Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ta bu shi da yu (talk | contribs) at 00:52, 21 June 2005 (→Protection of [[User:Enviroknot]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 20 years ago by 62.253.96.42 in topic General
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Tasks

    Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    The following backlogs require the attention of one or more administrators.
    Transwiki to WikiBooks, WikiQuote, WikiSource, and unspecified ___location.
    Requested moves, Vandalism in progress and VfD cleanup.

    Template:NoncommercialProvided

    This template needs to be updated to reflect the current ban on noncommercial images. [1] Could an admin please update this please? Perhaps a warning like the one on Template:Noncommercial? Thank you. 青い(Aoi) 10:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Requested Moves

    Would some generous admin take a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves? It seems to have grown quite a backlog. Nominally, pages get moved after 5 days of discussion, but right now the list of requests spans two weeks. I suspect this is symptomatic of the much loved Violetriga being caught up with out of Wiki events. (In the recent past she has done the lion's share of moves.) Thanks very much for your assistance. Dragons flight 05:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

    General

    Latest comment: 20 years ago119 comments46 people in discussion

    Cut and paste move repair holding pen

    There is currently a problem with deleting older articles, which sometimes makes it impossible to fix cut and paste moves.

    I have created Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen as a place to hold articles waiting for this problem to be fixed (so their histories can be merged). (I debated created a category for them as well, but decided not too - there no good reason I can think of for gunking up their histories.)

    I have linked to it from Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves; if there's anyplace else it should be linked from, please do so.

    If you run across more of these situations, please add them to the list there. Thanks! Noel (talk) 15:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    There's another list of pending history merges at Wikipedia:Requested moves#History mergers. You might want to merge the two lists and update the instructions at the top of WP:RM accordingly. Gdr 18:18, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
    Oooh, thanks for the tip. Will do. Noel (talk) 16:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    This apparently got done while I was off sick with the flu (just catching up on stuff now).
    It's worth noting that to some degree, the holding pen has been replaced with use of Template:Pending merge, which adds things to Category:Pending merge: you're supposed to move the page needing to be merged to {Foo}/history, and add the template to the top of that. Noel (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Is there a place for non-admins to report cut and paste moves so that histories can be merged? I'm assuming that the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen is just for moves where the block compression bug is an issue. The recent move of Stain (biology) to Staining (biology) is what brought this to my attention, but it might be a good idea to provide general instructions for non-admins on Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves and/or Wikipedia:Requested moves. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    No, as far as I can see there isn't; we ought to have a place (and it ought to be mentioned on the two pages you list). One suggestion is a new Wikipedia:Requests for history merge page; another suggestion is to divide Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen into two sections: one for these requests from non-admin editors, and one for the those cases which can't be done because of the block-compress problem, and don't otherwise fit into the {{Pending merge}} system. Noel (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I've drafted a new version of Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen that incorporates the second section; it's in my sandbox. Thoughts? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    That looks good. I'd consider chaning the title of the first section to Cut and paste moves needing repair or simply remove the word "Admin" - you explain at the top that it needs admin privs, and the current title feels unnecessarily wordy to me. Thryduulf 17:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Your attention please

    I forward the case of User:Weyes to the committee for review. While this character is, in my estimation acting in good faith, he/she/it appears to have an agenda which may be contrary to the interests of the community at large (namely repeated and continuing reversions in contrary to existing and commonly established protocls). While I do not necessarily believe that remedial action need be taken at this stage, this case should be forwarded to you for review.

    -- Marmot

    Please be more specific. --khaosworks 22:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

    In response to the request specified

    -Has made unsanctioned remarks outside the remit of a non-administrative user
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HolyWarrior
    -The use of talk pages to preclude free speech and rational debate
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/64.62.161.12
    -Obfuscation

    I believe this character (who calls himself Steven) would be best served by this committee, given his generally positive contribution to the community, and hence my referral to you as opposed to here whose main remit is with the common delinquents and vandals. I hope you will consider an appropriate measure(s).

    We encourage users to combat vandalism, and Weyes seems to do a good job of it. It is entirely appropriate for him to ask a user to refrain from vandalism or to participate in a RfC without being an administrator. Indeed, we expect users to do this sort of thing before we will consider them as suitable candidates to become an administrator.-gadfium 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Weyes' edits you have outlined look like excellent examples of the kind of behavior we would like to encourage. He appears to be doing a good job of following policy. If you have any issues, try signing in as a username and sign your posts with four tilde's ~~~~. Thanks - Taxman Talk 20:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    Looks perfectly respectable to me. You don't have to be a sysop to warn someone they might be blocked if they keep putting in nonsense - it's just that if they're not a sysop, they won't have the ability to do the blocking. Also, participating in an RfC is not the exclusive province of sysops. These examples actually reinforce my feeling that supporting Weye's self-nomination for admin status is the correct decision. --khaosworks 22:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    Please do not misconstrue what I am saying here. I think Steven is acting in good faith, however I do not believe a non-administrator should threaten a ban. It is of course appropriate to warn against vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.96.42 (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2005 (UTC)Reply


    I think it's fine and desirable for non-administrators to use {{test1}}–{{test3}}. I certainly did before I became an administrator. I don't think a non-administrator should use {{test4}} if one cannot actually follow up and block someone, and of course {{test5}} should only be used by an administrator who blocks someone (or by someone else if an admin blocks and doesn't leave a message). This comment is generic and is not intended toward User:Weyes specifically. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Thank you for the clarification. With this in mind, I refer you to the case of 'rookie' member Ozdusters. - Marmot

    What are you after here? It was rude behavior and he knows it now. And again, please sign your posts properly. - Taxman Talk 12:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


    I don't want to get into this discussion again, but I would like to make it very clear that I have never referred to myself as steven, nor do I intend to. --W(t) 12:20, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

    Suggested template for POV pushers

    What do people think about using this as a {{test}} template for new/anon editors that are making repeated POV edits? I know I've typed it on to a few talk pages recently, it also points out a useful policy that new editors may not be aware of that as far as I know isn't covered on any of the test templates:

    Wikipedia has a strong neutral point of view policy, if you wish to make controversial edits please discuss them on the articles talk page. Continued insertion of POV opinions into articles may be considered vandalism, it is likely that your changes will be reverted and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia

    --nixie 07:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Like {{3RR}} (I only thought of checking for that after I found myself repeatedly saying things of this kind), this sort of thing has to be used with care. Simple vandalism is easily identified, but why 3RR violations and POV material insertion are not allowed is harder to communicate.
    This template could be useful for the very clear-cut cases ("George W. Bush is an imperialist mass murderer") that nobody should be expected to get away with, but then again, you can file this under simple vandalism as well, as it's clearly done in bad faith.
    OK, all the naysaying aside for a moment, we can take a shot at this. In the spirit of being bold, I've created {{POVwarning}} where we can edit this to suitability. Since this is a "if you don't like it, you're free not to use it" template, I don't see this as reckless. JRM · Talk 11:25, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
    I'm extremely nervous of this template, as it may well just become a weapon to throw in POV wars. Why is the 3RR stuff included? There is no necessary causual link between newbies/anons inserting POV materials and their getting involved in revert wars, or if there is, I have yet to see the data. And there is certainly no clear policy on banning newbies/anons for POV pushing, or at least nothing I can find in the policy. A personalised message, suited to the exact circumstances, would serve much better, IMHO. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
    I agree with everything you say. I've taken the liberty of copying your remark to Template talk:POVwarning. Please continue further discussion there. JRM · Talk 12:56, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

    You might want to make it grammatically correct. Those are four independent clauses and need more than a period and two commas to separate them. Let's keep our templates literate. alteripse 00:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    You might want to look at {{POVwarning}}. JRM · Talk 03:06, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

    Ok, Mr. Languageperson gives it a pass. alteripse 02:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Is there a way to check when a user registered?

    Given the recent spate of impersonation, I thought it prudent to check the user list to see if there were any names close to mine. Of course my current account, User:Knowledge Seeker, and my previous briefly used account, User:Knowledgeseeker, are there. I was also surprised to find User:Knowledge seeker, User:KnowledgeSeeker, User:Knowledgeseeker2004, and User:KnowlegeSeeker (and even User:Knowledge lover), none of whom seem to have made any contributions. It is quite possible that I registered one of these by accident and forgot about it, although I don't think that's the case. I also realize that my user name is made of two common English words and is a common phrase so I may not be the only one to think of it (indeed, I was surprised to find it untaken when I registered). I am curious, though, if these names were registered before I joined Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    I happen to have looked into this subject recently for reasons completely unrelated. Technically it's not possible to tell when an account was registered, but it is possible to tell when the user last logged in/out, which may be good enough in this case. You do need database access for that, though. It's possible a malicious/benevolent user deliberately registered these accounts to facilitate/prevent impersonation of your account. JRM · Talk 06:39, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
    Thanks; I hadn't thought of that. I was wondering if I (or another administrator) should preemptively block these accounts, before they gain page move ability or are used for other vandalism/impersonation. But I wouldn't want to catch any well-meaning user with an autoblock, so I guess I'll just leave them for now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    you could register any variations that haven't been already created yourself to prevent malicious others doing so. Thryduulf 20:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I don't reccomend doing this. There are so many variations on a name that it is futile. BrokenSegue 21:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I was thinking of only ones like replacing lowercase l with uppercase I in names, or introducing/removing spaces, but differences like changing numbers I agree is futile. Thryduulf 22:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Vandalism investigations

    A couple of pages on my watchlist were recently vandalized. In addition to fixing the vandalism, I started to check the user's contribution list and reviewed their other edits for vandalism. So far, they have mostly been anonymous IPs with a pattern of returning to commit vandalism every few months. As a notice to future reader/editors doing the same thing, I've started adding a notice on the anon user page saying how far I took my investigation. My hypothesis is that if we can flag where the last investigation ended, the future investigator can start from there and won't have so much rework.

    Right now, I'm using a variation of this notice. Is there a better template already out there? If not, can anyone help me improve this wording? Rossami (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    ==Vandalism investigation== A user from this IP address has recently been committing vandalism against Wikipedia. The edit history shows that this IP has also been used by well-intentioned Wikipedians making quality edits. The edits up to and including the edit at <timestamp> to <articlename> have been reviewed and the inappropriate entries have been reverted. Future investigations may begin here. ~~~~

    Block not working?

    From the block log:

    08:55, May 9, 2005 UtherSRG blocked "User:38.139.36.117" with an expiry time of 1 week (talk:Main Page vandalism)

    But as you can see the user's contributions show a few bits of vandalism on the 10th and 11th. I reblocked for another week before I was aware the previous block. There were no unblocks in the meantime. What gives? - Taxman 17:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

    That is pretty odd. According to the log this user was never unblocked, but they do indeed seem to have made some edits after the block went on. Maybe some sort of database glitch lost the block? Curious. Noel (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    I just noticed the same thing with User:210.0.177.84 they were blocked for a year on the ninth but they edited today. BrokenSegue 03:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    What's going on with deletions?

    When I try to delete a page, I get an error message twice before the deletion takes. When I try to look at a deleted page, it takes FOREVER before the page comes up. No other edits are taking this much time. RickK 23:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

    Not sure. It's working for me now (two minutes after your post) but I was having a similar problem yesterday. Antandrus 23:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I'm getting bug slow downs on deletions and checking my watchlist--nixie 23:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Same problem here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, I get the same thing. At this point, I give it a few seconds, then cancel and try again until it goes through. Everyking 00:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Yup, similar deal here. One error, and then things would delete normally. Oddly it seemed to be exactly one error. No more no less. Every delete was taking two tries. Isomorphic 04:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    It occasionally happens to me, too, but about half of my deletions go through without problems. I didn't check the MediaWiki sources or study the setup, but as I understand it, this is just an indication of server overload. If the database request times out (i.e., the servers are so slow that they can't perform the request within some reasonable time, which itself is probably defined by the MediaWiki software or its configuration), the transaction is cancelled and you get an error message. For deletions, just retry; for edits, check the page history or your own contribution list to see whether the edit took despite the error message. Lupo 06:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    A wild guess, but databases are often limited by hard disk I/O. On the first try you probably succed in getting most of the needed database structures into RAM cache on the DB server (but the transaction doesn't quite make it in time). On the second try the needed DB structures (or most of it) are already in the RAM cache and the transaction finishes quickly. Thue | talk 08:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Over the last few days I've been trying to empty Category: Candidates for speedy deletion once a day. I've had this problem for about one in three deletes, sometimes taking up to four attempts. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:32, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

    Worse today: three out of seven gave problems. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    It's definitely a load issue, and I don't think the number of retries is anything but mostly random - I've had to retry up to 5 or so times on some of the redirs I deleted this morning. (I.e. there's not some bug so that the first one always fails, and the second always succeeds.) Noel (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    It's still a problem. Not a big problem, because I just keep trying till it happens, but it's strange that only deletes have this problem. RickK 07:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

    Deletion (e.g on VfD) housekeeping

    Can I remind people when they delete pages (e.g. from VfD) to please hit "What links here", and check for things that point to the page you're deleting? Redirects to it need to be deleted as well (we've had a flock of redirects to VfD'd entries on RfD recently), and it would be good to check for dangling links in articles as well. Thanks! Noel (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    POV-pushers with DHCP pools

    So once again (see, e.g WP:AN/I#User:SummerFR) we are having problems with POV-pushers coming in as anons from DHCP pools, which make it a lot of work to deal with them (and there's always the issue that a range block might impact innocents). So here's a suggestion: add another flag to articles which, when set, allows them to be edited only from logged-in accounts. We would set this flag only on articles which are the target of POV-pushers, and they'd be then forced to sign up for an account, which we could block. (Yes, they can sign up for another account, but that's still a certain amount of work, and we already have sock-puppets to deal with.) Yes, yes, I know this is a change to our policy of allowing people to edit without logging in, but it's a minimal change. Also, you can think of it as being a milder form of Wikipedia:Protection - and like protecting, we can always clear it after a while, once the problem editor has given up. Noel (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    GFDL non-compliance

    I've been corresponding with a Wikipedian (User:Amerindianarts) who is upset that his work is being ripped off by another site. Specifically, the site http://language.school-explorer.com appears to be using our content as hidden text in java code, so that it shows up in google searches but not on the page.

