Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive178

Moroccan propaganda campaign?

According to this article some kind of officially sanctioned Moroccan is supposedly starting a concerted effort to shape public opinion about the relationship between the kingdom and Western Sahara. Here's the full quote:

One of these groups, the US "Morocco Board", today started a new propaganda drive targeting the global encyclopaedia Wikipedia, written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. According to the Morocco Board, Wikipedia articles about the Kingdom "are sadly not always accurate as fanatic pro-Polisario activists abuse of the free global encyclopaedia to push anti-Morocco propaganda."

The pressure group with royal funding thus is urging Moroccan all over the world to "participate actively to stop this." It asks Moroccans to enter Wikipedia articles about the Kingdom and the Western Sahara conflict and to edit them, giving instructions about how this is made and how they can avoid being banned by Wikipedia editing rules.

I honestly don't trust this claim at all without further verification, and looking at the history the Western Sahara article I don't yet see anything particularly alarming. But I thought I'd bring it up so anyone interested could keep an extra eye on these articles for the time being. Steven Walling (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, what would be our recourse if it COULD be verified that the Moroccan government (or some agency thereof) was advocating this sort of concerted action on behalf of one POV? Just wondering. GJC 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

National IP ban would be a fun solution. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a very bad idea. Especially when the article explicitly says that they are " urging Moroccan all over the world" to do this. The solution as almost always for these things is to put more regular editors eyes on the matter and preserve NPOV ruthlessly. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(fecking e/c)JoshuaZ, I don't think ThuranX was advocating that in THIS case; I think he was responding to my hypothetical. At least, I HOPE that's what he was doing... :) GJC 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be presenting a rather biased view of the article in question, which is here. The "instructions about ... how they can avoid being banned" is basically: don't vandalize, use sources, discuss changes, don't break 3RR. Hardly gaming the system. Mr.Z-man 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User requests speedy deletion of article of himself

FadulJoseA (talk · contribs) repeatedly requests speedy deletion of the article about himself, which is Jose Fadul. First, I don't think we can do that since he is notable... but I don't even know if he really is who he says he is. I heard before that he is supposed to email to the Wikimedia Foundation through an email address not hosted by the normal ones (such as Gmail and Yahoo Mail). Anyway, does anyone here think we should take action (if any)? – RyanCross (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he should email OTRS (emailing you would also be ok as long as you can reasonably confirm the email is really from him and not an impostor). Moreover, given the current lack of consensus about under what circumstances we will delete BLPs on request the article will need to go through AfD rather than speedy. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This page may provide further background. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick pass and removed some stuff that raised BLP flags - in particular an unsourced allegation of plagiarism. That aside, the whole article probably needs a good copyedit - reading it felt a tad "stalkerish", with lots of details about his early life and illnesses which seemed a tad out of place and to have too much weight, but that may just be me. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, don't delete it yet. He's been a bad Wikipedian, and now that I've started a SSP case, he is freaking out and trying to save face I think. Follow the progress here first perhaps. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fadulj. -Freqsh0 (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Moroccan propaganda campaign?

According to this article some kind of officially sanctioned Moroccan is supposedly starting a concerted effort to shape public opinion about the relationship between the kingdom and Western Sahara. Here's the full quote:

One of these groups, the US "Morocco Board", today started a new propaganda drive targeting the global encyclopaedia Wikipedia, written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. According to the Morocco Board, Wikipedia articles about the Kingdom "are sadly not always accurate as fanatic pro-Polisario activists abuse of the free global encyclopaedia to push anti-Morocco propaganda."

The pressure group with royal funding thus is urging Moroccan all over the world to "participate actively to stop this." It asks Moroccans to enter Wikipedia articles about the Kingdom and the Western Sahara conflict and to edit them, giving instructions about how this is made and how they can avoid being banned by Wikipedia editing rules.

I honestly don't trust this claim at all without further verification, and looking at the history the Western Sahara article I don't yet see anything particularly alarming. But I thought I'd bring it up so anyone interested could keep an extra eye on these articles for the time being. Steven Walling (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, what would be our recourse if it COULD be verified that the Moroccan government (or some agency thereof) was advocating this sort of concerted action on behalf of one POV? Just wondering. GJC 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

National IP ban would be a fun solution. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a very bad idea. Especially when the article explicitly says that they are " urging Moroccan all over the world" to do this. The solution as almost always for these things is to put more regular editors eyes on the matter and preserve NPOV ruthlessly. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(fecking e/c)JoshuaZ, I don't think ThuranX was advocating that in THIS case; I think he was responding to my hypothetical. At least, I HOPE that's what he was doing... :) GJC 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be presenting a rather biased view of the article in question, which is here. The "instructions about ... how they can avoid being banned" is basically: don't vandalize, use sources, discuss changes, don't break 3RR. Hardly gaming the system. Mr.Z-man 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User requests speedy deletion of article of himself

