to attack him - however all of a sudden I found that I was receiving messages on my page asking why I was having a go at him. I had also placed one of "his" articles on FARC (at the time I had no idea it was "his") because I felt it was too like an essay. To my horror I discovered that he believed I was personally attacking him! Now I have to deal with all this crap: hence the reason I'm not as active on the site as I once was. Apparently, though I am the author of 5 or 6 FAs, the create of this noticeboard, have a considerable number of edits under my belt and have exhibited correct behaviour (except, of course, for the Dalek incident) I am still behaving like an infant by coming and going from a volunteer website. So far you'll notice that I've only logged in to defend myself.

One last thing: I didn't call Giano a Nazi. Sheesh. I was making a comparison of what would happen if I did compare him to one, as he was comparing me to an infant. I was pointing out that I still consider what he wrote to be an insult.

I guess I'm correct in not editing this website any more. It's really not worth it. No wonder people like Ambi (I am partly to blame there, I got too het up in my arguments in GNAA) and RickK left. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I like the title of this section. It made me laugh. :)—enceph alon 10:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Me too. :-D Giano | talk 14:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad that you find the pain of others amusing. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I dunno, it looks like an intentional insult to me, and it looks to me like it would fall within the bounds of WP:ATTACK. At the very least it's harrassment, which we should not tolerate. This discussion seems to have gone off the deep end. Guettarda 17:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not all unkind words are insults, nor are all insults inappropriate. Sometimes we hold rational views which others might find hurtful; such views need to be discussed to determine their truth and worth, not suppressed. When a user is willing to respond rationally and substantiate their position we can not conclude that their words were made purely with the intention to hurt, only that perhaps they were hamfisted in their delivery or wrongheaded in their reasoning. Rather than yelling WP:ATTACK at someone when we think their criticism may be too harsh, it would be more productive to help them refactor their words to ones which are more constructive or provide reasoning to demonstrate them as incorrect. There is no cabal of nannys to make sure everyone does the right thing, so in each of our hands lies the responsibility to call the baby ugly. Without that we must either suffer the loss of salvageable editors when the minorly bad behavior festers long enough to force them from the community, or allow ourselves to be rotted away by negative behavior which doesn't warrant the drastic measures available through arbcom. --Gmaxwell 22:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

My point exactly - we can't tolerate editors harrassing other editors and trying to force them out of the project. It may not fall under WP:ATTACK, but that doesn't mean it's ok. Ta Bu's contribution is huge - if he wants to leave and go when he pleases, as he pleases, it's no business of other editors. If people want to tell him otherwise, we should call them out on it. Guettarda 01:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Nice counter, but your argument could just as easly be extended to say that we should never call out a frequent contributor no matter how bad their behavior is because we might scare them away. I don't agree. I think you might misunderstand the cause for the negative comments about Ta Bu's behavior. People are not saying these things because he simply took a break and came back, but rather because he makes what appear to be repeated insincere dramatic exits, crying for users to beg his return, and while he's supposidly gone for good (for the umpenttenth time) he continues to come back to further his arguments on the wiki all the while whining about how wronged he's been. His behavior is furthering ill will around the wiki, and attracting away positive attention which is more deserved by harder working users who have stressed out and vanished without the hysterics. Because of this it is all of our business. --Gmaxwell 03:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sheesh. I'm very sorry Ta bu feels bad, I can certainly tell that he does. But if you prick Giano, will he not also bleed? Before anybody else allows themselves to talk of Giano "harrassing" and "trying to force out" an editor who was obviously bent out of shape by other things first (notably the WP:FAC debacle of the Gay Nigger Association of America article[25]), I hope they will take the precaution of reading the posts involved. This is not a matter of personal attacks! Nor is an admin matter, which makes me the less inclined to waste more space here by pasting in whole exchanges, but anybody can find them by following Giano's directions above. Please note Ta bu's edit warring at John Vanbrugh on September 6 and 7, his final and very much not administrator-worthy action before he purportedly left. Mind you, I'd be inclined to excuse him for that, in view of the extreme wikistress he was obviously suffering, but given Ta bu's history of rapidly coming to his senses after losing his temper on this site, I would also have hoped he'd be ready to condemn it himself by now. Apparently not so: he is still in "nobody appreciates me" mode, and it's all still Giano's fault. This is a distortion of what happened, and I think anybody who looks into it will see that. For a balanced, and distressed, take on the respective roles of Ta bu and Giano in the unhappy conflict over Template:Infobox Biography at John Vanbrugh, you can't do better than read ALoan's post on my page. Bishonen | talk 03:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

as always, I think Bishonen is spot on. It is certainly bad taste to say things to people that you know will distress them. Yet on the open forum WP is, I do think you have to be prepared to meet sarcastic and/or outspoken criticism of your behaviour. I am sorry Tbsdy is stressed, and I would certainly try to go easy on him, but obviously this is not a case for AN. I do hope Tbsdy will regain his cool, but at the moment I am afraid this isn't any different from any random disgruntled user coming here saying he has been treated without proper respect by another random user. Baad 18:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

SPUI and Freehold Circle

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

SPUI has prematurely closed the Freehold Circle AfD three times as a "speedy keep" because he believes the reason provided for the nomination is not good enough, despite a forming consensus to delete and requests from both me and the nominator to stop doing so. The discussion itself has only been going on for two days. He's got every right to defend an article he contributed to, but this is over the line. I'm about to block him for disruption, but just want input on this decision. android79 01:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Blocked for violating the 3RR rule on Freehold Circle, but I'd be fine with a block for disruption too in cases like this, especially considering the fact that two people warned him. --fvw * 02:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I noticed that too. Thanks for the help. android79 02:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

People on vfd/afd are still pretty rude though. Secret london 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Most aren't, and even if some are, that doesn't justify this kind of disruption. android79 03:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

"No reason given for deletion"? What's that "nn, roadcruft" given right there in the first line of the AfD supposed to be, then? Idle chatter? Sheesh. You were right to block him. If SPUI is an admin and this keeps up, it might even constitute abuse of AdministrativePower. — JIP | Talk 07:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

SPUI is most definitely not an admin. --fvw * 08:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Criticism of Islam

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am seing a revert war over the addition/removal of 9391 bytes. I generally do not mention revert wars here but that article is just not stable. --Cool Cat ^Talk 11:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Protected. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

White Horse Circle

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse Circle with a result of "delete", yet the page has been made into a redirect to the township it is located in. Did I ever remember to delete the article? The page history shows no deleted edits. I'm embarassed to admit this, but I don't remember everything about what I did this same day. Was it ever deleted? Who made it a redirect? If it wasn't deleted, it can't have been undeleted by User:SPUI, as he's not an admin. If I forgot to delete the article, can my closing of the AfD debate be considered valid? — JIP | Talk 16:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The deletion log says you deleted it [26] David Gerard undeleted (probably should have been a selective undelete but who cares?).Geni 16:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

How can it be redirected? I don't even see any merge/redirect votes. Just deletes. Personally I'd rather see it merged, but that's not what people voted for. Everyking 17:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, probably what happened was that I deleted it, User:SPUI kept recreating it as a redirect, and people kept deleting it again. Probably SPUI got the last word, so to speak. — JIP | Talk 17:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Would like some help on a AFD

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can I just ask an admin to take a look at AFD:Built for Comfort? One of my nominations has been plagued with sockpuppets, and I believe it to have steered the debate somewhat. I have also been accused of having a real life personal vendetta against the webcomic author who I had never heard of until now, and found out that my user page had been vandalised for a day without me knowing. Is there anything that can be done about the discussion? Maybe clean up and relist?