    When the user emailed the site to complain, they responded by trying to blank the Wikipedia article! (See the history of Zuni language.) Between their blatently abusive use of our content, and their attempt to respond by blanking our article, this is something we should not allow. This is a bit more egregious than your typical non-compliance case, IMO

    Also, we need to create a good system for GFDL enforcement. We have a well-defined system to avoid infringing on other peoples' copyright, but none for defending the copyright of our own writers, and that is embarassing. Isomorphic 03:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    You can see the ripped text by looking at the google cache. If warnings and threats don't work what power do we really have? We don't have a legal team to protect the content. I'd say just send more emails and hope they get scared. BrokenSegue 04:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, I guess I didn't understand. This website is mirroring all of our pages in this way even our ipblock list. This is quite a serious violation. BrokenSegue 04:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, and made more serious by hiding the fact that they do it. They obviously know they're in violation. We can't let this go. Isomorphic 04:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Although I agree that the blanking was an inappropriate act, I don't see that they're in violation of copyright. It clearly says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." at the top of the page, and has a link back to our Zuni page at the bottom of the page. RickK 04:59, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

    The violation is that you'll never see that notice if you go to their site. The text shows up in google, but if you click through to their site, it doesn't show up. Try it for yourself. Isomorphic 05:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I never get to the article when clicking through, and I can't figure out how to find it when I go the site. All I get is the Home page. RickK 09:02, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, that's the point. That's how we think they designed it. The articles are hidden in java code and never actually display. But google can see them, so they bring in traffic. Isomorphic 09:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think they are hidden in Java code - I looked at the HTML source I got back from clicking through to the site from a Google search, and the article text was nowhere to be seen. I suspect that they do is look at the source of the query, and if it's Google or Yahoo or whatever they give them back the Wikipedia page content, and if it's someone radom they give them their advertising page. Noel (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Is there any value in making Google aware of this specific sort of gaming? Pcb21| Pete 11:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Good thought. Yes, it would be worthwhile. Google tries to tweak the algorithm against various abuses. How would one go about making them aware, though? They have talked with us in the past.. perhaps we should ask Jimbo to send them a note? They pay attention to him, for sure. Isomorphic 16:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I think this is the correct page to report abuses like this. Should Jimbo send it? Or just anyone? BrokenSegue 17:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    the page for yahoo BrokenSegue 17:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I have submitted spam reports to both Google and Yahoo. Isomorphic 16:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    I might add that this article is listed on my website, stating that it is freeware to be used and not abused with a link to the Wiki article and referencing GDFL and gnu.org, so copyright infringement is a stretch. However, whatever language school explorer is doing is abusive according to GFDL, and is dangerous for intellectual property rights all across the web. I have contacted Google twice in the past week in regard to this issue and they are usually very consciencious taking action towards those spamming the search engines and using hidden text. I think that perhaps a word from Jimbo would carry more weight. It may not be java code. It could be an ROR format where only the robots can find their text pages. That is purely speculation since searches for their ror.xml and articles.xml still bring up the home page (without a 404 error). Amerindianarts May 15, 2005, 18:14 CST, I think. What is UTC?

    • Oops. I just noticed that this page is for administrators only. Sorry.Amerindianarts
      • Actually, it isn't. As some text buried somewhere near the top of the page says However, any user of Wikipedia may post here. We're not an elite club, just normal editors with some additional technical means and responsibilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    In regard to the comments made above thus far, I would like to summarize: It doesn't matter how school-explorer is doing what they are doing. The point is that Wikipedia articles are freeware but school-explorer is restricting access to the information while using it for self-promotion with profit as an objective. Mirror sites are for profit, they have click-through ads everywhere, but they do not limit access to the information they promote via search or webpage content. School-explorer limits access to the information they advertise to provide and because it is freeware that is this information, they are blantantly non-compliant according to GFDL standards. Freeware is no longer free. It is unethical, maybe criminal, definitely non-compliant, and I cannot emphasize enough the precedent this may set across the web in regard to intellectual property rights if it is allowed to go unchecked. School-explorer could fix the problem by simply putting the text on their pages with the proper references, but have yet to do so. Maybe administrators should deluge Google with complaints expressing these very sentiments. Amerindianarts 01:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Was everyone aware of this:Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter? Does someone have the contact information for the infringer? If you have the correct legal address and those violation letters have been sent I could probably get a follow up letter from a law firm sent and I'd also be willing to do the legwork to sue on behalf of the Foundation if it came to that. Copyright law says I can sue in my jurisdiction. Costs alone for them to defend a suit like that would mean they would likely fold quickly. Since they are infringing multiple copyrights, they could be sued from every jurisdiction if need be. Filing fees for a small claims lawsuit are about $60, which the Foundation could easily afford. - Taxman 20:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm, I'll have to research this more. It may have been wishful thinking that I can sue them here. It's also possible I'd have to sue in district or circuit court, with slightly higher fees, but that's not a big deal. Perhaps someone in the Netherlands can call the below number and/or dig in more to find their real ___location. The link at the bottom of their pages "by WEC" links to what presumably is the pages designer http://www.w-e-c.nl/ Their contact link seems valid, and they may be able to get real contact info for the offender. - Taxman 04:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    I wrote jacques at w-e-c.nl . I sent him a copy of the GFDL non-compliance letter, but this letter does not fully address the situation, i.e. using Wiki articles as hidden text, so I had to add a postscript explaining that hidden text is unacceptable (which it is according to Google, et.al.). They may have the correct references on the hidden text, but this is still non-compliant. I also wrote the owner address below, which may be the same individual. Amerindianarts 18:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Whois search for school-explorer.com yielded:

    • ___domain: SCHOOL-EXPLORER.COM
    • owner-address: geen
    • owner-address: Web Exploring Consultancy
    • owner-address: Dhr. J. van Nes
    • owner-address: Boschdijk 256
    • owner-address: 5612 HJ
    • owner-address: Eindhoven
    • owner-address: Netherlands
    • owner-phone: +31.402801419
    • owner-e-mail: d58c00a5a30f97986191f070fe730acd-855895@owner.gandi.net
    • admin-c: DR63-GANDI
    • tech-c: DR63-GANDI
    • bill-c: DS145-GANDI
    • nserver: DNS01.IP2.NET 212.125.141.134
    • nserver: DNS02.IP2.NET 216.238.194.134
    • reg_created: 2001-08-16 06:33:19
    • expires: 2005-08-16 06:33:19
    • created: 2004-07-17 06:55:21
    • changed: 2004-07-19 09:52:58

    This may not be entirely correct. gandi.net is the hosting server in France with a server in New York (possibly) It is a maze. Amerindianarts 03:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    I have received correspondence from security at leaseweb.com. They state that school-explorer is a 'customer of a reseller from us' which is confirmed by my whois research. They want to help but want a formal complaint with proof. I suppose that I can send a formal complaint via email? Proof of hidden text is going to be the difficult part. Suggestions welcome. Amerindianarts 17:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    I hope you just sent the links people have given above. Then they can verify the hidden text themselves. Thanks for sending that and keep us posted. - Taxman 20:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, a detailed account of Google page results for keyword phrases from wiki articles and their links to school-explorer.Amerindianarts 02:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    The complaint has been sent. Anyone wishing to see it can email me for a copy. Amerindianarts 19:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Good. Keep us posted. Isomorphic 02:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    The only thing that has happened thus far is it appears that Google has removed MY site, where the original copyrighted version exists, from the index. It may be that more is going on here than meets the eye. Amerindianarts 20:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    It may be that what this site is doing is within the bounds of the GFDL. After all, the version of their pages they return to Google does have the credit to Wikipedia and the link page. The version they give to other people doesn't - but then again, it doesn't contain the Wikipedia text either! But you'd think that Google would want to avoid these scams, and I also don't understand why they'd pull your page. Maybe they either don't get it, or they are still trying to figure out what to do, or something. Jnc 21:17, 21 May 2005
    I haven't seen any credits thus far. I think that GFDL complaince means that access to the information cannot be limited. The "text" is not visible while they are using it, and the access is limited. Thus, it is not free. My interpretation is that this is non-complaint. I also wrote to Jimbo about this some time ago. Thus far, I am the only one to suffer and I'm doubting that Wiki really wants to do anything about this and my efforts are futile. Amerindianarts 22:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    The credits are in the copy that's cached on Google. IANAL, but I'm not sure about your argument about "access to the information cannot be limited .. The "text" is not visible while they are using it". Just because a site has some GFDL content on some pages doesn't mean that the GFDL rules apply to all their pages. GFDL rules probably only apply to pages that have GFDL content. Yes, it's really sneaky that the same URL (seemingly) returns different results depending on who's asking for it, but then again, plenty of sites do this (try looking at a page on a pay site when you don't have an account). I do think Wikipedians care, but it's not clear that we have any legal standing here - I thihk Google are the ones who ought to be really concerned, because if they let this hack stand, soon everyone will be using it. Noel (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I have to disagree. I think GFDL rules apply for educational resources and information. If you search for Zuni language and follow the school-explorer link there is entirely nothing about Zuni resources or information, nothing is offered in the way of instruction, plus it is a for-profit site. When I joined Wiki I expected to be edited, but I did not expect that the activity by language school would be tolerated. It may be best to pull my contribution and exert my right as a copyright holder.Amerindianarts 19:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Ah. Let me try to put it more directly. There's a good chance that Wikipedia has no legal way to stop them. I am not an intellectual property lawyer, so I can't say for sure, but that's my knowledgeable amateur first take (if in fact they are doing what I have guessed (above) that they are doing). Iff it's true that Wikipedia has no legal recourse with them, you can berate the Wikipedia community all you like, but it can't do what it has no legal grounds to do. Noel (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    PS: Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but you can't "pull" any contributions you have already made. With you, on the other hand (and I understand the irony here), Wikipedia does have legal grounds! When you hit the "Save" button, you are granting an irrevocable license for use of whatever it was you just entered. You can edit it out, of course, but you have no legal right to stop someone else putting it back in. Noel (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Well, after what I have seen, I'm willing to take my chances with whatever legal grounds exist. I certainly have nothing more to offer Wiki. Hitting the "save" button is, as you infer, a legal contract. Legal contracts work two ways, at least. If you assert GFDL complaince, it is expected, as is its enforcement. If I expect enforcement when I hit the save button... well, you figure it out.Amerindianarts 01:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    I still don't seem to be clear - let me try this another way. Your comments ("GFDL .. enforcement") seem to indicate a belief that language.school-explorer.com is violating the GFDL. However, if LSE is not in fact violating the GFDL, what exactly do you expect Wikipedia to do, and on what legal grounds? Noel (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    You are perfectly clear. Maybe I'm not clear. They are in violation. That is clear from my interpretation of the rules. I don't see how they can not be. However, It wouldn't be worth it for Wiki to pursue it on legal grounds. Maybe someone from Wiki with some clout has contacted Google, but I wouldn't know it. That may help. Maybe LSE has permission from WIKI to do it. I wouldn't know that either. One very essential point of the rules is that the text not be changed (don't know that it has, but don't know that it hasn't, it's hidden). Even more essential is the part that use is maintained for informational and educational purposes. If you search for "zuni language", "zuni worldview", or "zuni world view", you get three different descriptions, all verbatim from Wiki, but the source page of LSE has no info on zuni. It is not on their language menu. They don't offer any resources for instruction. There is not one single reference to the language on the supposed "Zuni" page, which is a file in their "/info/" folder. It doesn't take rocket science to see the violation. I'm through here. Finis. I am going to concentrate on persisting with Google. The others will follow if Google takes a position. Amerindianarts 11:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    School-explorer has changed their cache page from the article on /Zuni_language to the article on the /Zuni. They do reference Wikipedia on the cache page. I don't remember seeing the references on the cache page before. Still, however, the text doesn't appear on the search page results which is illicit, but Google doesn't appear to be concerned with it. Neither does Wiki, as I have gathered from email correspondences with the Wikipedia information team. 64.136.26.235 20:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Special:Upload message is wrong

    If you do not want to use the GFDL, you must upload your files to the Wikimedia Commons.