FadulJoseA (talk · contribs) repeatedly requests speedy deletion of the article about himself, which is Jose Fadul. First, I don't think we can do that since he is notable... but I don't even know if he really is who he says he is. I heard before that he is supposed to email to the Wikimedia Foundation through an email address not hosted by the normal ones (such as Gmail and Yahoo Mail). Anyway, does anyone here think we should take action (if any)? – RyanCross (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he should email OTRS (emailing you would also be ok as long as you can reasonably confirm the email is really from him and not an impostor). Moreover, given the current lack of consensus about under what circumstances we will delete BLPs on request the article will need to go through AfD rather than speedy. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This page may provide further background. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick pass and removed some stuff that raised BLP flags - in particular an unsourced allegation of plagiarism. That aside, the whole article probably needs a good copyedit - reading it felt a tad "stalkerish", with lots of details about his early life and illnesses which seemed a tad out of place and to have too much weight, but that may just be me. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit: Why do we have this section duplicated? :) ) Guys, don't delete it yet. He's been a bad Wikipedian, and now that I've started a SSP case, he is freaking out and trying to save face I think. Follow the progress here first perhaps. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fadulj. -Freqsh0 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange problem with attribution template

Resolved

 – Template wasn't protected in the first place.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

{{StateDept}} is marked as a protected template, but apparently it is not protected. I didn't want to remove the template without notifying the powers that be, because maybe it should be protected as a high-risk template. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the template, as the page is not only not protected as noted, but it wasn't when the template was added. Likely a copy/paste issue. JPG-GR (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the high risk question, I have no idea what a "large number of pages" is, but that template is transcluded in fewer than 500 pages. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Problem already solved...for a long time.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Every wikipedia article should display, at the bottom or on a linked page, all other articles that reference it. Surely it would not be hard to implement this. Please pass this message on to the wikiGods.

Erm, that would crash the servers and...did you ever take notice of the What links here link in the toolbox at the left. It basically does what you just requested to be implemented (without placing a long list of pages on the article itself).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unable to add content due to text-mode Web browser

I tried to add text to the discussion page, but it asked me to type in the text in a box I can't see because I'm using a VT100 emulator through a Unix shell and lynx to get to WikiPedia. It said if I can't see the picture because I'm on a text-only browser, I should come here to get assistance of manager, but this here is the only way I could find to express my frustration and solicit help. Please go to my Web site at tinyurl.com/uh3t, pass a 2-step Turing text to prove you aren't a spambot, to reach a MAILTO link, and please e-mail me very quickly now, before I go to bed, to tell me what text is in the box I can't see that I need to type to post my discussion text.

Are you trying to add a URL to a talkpage? That's the only reason I know of that Wikipedia would ask you to solve a CAPTCHA. --Carnildo (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

TWINKLE Readd Request

Resolved

 – - Dropping per admin comment.

Due to a "wiki scuffle" which involved TWINKLE, my access to that program and my monobook page were blocked. This was a month ago. Since there I have seen (like you) many cases of vandalism and it is difficult to revert and warn in a timely fashion. I would request, with admin blessing, that I be allowed to once again use TWINKLE. I would also ask that my edits, while using TWINKLE, be monitored so you (the admin) know I am using it correctly. Thank You...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 2, 2008 @ 20:30

Twinkle is not a necessity in performing the actions you have mentioned. Moreover, you leave out that you've had Twinkle removed a total of three times in the past. JPG-GR (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually wasn't aware how many times it was, but I admit I have used it poorly in the past. Hence why I am asking everyone to watch my edits. Also, while true no one needs TWINKLE, HUGGLE, or any program to do any warning, it does make things sooo much easier and quicker. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 2, 2008 @ 22:46

Are you asking to be monitored just as a voluntary condition for getting it back (similar to how editors must accept mentoring to be unblocked) or because you really don't trust yourself to make the correct decisions with it? If its the latter, why should other people have to spend their time watching you when it would be far easier to just not give TW back? Passive, after-the-fact monitoring only serves to prevent a bad decision become a string of bad decisions, its not a substitute for good judgment. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am asking that people watch my edits so you know that I am using the program correctly. I intend to use it correctly, but it is easier for you all to see with your eyes that "yes, he is using it correctly" then to take my word for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 3, 2008 @ 00:06

It looks like you've already been given enough chances with Twinkle to prove to everyone that you can't be trusted with it. You don't need another one. Just get used to vandal-fighting without it. That's what most of us do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So much for trying to AGF. "Suck it up"...nice. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 3, 2008 @ 00:19

"Suck it up" isn't an assumption of anything; it's just a piece of good advice. Which of course you're entirely at liberty to ignore... -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely oppose any restoration of the tool to Neutralhomer. Three times is a significant amount to have it removed. Additionally, he's done questionable reverting in the last month since the tool was taken away (see User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive2#Non-free_galleries where he reverted many of Betacommand's edits despite being in a major content dispute with him). Giving him the tool back would only aid such action, either way (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr.Z-man - I fail to see why anyone should have to utilize their precious time to monitor your edits using Twinkle when Twinkle isn't a great necessity. Whether your recent reverts were appropriate or not (I haven't looked into it, don't see much need to), Twinkle isn't necessary for any vandal fighting you may be interested in doing. JPG-GR (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you take the time to edit more slowly and carefully, then everyone else isn't going to have to look over your shoulder. It seems like not having Twinkle is the ideal solution. Of course, my understanding may be limited since I've never used any tool more powerful than rollback. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Manatoba warriors

Resolved

This talk page was made by IP address 24.72.1.20, there isn't even an article for that talk page to be there. Most of the IP's edits [1] from a glance are vandalism and such. I request the deletion of this page (have a look at it) and the administrators can make their own decision on whether to block this IP or not. --Kushan I.A.K.J 15:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Vsmith (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ...and ip blocked w/schoolblock. Vsmith (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Socks

There is a large water fowl population hovering around User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#HPJoker_complaint. Any help would be appreciated. MBisanz ^talk 18:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page revision deletion request