I would also like for more comments at the talk page for WP:COMIC, there seems to be growing consensus that those guidelines are too lax, a look through AFD this past week or my contributions will show that.

Also, is this the best place to put this message? I also considered VillagePump Assistance, but decided to ask admins instead. - Hahnchen 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Village Pump or an issue RFC would be the place to get WP:COMIC revised. As for the AFD, I dunno. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have closed the AfD debate. -Splash^talk

And it has now been listed on VfU. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Imposter of Uncle Ed's robot

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Very recently this showed up: User:Uncle Ed's major work 'bot - it's an impostor of Uncle Ed's clean up robot, and it has moved pages to very odd places, and making cleanup very difficult to do. It would be nice if we could get some help to fix up the page move vandalisms :-) - it's created somewhat of a tricky beehive. --HappyCamper 04:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually, rewording: I think it's an impostor of User:Uncle G's major work 'bot. In other words, we have someone who is impersonating Uncle Ed impersonating Uncle G, et cetera...very confusing! --HappyCamper 04:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's been cleaned-up-after. See WP:AN/I. -Splash^talk 04:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any bots: there's nothing for this bot to be an imposter of. Thanks, everyone, for helping to clean up after it. Uncle Ed 11:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:Kswheels

Latest comment: 20 years ago33 comments8 people in discussion

This user was mistakenly blocked as being WoW, and if they choose to keep this username, please don't block it as WoW. I unblocked them after they asked on IRC. Additionally, I think some of the willy patrollers are a little overzealous, we really don't need to block all willys or anything with wheels in the name. I think some admins would probably block "Willy <somelastname>. --Phroziac^(talk) 04:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree that overzealous Willy-hunting is a major problem - some admins will block any inactive account with a "transportation theme". Other usernameblock hunts can be overzealous too - I remember that during the spate of abusive username attacks on Linuxbeak, one admin blocked "Linux uber geek", a perfectly innocent newbie. ~~ N (t/c) 16:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I now see that User:Wowo and User:Willy c have been recently blocked, with no contributions, and the only message on their talk page is 'your name sounds like Willy on Wheels' - no 'I'm sorry' or 'you might want to change it'. IMHO, this is a very rude thing to do that risks scaring off good contributors, so I'm going to unblock those users. If they are Willy, will it be such a big deal? He's easy to revert. ~~ N (t/c) 16:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Having reviewed the block log, I see Essjay's been on a bit of a {{UsernameBlock}} spree: see here. Most seem reasonable, but tell me, how are "Death omen" and "AutobotNo1" inappropriate? There are also some more questionable Willy blocks, like "The Big W!!!!" (who apparently has no contributions. and has been accused of being a sockpuppet of both Willy and MARMOT...?). I won't unblock, as there may be something I'm not seeing, but this seems wrong to me. (Crossposting to User talk:Essjay.) ~~ N (t/c) 16:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The semantics of usernames are far too difficult to describe precisely, and we often have to resort to the judgement and contextual interpretation of the administrators who block them. Granted, my thinking is that Essjay has implicitly taken responsibility for blocking those usernames. I suppose you could unblock them if you like. User talk:Christchurch is a similar incident that I encountered, and it was quite straightforward to resolve. --HappyCamper 17:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

WoW is well known for creating sleeper accounts with no contributions with the sole purpose of waiting for the prohibition on the newest 1% of users to expire on that account. -Splash^talk 17:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I know. Blocking obvious sleepers is a good idea. Assuming that anything with "willy" or "wheels" or "WOW" is a sleeper is not a good idea. ~~ N (t/c) 17:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and blocking the account name that clearly purports to be a bot when it isn't seems ok, though I'm not sure about "Death omen". -Splash^talk 17:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You have to come at it from a newb perspective - would a newb know that accounts containing "bot" are usually reserved for bots? Of course not. And do you really think that if someone had a username containing "bot", but acted human, people would mistake him/her for a bot? Also, how are "T.Jiang" (I see some people have been creating attack acounts against User:Jiang, but this doesn't sound like one), "Nazira" (an Arabic name, even though it contains "Nazi"), and "Lupin4tonkslegolas4kendell" (pretty clear fanfic reference, a bit long but not otherwise problematic) inappropriate? I don't think I'll bother with those, though, as they were all blocked days ago. ~~ N (t/c) 17:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Blocking non WoW names because they may contain "Nazi" is inexcusable. When did this guy become an admin? Secret london 17:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that the appearance of the character string "nazi" in an otherwise innocent, justifiable username is no reason to block, but in fairness, I just indef-blocked User:Nazi kais because using the word "Nazi" set off by spaces is so obviously a bad idea. ~~ N (t/c) 18:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I strongly advise you all to read our Wikipedia:Username policy. We have a clear policy for dealing with inappropriate usernames. Secret london 18:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I might also add that the other day, I didn't block User:Four Wheels, and it turned out to be a Willy. I'm not concerned with these blocks that Essjay has done. What I would be concerned with is if he started blocking harmless nouns and adjectives without reason. That's when alarm bells will go off - at least for me. The "autobot" was probably blocked because it can be mistaken as a bot. Check out what happened with the sneaky vandalism done by "Uncle Ed's major work 'bot" above! The others, I'm inclined to feel they are Willies too. Generally speaking, I've found that if users are legitmate, they will contact you by e-mail. "Death omen" is sort of a grey area, but I'd be inclined block it. I use this rule of thumb sometimes: assume the user becomes established. Are there any existing established users with names that read like that? Not really, so after that, take if from there... --HappyCamper 17:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Good point on "Death omen" and the "established user" criterion. But how do you know that the users who don't email you aren't perfectly legitimate but just disgusted/scared by your blocking them? Better to let Willy run wild for a few minutes than lose a valuable contributor, I say. ~~ N (t/c) 17:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned about blocking innocent users and presuming that they'll email rather than just feel unwelcome. I know if I'd been blocked I certainly wouldn't email - I'd just leave with an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Secret london 17:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict, before SecretLondon's response) Well, to be honest and truthful, I don't think anyone can say they know know for certain. In fact, I don't know many things for certain. This just happens to be one of them, and after some amount of deliberation, I've settled on doing something I feel comfortable with. Granted, it may not be the most optimized way of doing so, which is why I like to rotate around different sysop chores during my Wikipedian career. At least this encourages myself to re-read policy every now and then and lets me update my approch to do things on Wikipedia. "Grow" in a sense.