    This is nearly the opposite of what it should say. Suggested change:

    If you do not want to use a free license, you must not upload your files to the Wikimedia Commons.

    where WIkipedia:free license is either written or points to a suitable explanation page. Lupin 20:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    We have an article, Free content, which I think would be a suitable target, so we don't have to write a new article. I'm not sure your suggested text is less confusing than what's there now, though... Noel (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    What he is trying to say is that all images uploaded to the english wikipedia must be under the GFDL. If you want your image to only be licensed under fx a creative commons license you can't upload it here, but can upload it to the commons and have a choice of a free license (I don't know if this is official policy, but that's what is it trying to say). I agree that the current wording can be read the wrong way.
    You can edit the message at MediaWiki:Uploadtext. In generel, system messages can be found via menu->Special pages->System messages. Thue | talk 22:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    That can't be all true because fairuse isn't GFDL compliant. Also you can upload images under GFDL compliant coyprights like creative commons (or PD) and not license under GFDL. At least that was my impression. BrokenSegue 22:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    You can edit the message at MediaWiki:Uploadtext.
    No, I can't since I'm not an admin. Hence I'm asking here for someone to fix this (it's still hopelessly confusing and perhaps deleting the offending sentence would be an improvement). Lupin 16:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Why not? - the page isn't protected. Thue | talk 20:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    MediaWiki: is special - it's hardcoded in the programming so that only admins can edit any page there. (I.e. the setting of the protected/unprotected flag is immaterial.) Noel (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    I changed it to:

    -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    That definently makes the intended meaning clear. Thue | talk 20:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Help merging pages

    Hello, can I please request admin help regarding the discussion here: User talk:NevilleDNZ#Duplicate talk page?. The user accidentally duplicated his talk page and now wants to merge the two fragments and their edit histories. Thanks in advance for your help -- FP <talk><edits> 08:36, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

    Policy/guideline/etc

    With a couple of others, I've deprecated Template:Notpolicy and Template:Semi-policy. Most relevant Wikipedia pages are now classified in Category:Wikipedia official policy, Category:Wikipedia guidelines, Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank (which is proposed for renaming to 'policy proposals') or Category:Wikipedia rejected policies (or, possibly, Category:Wikipedia style and how-to)

    Since the admins here respresent a large amount of knowledge of procedure and history of Wikipedia, I would request that some of them here look over one or more of the categories, and see if there's anything in the wrong place. There probably isn't anything controversial, I hope. Thanks for your time. Radiant_* 09:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

    Category:Philippine Writers

    Can this be fixed ? There are two Category:Philippine writers The other one is accessible from the redirect of List of Philippine Writers. Please merge. Thanks.--Jondel 06:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    New image speedy deletion criterion

    This was added to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion based on the linked mailing list notice posted by Jimbo.

    Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission" which were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005. link

    Any previously uploaded images should be replaced with free images and then put through the WP:IFD process. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

    New page

    Could someone add my dog mine article to the newest article page? Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    {{PD-US}} and {{PermissionAndFairUse}}

    Does anybody know why Template:PD-US and Template:PermissionAndFairUse are protected? I ask because I was thinking about changing both of these templates' layout so they look more like the other public ___domain and fair use image tags, respectively. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Likely for legal reasons. All our copyright pages are protected for that reason, it's safe to assume that template pages which relate to copyright are protected for the same reason. I'm not certain what you want to insert, but I will gladly do it for you. Please let me know on my talk page. Or you can leave a copy of the formatted template on this page and let some other administrator do that for you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    This is low priority, so I won't really go into much detail now. But I was thinking that {{PD-US}} should look similar to {{PD-USGov}} and {{PermissionAndFairUse}} should look similar to {{PD-US}}, in terms of generally look and layout. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Both of those are heavily used templates. So changing them will kill the cache for thousands of pages. That could be one reason why they are protected. --mav 02:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Anyone else getting previews when they hit submit?

    It's really annoying. Especially if you then hit submit AGAIN and it replaces the entire article with the section you just created... - Ta bu shi da yu 11:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    ...or doubles the length of the whole article, or tells you you're in an edit conflict with yourself. Yes, it seems to have been happening a lot lately. ISTR someone writing on the VP about that, too. Can't help but wondering if it's connected with the peculiar things that have been happening when you try to delete articles - you quite often get an error the first time and have to do it again. Any techs here have any idea what's going on? Grutness...wha? 11:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I think something somewhere is out of sync.Geni 12:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    My sense is that the delete problem (#What's going on with deletions?) is mostly a server load issue, and I don't think it's related to this - I have been seeing this "preview when you hit submit" problem for some months now, and the delete problem just got bad recently (IIRC, at the same time when the block-compress delete bug was fixed, so there may be a connection there). There does seem to be a load-related component to the preview problem (i.e. it's worse when the servers are loaded) but I suspect it's a separate bug, just one that is also more likely when the system is loaded. Noel (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Yep, I have seen this firsthand. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. The thing to do when it happens is to hit preview before trying to submit again. That usually works - SoM 20:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply


    Cut and paste move

    Could someone fix the cut and paste move at Eastchester, New York? Thanks. --W(t) 03:14, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

    Talk:Elizabeth Morgan

    I'm not sure what to think of this situation, nor whether any action needs to be take. It's an article Talk page which seems to have been taken over by Amorrow (talk · contribs) (also editing from 204.147.187.240 (talk · contribs)) — see [3]. Should it be Userfied, or just ignored? It's not doing any real harm, I suppose, but it seems an inappropraite use for an article Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Move it to the user page--nixie 11:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I have done, and the User doesn't seem to mind, but has happily gone on adding to it. Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Date of the deletion principles poll should be updated on Wikipedia:Recentchanges

    The date of the deletion principles poll has been the subject of debate on Wikipedia talk:Schools/Deletion principles poll, and the outcome has been the consensus view that May 25 is too early to hold this contentious poll while the content of the poll is still in flux. Please could someone either remove the date from Wikipedia:Recentchanges or update it to reflect the current date of June 4th? (I am not an admin so am unable to edit pages in the Wikipedia: namespace). Thanks, Lupin 14:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    • By the way, what is a generic poll that isn't even proposing policy doing there in the first place? Radiant_* 14:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    yes the page has been vandalised yes it is going to stay protected. The profile of that page is simply too high.Geni 00:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Moving considered harmful?

    The text for moving a page says, "WARNING! This can be a drastic and unexpected change". Apart from the fact that it isn't nearly that bad (since it leaves a redirect and can be reverted by any experienced user) this warning, among others, is deterring newbies from performing page moves. Would it be a reasonable suggestion to reword it somewhat? I'm trying to educate n00bs in general on moving and merging, since some of them tend to VfD things instead and that doesn't seem right. Radiant_* 21:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

    Moving isn't considered harmful, but it is drastic. On the whole, I'd rather the warning stayed, in my experience new people moving when they shouldn't are more of a problem than them not moving when they should. Making the warning about copy+paste moves twice the size would have my support though. Also, having a move tab for new users and not-logged-ins with an explanation about moving and warning against copy+paste moving would be useful. What's more, it should be doable with only light hackery of the skin files I think? --W(t) 21:15, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
    One thing that may need to be enlarged is the "check for double-redirects" bit. I don't know how many times I've come across a page move (the moving of Time (magazine) comes to mind) and people haven't bothered to fix double redirects. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:16, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Please clarify what "double-redirects" are. I could guess, but would rather have it spelled out. Thanks. --Unfocused 04:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    If a A redirects to B, and B in turn is a redirect to C, you have a double redirect. The problem is that the software only redirects once, so if you go A, then you only get as far as B, not C. This is stop you ending up in an infinite loop. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, so we are agreed that it needs some kind of rewording :) (warning against copy/pasting sounds useful, too). But how does one go about editing this (or discussing such edits), I believe it's on Meta or something? Radiant_* 07:13, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Text on such pages is kept in the MediaWiki: namespace right here on Wikipedia. Mgm|(talk) 21:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • (It should be noted that there is already a warning about copy+paste at the bottom of the message, but I want it further to the top, in a font thrice as big, bright purple and making the hamsterdance music when you mouse-over it.)

    Another requested update to Wikipedia:Recentchanges

    User:Neutrality has taken his deletion principles poll back into his userspace in order to retain editorial control. Since this poll is a private poll which is not editable by the community (at Neutrality's behest), I think that advertising it prominently on Wikipedia:Recentchanges is inappropriate. I therefore request that it be replaced on Wikipedia:Recentchanges by some other survey or simply deleted. Lupin 03:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    I second Lupin's request. User:Neutrality had been asked to userfy his private "Deletion principals poll" because it was his own private poll, being conducted contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the community. (See Straw poll regarding Deletion principles poll.) He did, but left Wikipedia:Recentchanges pointing at the Wikipedia:Schools/Deletion principles poll, where there was a redirect to his user space. When the redirect was replaced with a note warning people that they were leaving Wikispace and entering User:Neutrality's individual userspace, and a link to actually go to Neutrality's poll in his user space, Neutrality edited Wikipedia:Recentchanges Surveys section to go directly to his user page. I believe that both of Neutrality's actions have the effect of disguising the fact that the poll resides on his user page, and not in Wiki space. This is misleading, and therefore, especially inappropriate. I make the same request that User:Lupin did above; remove the improper reference to this poll from the Wikipedia:Recentchanges page. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --Unfocused 06:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC) Reply

    Actually I just removed that entry since the poll has clearly been withdrawn to userspace and the originator has made it plain that he does not want any further work on it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Copy and paste move

    Could somebody move the history of Welsh Assembly Election 2007 to Welsh Assembly Election, 2007. Thanks, sjorford →•← 12:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Page with history but no text

    Paul Underwood exists as an article, but the text is missing from the database. This might have happened because it was speedy deleted and edited at the same time (17:14, 26 May 2005). The missing revision probably does exist but is deleted; could an administrator take a look at the top deleted revision and check if it's worth restoring? (The original speedied content was 'paul underwood' according to the deletion log). --cesarb 01:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Deleting WoW and WiC

    I am intending to propose the deletion of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels and Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Wikipedia is Communism. I have made my proposal entry on User:Sjakkalle/WoWVFD, but will wait for a bit more input. I am worried that if such a VfD fails, it will be adding another trophy to these vandals' already too big collection. Sjakkalle 07:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply


    Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

    As an experiment, I've created Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ("WP:AIV") as an attempt at a slimmed-down version of WP:ViP for getting quick administrator intervention against vandals. The problem that caused me try this is that on the whole, administrators rarely read WP:VIP, and it regularly grows so large that it's a major hassle to add things to. I hope that with a simple, archive-cruft free page the reporting of vandals and the handling of those reports will be easier for both reporters and vandals. Admins: Please add Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to your watchlist and check it regularly. I think that with a simple interface, and given that we have nearly 500 administrators, we should be able to get the latency between reporting of vandals and blocking (when necessary) down to 10-15 minutes, which would be a huge improvement over the current state of affairs. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. (The brief discussion that led to this on WP:VP is WP:VPM#Is_ViP_working.3F here) --W(t) 06:03, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

    • Shouldn't we add at least some info on what the vandal did? Finding the offending edit may otherwise be quite hard. Not as wordy as VIP. A few words should suffice. For example: "George W. Bush blanked repeatedly". Mgm|(talk) 10:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
      Yeah, I'm beginning to realise that I might have slimmed it down a little too much. Updated to allow for a brief reason to be added (without that nonsense-spammers that got speedy deleted were rather incomprehensible too).
      For some reason the vandals are on their best behaviour today, so no test run yet :( --W(t) 16:41, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

    User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin

    Just boasting, really; if you're not on this list, you're surely doing something wrong. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    • The page looks like a provocation to me, but I'm not sure I really understand the dispute between Mel Etitis and Sam Spade, so I might not be in a position to comment on this. Isn't this redundant with the RfC page, though? Combined with the "Detective agency" thing, it makes me wish an important user like Sam Spade settled his issues in the open, instead of making private pages to "investigate" and amass "evidence" against other users. Phils 22:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
      The page looks like the response of the provoked, had those in dispute with Sam Spade refrained from continuing to involve themselves with him and refused to escilate the argument, we wouldn't be in this state now. Sam's page is open, and he seems to be making ..too much of an effort to spread its popularity. I'd say we should encourage him to file RFCs but it seems that he already says he will be. --Gmaxwell 23:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Thats the whole point, I am trying to be out in the open about what I'm doing. An RfC is forthcoming, of course. I am in the information gathering stage. Click here to report admin abuse 22:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

    See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sam_Spade. Click here to report admin abuse 23:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

    I've now reported Sam Spade's abuse of administrators on his page. If any administrators are feeling abused by him you may wish to click above to report the admin abuse. 00:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    Thats exactly the sort of laugh-in-your-face attitude we need less of among admins. Sam Spade 01:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    • My appologies Sam, I didn't intend it as anything personal (a personal attack, or a joke against you or anything of the sort). Obviously my attempt at being light-hearted didn't come off as intended. Thryduulf 10:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Some might see this latest venture SS as something of an advance. After all, it's not long since he was thrashing around, threatening legal action because one of his private e-mails was made public by another editor, and now he's making public a whole string of mine. It shows that, contrary to all beliefs, he's actually capable of learning. Of course, in this case, the learning seems to have been somewhat faulty, but you can't have everything. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin/Mel Etitis Email. I had intended to ask your permission, but after you posted an excerpt, I thought that was good enough as a precedent. Sam Spade 10:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Oh my. This is laughable. Of all WP users, Sam Spade should be stopped acting as if he was some authority. -- 790 15:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    It also conflates quoting one sentence from an e-mail with reproducing a series of e-mails in their entirety. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apologies. Sam Spade 23:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    User and article talkpage abuse?