Resolved

 – No BLP violation, as subject is dead.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete claims like this in Harold Holt's talk page history? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unecessary - Holt has been dead since the 60s (Or has he? OoOoOoOo!) Viridae^Talk 09:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

He's currently in Category:Disappeared people, for whom BLP applies. Andjam (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we can make an exception for somone who dissapeared in 1967. Besides - simply removing the offending material hides it from view. Viridae^Talk 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Threats of violence

This has already been seen at ANI, and relevant discussion is at WP:AE and the associated ArbCom case. This thread is not necessary.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has issued threats of violence and other real-world harm against other editors [2]. Per Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Consequences_of_personal_attacks, "Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning." I therefore request that ScienceApologist's account be blocked for an adequate period of time. John254 15:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC) FT2 decided, as an administrator, to skip the block step in Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. FT2 also protected SA's talk page until the block SA was already under expired. I view that as an administrator having reviewed the situation and taken an appropriate interim measure. There is relevant discussion underway at WP:AE, which may lead someone to bring forth a suggestion for community sanctions or to just imposing sanctions under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. GRBerry 15:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC) It would be really good if some admins could actually help SA to police the mass POV-pushing of pseudoscience and fringe advocates instead of actively helping their bait and trap operation designed to run him out of town so they can rewrite Wikipedia in their own image. To describe that bit of sarcasm as a "threat" is ludicrous over-reaction. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Hear hear. SA appears to be the only one who is passionate about defending Wikipedia from the hordes of pseudo-scientific POV-pushers, of all colours and flavours. If he sometimes loses his cool that's unfortunate but understandable. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC) SA is not the only person who cares about the issue. And he's probably more passionate than is productive - if he didn't take incidents so personally and responded more professionally he'd be far more effective at defending against pseudoscience problems. That said, the rant there was uncivil but not anything that's credibly a real threat. Calling it a threat of violence was not a reasonable report here, John254... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I never claimed that ScienceApologist's threats [3] were "credibly... real" -- even threats of violence which have little prospect of being effectuated may nonetheless result in the offending editor's account being blocked indefinitely. Though ScienceApologist boasts that "I wrote a satire piece on my talk page that someone decided was a criminal threat. Now the police have called me... laughing." [4], the prohibition of threats embodied in our no personal attacks policy is far more expansive than the criminal law. John254 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Some anon comments <random comment> God. The situation really stinks. Here's a rational, albeit very impulsive, defender of the mainstream view, and he's hounded by hordes who have their own agenda to advance. And there's also, for example (naming no names) a civil POV-pusher (hint: party to an ongoing ArbCom case) who actually admitted both on-site and off-site to pushing a POV-agenda, and who by his editing managed to bring a fairly important article down from FA and down from GA... And yet, because this POV-pusher remained civil throughout (and has not resorted to obviously stupid tactics such as sockpuppetting or incivility), he managed to remain unblocked, and free to continue his campaign; while the impulsive and passionate defender of the mainstream view is subject to all sorts of attacks... </random comment> (Sorry, need to get this off my chest) 131.111.223.43 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC) The pejorative designation of users as "civil POV-pushers" is inappropriate: civility is no vice. Users who are engaging in WP:NPOV violations or "POV-pushing" can be sanctioned on that basis alone. Threatening users [5] regarded as "POV-pushers", even "in jest", will accomplish nothing except to lower our level of discourse to the nastiness and trolling prevailing on Encyclopedia Dramatica -- especially since, if such comments were permissible, the "hordes who have their own agenda to advance" would likewise be allowed to issue counter-threats. John254 00:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Read the evidence page. The editor in question absolutely fits the description civil POV pusher. And he's not the only one. Guy (Help!) 00:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editing

Resolved

 – 24 hours for the IP, after further study. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have begun to rollback all edits by the IP address 82.4.220.242. The IP has done almost nothing other than add either incorrect or completely superfluous categories to articles, as well as incorrect death information. I began undoing each, but after realizing the pattern, I've begun treating these edits as vandalism and rolling them back. I just wanted to submit my work to a larger audience for review. This IP seems disruptive in the extreme to me, and I was also wondering if the IP should be blocked. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a better place for my request? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe spam, but I think this is a good place to start - you are right to come here and see what others think. As for me, well, are you sure the death information is incorrect? I don't mean to challenge your good faith, I really do not know, but the few cases i looked at, I didn't catch information to the contrary. But if you are sure the information is incorrect and not just missing a citation, I agree with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Some of them I'm sure of, and that, combined with the spamming of useless categories, led me to the conclusion that rolling back all the IPs edits had the most net benefit to the project. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've warned the IP that they may be blocked if they continue. I recommend that S. Dean Jameson not go over 3RR when reverting because it's not obvious that this is plain vandalism. (This may be a slightly misguided version of good-faith editing). EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  With the length of time this IP has been placing needless (and multiple) categories, and incorrect causes of death across multiple articles, and given the warnings he's already received, I feel it's safe to assume that they're not editing in good faith at this point. With that said, I'll let others revert the nonsense now. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

IP still at it

Still going... ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 23:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Messed up (I think) moves on Biblical history'/archaeology

I can't quite figure out what has happened here. We now have Biblical archaeology school but go to [6] and then click on the article. Then click on the talk page, there seems to be a problem with the associations and a loss of history. Biblical archaeology (excavations and artifacts) has lost its original talk page. Then there are these moves [7] so I am completely confused now. I'm exhausted so I may be missing something, but I have no idea how to fix this mess and get the history back and the talk pages in the right place. I'm not even sure the moves were discussed enough or make sense. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for a neutal clerk at Jehochman's ArbCom bid