I think it would be pretty difficult to homogenize 100% the approaches towards defining inappropriateness of usernames; in any large complex system, sometimes an amount of stochastic activity can be healthy. It is impossible to handle 100% of events 100% perfectly everytime. But with a variety of reasonable approaches, we can approach handling, say "95%" of cases "95%" of the time unambiguously, and make our management system robust and adaptive. I think your approach would complement this quite well, really. In fact, as an aside, some of the questions you are asking are related to very deep implications in artificial intelligence... --HappyCamper 18:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps Wikipedia:Username would be a good place to start? Secret london 18:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yup. I've wanted to twiddle with it for a while, but I haven't got to it yet. No intention of adding twiddles out of consensus though, mind you. --HappyCamper 18:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree completely with the premise that we should be very very careful blocking just based on username, it should be pointed out that The Big W!!! was in fact a vandal all of whose contributions were deleted. The funny thing is, I had him pegged as one of Libertas'. --fvw * 18:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree too, which is why I do it sparingly, like adding salt to my food on a restricted diet. (As an aside, isn't it interesting how this thread has developed?) --HappyCamper 18:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Overzealous username blocking is a problem. Besides the ones that have already been mentioned above, a look over Category:Wikipedia:Inappropriate username blocks reveals the following username blocks of dubious justification:

And I'd guess the majority of username blocks aren't added to the category, so who knows how many more there are? Why are we so eager to on the one hand point out that Wikipedia isn't censored to avoid offending anyone's sensibilities, and on the other hand so eager to censor usernames of marginal offensiveness? I'd say Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers applies here. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think some people need to lay off the block button. It was noted that ThePedanticPrick was blocked by an admin called Bumm. Do we have a specific admin problem or an all-round power kick? Secret london 23:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The latter, and it isn't solely limited to username blocks. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Essjay seems to have been acting out of perfectly good faith (see my talk page). We really could use a Process for Deciding What Names Are Inappropriate, and Reviewing Such Decisions. I don't know about a general power kick, though; it's just that if you have a few overzealous admins, a lot of users will get blocked, and as I don't know anybody besides myself who does block-log patrol (and I only started that today because of this incident), it's unlikely that those blocks will be rectified. TacoDeposit, would you mind providing examples of a "general power kick" as opposed to a few dicks and well-intentioned rogues?

I'm sorry, but the line between a "a few dicks and well-intentioned rogues" and "an all-round power kick" is too subjective and not quantifiable. I have been on Wikipedia for a year and a half, and I have observed too many instances of admins overeager to exercise their block/delete/protect privledges. But alas, I'm not really inclined to to gather evidence to satisfy your request. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 00:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You're right, it's subjective. And Snowspinner's actions on AFD certainly back up the "general power kick" viewpoint. ~~ N (t/c) 00:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Touché! Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 00:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The above examples are all borderline cases. I would call most of them possibly inappropriate but not deserving of a block, except "Wikipediasux" (we don't need to to be a forum for our own disparagement, and there is zero doubt that he/she/it would be highly malicious and disruptive). This all shows the need for an Official Process for Username Blocking Review (and possibly of Other Admin Actions as well). ~~ N (t/c) 00:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wikipediasux was probably set up for no good. User:ThePedanticPrick seemed to be a fine contributor. User:Jesus of Suburbia presumably references Jesus of Suburbia. We've had drug references before User:TUF-KAT used to be User:Tokerboy but I think he only changed name when he became an admin. Secret london 00:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh wait, we already have one. Borderline usernames like the above should be taken to the correct RFC area. ~~ N (t/c) 00:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The many positive contributions of User:Wikisux in 2004 cast into doubt your assertion that "there is zero doubt" that User:Wikipediasux would be "highly malicious and disruptive". Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 00:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I didn't know about that. I still think that Wikipedia should not allow itself to be a forum for its own disparagement in this fashion, though, and would block that username. ~~ N (t/c) 00:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to bring the good ol' "when in doubt, don't delete" to the blocking policy as well - "when in doubt, don't block". Personally, I'd much rather wait for offensive usernames to start vandalising (which they usually do), and then block them for that instead. Blocking an user also takes out the underlying IP, as you probably are all well aware of - and not being able to edit anymore even without their allegedly offensive username has a most chilling effect on good-faith contributors, I suppose. Note that clear Willysocks (of which Kswheels isn't one) should still be blocked on sight. But then again, there's no doubt in those cases. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I mostly agree, with the exception that obviously offensive usernames (like ones containing "Nazi" or "fuck") should be blocked on sight, and the observation that the username blocking policy says that IPs blocked because of username blocks should be unblocked ASAP. ~~ N (t/c) 13:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

New speedy criterion

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We can now speedy delete some copyright infringement material! (rather than tag as {{copyvio}}). See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material. thanks Martin 19:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

101-6 a while since I've seen a policy proposal so widely supported.Geni 20:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yup, wonderful news, and nice to see this so widely supported even though it's in an area as contentious as CSD. Thanks everyone who worked on this! --fvw * 03:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Excellent news. Can I point out that User:Titoxd has made {{db-copyvio}} and {{db-a8}}. Can I also point out that those currently listed at WP:CP should probably be allowed to run their course since the tag does promise the editor 7 days to get themselves sorted. Further to that, can I advertise that the daily backlog at CP is comparatively small at present (only a couple of days) and that a few determined mops+buckets could eliminate it.... -Splash^talk 03:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Could admin/s from the US take a look please

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone check User:66.142.142.4's contributions. He's been a rapid fire contributor in recent days, and I have rolled back some of his edits. However, some are genuine, but US-centric, and need someone with local knowledge to look at them. Check his edit to Six Flags Astroworld. Doesn't quite ring true to me, but then it just may be true. Moriori 20:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I did a news.google.com search for "astroworld airport" and found nothing, so I reverted it. I'd say revert anything questionable he did with an edit summary stating that it was unsubstantiated. If he comes back with a link or source, great. Jdavidb 20:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Request Admin to fill in

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I'll be on a Wikibreak as of Monday, October 3, and I'll be back only by the end of the month. The thing is, currently I'm taking care of two articles that have been protected while editors solve their differences on the talk page: Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Great Moravia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). From what has been written there (the main discussion is going on here), it looks like there's still some distance to go before the articles can be unprotected again: there are two sides, both claiming the other is trying to push POV (one pro-Check, the other, pro-Slovaks) and calling the other side immature or childish. Early on in discussions, one of the parties requested the unprotection of both articles, mainly because the other side was somewhat slow in replying to the user's posts on the talk page (here's the request). I did not unprotect the articles, for even then it seemed clear that, if the articles were unprotected a revert war would immediately ensue. The tone of discussion so far confirms this.
Because I'll be gone for a longer period of time, I'd like at least one other Admin to keep an eye on the developments there, mainly because it is possible that an agreement is reached, or maybe some other type of conclusion, and the articles are requested to be unprotected. Or it could be that animosity increases and some sort of "intervention", or a mediation, becomes necessary. It's just a precaution, because I don't like leaving loose ends. It may well be that the parties would come to me to request a mediation, or the unprotection of the articles, since I've been encouraging the parties to talk from the beginning, and if I'm not there... Can someone cover this? Thanks, Redux 20:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Consistency

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The United Kingdom, and its four 'kingdoms' or regions can be slightly confusing to foreigners, and even to some of its inhabitants.

However, for good or for bad, the United Kingdom is the name of a country. England is not. Scotland is not. Northern Ireland is not. Wales is not.

So, for example, when I was looking up Formula One drivers earlier I happened to be curious when I saw a link at the bottom of one particular driver's Wiki entry that pointed me to a list of drivers' entries per country.

This is not very well organised or consistent. To illustrate what I mean, I will point out some of the drivers in this category.

Alan McNish. This driver is Scottish. Yet he is listed in the category of British F1 drivers, and not in the Scottish sub-category.

David Coulthard is Scottish. Yet he is listed in sub-category of British drivers, and not in the main British category.