    I don't think this is quite in the remit of an RfC yet, but I have noticed a user (I use the term as there don't seem to be (m)any article edits as opposed to lots of talk page edits) making comments and then some minutes later deleting those comments. They have not replied to myself or others on their talk page, indeed they requested their talk page to be deleted. Sometimes the added/deleted edit is a fair comment to the discussion, many times it is not, including occasions where another editor has replied to their comment after which they have deleted that leaving the follow-on comment without a context. I haven't reverted (ie re-inserted) these edits as yet but would seek comments from others first ... --Vamp:Willow 11:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Who is the user, Vamp Willow? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    I was hoping to review the matter without specifying, but User:R Sio. Sample comment removals at [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. In the final one removing their own attribution but leave the comment, in the rest they remove the lot. --Vamp:Willow 20:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    Weird. Here he is deleting his signature from posts [10], [11], [12]
    He should definitely be approached about it. By the way, this report probably belongs on WP:AN/I. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:07, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    Please see my comments here and here. It's me, just not putting tildes.
    ok. so your/this user's intent is to "withdraw from wikipedia"a dn is removing all still-visible comments and attributions. In many ways this is why I was trying to keep this in the non-identifiable realm in that posing the question "Is a 'live' talk page mandatory for becoming a registered user?". In this particular case, of course, the removal of what is visible does not remove any of the comments nor attributions from the database and all can easily be located from the history of those pages, indeed it could be argued that removing them actually makes them more obvious as there will be two edits in the history not the one. Generally speaking though, it must be inherently wrong in the nature of a collaborative effort to subsequently remove ones comments and input, especially where someone else has responded to those comments or input. --Vamp:Willow 09:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    I've reverted where the user removed votes he had cast on matters that have already been closed (VfDs, for example). I left a note on his talk page and suggested that in those cases, he replace his signature in the vote with [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToVanish This user has vanished], but leave the date and time stamp intact. I agree that the extra edits call more attention to his disappearance, but remember that this applies only on Wikipedia. Our content, often including user and talk pages, is mirrored by a large number of websites. Removing his signature will create a higher profile here on Wikipedia, but greatly reduce the overall profile. SWAdair | Talk 10:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    • Deleting comments and signatures can affect the readability of surrounding discussion. Anyone has the right to remove their email address from WIkipedia and their userpage in case they want to leave, but comments - once made - should remain to protect the validity of the discussion they were posted in. If everyone does this, some discussions just really wouldn't make sense anymore. Mgm|(talk) 22:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I'd say comments already made on talk pages are not part of RightToVanish. If you want to remove them don't make them in the first place. - Taxman Talk 23:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

    Don't Panic - Palm Browser optimized Wikipedia!

    Seeing as this glorious compendium is rapidly becoming a standard repository for all knowledge and wisdom, it seems that the ability to access it easily from any connected browser would be te most vastly useful contribution to society since the towel. For the most part the current site does the job, but what if you're on a Treo or WiFi enabled PDA? These are the hoopiest gadgets since the digital watch, and using them to access a PDA browser optimized Wikipedia would make them the closest thing to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy since, well, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy! Any chance of the collective Wikipedia community being a squeaky enough wheel in the MediaWiki dev group to make this happen? I should think there's some crossover in the dev community between these two projects...

    For that matter, I also feel that it would be only appropriate to post the words "Don't Panic" in large friendly letters on the splash page of this site, but that's another matter... Ganjuror 23:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Heh, and my wife was just commenting on how writing for WP sounded a lot like writing for HHGG. Perhaps all that's really needed here is a minimal stylesheet that would suppress most of the links on the left in the standard stylesheet. I'm not up enough on writing css to do it myself. slambo 23:55, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

    I sometimes browse Wikipedia (and occasionally edit it) on my wireless-enabled iPaq and find all but a few pages render adequately on my 480x640 screen (those that don't are the very graphic-intensive ones, which cause memory corruptions in Internet Explorer). For non-wireless PDAs, or for those with smaller screens, there is a downloadable version of Wikipedia in TomeRaider format, available at Wikipedia:TomeRaider database. TomeRaider isn't free software, but there is a crippled version available. The main drawback is that the Wikipedia database is rather large, and you'll need a substantial memory card to hold it.-gadfium 00:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply


    Main Page maintenance: ITN

    Greetings, Administrators. I was directed here from Talk:Main Page#admin help needed for news section. Please be encouraged to put Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates on your watchlist, as User:Trilobite has suggested. Your attention there would be much appreciated. Not everyone can edit Wikipedia:In the news, YOU can. Please help keep the Main Page neat and tidy and up-to-date. Thank you. -- 199.71.174.100 02:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Hey, thanks for the heads up. On my watchlist now. Phils 19:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Official Request for Study between the correlation of admins and freenode#wikipedia

    I just voted on User:Linuxbeak's RfA. I hd a comment to make:

    Comment: On principle, I will refuse to vote on any more RfAs until a formal study has been conducted between the correlation of the people hanging out in IRC://Freenode.net/#wikipedia and the people RfA'd in the past 12 months.

    This is an official request for a study to determine how many regulars in #wikipedia have been RfA'd in the pas 12 months. My hypothesis (which can be either true or false0 is that there's a number of popele who get rfa'd mostly because they are regulars in #wikipedia, and not based on their meritocrasy status, as a free software project should be.

    Project2501a 01:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    To all: I hang around on the wikipedia channel on Freenode ( irc.freenode.net , channel #wikipedia for those interested in joining) during the 6-8 months since I got a user account. I have noticed that people who hang around the IRC channel tend to get adminship easier than anybody else. mind you: this is an objection against the the process of RfA, not the people, not the channel and not the admins. Free (as in liberty) software projects hold esteem because of the meritocrasy status of the project and not on a who-knows-the-people-that-know-the-people status. In all cases, (I, for one, welcome our beer-drinking, beard-growing, long-hair-growing, computer-programming geek overlords! oh, wait, i am one.)
    Philis: I've been known to be handy with a compiler/interpreter or two. BUT
    : I just read WP:POINT (which i didn't know existed before) and, well, yeah, insert( long foot, wide mouth ) and let Eris do her job. Thank you all for replying though. I apologise for any inconvience i may have caused you. :) Project2501a 10:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I don't understand; are you asking for advice on how to conduct the study or are you saying you want someone to conduct a study for you? I don't really know how IRC works. If there are logs, you can go through those; if not, you'll have to spend time there and take notes (and it'd have to be a prospective, not retroactive, study). You'll also have to come up with some criteria for determining who is a regular and who isn't. Also, as this isn't a randomized, controlled study, even if you were to find a correlation it wouldn't imply causation. It could be that people who spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, get to know other contributors, and enjoy working with others are the kinds of people who spend time on IRC and who also make good administrators. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I may be in the minority here, but I was made an admin in the last 12 months, and I haven't a clue what this Freenode thing is. Perhaps that means I'm not part of the secret cabal after all... Grutness.

    ..wha? 06:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      • You and me both, Grutness...I don't even know how to use IRC (and I became an administrator a few months ago). — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • You two are not alone. I'm very likely to become an adminsitrator in the next few days, and I've not got a clue about the IRC stuff (and I'm not on the mailing lists either - I simply don't have enough time to read them). Thryduulf 07:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm number four on this list of the ignorant/innocent. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:53, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
            • Number five. We're half way to a minyan (I'm making assumptions about ages here, of course). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • Number six, so long as we're not Orthodox, because then I wouldn't count. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
                • I'm number seven then. also, I think it's perfectly normal you tend to vote for people you know and like, regardless if you know them from talkpages, irc, or meatspace. so, duh. I'll look at the study, though, for curiosity's sake. dab (ᛏ) 10:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I pop into IRC from time to time, (the Netscape browser makes this very easy), as do a lot of regular users. Indeed, sometimes I think there are more Wikipedia vandals on the channel than there are admins. ;-) func(talk) 07:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I must be fairly unusual in that I do know about the IRC channel, but in the nearly 2 years I've been an admin I've rarely used it - usually only when the 'pedia's fallen over and I want to find out how long it's going to take to come back... oh, and there was the time a few months ago when a user in Belgrade and I kept up a live conversation on that night's UEFA Cup matches, which no doubt confused many followers of the odd-shaped ball in the west! :) -- Arwel 00:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose the easiest thing to do would be to visit Wikipedia:Recently created admins, make a list of them, and ask all of them on their talk page whether they frequent IRC or not. Radiant_* 08:29, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you have moderate programming skills, and time and a minimum of bandwidth to waste, you could write a script that checks wether newly created admins were on freenode during a set period of time before their promotion. Once you have that basic functionality (you could probably do a lot of cut&paste job, since there is so much IRC scripting code available around), you could easily extend it to count the number of votes and compare it with time spent on IRC, etc. However, that would probably be overkill. As for myself, I had been on the IRC channel a grand total of 20minutes or so before I was made an admin, so I don't think it made a difference. Phils 09:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've visited wikipedia on IRC only 3 or 4 times since becoming an admin, so I'd also be on the list of the ignorant. Anyway, don't most IRC-names not correspond to wikipedia usernames? I can remember asking people who they were on wikipedia, because I didn't recognize their names. Mgm|(talk) 22:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm on IRC somewhat regularly, generally for short periods of time, but almost entirely after I became an admin (last October). This will give you some idea of the most active IRC-ers. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 03:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sure there's correlation between IRC regulars and people who become admins, but it's not a terribly big deal. People vote for people they know and trust, and IRC is one place where you might get to know and trust someone. As for me, I've been an admin for well over a year, and have never used IRC. Isomorphic 03:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • "People vote for people they know and trust". I don't vote for people whose names I don't recognise. As they and I are active in different places, I have no idea whether or not they would make a good admin or not. For example I viewed the Saw article for the first time yesterday, and in the entire history the only name that I've seen anywhere on Wikipedia before is RickK whose only contribution was a disambig link to Saw (movie) which he presumably worked on. Whether any of the other editors there would make good admins I wouldn't have a clue. Thryduulf 08:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Some newbie admin questions

    • How can you tell the difference between a page protected against editing and a page protected against page moves only? The clues of "view source" versus "edit this page" and the disappearance of the move button don't appear on the admin interface, and the logs don't help either. (In particular, WP:TFD seems to be protected against page moves only, but I only know it because the log says the protection is old and I've seen it being edited recently.)
      • Good point. I don't think there is one yet for admins. The separation of protection between the article itself and just moving it is fairly new I think. (I don't do a lot of page protections). Your option now is to log out, and if the move option is not there, but non admins can still edit the article, then it is only protected from page moves. :) You are correct, that is the case with TFD for ex. The protection from moves only is a good idea though, and I'd think a large amount of pages in the Wikipedia space such as FAC, etc. should have that. There is no reason to move those. - Taxman Talk 14:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • I think a "protected against page moves" note at the top of pages so protected would be a good idea. Do others think it worth a feature request or not? Thryduulf 11:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes certainly, non admins can tell if a page is protected from moves, we should be able to also. But it wouldn't need to be that much of a note. Even a simple (p) next to the move tab would be enough to let you know it was protected from moves. So the move tab would appear as move (p) instead. The same could be done for editing, to make it really clear what is protected and what is not. - Taxman Talk 15:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • How can you view the wiki markup source for a deleted revision? (In particular, I wanted to see the markup source of Template:Tooinnocent to add it to BJAODN, as I found it really funny.) --cesarb 00:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Look for the link at the top that says "View or restore 4 deleted edits?" in small text. Unless you click on the restore button, you can look at old versions just like any other history without causing the article to be restored. - Taxman Talk 14:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • I know that, but it does not show the source, it shows the rendered output. --cesarb 15:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          You could restore it, copy the code and then delete it. This link is Broken 21:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Ah, yes you're right, sorry. For the few times it would be needed to see a deleted page's source, BrokenSegue's method seems fine to me, as you have done, I see. - Taxman Talk 15:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