Resolved

 – HDYTTO to the rescue.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Jehochman's request, seeking a neutral clerk for his candidate page. Another editor started a threaded discussion beneath my vote. I requested a move to the talk page, but the other editor continued threaded discussion on the voting page. So I attempted to move the discussion to talk. Jehochman reverted and asked me to seek a neutral party to do the move. Durova^Charge! 16:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly; much obliged. :) Durova^Charge! 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Serious copyright problem; help sought

Resolved

 – User:Michael Drew will be monitored for future copyvios.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Michael Drew (talk · contribs)

While investigating a ticket at today's current copyright problem batch, I discovered literally dozens of articles that have been created with copyrighted text by the same contributor, spanning back to 2006. I have spent over three hours identifying and tagging these, cleaning a few of the easier ones but mostly just trying to get them identified and blanked for processing. The ones I've tagged {{copyvio}} are listed together here. (So far today, I've only listed this contributor's work. That means all of those articles with my username attached are his.) These problems persist at least until his third most recent article, with this duplicating the last three paragraphs of that. This, like some other infringement, had already been cleaned or overwritten by subsequent edits when I found it.

I have only looked at article's listed on this contributor's userpage. Any assistance from other admins looking into his other contributions would be greatly appreciated. I'm exhausted. :) I'm planning to ask the Wikiproject to help clean up the listed articles before they come "current" in 7 days, but that doesn't always bring response. I'd also be grateful for any assistance anyone here can offer with that, because I can already see that December 9th is likely to be a very challenging day at WP:CP.

I'm also requesting opinions on addressing this contributor. He has never (before today) received an official copyright warning, but he was called for "plagiarism" in August of 2006, here. He apologized and claimed that he had believed the material in public domain. Then he quietly continued copying text from that and other sites; as one single example, this article, pasted mere weeks after the above exchange. I'm all for giving second chances, but effectively this contributor has already been given one. I think he at least needs an occasional check from somebody to see if he's utilizing others' text. I don't really have time to follow through. I'm already committed to monitoring a serial copyright infringer from an ANI thread a couple of weeks back (here...and that one continues aggressively minimizing his infringement on one of those articles here).

So, fellow admins, what's to do? Should I seek additional eyes on his future edits from his wikiproject? Would one of you like to take it on? I will, of course, invite his participation here, but given the history feel wider attention is necessary regardless. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been editing hockey articles for quite awhile since we had a number of his pages deleted. I have been watching his edits since then, but I admit I wasn't looking for copy vios but rather notability. I will watch his future contribs and I am fixing his past copyvio'd ones since the players are notable but the info is obviously from a bad source. -Djsasso (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If the articles were created by him, delete and recreate from scratch. That's how you suppose to deal with copyvios. Secret ^account 17:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Schoolblock?

Resolved

 – Template already in place.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Never having done one of these before, I'll ask here first: do I need to do anything special or notify anyone in particular in order to implement a schoolblock? I've got a pestilential IP User:216.253.220.18 which resolves to "Harmony Science Academy" in El Paso. In the interests of both harmony and science, I've blocked them for three months (1-month blocks have had no effect) but I'd like to make it a schoolblock just in case. Thanks... GJC 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just put {{schoolblock}} on the talkpage – iridescent 18:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That was easy--especially since someone else already took care of it. :) Thanks! GJC 19:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist on Blackberry 8820

Resolved

 – Redirect created.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This page Blackberry 8820 can't be created, with a blacklist message ending here. I'd like to turn said page into a redirct to

List_of_BlackBerry_products. I'm also curious where I can look to find out how the page got blacklisted. Thanks. Mathiastck (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't salted when I looked, created redirect for you. -Djsasso (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

class assignment

Resolved

 – No action needed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a sort of heads-up -- I don't think any action is required at this point. Apparently there is a Neuroscience class at Georgia Tech, with about 60 students, who have all been given an assignment, for 10% of their grades, to either write a new Wikipedia article on a Neuroscience topic or expand a short one. They (or at least some of them) have user names that look like Gtg123x, and their deadline is apparently today. I've tried to get in touch with the instructor, but haven't heard back so far. I've also been monitoring the results as far as I can see them, and so far it looks like more good than harm, but of course the early results are likely to be the best ones, so we'll see. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, following the true college students' manifesto: wait until the last day. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why put off until tomorrow what you can put off until one hour before class? JPG-GR (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Procrastination is only effective if you finish it on time.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is a Buzzin'!

Resolved

 – for now, the page is empty.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is a buzzin' today with activity. A few more sets of eyes wouldn't hurt at the moment!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

help with closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport

Resolved

 – AfD templates removed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just closed this debate, and it took me a lot longer than I had expected to write my closing rationale. As a result I don't have time to clear the AfD templates off of the affected pages. Is there anyone out there with an automated tool that could help with this? Mangojuice^talk 22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PHEW...after over an hour and a half of non-stop tag removing and tag adding I cleared through that horrendously massive list of nominated pages O.O. Did the first half manually and searched for scripts to help at the same time. Found a couple and tweaked around with them a little and was able to clear through the rest much easier. Hope that helped you ;)...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And now someone will take it to DRV and you can put them all back… – iridescent 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh good go no...hope they wait at least a day.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

15 minutes later: WP:Deletion review/Active#July 29 in rail transport. :) --Amalthea 01:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What do we do about abuse by a WIkipedia Administrator??