Eddie Irvine is Irish. Yet he is listed in a completely different section which isn't a sub-category of British drivers, nor is he listed in the category of British drivers.

Jenson Button is English. Yet he is listed in the British category, but not in a sub-section of English drivers.

I think that one category should be made for all British drivers, and a decision should be made as to whether to keep all British drivers together, or create sub-categories for each region of the UK. It took me longer than it perhaps should have, to find David Coulthard for example, as he is organised differently. Eddie Irvine isn't even in the British category, so people might assume this driver is missing from the encyclopedia.

I would guess that its not just Formula 1 that is affected by this inconsistency. I propose that some kind of standardisation or guideline is drawn up to help keep entries on all things British, consistant.

216.16.218.43 00:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Note that much of the inconsistency follows from the ambiguous meaning of "country": in some cases it has been used as if it means "sovereign state" and in others as if it means "geographical region". There is currently no agreement on Wikipedia as to how we should be using it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

This specific example has been discussed previously. See Wikiproject Formula One#Flags. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Results. (SEWilco 04:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC))Reply

There is indeed much inconsistency across the categories. And McNish does not even appear in the general racing driver list (now added). I see no problem with a driver being listed in both British and Scottish categories, as Jim Clark already is. Such multiple category listing is common in WP and helps users find articles. The problem is to iron out inconsistencies, such as Coulthard, Irvine etc missing from the main British category. There is currently no English or Northern Irish sub category, but if someone wants to create these and categorise the drivers accordingly I am all in favour. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have now resolved some of the anomolies, but there is probably still much to be done. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Messages to me from User:Alien2, please take a look

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Not long ago, I blocked the pagemove vandal Jayh2724 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I blocked the username, and as you all know, this causes the underlying IP address to be temporarily blocked as well, although the admin applying the block cannot access any information about what that underlying IP address is, or even what ISP or part of the world it is in. It turned out the underlying IP was from a Singapore ISP and various people complained that they suffered "collateral damage" [27]. I think this issue has been discussed before: should there be a way to block a username without blocking the underlying IP, or should the blocking code perhaps have a little more smarts and know which IPs are pool addresses and which aren't. This may be more of an issue for Asian ISPs, since that part of the world has fewer IP ranges available.

However, the main thing I'd like to draw folks' attention to is a couple of odd and hard to understand messages from Alien2 (talk · contribs), namely [28] [29] [30] who seems to be trying to make some connection between Wikipedia and the Bali bombing of a couple days ago, including this quote "Those terrorist started bombing on my sign" [31]. I think he's joking or being silly, but I suppose I'm obligated to bring it to everyone's attention. Take a look and maybe see if someone can figure out what to make of this user and his postings. -- Curps 01:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I imagine that Wikipedia is quite low down the list of recruitment causes for islamic extremism. If we get to be as important in world affairs as Israel/Palestine and Iraq then maybe we can start to takes these things seriously.. Secret london 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, I don't believe he's serious, but these are humorless times and I felt obligated to at least bring it to other people's attention. -- Curps 03:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

GNAA VfD exemption notice has been removed

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

User:Gmaxwell decided to remove it - his edit was that it is a load of "bullshit". This is incorrect. Relisting the GNAA article should be counted as a disruption of Wikipedia and editors dealt with thusly. I have readded the notice: I am asking admins to keep an eye on the talk page in case it is removed again.

Please note that the exact edit is here and the edit comment is: "Thats a load of bullshit, anyone who takes such an action against a good faith VFD would be called out for deadminship." Ta bu shi da yu 02:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think far the best thing for us all to do is panic. We should start a ForestFire, immediately. Since 8 seperate policy proposals and their talk pages were insufficient panic last time, we had better start with at least 9 proposals and blind panic this time. Supporters?-Splash^talk 02:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm perosnally going to go use the Random Page feature to find an article to panic on. Snowspinner 02:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I believe the article is at a happy medium now. People will keep it from being listed at AFD de facto and people will keep it from becoming an FA de facto. We just can never win, unless someone decides to merge it to Slashdot trolling. Zach (Sound Off) 03:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ya. Best to keep the notice on the article. Have talked to Gmaxwell on IRC and he just copy-edited the notice. All is now good. - 203.134.166.99 07:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Unfree images update

Latest comment: 20 years ago13 comments10 people in discussion

It was on September 17 that Jimbo added the new speedy deletion criterion allowing unsourced and unlicensed images to be deleted on sight. He said "I am hopeful that a major push to sort through these two categories with an aim of eliminating everything in them can be completed in two weeks". In the 2 1/2 weeks since then, the size of the unsourced images category has gone down from 12603 to 10217. Coffee 05:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well then we should finish a little before Christmas. Dragons flight 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The Untagged images maintenance task is probably having a counter-effect at the moment. Many new images are likely being added to the categories to partially offset the gains. RedWolf 06:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I suspect that the bulk of the unsourced images on the 17th weren't tagged as such - if you pick a random selection of images from that category, note that many of them were only tagged in the last couple of days. There's certainly been a lot more than 2,400 images deleted under this policy. Shimgray | talk | 07:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I spent a few days not deleting anything, because image loading was so slow and unreliable. --Carnildo 07:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am however getting increasingly annoyed to find pages with broken links because someone's deleted an image but not checked where it was used. If you delete an image, you really must also edit all articles which use it, and remove the broken links. -- Arwel 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've been using Special:Unusedimages as my venue of choice rather than the Categories themselves. Since it is ordered by date of upload, this allows me to focus on images that are both old and unused. In any given 100 of these it seems about 1/2 are deletable under CSD I3, I4, or I5. By skipping those that indicate PD or GFDL in the edit summary, it goes fairly quickly at finding the rotten stuff. Of course, the other advantage is that I don't have anything to remove from articles and considerably less chance of pissing people off early in the process of enforcing the new speedy criteria. Dragons flight 13:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You know, Jimbo has the power to dictate policy, not stop time. If it takes us more than 2 1/2 weeks to carry out his bidding, then it takes us that long. That he didn't anticipate the scope of the problem isn't something for us to get bent out of shape about. ;-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I will hazard that at least part of the reason (or, at least, my reason) for not rolling up my sleeves in these categories is/was the hoo-hah over talk-pageing users. It was/is unclear if DeletingAdmin is actually expected to drop 10,000 talk page messages, wait a week, and then start deleting images or not. It was also plain that, even when explained to them, many users were unhappy with 'their' images being deleted: admins didn't receive enough support because other admins were wanting them not to delete until talk pages had been messaged. So people aren't deleting as many of them as they might. Or, at least, I'm not.-Splash^talk 13:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The problem here is that the original uploader is often the only one who has the image description page on his watch list, so when you add {{nosource}} to that page, it is not very visible. One way to correct for this is to notify the uploader; still that's only one editor (who may not be active this week anyway). Best solution is to remove the images from the articles they are on (this has to be done anyway), which will be seen by many editors, wait a week, delete image. The original uploader is not the only one with an interest in the image, who may update the source information... Dragons flight's suggestion of working from Special:Unusedimages looks like a very good idea. Eugene van der Pijll 14:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Even if you have "Add pages you edit to your watchlist" ticked, your uploads only go on your watchlist if you manually hit "watch" or edit the description after upload. - SoM 14:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've also been working on image deletions at Special:Unusedimages. CSD I4 and I5 actually make the majority of those images speedyable, which is a lot of fun. In the past few weeks the number of unused images has gone done from over 43,000 to now just below 36,000 – quite a sizable dent. I've been very hesitant to actually remove unsourced images from a page to have them deleted. What we should do is get a list of the 10,000 or so images in the category, remove them all from articles with an edit summary like "rm unsourced/unlicenced images", wait for a week, then delete them if they're still unsourced/unlicensed. Coffee 14:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have started on {{nosource}} to orphan images with the edit summary "removed unsourced image; please supply source at Image:Foo or it will be deleted, and on the image description page I've noted the date that I've done this. Let's see if this gets some reaction. Eugene van der Pijll 15:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Brian0918's instant blocks