    Arbitration case - final decision

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck is now closed. The account "User:LevelCheck is to be blocked indefinitely as a disruptive potential sockpuppet. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 22:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    OK, I'm trying to not let this bother me too much, but A) the behavior I see looks pretty harmless and B) I don't see how you can distinguish a sockpuppet from a quick learner without technical evidence. I don't understand how a ruling like this does any good at all. Everyking 14:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    What part of the concept of "disruptive" do you not understand? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Um, how many potentially "disruptive" people are there on Wikipedia, really? By that logic we would be permablocking 500 users a day. Phils 21:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Drink! --Calton | Talk 21:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I agree I have a tough time with that concept. I don't consider it a simple thing. A person can be disruptive, but there are varying degrees of it, and moreover one might have some good work to one's credit which outweighs it. For example, Calton's frequent snide and insulting comments on various matters could be considered disruptive, but I don't think that alone is sufficient to ban him. Everyking 22:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Calton's frequent snide and insulting comments See Psychological projection. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, I know, you use that insult a lot. Everyking 11:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Exactly. Snarkiness and smartassedness per se are not disruption -- they are, rather, annoyance. Disruption is when snarkiness and smartassedness (not to mention malice) pour over into the mainspace. It's pretty easy for most people to make the distinction. Those people that can't learn the distinction or refuse to make the distinction are the ones that are made officially unwelcome. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I guess that means I'm marked. Uh-oh! Everyking 07:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:-Ril-

    I'm not sure what this behaviour counts as. I noticed yesterday, while going through the Speedy deletes list, that -Ril- (talk · contribs) had tagged a large number of articles as speedies, for no obvious or very good reason. I brought this to his attention, but had to stop editing for the night after dealing with only a few (I have a horrible feeling that many other articles were speedied by someone else who didn't look too closely at them, because I'm the only one who's warned him about it). To one of the articles, Capnography, he'd also added a "PoV" template, again for no obvious reason (it's a medical article, and his user page suggests that he has no medical knowledge). He gave no explanation, not even an edit summary. He's since re-added the PoV template three times, despite my pointing out that he has (or has given) no reason. I've looked up, and placed on his Talk page, a link to a search page at the American Society of Anethesiologists Web site, on which capnography is mentioned in numerous places, and I'm hoping that he'll give up.

    Even if he does, I'm wondering what this behaviour counts as (officially, I mean; I know what it counts as in the vernacular...). I've described it to him as getting close to vandalism, but is that a fair description, or is there some other neat and tidy term for it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Ril was User:Lir. This one probably is, too. RickK 23:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

    Well, he's still adding "speedy" tags to non-speedyable articles. I have to stop editing for a while now, otherwsie I'd try to rein him in myself. It sounds as though a permanent block is in order, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    He's made several hundred edits in the last couple of days. He's starting to worry me ... Where do we ask for IP checks? RickK 23:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

    Have these been articles that no reasonable person would ever want deleted, or are they more like standard VfD candidates that some people could legitimately think should be deleted? Of course either way excessive tagging like that is unacceptable, but I think the former is outright vandalism while the latter is more like borderline obnoxious behavior. Everyking 14:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    They're a mixture; they include Collegium Aureum and Dancing on the Ceiling, for example, as well as Capnography. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I asked David Gerard to check IP addresses, and he has come to the conlusion that this user is not Lir. RickK 04:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

    Fine — though he's still a menace. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'm also not very happy with [[User:-Ril-#List of Editors with no manners or social skills (*)]], nor with his signature. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:OnwardToGolgotha

    This user needs some attention for vandalism and extremely offensive stuff. Thanks for your consideration. KHM03 00:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    error in current anniversaries page for June 3

    In the selected anniversaries page for June 3, in the entry about the first long-distance power line, there is an extra e in the word "between". Would someone with administrative access be able to fix that? The page appears to be protected. Graham 08:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) That has been fixed. Now the pedant in me wants to change the word 'to' in the line: between Willamette Falls to downtown Portland, Oregon, to an and. Maybe i'm crazy, but ... Graham 11:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Backlogs

    Please take a look at Category:Wikipedia backlog; this is intended to list areas that require admin attention for cleaning up a backlog, such as WP:VIP presently. Radiant_* 13:58, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

    IP blocks and User accounts

    Under what circumstances do editing blocks on IP addresses affect users who have accounts, and try to log in? I'd understood that opening an account meant that you weren't affected by IP-address blocks, but it seems that that's not always the case (my recent block of 207.35.188.13 (talk · contribs) stopped Seahen (talk · contribs) from being able to edit). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    No, IP blocks also block user accounts from that IP. See Bugzilla Bug 550 for the wish to change this behaviour to just block account creation from blocked IPs. andy 10:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    This needs to be made better known, I think, as I've seen many editors telling anon users of blocked IP-addresses that they can avoid being blocked by opening an account, and I've followed suit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Sandbox

    Hi all; please be on the lookout for changes in the wikipedia sandbox. We've got a bunch of spammers advertising this site called "matchstickcats.com". After the phrase was banned in Wikimedia, the spammers started pushing another site which is directly connected to matchstickcats. Just be on the lookout; that's all. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 04:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

    Hey everyone, just to let you know that we've got a spinoff called newsburp.com. If you go to the site, it says itself that it's a spinoff from matchstickcats.com. I think we're getting the problem under control, but I'll keep a tally here of how many times these sites are mentioned. Cheers! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 10:56, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

    User: Mr Tan

    I'd be very grateful if someone could explain to Mr Tan (talk · contribs) that it's not acceptable to place the "cleanup" template on Zanskar on the grounds that he thinks that it should be organised differently, and that it contains (unspecified, and so far as I can see nonexistent) grammatical errors. He won't listen to me – in fact, he won't listen to anybody – and I know that a few admins have already tangled with him and beat a hasty and sensible retreat, but who knows, someone might do what everyone else has failed to (see also the RfC on him).

    I've asked three members of the arbcom if they think that a request for arbitration would be suitable, but none of them has responded. I may have to go that route, and perhaps my reluctance is silly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Note: I think that Mel meant this RFC. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks — yes, I've corrected it in my message. I've decided to take the plunge, and am beginning the long and painful process of working out how to request arbitration, using a temp page in my User space (I've never done it before, and had hoped that I'd never had to). In the meantime, I'd still be grateful for any help in trying to get through to Mr Tan without arbitration. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Having decided that arbitration is the only route left, I created a temporary page in my User space in order to experiment and develop my request. Within minutes, Mr Tan had started adding his comments to it, and continued to do so after I'd asked him to stop. He then created a page in my User space (User talk:Mel Etitis/Arbtan), without even telling me, and added his comments there; he's now wiped it. His antics are driving me (and other editors) to distraction; could someone else at least try to get through to him? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    The rest of this discussion has been moved to User talk:Mel Etitis/Discussion from noticeboard.

    User:JohnKenney

    An impersonator of User:John Kenney, who is adding fake death notices to the articles of several prominent Democrats, including Walter Mondale. Searching for "Walter Mondale dies" and "Walter Mondale died" return three google hits, none of which refer to him dying recently. Normally I'd assume good faith, but this user cut and pasted his userpage and talk page from John Kenney. →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

    As penance for having fallen for his Walter Mondale hoax, I've blocked him indefinitely. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 00:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks. Mgm|(talk) 08:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why didn't anyone tell me about this? I've got somebody pretending to be me! Very exciting. john k 20:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Someone adding hoaxes isn't acting in good faith, even if they aren't also spoofing another user. Isomorphic 04:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Halibutt

    Seems the user Halibutt (talk · contribs) is currently on an edit spree to demonstrate either a parody or some form of breaching experiment (see WP:POINT). Someone should have a look at this. Since I am currently in a related dispute with him over the naming of Polish cities, I'll watch by the sidelines. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