Resolved

 – Complainant informed about WP:Dispute resolution--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What do we do if a WIkipedia Administrator seems to show inappropriate behavior, biased behavior, personal shepherding of a semi-protected article to make sure it keeps to their personal opinion on the subject -- even using insults towards a particular social group in Talk to keep the article to that one viewpoint?

In other words someone who never should have become an Admin and should be stripped of Admin privileges?

It's an absolute nightmare to think Wikipedia would let the wrong person have that much power.

And 10 times worse that the "review" procedure for this may consist of a few random other Admins (who may be friends with the problem Admin) glancing at the complaint and dismissing it with "nice try -- he's not doing anything at all wrong as far as I can see". (Which may not be far.)

Can I hope that there is a formal Administrator Review Tribunal, with the Admin in handcuffs behind the virtual wooden dock (not chuckling with his colleagues), and the citizenry testifying nobly about their abuse at the hands of the corrupt local official?

As Juvenal said, "Who will watch the watchers"?

76.201.171.230 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John

All of us. Doesn't matter whether you're a bureaucrat, an administrator or an editor -- you keep an eye on every other Wikipedian and you call them on bad behaviour no matter who. The answer to Juvenal's age-old question is "We all watch each other". When we find a problem there are various things we can do to air the problem and see what other fellow editors think. ArbComm's not the only venue: in fact it's the last resort. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution article describes what can be done. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this hypothetical? ArbCom watches the watchers. Wait, I know what you're going to ask: Who watches arbcom? Well, it's ArbComs all the way down. CIreland (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I can't think of any reasonable dispute resolution step before ArbCom though. Do you have any suggestions? Asking the Administrator to change his basic nature or resign from administration doesn't seem likely to be productive, and has big potential for subjecting me to abuse. Discussing with others how the Administrator might be asked to change his basic nature or resign doesn't seem likely to be productive either. Are there any established intermediate steps before ArbCom that I must take, before asking for an Admin to be stripped of privileges? Thanks!

75.36.158.243 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John

Dispute resolution is pretty much a must. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Along those lines, if there's an actual problem with an actual admin behaving badly on some actual page, you're actually going to have to provide specifics at some point so that others can be "those who watch the watchers". Otherwise you're keeping the onus entirely on yourself, which you have found to be an unsuccessful approach. DMacks (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I wouldn't be here without a juicy, succinct, and fully documentable actual complaint.  : ) I'll see if there's anything feasible that I can do with Dispute Resolution and then try ArbCom. Does anyone have an archived example of previous Dispute Resolution where an editor wants an Admin stripped of privileges -- and actually got somewhere, with a good, documented claim? Everything there seems to be about edtior-vs-editor, and "making up and being friends".

75.36.154.163 (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John

Well, WP:RFDA has a list of admins who have had their privileges withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. Would you please leave this thread as-is, here at this location, for however long an ArbCom review takes, as I am citing a link to it in my further efforts. Thank you. 75.36.147.96 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John

Unfortunately, these threads are archived automatically. However, it's relatively easy to keep an eye on this page for a few days and then check which archive subpage it ends up at.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should note that the Arbitration Committee is supposed to be a last resort, after all the steps at WP:Dispute resolution have been gone through. Please don't go directly to them. Thanks, and good luck settling your dispute.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As a bot cleans it periodically, that won't be possible. You should rather use a permanent link to this version of the page, including the section, i.e. [8]. Regards SoWhy 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – Improper block lifted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• 141.211.217.48 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive89#Runcorn and sockpuppets banned

It's long past time to review this. This is one of several "sockpuppet of Antidote" indefinite blocks made by Runcorn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (which can be found in xyr block log) that are not on either Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Antidote or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/...And Beyond!. This account, for starters, was blocked in October 2006 for one article reversion, a request for sources on a talk page, and modifications to a to-do list on a talk page, apparently removing duplicate and processed items from that list. It and several of the other indefinitely blocked IP addresses are assigned to the University of Michigan. I wonder how many productive contributors at that university and elsewhere have been excluded from editing Wikipedia for these past two years because of these blocks. See the prior Noticeboard discussion for why these blocks are suspect. Please review. Uncle G (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever the reason for the block, an indefinite block of an IP that was used for 8 minutes two years ago is unwarranted. I've unblocked it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath is premature in thinking that this is resolved. As I said, there are a whole load more of these blocks. Here are some more from Runcorn's block log from 2006:

• 141.213.210.108 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 141.213.209.234 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 141.213.57.23 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 141.211.251.74 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 141.213.51.76 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 141.211.251.70 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 141.211.216.33 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 141.213.31.230 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The above IPs have been proxy-checked and unblocked. I'll take a double-check through Runcorn's block log later. There are more indef-blocked IPs in CAT:INDEFIPs, if anyone's looking for something to do. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now been all through Runcorn's blocking log, and there are no more indef-IP-blocks which aren't claimed to be open proxies. Most of the indef-proxy blocks probably also need revisiting, but then there's nothing new about that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom talk pages

I am writing to open a discussion that involves the intersection of two issues: the purpose of talk pages, and ArbCom procedures. I have a concern that arises out of an ArbCom case closed in October. I will explain the context, but I have waited over a month to raise this discussion because I do NOT want to rehash a closed case. My concern is with future cases, and I think we need to develop clear guidelines for future cases. I am raising the issue here because I think we need some wide discussion before proposing any specific changes to an ArbCom policy page.