Latest comment: 20 years ago33 comments19 people in discussion

Brian0918 has taken to blocking users after their first vandalism (or in many cases, newbie tests); This doesn't seem appropriate to me but his response is that I should just unblock them if I disagree. What do others think of this? --fvw * 14:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

This same issue, with the same response (you can unblock them yourself) has occurred regarding overzealous username blocks (like "Kswheels" and "Nazira"). Block wars are bad, as is scaring users off - which will happen. We need some sort of big reminder saying "IF IN DOUBT, DON'T BLOCK".~~ N (t/c) 14:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Unblock them. Instant blocking is used on the Norwegian Wikipedia for example due to lack of admins (the few that are there have other things to do than to hand out warnings), but it is not something we endorse at the English Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yup, I think we've consistently held here that users should always get a polite warning first. Either the lowest applicable test message or something suitably polite. Then if they do it again you have established intent and a block is fine. Usually though you'll find they won't do it again after a polite warning. Pattern vandalism/obvious sockpuppets is different of course. - Taxman ^Talk 14:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Concur with the others, strongly enough that I'm going to go through and unblock anyone who wasn't warned (unless someone else has done it already). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC) (Looks like I've been beaten to the punch.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is your choice to be kind to vandals, including the user who created a fake person and injected fake content about that person into other articles. I was simply following the Blocking Policy's statement that 'Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses whose users vandalise Wikipedia'. I violated nothing. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 15:23

Sorry about the "sneaky bastard" comment. The user was trying to create a fake person and was implementing it in the encyclopedia (such as listing the person under something like "1951 births"). Since this can seriously damage our credibility, I rightly blocked the user for longer (although that's arguable if it's a dynamic IP). In any case, it has always been my choice (as the Blocking policy says it can be) to block users for 24 hours for each of their vandalisms. 24 hours for a user whose only contribution is to blank George W. Bush or John Kerry is nothing, as they were unlikely to contribute anything useful anyway. Chances are that by the time you go through sticking test templates in, their IP has already been moved on to another user, someone who might want to contribute legitimate content but freaks out at the warning left on their talk page. Blocked users can still view any article on Wikipedia. I feel and have seen others agree that we take vandalism too lightly, often attacking those who stop vandals rather than the vandals themselves, as if they weren't doing anything wrong. Feel free to attack. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 15:04

Instant blocks of anybody not obviously a sockpuppet of a banned user are inappropriate. Biting the newbies is not to be allowed. Lots of perfectly good editors started out their careers at Wikipedia with a petty vandalism. Even someone who blanks a page may have done so accidentially. Seems to me that someone is not doing a very good job of assuming good faith. Kelly Martin 15:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

What does assuming good faith have to do with users who blank articles or create garbled content??? That's completely unrelated. This is vandalism, not a misunderstanding. I can't assume that in the future they'll be good editors, because... I don't know the future. That is why "assume good faith" doesn't apply to vandalism. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 15:11

And we have five test templates specifically to make it easy to warn for vandalism. Work through them, then block when you give test5. Pak aran 15:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Read my first comment above. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 15:18

We read them. Unless the pattern/sockpuppet is blatantly obvious, warn them politely first, then block if they keep it up. Pretty much covers all the bases of minimizing vandalism, not biting newbies, and blocking actual problem editors. - Taxman ^Talk 15:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You don't know who did or didn't read them. I had added some new content which directly replied to what he said, so please don't make blanket statements. If people here seem to be in favor of blocking problem editors, why was the person who created a fake individual unblocked, or the person who has been blanking pages for the past month? This seems contradictory. Or are you just assuming bad faith on the part of the person trying to stop vandalism? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 15:41

Yes I should have used I instead of we, but you seem to be taking this too personally instead of listening to the overall message. This from an admin that thinks we are overall way too lenient with problem editors. There is a difference with new editors though. If you had politely warned all the people you blocked they would probably not get unblocked. The warning essentially demonstrates intent if they do it again and makes the block an easy call. The sarcasm below (later removed?) could stand to be toned down and so could marking your responses here as minor edits, which they aren't. That said, if someone is obviously repeatedly vandalizing, I don't support unblocking them either. They still deserve a warning or at least an explanation though. - Taxman ^Talk 15:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Use caution if you unblock. In some cases the blocking admin may have more background information or context, and may be able to recognize that the "newbie" is clearly a returning sockpuppet, in which case they've already gotten their warning in their previous incarnation and don't need any new ones. However, if you just wade in and look only at that one sockpuppet's contributions without knowing the context and background and prior incarnations, you might mistakenly unblock. "Assume good faith" doesn't only apply to the vandals and newbies, it also applies to the intentions of the admin who applied the block.

I would also add that a "newbie" vandal who heads straight for some obscure page in Wikipedia or Template namespace is quite probably not a newbie at all, and again a warning may be superfluous, though usually it's best to err on the side of caution and give a warning anyway.

Finally, in a disturbingly large number of cases when it's necessary to block indefinitely, you look back at the contribution history and see some petty vandalism a month ago and they got blocked for 24 hours, then they come back and do something more serious that warrants an indefinite ban. Today's example: Obesity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the original incarnation of what we now know to be the very persistent Obesity/Girls Aloud/Manchester/The Bad Tax Man/@John Moores vandal. -- Curps 15:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Vandals are individual people with individual intentions. They are not all on the edge nut jobs just waiting to be blocked so they can go crazy, and they are even less likely to become regular, productive contributors. I am simply going by what I see. It is and has been my choice (as granted by the Blocking Policy) to block a vandal for 24 hours for each vandalism. That people are just starting to notice this after so long is their concern, not mine. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 16:09

In the light of all this, I think it's pretty ironic how, when I blocked Brian for 3RR of GNAA, he was unblocked because I didn't warn him... ;-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it was not a 3RR violation, at least according to the person who unblocked me. But feel free to continue spinning. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 16:09

There is nothing wrong with blocking without warning. --Golbez 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

well yes there is. It can upset people who were mearly testing stuff and you also lose all those waring messages on use talk pages that can come in handly if they continue to vandalise stuff.Geni 17:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't block people for testing. I block people for vandalizing. Often without warning. Why should they get five warnings? Thank me for what I do, it makes this place bearable. --Golbez 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

while I feel five is excessive (I give two test and test3) warnings are an effective way of saying "oy I saw that" which can often save on blocking.Geni 00:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

We should all take a deep breath here (OK, one, two, three... release) and take things into perspective here. We are here to discuss the blocks, not to stress each other out, so let's try and be polite. In my opinion, it should be up each admin to decide whether an IP address warrants an immediate block, or requires warnings. For IP addresses where I clearly see malicious intent (i.e. inserting graphic pictures into main page articles), I've done 24 hour blocks without warning. However, if I beleive it is newbie testing, with no bad intentions, then I go through the "test" system. Sometimes, depending on the seriousness, I start with "test2" or "test3". In this case, though, for blanking the George W. Bush article, I would have started with a {{blanking}} template, and then escalated the warnings if s/he continued. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't give any warning to people who have vandalised more than a few pages. I do give warnings to people if the vandalism was potentially a test or if it was their first offence. While there is an aruement that we don't want to scare away new editors, I do still think it is insane to give 5 warnings, how many people have been warned more than once and gone on to become positive contributors? I think firmly asserting that we do not tolerate and kind of vandalism is the only way to maintain our credibility.