    I'm acting in accordance with the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. It says specifically that For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names. Since this rule is often interpreted very broadly (see Chris 73's revert war on Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, for instance), I took the liberty to act accordingly and add the cross-naming to German cities that have a mixed Polish-German history. If someone wants to question the vote itself, then the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion page would be a good place to start. Halibutt 16:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    How does this apply to Mainz, pray tell? It manages to not mention one word of this extensive Polish history in the article. Remind me, when was the upper/middle Rhine Polish, exactly...? Alai 17:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    According to Talk:Gdansk/Vote, the rule applies to all cities in the region, as long as there is at least one English-language reference which uses the Polish name. No doubt Halibutt can tell you exactly which reference this would be. Eugene van der Pijll 17:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It only applies to cities "that share a history between Germany and Poland." So far as I am aware, there is no Polish past in Dresden, Mainz, Hanover, Aachen, and so forth. john k 18:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'm sure that Halibutt could provide some specious explanation of why Aachen shares a past between Germany and Poland, but this is clearly against the intended meaning of "sharing a history" in the vote - it is quite clearly against the spirit of the policy, and is very clearly an example of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. john k 18:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I do not support what Halibutt is doing right now, but I think he is trying to prove a valid point, namely that often the literal interpretation of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote results leads to gross violations of common sense. Thus trying to insert the German name Stettin into every single article about the modern suburbs of Szczecin (all stubs by the way) misses the point, as those articles have nothing to do with the history of Szczecin.
    There has been some discussion on how to add some common sense into this issue, and refine the results of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote so that the range of its applications is reduced only to articles relevant to the shared Polish/German history of various places. For some reasonable proposals, on which some comment by Chris73 is still eagerly awaited by some users, see Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. Balcer 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I think he is trying to prove a valid point. Click here ---> WP:POINT.
    In any case, it's clear to me that the voting was done to be as decisive as possible to avoid edit wars -- and Balcer and others are trying to do an end-run around it to refight their petty battles. The vote was held, you lost, deal with it. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, the vote was held, a new set of rules was introduced. Some of them worked, some of them them clearly seem not to be working as the revert wars have not stopped. I am now suggesting some new ways to compromise and work further towards reducing edit wars. Why do you find this so objectionable? Also, your aggressive attitude that this is some kind of a contest with losing and winning sides is not helpful to say the least. Balcer 01:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    No Calton, that's incorrect. What was a fight in some Polish city articles has now spilled over in to German city articles which were not involved due to Halibutt's editing spree. I agreed with the Danzig/Gdansk decision, but these edits are clearly not a part of that spirit. DirectorStratton 01:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    I agree that the actions of Halibutt violate the spirit of the vote. I also maintain that the actions of Chris73, Carlton and other users involved in adding German names in obscure articles about locations in Poland completely not related to shared Polish/German history violate that spirit in a similar way. This is why the results of the vote need to be amended/clarified to avoid these unfortunate problems. Balcer 02:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps my actions violate the spirit of the voting results. But the spirit is a matter of personal oppinion. We've been trying to reach some more reasonable solution at the relevant talk pages - to no effect. So, I've decided to stick to the letter of the voting instead. Like it or not, I have a right to do so.
    For instance, the city of Dresden used to be the Polish capital for more than half a century and a large part of Dresden's nobility moved to Warsaw. If that's not a shared history, then what is it? If other users have a right to demand the cross-naming be applied to such obscure articles as Lacznosciowiec Szczecin and Amber, then why don't I have the same right to demand double-naming on the former capital of Poland? Double standards?
    I agree that the voting results are bad and could be misinterpreted, but unless we change them, I have a right to follow them. The same right as others. Halibutt 07:38, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    " For instance, the city of Dresden used to be the Polish capital for more than half a century and a large part of Dresden's nobility moved to Warsaw."
    Or the Ruhr Area (west Germany) - "In the 19th century Ruhr area pulled over 1 million Poles from East Prussia and Silesia due to the event referred to as Ostflucht. There are until today a large Polish minority. According to the vote result the cross-naming applied also for that part of Germany. --Witkacy 08:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    While it has been correctly pointed out that this borders on POINT, and I'd ask Halibutt to stop this, I'd like to note that this serves to illustrate the fact that the vote needs to be reexamined. Also, Halibutt's behaviour is not far from that of Chris or several other users. We need not only to redo the vote, but well before we do this we need a clear policy on such votes, or no matter what the results, this will happen over and over again, and affect whatever future votes we may held. Plese check the Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    As a sidenote to what many of you said: I'm not trying to prove any point here, I'm merely following the rules set by the voting and the interpretation established by User:Chris 73 and many others. If it made you understand the flaws in the rules - I couldn't be more happy. However, it was not my intention to show it to anyone or to prove it in any way. And please stop accusing me of breaking the WP:POINT since it's not the case.
    Also, what exactly would be the point I'm allegedly trying to prove? Finally, what exactly is wrong with my behaviour? I'm only enforcing the Wikipedia's Community Consensus, reached through wikipedia-wide voting. Perhaps if I tried to break it or fight against it you could ban me or question my behaviour. But it's the contrary: I'm trying to enforce it - yet I'm being bashed and reverted by as honourable wikipedians as User:Mackensen, User:John Kenney or User:RickK (the latter even threatened me on my talk page that I will be blocked from editing - yet without stating a reason). They revert my edits to the article on the former Polish capital - without explanation - yet they claim that it is my behaviour that should be changed... Strange? To me it seems so.
    And now User:Chris 73, who established the same rules I'm following now, has listed me here as someone who is trying to demonstrate a parody. What the heck is that? Gentlement, the voting might be right or wrong, it's none of my business to judge it. But once some of us are allowed to follow it literally, all should be given the same right. Or perhaps I am wrong? Perhaps some of us have more rights than the others? Perhaps the voting was applicable only to Polish cities? If so, please be so kind as to cite the exact place where it is written.
    BTW, once you establish a new, clear, wikipedia-wide rule or change the current one, I promise to abide by it. So far I am simply following the current rule. What is wrong with that? Halibutt 13:34, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    Your actions and those of User:Chris 73 are not similar. The exact text of Vote 9 at Talk:Gdansk/Vote was:
    The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
    Now when Chris 73 adds "(Stettin)" to the first reference in an article, it follows the most reasonable interpretation of this text.
    However, to interpret the text of the proposal in a way that it applies to, for example, Braunschweig (city), see this edit, you have to use a very unnatural interpretation of:
    1. "the region": Braunschweig is not in the same region as Stettin or Gdansk, as most people would define regions;
    2. "share a history": most people seem to interpret it as "was a part of both countries", only you use the definition: "there were some Polish people there";
    3. "commonly used names": Brunszwik is not a commonly used name (at least not in English);
    4. "English language reference": both on Talk:Braunschweig (city) and Talk:Mainz, you pointed at a google search, which only returned a very few pages in badly-written English by Polish authors, that weren't even about those cities.
    Seeing that those are all tenuous interpretations; that you yourself think that it's absurd what you are doing, and that you don't like doing it; that you are only doing this because of the community's consensus, but that you haven't found a single supporter of these actions; that none of your changes actually stick, as all of them are reverted immediately; and that the only thing you accomplish is to annoy your fellow contributors; wouldn't it be better if you ended this crusade?
    (Please note: I've taken one of User:Chris 73's edits at random; there may be some that are of more dubious validity. If so, I apologize, and would like to be shown a better ("worse") example of his wwrongdoings). Eugene van der Pijll 16:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Some additional comments to the comment by Eugene van der Pijll. Since the outcome of the vote i have not really added any double naming to an article. However, I have reverted mass removals of double naming while enforcing the vote. While doing so, there may have been a few questionable reverts (i.e. a handball team in gdansk), where double naming may or may not have been neccessary. Additionally, some users complained about Germanic language vs. German language links (as in the revert link you randomly picked). Hence I also occasionally change a Germanic language link to German language as suggested by halibutt. My edits are not perfect, but I try my best to work in the spirit of the vote. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 16:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    (My apologies for mischaracterising your edits. The original mention of "Stettin" at the page I referenced was indeed inserted by someone else. I didn't mean to pick on you (Chris) personally; so Halibutt, if you have an edit by someone else than Chris, that you feel: 1) contravenes the outcome of the vote, and 2) is accepted as a valid edit by "us", the other wikipedians; that would be a good example too.) Eugene van der Pijll 17:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Halibutt, if you are being reverted and warned by three separate admins, I would tend to take that as evidence your edits are not in good faith. That, in addition to Eugene van der Pijll's well reasoned comments, and your own comments, lead to a clear indication that you are not editing in good faith and are violating WP:POINT. If you were being clearly helpful and trying to improve Wikipedia, and achieve consensus on these issues, it is likely you wouldn't have so many different people claiming you are not being helpful. Please stop, and instead keep in mind we are all here to help Wikipedia, and realize that what you are doing is not achieving that. - Taxman Talk 17:09, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

    Chris 73 protecting Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

    Individual users are messing around with the vote count on Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, changing the reported outcome of the vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. These edits were were always promptly reverted by other admins to its proper state. Because this template is visible on numerous pages, I have protected the page. This protection can pe permanent, since the vote was closed since quite some time ago. As i am involved in the dispute, I have listed the protection here so other admins can look at it and comment if necessary, but I strongly believe this protection to be neccessary. Sorry for all the confusion. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:39, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

    Why do you removed the "disputed tag"? Because: "... this template is visible on numerous pages.. " hm?
    The outcome of the voting is still disputed on Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice--Witkacy 20:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yup, it is disputed and you are one of the sides in that dispute. Thus protecting the page could be understood as an abuse of your admin rights. Halibutt 07:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    Chris, I must agree, you are a party to the dispute, so you should not have protected the template. Instead, post here, and ask another admin to do it, don't do it yourself. So please unprotect it, and someone else can protect it if they agree it should be. I do however, tend to agree with the protection, because inserting disputed in the template is disruptive, as the template appears on a lot of pages. Also Witkacy's changing the vote results in the template appears improper, since clearly there were a number of questionable votes. The criteria for what votes would be counted was applied equally to all votes (and favored each side in different cases), so using the removed votes now as a basis for changing the template is improper. Consensus would be needed on the talk page for that change to the vote results. I would actually suggest re-voting, only for the disputed period in order to clear up the issue. - Taxman Talk 14:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    I agree that changing the vote results in the template is not the best option. However, both the result of the voting and the template itself (its shape and usage) are disputed on the talk page, so adding a {{disputed}} tag is appropriate. I believe that the tag should be added until all controversies are resolved. Also, retaking the vote seems a decent option. Halibutt 15:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    The problem with the disputed tag in the template, is that it then appears on the talk page of each article the template is used as saying "this article is disputed", which is most likely incorrect. It is not the article that is disputed, but the template message. Further, it's not really the template that is disputed, but the results of the vote. So the disputed tag can go on the template's talk page, but not in the template. So while Chris73 being the one to do the protecting was somewhat improper, it looks like it was the right thing to do. And to be pedantic, since what he did was the right thing, even though he shouldn't have been the one to do it, there aren't any sanctions that should be placed on him. I would consider this the end of the matter. The template's and the vote's talk page are the place to carry this further. If the results of the vote are to be changed (and therefore the content of the template), consensus on the talk page would be required. For the record, I have no stake in the dispute either way, and I would consider myself as neutral in this matter as it is possible to be. (Bordering on I simply don't care, except that the discussion is civil and conducted fairly.) - Taxman Talk 16:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

    Are deletions broken?

    I have now tried to delete Ben Wyrosdick ten times, and have gotten the ERROR message each and every time. Am I the only one this is happening to, or is there a problem with deletions? RickK 22:40, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

    Update:I have created User:RickK/Test and it deleted with no problems. RickK 22:43, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

    I got Ben Wyrosdick on my second try, but deletions do seem to be failing more often than they should. It makes clearing out VfD/Old especially annoying. - SimonP 23:06, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

    This has been happening to me a lot lately, but today has been very bad. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    And today it is even worse, usually takes up to one hour of retry until a deletion is performed. See also Bugilla Bug 2195 andy 18:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Perhaps it's a good time to ressurect our good old friend, the template which was called {{pending deletion}}. ☺ --cesarb 21:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Query about my behaviour

    I was upset about the non-neutral language and content of Zoroastrianism, so I noted what I was unhappy with and placed an NPOV tag on the page. I noted that there were several weasel words. I said:

    "The timing of Zoroaster's life is significant for understanding the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Should it be before 1300 BC (prior to Akhenaten), then Zoroaster would be the earliest monotheist known in any religion. Even a later date could make Zoroaster a template for Biblical figures who introduce monotheism over henotheism. Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Even the first commandment reflects the henotheistic nature of early Judaism. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implictly accepts the existance of other gods."
    So much for not reading in our own points of view!
    Let's have a look at other POV statements:
    • Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I.
      • Which scholars? Weasel word.
    • Because Zoroastrianism is thought to have emerged from a common Indo-Iranian culture that preceded Vedic Hinduism, many scholars also use evidence from Zoroastrian texts to reconstruct the unreformed earlier stage of Indo-Iranian beliefs, and therefore to identify the culture that evolved into the Vedic religion. This has also informed attempts to characterise the original Proto-Indo-European religion (e.g. the god Dyeus who became Jupiter, Sabazios, Zeus, and Tyr).
      • "many scholars". Weasel word.
    • Zoroastrianism teaches many concepts we today find in the major Abrahamic faiths, concepts of Heaven, Hell, Day of judgement, the concept of Satan, the prophecy and coming of the Messiah and the extensive teaching of Angels and Evil spirits.
    • Implies that these concepts in Abrahamic faiths comes solely from Zoroastrianism. Most evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Muslims would dispute this.
    Until these can be fixed (and the whole tone) with proper footnotes, I doubt this will be an NPOV article. It's going on my watchlist, btw. --Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I got this response from User:Paul Barlow:

    Your arguments are little more than an attempt at censoring entirely commonplace scholarly views about Zoroastrianism. There is nothing NPOV about them, nor does the phrase 'many scholars' in any way constitute "weasel words". In fact they mean exactly what they say. It is very easy indeed to find examples of such many scholars. I will do so later today or at the weekend. In fact the point about Proto-Indo-European religion is so utterly commonplace you can find it throughout Wikipedia on the many pages devoted to Indo-European studies. It has been a fact of the study of religion ever since Max Muller.

    I personally find this to be ludicrous. However, I would like to find out from admins what they think of my comments and whether I was really trying to censor discussion. I was not aware that I was actually arguing anything, and as I hadn't actually taken any thing away from the article at that point and just expressing my concerns, I was suprised to find that I was a censor of Wikipedia!

    Would someone please tell me whether I was incorrect in placing my concerns on the talk page? Has something changed in Wikipedia's general policy of raising concerns on talk pages during my absence? Also, Paul B has stated that my post to the talk page was arrogant and inflammatory. I might be a bit close to the situation here, but I was positive that the first bit was POV writing, and I'm pretty certain that my tone wasn't arrogant in pointing out weasel words in the next few points.

    For the record, Paul B wrote the following on my talk page:

    I had read it yes. And have explained repeatedly what I was attacking - the tone of your initial comments and the assertion of "POV" before acquainting yourself with the subject. Useful comments, IMO, do not take the form of your interventions, which were were almost bound to have a negative effect because their over-excited and judgemental tone. Paul B 09:22, 12 June 2005 (UTC)Reply

    Anyway, feedback here would be much appreciated. If I have apologies to make, then I'll make them. I just want to find out from a 3rd party, and I figure that most admins are pretty good at looking at things like this objectively. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I find the text OK. It is a well-known theory that Zoroastrianism may have preceeded and inspired Judaism and Christianity, or at least that it was an important contributor to Christianity.--Wiglaf 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    OK... I'll take that into consideration. I guess I more want to know if my behaviour was out of line. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Apart from sounding a little bit testy, you should ask for sources. That is what improves Wikipedia. I can't see that you have done anything wrong.--Wiglaf 07:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    This isn't the right place to ask about a content dispute. But IMO you are justified in asking for specific citations for the phrase "many scholars". If many scholars hold this belief then it should be very easy to cite. Rhobite 07:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    I think I would say every word Rhobite just said. - Taxman Talk 23:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, I know :-) That's why I was specifically asking people to comment on my behaviour and whether I was out of line. I appreciate everyone's feedback. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Be careful of the term "weasel words" It sounds negative, and it implies that the writer is trying to distort the truth somehow. If it's true that "many scholars" believe something, then that's a fact, not an attempt to be weasely. Someone familiar with the scholarly literature won't feel the need to cite a source, because to them it's obvious. There probably aren't any surveys saying "46% of scholars of Zoroastrianism believe X", either.
    Also, remember that bold comments in a subject you aren't well-read on isn't always the best idea. Better to ask questions, and make statements only once you're sure of your footing.
    All that said, I don't think this is a terribly big deal. Certainly not an attempt to "censor" anything. Isomorphic 03:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Cool. I'll take this on board - that's good advise! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    OK, last note: Paul B has won. I was going to assist with the issues that I saw in the article, but after reading the following:

    "Paul B wrote the following:

    "Quoting of rules, guidelines etc is not done by objective Pan-Dimensional Beings. It is done by people with POVs, because they feel strongly about particular positions. The demand for NPOV is often in practice motived by resistance to one POV or the desire to promote another one. It is hardly a coincidence that you, Guy Montag and "Ta bu shi da yu" have been challenging particular passages and insisting on references is it? This is surely the very problem of systemic bias. People with strong religious opinions tend to be very committed to promoting or defending those views."