Here is the background, but I emphasize that this is just an example; I do not want to discuss this particular example, just the implications of the deletion of talk page discussion for future ArbCom cases. In October ArbCom addressed a case filed by Thatcher concerning Slim Virgin and Lar. When the case was first opened, the proceedings were confidential because of checkuser issues (later, the concerned parties agreed to give up their rights to privacy). Perhaps in such cases there should be no talk page. But there was a talk page which implies that there is some appropriate purpose to talk.

I posted a great deal to the talk page for the proposed decision in the Thatcher-Slim Virgin-Lar case. I began with a set of questions concerning the wording of the presentation of the case. My questions did not address private or confidential issues, and did not require answers that would breach privacy or confidentiality (they were about wording and procedure and policy). No one from ArbCom ever responded to my questions. At the end of the month user:Newyorkbrad archived the talk and posted an explanation with instructions that there be no further talk. In effect, ArbCom was prohibiting discussion of the case.

I fully accept the fact that ArbCom on occasion needs to keep portions of its investigations confidential. I would have no objection if ArbCom archived any discussion that breached or threatened to breach privacy or confidentiality. But this is not what ArbCom did. ArbCom instead, in effect, prohibited any and all discussion on the talk page.

I beieve that it is wrong to prohibit any discussion of a case on the appropriate talk page. I realize that this belief and the need for confidentiality may clash. I am bringing this up because it seems to me that this situation will come up in the future. I think we need some proposals for policies on this regard, proposals that can be fully and openly discussed and decided upon by the community. Off the top of my head, such a policy would provide guidelines for what kinds of talk would be encouraged or permitted on a talk page, and what kinds would not. It would also provide clear guidelines for enforcement (i.e. the policing of the contributions made to the page). I repeat, I understand ArbCom may consider some kinds of talk to violate the integrity of the arbitration. I just do not believe that this can be sufficient cause to prohibit any discussion at all. The community - and ArbCom - needs clear guidelines as to what are the acceptable limits to talk, and the acceptable limits to deletion by ArbCom or Oversight. Articles, policy, and project pages all have talk pages for good reasons. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As experienced editors administrators - even as a disorganized, heterogeneous and frequently divided group of editors - provide one of the few meaningful checks on ArbCom power. We administrators have in my opinion an obligation to observe how ArbCom works, and comment on the fairness and efficacy of its procedures. I know that many editors currently have a host of concerns about ArbCom. I mean only to raise one specific issue which I hope we can discuss constructively. I hope we can come up with a set of constructive proposals relatively quickly, concerning this one issue. After this matter is resolved, perhaps others will want to raise other issues, but I ask that we focus on just this issue first ... just handle things one at a time. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It would not be too late to raise the issue as a question on the various candidates pages, although perhaps an RfC would allow wider community discussion - while admins (even the inexperienced ones) have the means to collectively provide checks on the ArbCom, it should only be so at the behest of the community. As with ArbCom, sysops are tasked to serve and not lead. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I do feel you have raised an important issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't ask any candidate because I frankly am not sure what I think is the best approach and wouldn't know how to gage their responses. I certainly wouldn't object if you ro someone else could turn this into a concise question to ask the candidates. I still think it is a good idea to have wide discussion. I'm not sure what page is liekly to attract a wider discussion than this though I would certainly welcome the views of any editor. Be that as it may, admins are not just admins, they are editors too! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This does seem strange, Slrubenstein. From what you say, there's been an unfortunate lack of courtesy. If the intention was that there should be no discussion of this confidential case, there should either have been no talk page or, perhaps better, a protected page with a notice or template explaining in broad principle the decision that there should be no discussion. Doubtless this wasn't thought about, but having wasted your time by effectively inviting discussion then ignoring it, there should have been the courtesy of an explanation and an attempt to satisfy the concerns that you'd raised. Obviously I don't know how far the posted explanation went, but it would seem sensible that there should be guidance that clerks opening a case should make the talk page situation clear. There's also the broader aspect of maintaining maximum community involvement and transparency, as much as possible giving due priority to the importance of privacy. A question to candidates might be a godd way of getting views on these issues. . . dave souza, talk 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody really thought of the issue completely before things went too far on that talk page. Thus the unplanned and messy way things went down.

A larger issue is that the role of talk pages and public discussion in arbcom cases needs some review and some ground rules, I think. Talk pages and Workshop all too often just become a continuation and exacerbation of the disagreement under arbitration, and that is counterproductive. I think one of the conditions has to be that once an arbcom case begins, the fight stops, subject to blocking for the duration of the case. The arbcom is a deliberative body, and our role is not to have to police the interactions of the parties as they continue to squabble.

Tied into this is that parties in arbcom cases spend a large portion of their time while under arbitration trying to win the case in the court of public opinion, rather than by fixing the problem or even arguing their case well in front of the committee. This has been an issue particularly this year.

In a case like this, the issue was and is that parties to the case were carrying on the argument in public, while other parties could not defend themselves from allegations because it would involve bringing up matters that could not be discussed in public.

In my personal opinion, future cases of this kind must include more strongly worded injunctions to the parties that continuing the disagreement in public cannot continue. It is not desirable to limit the ability of the community to watch and make their views known except as absolutely necessary.