Then again I think letting people edit anonymoously is crazy as well. But thats a different matter. Martin 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

In the future I will use the properly-named test templates correctly. If the edit can be construed as a test (such as sticking in Example.jpg or something similar), then I'll warn. If the edit is the blanking of a page, it is clearly not a test, and I will block for 24 hours. Anything that I don't believe can be considered a test will be considered vandalism, and individuals will be blocked accordingly. Others have different views on when/when not to block. That's fine. They can unblock anyone I block. As we have already seen, this has led to 2 repeated/sneaky vandals being unblocked, as a result of assuming bad faith on my part for following my own guidelines, as the Blocking Policy permits. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 19:05

There isn't any assumption of bad faith. I think they're saying that you are using the wrong guidelines. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Would you have called this a test? Probably not. Now check the next edit. It's not always clear what is a test and what isn't. Even when a user is clearly vandalizing and we act against them with haste beyond what is required to protect the commons we often create negative emotional attachment or convert whatever positive feelings they had to strongly negative ones. Most vandals are being foolish, not trying to harm. Blocks run the risk of creating enemies, and they give people a nice puzzle to fight against. We should use them in a way which minimizes damage. The increased damage in tossing out a warning before issuing a block is small compared to the harm of even a slightly increased chance creating another long term wikipedia enemy. Also, people are incorrectly blocked all the time. For example, if they are the second one to add a {{db|}} to an article with an attack-name they might recreate it and be seen by someone else as a vandal. Our users are all volunteers, so we should treat them all with respect, even those who do not deserve respect. This doesn't mean we don't act to stop vandalism, but it means we need to respond appropriately for the threat. So, If you are not interested in wielding blocks with patience and precision, then you should leave that job to someone else who is... --Gmaxwell 20:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just became an admin within the last three days. I've never blocked anybody. Up until now, my ONLY tools to use were the warnings, manual reverts, and calling admins for help. Yet I've been waging what I felt was an effective war against vandalism. See, for example, the case from last week of 206.162.152.82 (talk · contribs) and Delmontejuicebox (talk · contribs), who I assume to be either the same person or two kids sitting next to each other in a high school (or nursery school) computer class. I found vandalism, I reverted, I warned, they got mad and vandalized some more, and eventually an admin blocked them. It was not instantaneous, but it was fairly quick and effective.

I DO want to see more prompt and certain response to vandalism, but I think that can mostly be summed up by applying the existing policies with more certainty and rapidity. While I certainly think there are times an instant block is the obvious solution, I do not think it's appropriate to skip the warnings because the warnings themselves seem burdensome. If a vandal is truly that big of a problem you will pass through all of the warnings very quickly.

It's a bit like being Shakespeare. Shakespeare could get away with violating "rules" for English poetry, but only because he was a master of those rules. People shouldn't be stepping out of the normal blocking procedure, IMO, unless they are experts at using said normal procedure.

I do not think page blanking can be assumed to be vandalism. It's the perfect example of a "test." Yes, it's destructive. But it's not too much to revert a page blanking, warn, and watch to see if the guy does it again. I would think that people who enjoy the job of fighting vandals would be glad to do it. In the same way, I think it's surely hard to assume that something is vandalism; the line between "vandalism" and "curiously pushing buttons to see if they really work" is a gradient rather than a well-defined border. Best to err on the side of caution, particularly since you can always come back and block later.

I do think it'd be nice to have a set of warning templates that do not assume quite so much good faith. When I see a user has been warned for vandalism eight times before over the past six months, it is not a time I want to say Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.. Jdavidb 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree iwth what Jdavidb said in his first paragraph. We have the tools we need to deal with vandalism, except that it's often just not handled quickly enough. One of the things that frustrated me about being a user -- and I imagine frustrates others, potentially enough to quit the project -- is that administrator intervention on vandalism issues seemed glacial or nonexistent. Witness WP:VIP; it's a backwater, hardly paid attention to. Peoples' requests languish for days. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism gets taken care of lickety-split. I can see why, of course -- people who go to AIV typically know when something is blockable vandalism, and are aware that people need to be warned. Lots of folks who go to WP:VIP don't know about either threshold, or somehow don't conform to the requirements of the page, so researching the claims and responding to them take a lot more time in my experience. But to me, it's just as important to be responsive to that page as it is to the AIV page, maybe more, because it's utilized more. It can be extremely frustrating, as a good faith editor, to report something to a noticeboard and feel like nobody cares or is paying attention (which certainly happened to me). Even if the solution is do nothing, it would make good faith editors feel better to know that someone's evaluated their report and said "sorry, not yet." So, all that is basically a longwinded way of encouraging admins to spend some more time at WP:VIP I guess. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I'm going to go add WP:VIP to my watchlist right after I get done here. Jdavidb 22:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I didn't realize policy gave us so much leeway and power. In my opinion, an editor should not be blocked unless they are given a series of warnings, that is, one to let them know they're being noticed, one to teach them what vandalism is (because we bandy around the term like everyone should know what it means, which isn't always true), and one to make sure they understand that they will be blocked if they keep it up. And I think they should be at least 5 minutes apart, so we know the editor got the chance to read the warnings. That's why I originally created the test2 through test4 templates... I found myself doing this every once in a while. I find most vandalism is done by newbies unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and many of them have the potential to become valuable contributors. It's really easy to follow them around, clean up after them, and leave them test messages, so I see no hurry in blocking. But it's pretty obvious in this discussion that I'm in the minority. moink 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well I agree with you Secret london 22:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so you're the guy who cursed us by creating five warnings instead of just one and a half! Just kidding. As near as I can tell, use of your warnings is policy or de facto policy, but policy certainly does grant us a lot of rules. Look at Category:Wikipedia official policy and you'll see that it includes Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Editors including but not limited to admins can and should throw the rules out the window ... when appropriate!! This goes with what I said above, that rules should only be broken by those who are expert in following them. Looking at the discussion, I don't think you're actually in the minority. I think most people do practice warning multiple times before reverting, although perhaps not everybody goes all the way out to five warnings. Jdavidb 23:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

My 2 yen: I almost always give at least two warnings before blocking, but there are cases where an instant block is the only remedy. It really depends. But if a user is clearly a banned user, then it's insta-block. Same if they're on a vandalism rampage. Exploding Boy 22:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Are there actually any cases of someone deliberatly (i.e. not "test" vandalism) vandalising a few pages then getting a warning and then going on to actually become a positive contributor? Martin 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