    I'm stepping away from this article while people believe that I am acting in bad faith. Out of interest, how does he get away with such outrageous statements? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Maybe stepping away is best, but maybe you could still be effective as long as you try to keep the relevant policies in mind, which I am sure you are doing, just keep it in mind. You are obviously involved in the dispute so as long as you don't exercise admin powers on the article, you should be fine. As far as "getting away with" anything, nothing in the above quote is abusive or improper. It may be off the mark (though I don't think it is), but that is not a behavioral issue. As far as the comment quoted above, he is correct in many cases, but that same statement can also be used by someone that simply doesn't feel like doing enough research to back up their material. I suspect that may be going on too. And again, nothing in this conflict appears to have ever needed admin rights, so please look for other ways to get extra input on the dispute instead of this page. - Taxman Talk 12:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    Fine... understood. Please be aware that I will not be using any admin powers on that page. Mainly because I'm not an admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Sandbox/Lost and Found

    Answering to a plea for help at the Village pump, I found the article Mixedfolks discussed about here some time ago. It was originally Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox, which was moved by Dontblush (talk · contribs) to a broken article title, and then moved to its final title by someone else.

    I managed to move it to Wikipedia:Sandbox/Lost and Found and split off the contributions intended for Mixedfolks. In the process, I managed to somehow duplicate what I believe is every revision except the last (shouldn't it be an atomic transaction?).

    My question is, what should I do with the 2177 remaining revisions? Keep them deleted? Undelete and keep them there? Undelete and merge with the page history of Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox? Ask Brion to fix the duplication? Or something else?

    --cesarb 20:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Ed Poor persistently disruptive on Qur'an abuse page -- surrealistically high number of page moves

    Admin -- Uncle Ed (talk) has executed a ridiculously high number of page moves, and has been generally disruptive, at the page currently titled Qur'an desecration by US military.

    He has obvious political motivations for the pattern of disruption and title confusion he has sown on this page in recent days. (Check out the titles of his edit summaries on this page if you doubt my assessment of this.) Please. please review the history of this page and consider taking appropriate administrative action. BrandonYusufToropov 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Here are examples of what I mean:

    FROM TALK PAGE HISTORY

    • (cur) (last) 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (Was it desecration? - That's the anti-US point of view, all right. So let's describe as such.)

    FROM ARTICLE HISTORY

    • (cur) (last) 21:21, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (moved Pentagon "admission" down to 4th paragraph, as intro to "critics continued belief" - could be moved up)
    • (cur) (last) 20:06, 27 May 2005 Ed Poor (anti-US POV needs to be labeled. Don't put the argument in the text of the article as if you wanted Wikipedia to endorse that reasoning)

    ... not to mention the avalanche of page moves, resulting in confusion and perpetual redirect challenges for those trying to actually find the article ...


    I agree with these complaints. Ed has not only continually made objectionable edits to the main page and acted intentionally obtuse about it in the discussion page; he even went so far as to go to my user page and threaten me with administrative warnings because he claimed my edits were "personal attacks." You can judge for yourself if you think they're personal attacks; I don't know Ed at all and was only responding to his claims on the discussion page for the quran desecration article. --csloat 02:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I sent a message to Ed, and got the following: "It's a long story. The short version is that every time the other contributors changed the scope of the article, I would change its title. It should be stable, now that Brandon tweaked it." As for personal attacks by csloat? I don't think they were, to be perfectly honest. However, the language used when replying to Uncle Ed (and I've been guilty of this, so don't think that what I'm about to say is unique) was rather inflammatory as it personalised issues and implied motive. I suggest that csloat review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you. I normally do assume good faith. I was simply responding to charges of bad faith, after I also saw way too much evidence of bad faith on user Ed's part. Just for the record, my language was not especially any more inflammatory than what uncle Ed posted to that page. I will assume that he has turned over a new leaf and try to keep my inflammation in check as well. --csloat 06:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Question for Ed Poor about various moves of page currently entitled Qur’an desecration controversy of 2005

    You moved the following pages without first discussing the title on the talk page. I’m not saying you needed to discuss the title with me personally, but that you didn’t discuss it with anyone before doing it, which seems to me an abuse of admin authority. It may also represent an attempt to move the page in such a way that people would be unlikely to find it easily or read it.

    Maybe I’m wrong, though. Why did you do that? BrandonYusufToropov 18:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I choose not to enter the discussion of whether the page move was appropriate but as a purely procedural comment, I see no use of admin authority. Pagemoves are not an "admin" power. Any editor can make a pagemove. Since no admin power was used, I don't see how this can be considered "an abuse of admin authority". I can understand a desire to question him on a potentially controversial move, but why are you bringing the question here? (By the way, your comment would be received with more weight if you signed your request.) Rossami (talk) 17:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry that I forgot the sig. (And I will post this elsewhere if this is not the right forum, my apologies for that as well.)
    Yep, anybody can move a page -- only an admin can move something back to where it actually belongs, though, which makes for an interesting dynamic. Question is: Is it appropriate for an admin to play this kind of three-card monte game with a page -- constantly springing these page moves without any warning or discussion?
    Note that someone removed the rest of my post, which is no big deal to me, but the effect is that it looks like I'm complaining about a single page move, which I'm not. This admin sprung this on us multiple times (four times in one day, by my count) while doing his best to disrupt the content of the page itself -- by, for instance, suddenly insisting on splitting the page in two and renaming it. In moving the page around, he was also, of course, a) using up potential names for the page, including those around which consensus had developed, and b) leaving a constant trail of dead redirects in his wake.
    Net effect -- hiding the article from all but the most persistent reader. Is that really cricket for an admin? BrandonYusufToropov 19:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification. By the way, I am the one who removed the rest of your comment. The system occasionally duplicate edits. You made your original edit in multiple sections with only minor changes to each section. The differences were so small that I overlooked them and incorrectly deleted all but the first section as duplicates. My apologies. I have attempted to repair it (in a hopefully cleaner format?). Please fix it if I didn't get your intent right. Rossami (talk) 20:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, you 've got it right, thank you very much for the reformat. Mine was quite clumsy, for which apologies. BrandonYusufToropov
    • Ed Poor, who is himself one of the members of the mediation committee, immediately transferred my complaint to the talk page there and, in so doing, "happened" to delete more than half of it.
    • I believe he should recuse himself from this matter. Anyone who agrees may perhaps be willing to say as much [here].
    • I have posted the entirety of my complaint against Ed Poor on my userpage, which I trust (?) to be safe from his editorial help. Interested parties can find my complaint at: BrandonYusufToropov 20:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Votes for deletion backlog

    Currently the backlog on WP:VFD is just over two weeks. Help would be welcome closing the discussions, deleting what must be deleted, etc. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I think part of the issue is there is a 25 step process for closing a VFD. If it weren't so work intensive, it might not get so backlogged. Yes I'm exxaggerating, and yes I should probably just go learn the steps, but it is certainly not appealing. Any way to simplify the procedure? - Taxman Talk 19:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    If I knew how, I would already have done it. I agree with your plan. Learn the steps, do a dozen or so and be bold in proposing changes to the procedure. Maybe new eyes will see new possibilities. We're always looking for help controlling the backlog. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I will be starting to help out with the backlog when I get back from my business trip. I would appreciate if someone could meet me on IRC this weekend or next week so I have someone to walk me through the first few. Kelly Martin 22:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Ok so its a date, er group class? How about 17:00 or 18:00 UTC[13] this saturday? We can open a new channel for VFD learning and get the hang of it and slog through a few hundred. Later on Sat would be fine too. - Taxman Talk 23:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    If someone drops me a message to tell me what IRC is, I'll try to join as well. I have to drop out. Will be out of town that day. Rossami (talk) 02:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I've run over the deletion process with a weedwhacker. I did away with the redundant archiving of the day logs, which are by far the least easily searched VfD archives, in favor of keeping the deletion pages themselves and the standard posting to talk pages. This let me do away with the templates. The result is a six step process with no substeps. Much less instructionally creepy. I look forward to being reverted for undoing a bunch of changes that were made without gathering consensus prior to gathering consensus. Snowspinner 01:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

    Good work, this brings the system back to more like it was a year ago. I'm not sure how it happened, but in the same period that VfD tripled in size we also tripled the amount of work it took to deal with each vote. All we seem to have lost in your changes are the not very useful daily log pages. Something I would also like to see is going back to the old system of moving the votes directly to the talk page. It was impossible to do this and to keep the log pages, but now that the log pages are gone we are free to go back to the old system. Moving the templates would eliminate the linking to the closed debate, which is one of the more time consuming parts of the processes. Returning the closed votes to a more prominent position on the talk page is also a good idea as editors should generally read through them before working on the article. - SimonP 02:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, Snowspinner's changes on Wikipedia:Deletion process were reverted, but only because it is a significant unilateral change that should be discussed beforehand. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I have nothing against the 25+ step process -- it fine for me. My problem is dealing with those discussions that have such a relatively huge number of voters that it takes too long to determine whether or not there is a real consensus and confirming who are sock puppets. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I didn't even know there *was* supposed to be a procedure for closing. I just close them. It's not rocket science. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Language links on main page

    Hi, I'm not sure this is the right place to post this, but the main page http://www.wikipedia.org/ needs some updating, as several languages passed the 10,000 article border (according to the milestone page Korean did, Hungarian is well above 11,000 and it seems the Bahasa Indonesian is over 10,000 too.) Thanks. -- Alensha 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    The problem is the official stats page appears not to have been updated in a bit. Also, the portal is not a wiki page, so it would require contacting a developer. Admin's can't do it. - Taxman Talk 12:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    Someone did it. Thanks! Alensha 22:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I guess "they" watch here too. :) - Taxman Talk 23:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, all it needs is a Meta administrator, since it can be edited from the protected m:Www.wikipedia.org template. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 12:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Totse

    Someone might want to keep an eye on this... Kappa 17:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Sockpuppet template

    Grace Note (talk · contribs) seems to have launched a personal crusade against the sockpuppet template, removing it from the User pages of people like Elkabong (talk · contribs), and calling editors who place it there "vandals". Given that Wikipedia policy is to place the template when there is, for example, evidence of IP address-sharing, etc. (as there is in the Kainthescion/Elkabong/Enviroknot case), could someone explain the Grace Note that he's misunderstood the situation? He bears some animus towards me, so it would be good if someone else explained it to him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    That is clearly disruptive behaviour. I would recommend a warning and then blocking him/her for a short period. After this, gather evidence and then take them to the ArbCom. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I see. Harassing a user is fine but disagreeing with an admin is a blockable offence. Take me to the arbcom? You guys are demented. You are so keen on pursuing your personal campaigns against editors you do not like that you'll consider any lengths, and witchhunt anyone who disagrees with you.Grace Note 02:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Harassing whom? If you are implying that I have harassed you, I doubt that. If you are implying that the sock puppet template is harassment, allow me to introduce you to User:Choosedreams, er User:Cheesedreams, ummm... User:Cheese Dreams, no no that's not right... maybe User:Cheese Dreams, uh... User:Cheese-Dreams? Actually, the real account is User:CheeseDreams. So much for harassment. As for disruptive behaviour, are you denying that you removed the sock puppet template from user pages? If you have, this is clearly disruptive behaviour, and for this you risk getting blocked by an admin. We are not your personal playpen. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I seem to recall David Gerard saying something about their sockpuppetry; maybe you should ask him? Radiant_>|< 09:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, there you go. "Enviroknot = ElKabong = KaintheScion. But while he behaves himself (i.e. not spouting personal abuse under whatever name), people are mostly willing to put up with him and take his edits as they come - David Gerard 10:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)", from his talk page. Radiant_>|< 11:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks. Yes, the evidence is certainly up to the standard demanded on the policy page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    What evidence? "Dave Gerard says so" is not actually evidence. Grace Note 02:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    David Gerard has the power to do IP checks of users, so yes, "Dave [sic] Gerard says so" is actually evidence. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    The constant pushing of this template and nonsensical attacks against an innocent user by Mel Etitis and his various lackeys/sockpuppets need to end. Bravo to Grace Note for finally doing something about it.