This ties into another issue with the arbitration process; increasingly, the AC is being drawn into situations where there is placed an expectation of rapid action and rapid decision-making. Committees do not do rapid action and rapid decision-making very well, especially a fairly large committee of sometimes wildly varying views, scattered worldwide and with full-time jobs and lives which mean we find it difficult to always be paying attention to the frenetic pace of Wikipedia drama.

The community seems to prefer electing Wikipedians of reasonable maturity and level-headedness to the AC, which increases the chance that we have jobs and busy lives that mean we can't always respond quickly to crises, real or imagined. (I do feel that many of the "crises" are only such because of the frenzied, over-caffeinated speed which some Wikipedians appear to operate, which leads to an intolerance for slower action).

The AC as currently constituted can make efforts to be more efficient, but notably every AC election elects a new slate of arbitrators committed to speeding things up, and things never speed up all that much. Better coordination mechanisms can certainly be employed, but I think this will make things that formerly took months take only weeks, and things that took weeks take maybe a week. It won't make the AC able to make decisions in minutes or hours with any degree of quality.

Therefore, I think, if the ability to make such decisions is actually needed, it must be through mechanisms that are different than the AC. What those might be, I'm not sure.

I think that in the end what many Wikipedians really want is the archetypal Benevolent God-King who'll lay down the law speedily and fairly, and tell us all what should be done. Unfortunately, nobody who'd be good at the job would want the job. Jimbo used to do the job, but it became too much for him, and that was years ago, when en.wp was much, much smaller - and many, myself included, feel that some decisions were made poorly entirely because the project, even earlier than that, grew to a size and complexity too hard for one person to quickly comprehend.

There are no magic bullets to good governance. Especially of a project like this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Morven may well be right that "what many Wikipedians really want is the archetypal Benevolent God-King who'll lay down the law speedily and fairly, and tell us all what should be done," but I think that this possibility reflects quite poorly on Wikipedia. The community itself should be the source of policies and procedures, and this is the main reason I raised the topic here rather than asking ArbCom members or candidates - it is up to us to work out these things. I do agree with Morven that "A larger issue is that the role of talk pages and public discussion in arbcom cases needs some review and some ground rules, I think." I am happy putting the Thatcher case behind me, behind us - I am not sure if ArbCom was being discourteous by ignoring me, but I accept Morven's general explanation. I think Dave is right that if ArbCom wants NO discussion it should protect the talk page from the start. That said, I find it hard to imagine any case in which this could be so. i think talk pages are essential to the transparency and accountability of ArbCom. Now, it is perfectly reasonable as Morven suggests to insist that parties to an arbitration stop their arguments during the arbitration, commit to using ArbCom procedures spelled out on the appropriate project pages, and not bring their disputes to the talk pages. This would leave talk pages free for "meta" discussion about how the ArbCom case is progressing. What I mean is, and this is an off the top of my head suggestion, is that talk pages be reserved for case-based discussions of the arbitration process, that it be used to raise and discuss procedural questions.

We - I mean ArbCom and editors - need an agreement as to what kind of talk is and is not allowed on such pages. Just as talk on article pages must be about improving the article, I think talk on the ArbCom pages should be about improving the arbitration process. It is fair that we editors demand that ArbCom take such talk seriously and respond to it assuming good faith. It is fair for ArbCom in turn to expect such talk to be made in good faith and to be constructive in intent.

The bottom line is, if ArbCom has an unprotected talk page, then it must accept some kind of discussion by editors on that page. ArbCom is not a council of philosopher-kings or gods to hand down law from on high. It has to come up from us. I have forwarded one idea. I urge other admins and editors to join and widen this discussion. We need to generate ideas and proposals. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein that this is an important issue, and am glad he raised it. I'm sympathetic with his view that cases, even private ones, should allow public discussion about matters which are not, in and of themselves, private. However, I'm also sympathetic to the view that many of these discussions aren't particularly helpful; they, like the Workshop pages, are often simply the playground for very small groups of partisans to re-enact the battle that led to the case, or to act as each others claquers. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

More eyes requested

Resolved

 – Accused user will do it himself.

here; I can't make head or tail of it. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Mister Alcohol is an active, unblocked account, I don't see why we would delete or blank it at an IP's req. Point at OTRS/MFD. MBisanz ^talk 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have done that, but the IP is not forthcoming about details. I have notified Mister Alcohol of this thread. --Rodhullandemu 17:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jellydudes attempted outings

I want to make a mention of Jellydudes' attempted outing of an anon IP, User:69.182.20.148, on the associated talk page. I don't know if he's tried it elsewhere. Tealwisp (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like he does it a fair bit. Seems like more his being a jerk than actually attempting to out people. Nice to know that a sock has an obvious trait--makes it easier to find the new accounts. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Move war

Resolved

 – Article move-protected.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please help monitor the move war at Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh. Despite a failed move request, the article has been moved back and forth over the past few days. Aecis·(away) ^talk 09:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I move-protected the article. Ruslik (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