We have plenty of examples of genuine contributors being blocked because of an IP block. As well as dymnaic IP addresses we have the famous AOL and Freeserve proxies.. Secret london 22:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, we do have a few editors who have been vandals, I believe this even came up in an (unsuccessful) RfA a while back. --fvw * 22:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah but any IP vandals who have seen the error of their ways after a {{test}}? I don't know of any, in fact most seem to carry on vandalising even after repeated warnings and a block. Martin 22:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in fact I've talked to quite a few regular editors in IRC whos first edits were playing pranks on Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that a few jokes here in there by themselves are harmless, the problem is that when you scale it up to the millions of potential editors we'd be overrun with nonsense edits. Some people don't think this out, so they decide it would be fun and harmless to insert a penis in Brittney Spears. It's less obvious who started with vandals, because people often do this anonymously, then get accounts after their first postive expirence with people on Wikipedia. People also are also wise to not jump up and admit their seedy past: although there is some evidence that we forgive and forget, it isn't strong.... We're not talking about highspeed / bot driven vandalism here. I think there is a good argument for block-first and sort out later in those cases. --Gmaxwell 23:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who went around doing active malicious vandalism for a while and then settled down (though it would be hard to tell, since much vandalism is done by anon IPs and most regulars register). Some would say User:Plato falls into that category, but I'm not sure he was all that positive an editor. There have definitely been people who did some little test insertion of silliness, and then accidentally blanked a page or two, and then figured out how everything worked and turned out to be cooperative. Really malicious people should be blocked, but it seems like Brian0918 and some others aren't assuming good faith, and are blocking very quickly some things that could be either tests or vandalism. moink 02:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It does not matter if the user intended to vandalize, to test, or whatever. Intent is very difficult to determine accurately, when it seems obvious it often isn't, and even once you are sure you've pinned someone's intentions you will have little luck getting widespread agreement in the community. Without community support you will have little luck enforcing a block, or at least you'll risk more 'rogue admin' accusations. The reason assume good faith works, and indeed the reason we're able to do any enforcement at all, is because we act on actions, not intent. By acting on actions rather than intent we avoid the entire rats nest of determining intent entirely. Good users do bad things too from time to time, bad users will act in mysterious and chaotic ways... it doesn't matter, if they harm the project we can block them all. ... When we see people getting blocked without warning, when there isn't a compelling reason like speedy vandalsim, then we must conclude that someone has blocked them based on presumed intent (since when would you block a good intentioned user after one edit?). No one can accurately determine intent, so blocks based on presumed intent rather than actions are more likely to be wrong, are unlikely to be supported by the community, and they violate the spirit of our blocking policy if not the letter of law. Yes, the process says to apply judgement, but it says that because we want to be flexible and to avoid bureaucracy. It is not a blank check. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Original research -- advice please

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

An editor (editing both as an anon. and as User:Dpknauss) has been doing extensive work on Robert Crowley (printer) and a couple of related articles. I began to be worried that a lot of it looked like original research, and posted a comment on Talk:Robert Crowley (printer) asking if that impression could be remedied. Dpknauss's response has been (in between the personal abuse, and the rejection of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as "utterly stupid, incoherent, self-contradictory") to say that yes, of course it's original research, so what?

The article is very long and detailed, and I'm in no position to edit it so as to remove the original parts while retaining the rest. I thought of taking it back to a clearly non-original research version, but that's a stub. Any ideas? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Material that is original research is useless to Wikipedia. In fact it is probably a negative. Give the user a chance to substantiate the material with valid sources, and if they choose not to, make it clear all the material will be reverted, not as a punishment, just what is in the best interest of the project. Of course the material may be correct, and if so it would be easy to verify with good sources. If the user refuses to follow policies, suggest somewhere else is a better place for their work, and carry it through the dispute resolution process if need be. An RFC could be successful, just don't give up on enforcing our policies. WP:NOR is non negotiable too. - Taxman ^Talk 12:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'll certainly keep trying — though I think that the presence of other editors might do more good than just me banging on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Mel, after reading your comments on the article talk page and User Talk:Dpknauss, it really appears that you are comming off hard on the guy. Had someone done this to me early in my expirence with Wikipedia there is a good chance I would have just said "screw you, I'm not going to help with your project anymore". It's clear that the user is trying to help, and it also seems clear that the user *is* able to help (i.e. they aren't some crackpot trying to add their own unsubstantiated pet theories). It would be more useful to get new participants to understand WP:NOR and why it exists and is important, rather than just bludgeon them about the head with it. --Gmaxwell 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that you read carefuly enough (or far enough back); I've explained part of that in response to your comment on the Talk page. I've been trying to get through to him for some time; the best I've had is patronising dismissal... he usually ignores me or, as here, is outright insulting. Sweetness and light is pretty hard to keep up under that pressure. Commenting on the Talk page only to reprimand me wasn't really very helpful, though — he presumably now feels vindicated in both his disregard for Wikipedia policy and his personal attacks on me.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Possible Willy on Wheels

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't where I should put this or who I should inform, but a W_on_W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today. I thought it looked too close to Willy on Wheels and an admin would want to check it out. One Willy on Wheels sockpuppet has already been created and block today. Psy guy ^(talk) 14:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

IMO, I don't think we should over-react. If he does turn out to be our friend Willy, Curp's blocking bot should catch him soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Agree with FLC, and compliments on taking it here before doing anything. ~~ N (t/c) 15:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Gabrielsimon back

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Gabrielsimon (AKA Gavin the Chosen), the block from his Arb case having expired, is back and editing under the name Gimmiet (talk · contribs). ~~ N (t/c) 18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is there anything in the ArbCom case prohibiting him from doing so, or anything else that admins need to be aware of? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Although the one month ban is over, he still has a revert restriction. From his ArbCom case: " Gabrielsimon is limited to one revert per day per article. In addition he is limited to three reverts in total per 24 hours. He is instructed not to revert war at all and instead engage in dialogue on the talk pages of articles." Enforcement: "Should Gabrielsimon violate the revert limit imposed on him he may be banned for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses." Carbonite | Talk 18:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Additionally: "If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional month's ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 6 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on this page of all bans." ~~ N (t/c) 18:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

two things. first, it should be notd that I tried to be the one annoucing myt return, but i goofed as to where to place it. second, i must say the log page will be slightly barren.Gimmiet 19:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's an excellent attitude. I can speak for everyone when i say that we'd love to see the log page completely barren. Welcome back! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:BigDaddy777's talk page

Latest comment: 20 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs) is currently the subject of an arbitration. Meanwhile, he persists in removing comments on his user talk page, editing them to leave signatures of other people on his own comments and botched edits. It is my understanding that this is a violation of policy. I realize it's probably hopeless, but should he be reverted?