    As a side note, the fact that Etitis was given admin powers at all proves what a shit-poor process adminship is. (Comment by User:136.145.54.123, known vandal (and probably a sockpuppet of Enviroknot) --Calton | Talk 20:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

    It's certainly at the same level as Enviroknot's usual contributions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to know under what policy you propose to block me. Disagreeing with an admin is not, so far as I know, a blockable offence. Unfortunately, while harassing other users ought to be, it is not. Grace Note 02:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    You are removing a template which was placed in accordance with Wikipedia policy; the fact that you're making personal attacks on editors who placed the template in good faith is aggravating, but not the central point; they're not vandalising the pages by placing the template, but by removing it for no good reason, you are behaving like a vandal. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Template:Deletedpage

    What's the deal with this template? I thought the common way of protecting a page against recreation was to lock it onto a blank page? This is presently in use on a couple of heavily disputed things, e.g. hellenic genocide, but also on some deleted vanity pages. Radiant_>|< 10:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

    • This template was debated on TFD to a no consensus result and the discussion is archived here. Those that voted keep argued that this template is an alternative to the blank page which may be confusing to new users. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Personal attacks on controversial pages

    I would like to propose that the following message box be added to articles deemed controversial and where there is a history of editors making inflammatory remarks and personal attacks:

    Template:Personal

    The very first article I would add this to is Jihad. Last year I had my first taste of just how bad things could get, now after a year I have gone back and found the article in just as bad (if not worse) a state with even more inflammatory comments and personal attacks which have caused editing to come to an almost complete halt. Warnings do not work here, with at least one user being blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR by User:SlimVirgin, but who has just created a sockpuppet account and also started editing anonymously. I feel that the only way to deal with this sort of bad faith is to give a global warning on the top of the talk page and then start blocking those who feel the need to make personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Sounds like a solid idea, go for it. Radiant_>|< 11:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say a qualified yes. (Incidentally, for the specific situation described I thought that admins were permitted to shoot the sock on sight; it's being used to circumvent a preexisting block, yes?) In order to avoid WP:AN/I turning into a river of flame, there will need to be specific consensus-driven changes to the blocking policy outlining circumstances under which the template can be added to an article, when blocks are justified (this may require modifications to WP:NPA, too), and the duration of block permitted. To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, it should be emphasized that admins directly involved in a conflict should not place the block. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I am asking for policy ammendments on WP:BP and WP:NPA. Check their talk pages and comment there if necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I support this. A number of Islam-related talk pages have been reduced to chaos recently by anon IPs, sockpuppets, and some regular users making personal attacks. We can block the ones who've made no useful contributions for disruption, but we can't block editors who've contributed properly in the past. Even short blocks of a couple of hours until they'd calmed down would help a lot. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

    No, we don't need a special template telling people to obey the rules. When you get in your car, you don't see signs telling you which side of the road to drive on -- you're SUPPOSED to follow the rule, even if there's no sign around telling you to. →Raul654 02:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

    Years ago, I was on holiday in the UK, and we rented a car and drove on the divided highway from London to Dover. Near Dover, where the cross-channel ferry docked and let off European drivers who were used to driving on the right instead of the left, we passed several highway signs facing the other direction. The reversed signs, it turned out, warned drivers -- in 4 languages -- that they were driving in the wrong direction and should immediately turn around. The furthest out, as I recall, was at least ten miles away from Dover. I don't see why Wikipedia can't be at least as cautious as the Ministry of Transport. --Calton | Talk 03:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Raul, could I ask what rule you are referring to? You should be aware that we don't currently have a blocking rule that immediately blocks personal attacks, nor should we. People must get a warning. However, on certain controversial articles, such as Jihad, there are editors who create sock puppets and edit anonymously - all done on purpose. They target these articles and therefore I feel that a specific warning should be added to the article that we won't accept personal attacks in the article. This would be the warning that editors are given, and will mean that they have no excuse for making personal attacks - excuses like "But you never warned me!". - Ta bu shi da yu 02:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


    Can't we just ignore them? Remove the attacks if you want and just move on. What purpose does it serve to block users and then have them abuse you? What is likely to happen is that someone says something to an admin that they don't like, they call in a buddy, and the person who disagrees with them is blocked. Meanwhile, the admins will have absolute impunity, because no one will block them, and in those cases that they do, they will have others who unblock them for some reason or other. There are damned good reasons for not making "personal attacks" a blockable offence. We are all surely aware of them. Ultimately, why don't you just leave Jihad alone, Ta bu? Do you know anything about it? Do you actually have anything to add? Given your POV on religion, which you've often expressed, you'd probably be better advised not to work on that article anyway. Grace Note 02:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I would strongly disagree with you on this one. No, we cannot just "ignore them", because these POV pushers basically ruin any discussion relating to controversial topics. Also, just out of interest, what is my "POV on religion"? I would be most interested in finding out what this might be. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    P.S. I have not been editing that article, I have made one comment in many months, and that was to respond to a self-admitted sock puppet. However, I have every right to read the damn thing: what else do you think our encyclopedia is here for, for goodness sake! Incidently, do you think that the article as it stands is well-written and neutral?! I don't. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Speaking of personal attacks, care to explain this, where you call Kapil a "right wing troll", or perhaps this, where you wrote: "I'll stick to calling you a cunt in future, since you feel that that is a more reasonable epithet to use."? Or maybe where you wrote, "By the way, I'll be referring to you as a "rightist troll" until the day you are banned, Kapil, because that is without doubt what you are, and I'll refer to your reincarnation as one as soon as you come back." Methinks you would be one of the first beneficiaries of this proposed policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Is this unneccesarily specific? Obviously there are cases where personal attacks are the crisis of the moment, but what about generalizing it to address Wikiquette more generally, something like:

    Stay Calm
    This article pertains to a highly controversial topic. It can be very difficult to write neutrally about it, and insults and personal comments do not assist in improving its factuality, verifiability or neutrality. In the interest of civility and productivity, all participants are expected to review and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. By participating here, you agree to respect these rules, follow good wiki editquette and abstain from personal attacks. Failure to do so may result in an administrator blocking you from editting for a short period of time. There will be no additional warnings.

    I've removed the "should not be construed..." as I feel it is superfluous, since I can't see any honest editor imagining the policies only apply to controversial issues and I can't see the dishonest ones being deterred by it. Also, I'm not sure about the virtue of saying notices will appear at WP:AN. Seems to me that you put it on the user's talk page and potentially the talk page for the subject in the dispute and after that the user wouldn't care where else you put it. Most of the other edits reflect my desire to frame this as a more general admonition towards good behavior. Obviously, changes to the blocking policy would still be needed to address things in the way Tu bu shi da yu intends. Dragons flight 03:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

    The point of WP:AN being on the message box is to give admins the ability to reverse decisions: this gives some checks and balances to the system. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Protection of User:Enviroknot

    I protected User:Enviroknot due to a prolonged revert war. However, it was pointed to me by User:Mrfixter at User talk:Mel Etitis#Enviroknot, et al. that I might have been mistaken in protecting that page. I would like to ask for more opinions on whether I was right or wrong on protecting that page, what to do now, and what should I do on similar situations in the future. --cesarb 01:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I see no problem in protecting it, and I don't think that you acted at all improperly. I should like, however, to see the "sock puppet" template replaced, as its presence on that page was in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I'm reluctant to replace it by editing a protected page; any opinions from other admins? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    If it's true that they edit the same pages using the same IP, it's a no-brainer that these accounts are the same person. I'd support replacing the sockpuppet tag. Isomorphic 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Out of interest, where is the evidence for this? Did you check with a developer? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    But it's not true, has never been true, and now my page is again vandalized while I was out for the weekend. Thanks for nothing.Enviroknot 04:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Attention all admins

    I believe you would all like to express your reactions to Wikipedia:Administrators_cannot_vote. I know it won't pass, but for that to happen, we need the reactions. Come and reply, please. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

    Don't feed the trolls: stuff like this is best ignored. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    It's on VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Maybe it's not trolling. Maybe it's just a proposal. Don't poison the atmosphere. Everyking 02:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    That page comes to us courtesy of User:MARMOT, who has <50 edits, few if any of which are useful contributions to articles. Enough said. Isomorphic 03:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Sockpuppet accounts

    I believe that User:sumal, user:Muralikumar and user:Bidyotp are sockpuppets of user:Sumalsn; created to ballot stuff the Indian Collaboration of the Week. What should be done about these accounts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

    What a strange thing to do. Oh well - to deal with it. I suppose it depends on how seriously you take it. The users are clearly sockpuppets, so I suppose you could label them as such under their votes so that people know to ignore them. Personally however I'd consider just letting it pass. Does it really matter all that much? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It doesn't really matter, but should the sockpuppets be banned? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm loathed to block sockpuppets unless forced to do so in case they share an IP address with a legit user (who would find the autoblocker blocking the address for 24 hours or more).Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 12:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    List of exploding animals

    I have just started off this list. Any admins who want it deleted, please use VfD, as should have happened in the first place. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Er, excuse me, but how is this not redundant with Category:Exploding animals? Radiant_>|< 07:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • And template exploding animals.--nixie 07:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You can't really reorder the category. Nonetheless, I don't have a problem with someone listing this on VfD. If that had been done to the original article in the first place, then we would have all these lists. Do you know how confusing it is to have that list on WP:VFD and on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion?! I must say that the title wasn't very accurate, however. I'm not disputing the redundancy, only the way it was deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    It was invalidly speedied. I restored it and added cat and {{listdev}}. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Both are now on VFD, that should clean up the bureaucracy :) Radiant_>|< 09:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

    Copy and paste repair (Pro Tour)

    Can someone please merge back Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering) into Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 04:32, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

    Elizabeth II of Canada

    The VFD for this page has been closed twice now, once by an anon, and once by the nominator (AndyL). I've re-opened the discussion both times. My reasoning is:

    • The VFD has only just had the 5 days minimum discussion - given the length of the debate and the heated arguments on both sides I think it would be best to let it rest a few days longer before fixing the decision;
    • The consensus is only just 2/3 for merge/redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - again, this is a minimum requirement to judge consensus, but is not necessarily sufficient to close the VFD at this stage;
    • VFDs should be closed by admins or other trusted users, not by anons (particularly one who seems to be involved in Canada-related edit wars himself), and they should preferably not be closed by the nominator or anybody else involved in the discussion.

    I personally think that the merge/redirect call is the Right Thing to do, but that the way this VFD has been processed was the Wrong Thing. If there's any rush to close vfds, it should be the several days of backlog that gets hit first. And as I said to AndyL - if he's so sure he's made the right call, then it'll still be the right call in a few more days time. sjorford →•← 09:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I support your actions. VfDs may not be closed by anonymous users and should not be closed by anyone too closely associated with the debate. These procedural controls are increasingly important as Wikipedia gets larger. Rossami (talk) 13:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Could someone who has not already participated in the debate please take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth II of Canada and determine whether or not there's a consensus? As far as I can determine, according to the consensus guideline at Wikipedia:Consensus the criteria has been met since there's more than a 2/3 majority to merge/redirect but since I proposed the VfD in the first place it's apparently seen as objectionable for me to declare the now week old VfD closed and implement a redirect (the merge has already been done). I thought it was a "no-brainer" since the 2/3 threshold has been exceeded but I'm fine stepping aside. I'm just concerned that the VfD will be left to languish through admin neglect. AndyL 21:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Vandalism or just stubbornness?

    On Tsushima Islands there's currently a debate concerning the article title: should it be plural or singular? Nanshu (talk · contribs) tried to short-circuit the debate by placing the article on "requested moves" without mentioning this ion the Talk page, but failed. There's now a discussion and a poll on the move, but Nanshu insists on changing the text of the article to the singular. Aside from trying to sideline the discussion and ignore the attempt to reach consensus, this makes the text of the article conflict with the title. He has been warned a number of times, but continues to insist on his edit.

    Now, it seems to me that this has gone beyond mere stubbornness, and is certainly not good-faith editing — but is it vandalism? Any thoughts? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    That was my first look at the article yesterday, and it's certainly a crazy talk page. I'd normally say protect until the vote is over, but Mr Tan would have a fit. Vandalism is a bad-faith edit, which would here suggest it would only be vandalism if he guessed he was going to lose the vote, for example, but was making the changes regardless. I'd put a note on his talk page saying his edits are going to be regarded as vandalism if he keeps on making them; or you could regard them as disruption of Wikipedia, which might make it blockable. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

    There is a substantial backlog to the various transwiki processes.
    Assistance is requested. Please see Category:Wikipedia backlog.




    Incidents

    Reporting of all types of incidents other than 3RR violations (e.g. informal complaints over the behaviour of an admin, blocked users evading blocks, etc) is done on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (shortcut WP:AN/I).


    Three-revert rule violations

    Reporting of Three-revert rule violations is done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=15530175"