Also, if removing comments from one's own talk page is indeed a violation of policy, can someone point me to the policy page that says so? I can't seem to find it. Jdavidb 01:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Removing coments from your own talk page is not a violation of policy, it's only generally discouraged (since it makes one look like as if he was trying to hide something). However, removing a warning from an admin is generally seen as a statement of the "I've seen it and I do not care" kind. --cesarb 01:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

(after looking at that page) On the other hand, if he removes a comment, he should remove them completely, instead of leaving the signatures. He did it after being warned. I will warn again. --cesarb 01:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked him for 24 hours for editing other people's comments into personal attacks, and I also protected his user talk page. Since this is slightly unusual, I would like for another admin to review my handling of this issue. --cesarb 02:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

At a cursory glance, I would have been inclined to take similar action. Wikipedia is for transparency and is no place for misrepresentation; I think you took the adequate steps to let this user know that their edits were contrary to this spirit. --HappyCamper 02:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Unblocked on email request (and WP:AGF). Feel free to block again if he continues with the misbehaviour. --cesarb 03:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think the addition of a large image of an lynching to BD's talk page is offensive, especially for someone with 777 in his user name. Guettarda 04:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hmm - actually it's User:Paul Klenk's addition. Guettarda 04:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Spelling incorrect, but I can't edit it

Latest comment: 20 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Not quite a bug, not quite anything obvious, so I'm giving it to you guys to sort out. At Special:Upload, the licensing category "Political Event Poster" is spelt incorrectly. --Spankthecrumpet 01:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. --fvw * 01:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just curious: where is that defined? I cannot find "Political Event Poster" anywhere on Special:Allmessages. --cesarb 02:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki:Licenses. Dragons flight 02:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why aren't some messages on Special:Allmessages? Earlier today I noticed that MediaWiki:Nstab-portal wasn't. ~~ N (t/c) 02:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It probably should be reported as a bug. --cesarb 02:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Done. ~~ N (t/c) 03:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Did you mean this one? --cesarb 03:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Recent e-mail exchange with Monty Sarhan, Cracked Entertainment

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I have recently been in communication with a Mr. Monty Sarhan, Editor-in-Chief and CEO of Cracked Entertainment, who has taken issue to vandalism to a bio article on him, Monty Sarhan, as he felt the vandalism wasn't removed expeditiously enough. He wished that this article was protected permanently to prevent this from happening again; I informed him that it was not possible to protect the article, as per our editorial policies - the vandalism was something of a one-off, and so a page protection would hardly be appropriate. I also informed him that we don't protect pages permanently. He wasn't satisfied with my response that I would keep an eye out; his e-mails were suggestive of legal action, and he felt that Wikipedia was being complicit in libel by not protecting his page. I have forwarded these communications to the Board's e-mail address, and thought that I ought to add a note here to let people know of the scenario. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk page) (e-mail) 03:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Team Leader, The Mediation CabalReply

- I have also had practically identical communication with Mr. Sarhan, minus the legal hintings. Joyous (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just love comments like "I don't like this article! I'm going to sue your ass!". Really, can anyone point me to any law which states Wikipedia articles about real persons have to be written in a favourable style, and have to be expressly approved by their subjects? — JIP | Talk 06:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
There is extensive libel law in the United States concerning defamation of character in print that could potentially apply - if the newspaper I work for printed some of the stuff that gets vandalized into wikipedia articles, we'd be in trouble. But libel law's application to online material is in flux, and AFAIK its application to a wiki has never been tested in US courts. That would be a very interesting case! - DavidWBrooks 10:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Eh. Libel law is hard to overcome. Even if something WAS a lie, unless the plaintiff can prove actual malice (and actual damage), the suit is basically thrown out. It's pretty hard to successfully sue for libel in the U.S. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

- The article has been pretty calm. Until my edit around the 1st of October, there was a revert of my additions, and I am changing some wikilinks now. Zach (Sound Off) 07:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  - Hey! I figured out something: the whole article needs a rewrite. Before I touched it, most of the text was copied from a press release from [32] (maybe copyvio version at [33]. Zach (Sound Off) 07:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Editing Mediawiki messages

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

How bold can one be in editing Mediawiki messages? Should it only be done by request and community consensus? Can e.g. temporarily changing "Edit this page" to "Edit this page 0M6 | 0\/\/Nz0R3D _|00" cause an immediate report of abuse of AdministrativePower? — JIP | Talk 11:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Did someone actually do that? :0 Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 13:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

No. It was just an extreme example of how editing of the messages could be abused. — JIP | Talk 13:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, if someone actually did something like that, with bad intentions, I would consider that abuse. However, if someone is trying to improve something, I would say go ahead and be bold; after all, not a lot of administrators, IMO, follow the discussion pages of MediaWiki texts. However, as always, there will be a certain extent to which boldness can go — for example, if someone changed "Edit this page" to "Change this page in whatever way you want", that would indubitably raise a community uproar. I would say use your common sense and discretion. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 13:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

During last April Fools Day there were a number of admins who edited the MediaWiki messages, and there was even some edit warring with other admins who were quickly reverting those changes. I think that one admin was even AFAR'd, but the ArbComm quickly decided, at least in that instance, that it was a one-time thing and unlikely to happen again. Before next April Fools Day admins probably should be warned that this is behavior that they should repeat. BlankVerse ∅ 13:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I hope that should read "this is behavior that they should *not* repeat"! Warofdreams talk 13:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

As a test, I briefly changed Mediawiki:Editthispage and Mediawiki:Edit to Edit this page, baby! and then instantly reverted my changes. But that didn't work, the edit tab at the top still said edit this page. What did I do wrong? — JIP | Talk 15:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Use of brief blocks on Arvanites

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Administrators who were watching WP:ANI last week may have caught the brief but very clangorous battle of words between some participants in an apparently trivial war over the Arvanites articles, and those who have watched WP:RFAR will have seen a related failed attempt by one participant to bring an arbitration case against another. The edit wars continue on the article, so I have issued a three-hour block on the three worst offenders, REX (talk · contribs), Theathenae (talk · contribs) and matia.gr (talk · contribs) for extreme incivility, personal attacks and edit warring. It's a controversial move so I invite review and possible prompt reversal of the blocks. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Tasks

Moved conversations

Announcements

General

New users log

The MilkMan situation

Special:Listusers

AfD for 3 September seems messed up.

Please help!

Can admins delete words from edit summaries?

Please fix forked talk page

User:Sam999

User:Uriah923 SEO block

policy vote

New speedy deletion criterion

User:JarlaxleArtemis indefinitely banned

Imitation of user on Expansion theory

image deletion

Improve this article about Wikipedia

Cheese Dreams sockpuppet?

WP:RM

Sollog

Iasson

User SPUI

Vandal on Hurrican Rita page

Infinite block of an IP

Urdu language, Bollywood, Bhangra

User:Joseph108 on Vishwa Nirmala Dharma

AOL IP Ranges

User:FlashAmI

Porn star articles

Jack Sarfatti dispute

Yellowikis

Version deletion

Copyright violation, Nablus and Shechem

Merging page histories

Jack Sarfatti/Talk:Jack Sarfatti

Winter Soldier Investigation -Unresolved Copyvio, opinions wanted

Request for vprotection

So, who likes deleting images?

AI Arbitration case

Still getting personally attacked!

SPUI and Freehold Circle

White Horse Circle

Would like some help on a AFD

Imposter of Uncle Ed's robot

New speedy criterion

Could admin/s from the US take a look please

Request Admin to fill in

Consistency

Messages to me from User:Alien2, please take a look

GNAA VfD exemption notice has been removed

Unfree images update

Brian0918's instant blocks

Original research -- advice please

Possible Willy on Wheels

Gabrielsimon back

User:BigDaddy777's talk page

Spelling incorrect, but I can't edit it

Recent e-mail exchange with Monty Sarhan, Cracked Entertainment

Editing Mediawiki messages

Use of brief blocks on Arvanites