TFA Image

Resolved

 – User:Slowking Man isn't as absentminded as he thought he was, and we should all keep an eye out for unprotected images on the Main Page.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, Image:Zappa 16011977 01 300.jpg, which is on the Main Page, wasn't protected until I uploaded a local copy just now (it's now cascade-protected). I could be missing something, but there was no local copy previously, the image isn't protected at Commons, and yesterday's TFA image was protected this way, so apparently something hasn't changed on me and made doing this no longer necessary. It would be nice to have an adminbot to do this, as I'm not really fond of seeing various anatomical images when I start up my Web browser. If I did unknowingly screw something up, please tell me. —Slowking Man (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm seeing that other Main Page images aren't explicitly protected either, so I'm obviously missing something. Someone mind linking me to the software change or whatever it is? —Slowking Man (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Images in English Wikipedia no longer need protection before appearing on MainPage due to cascading protection. Cascading protection does not apply to images hosted on the Wikimedia Commons. This means that the images still need to be protected manually by an administrator on the Commons project, or uploaded to English Wikipedia to allow the cascading protection to work. User:Zzyzx11 used to protect MainPage images at WCommons. He stopped when User:MPUploadBot was inaugurated. However, User:MPUploadBot was blocked a few weeks ago. Since then, various MainPage Mopsters (most often it's User:BorgQueen, sometimes me and others...) have been manually uploading and protecting WCommons images when (or before) they appear on MainPage. No clue when User:MPUploadBot will be unblocked. So, if you see any WCommons images on MainPage, please make sure that they are {{C-uploaded}} to English Wikipedia. If not, cascading can only protect local edits, such as cats and FP templates, and vandals can upload junk at WCommons to spoil our MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, so I was right after all. Okay, thanks for confirming that I'm not totally absentminded. I'll try to keep an eye on upcoming Main Page images, and if any other admins reading this could pitch in, that would be great. —Slowking Man (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Halfricans

Resolved

 – Speedy endorsed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just speedy deleted Category:Halfricans as an attack page, because as the category page itself noted[9], the term is exclusively used to disparage its subject (people of half-African American descent). As another user noted, we wouldn't support Category:Uncle Toms or Category:Feminazi, and this seems to have some characteristics of those.

The speedy deletion seemed appropriate as the "general" criteria specifically apply all namespaces including categories. However I appreciate the speedy deletion of categories is rare, and this particular category may well be controversial. I've therefore brought this here for review, and am happy for it to be overturned if I've misinterpreted the policy. Anyone else have a view? Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call as far as I am concerned. Did you comment to the creator? JodyB _talk 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. G10 == General, not namespace specific. We can speedy delete from any namespace if the item in question is something nasty. Good call on this category. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't comment to the creator (User:Kilby6), but another editor has warned them about creating attack pages. Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced it was really an attack page per se. I suspect he intended to create a category for Limbaughisms. In any case, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. JodyB _talk 12:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But see which articles were put in it. By all means WP:AGF that it wasn't meant as an attack, but it could be considered an attack and thus deletion was fine. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

86.146.233.61 / 24.90.237.107

Resolved

 – Speedily deleted under criterion G6.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Err...I'm pretty sure these shouldn't be in the main article space... CultureDrone (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Wikia

Resolved

 – Inappropriate venue.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What to do about comments from possible banned user at ACE?

Resolved

 – Sock of banned user blocked indefinitely and contributions reverted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jayvdb

I have no knowledge of the user or even the disputes at stake, but just wondering whether it was common practice to allow comments from a user who appears to be admitting to be a sock of a banned user. Brilliantine (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• What comment? who is the banned user? (This summary is necessary for the dull witted like me. If the answer was in the middle of that giant WP:TLDR paragraph, then I didn't read it) Protonk (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • NVM, I just rolled it back per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. East indeffed the account. Protonk (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The funny thing is I don't generally agree with that policy, but there was something about that ramble that seemed to be disruptive as opposed to useful. Brilliantine (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't either. Honestly it seems pretty laughably unworkable. Most socks do hundreds of edits, usually good or neutral, before they are caught. I'm not sure why I would be expected to click "rollback" on all of them. However, it is nice to have it there, I guess. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Excessive muscle power?

Can a few neutral editors with checkuser privileges and knowledge of Sikhs, Khalistan and Human Rights, please look into this case? I hope the following 3 editors are not being wrongly choked just because their povs and article interests are the same. I see that all their means of presenting data to tell why they are wrongly blocked are being cut: -

• Beetle CT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Irek Biernat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Singh6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Beetle CT has asked for reconsideration on talkpage with some proof. Also check this ongoing resolution effort by some of these editors on the banning admins talkpage to get some perspective. Seems like before Irek Biernat and Singh6 could present facts like Beetle CT - Singh6 has been blocked again and now even the talkpage of Irek Biernat has been blocked stating "to prevent misuse". What talkpage misuse has Irek Biernat done? This new block on Singh6 and Irek Biernat is invisible one, which neither shows up in the page histories nor is listed on their respective user and talkpages, but only if their pages are in ones "watchlists". I can clearly see that muscle power had already forced these editors to compromise their personal information[10] [11] [ (which kinda reflects their helplessness). I have earlier editing experiences of these editors and feel that they are not uncivil or vandals by any means, but I cannot check if they are being choked without much proof. I have tired to get some valid information from the blocking admin YellowMonkey but the replies came about not so direct. Before we end up choking out 3 genuine editors by unleashing quick excessive muscle power, can we have some more admins look into detail? I've underlined detail with focus here because these 3 editors seem to have editing many topics which are against the POV of Indian Government, about custodial deaths and have been involved in many debated topics. Therefore, there is a need for looking into detail if that does not become the reason for the motivation of a block and choking out despite inconclusive evidence. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Help at AIV?

Resolved

Just to let you know, there are some requests at AIV that have been sitting there for 10-20 minutes with no response, including one IP who is being very active right now and has vandalized 6 or 7 times since he was reported. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed

The Man article is in much need of semi-protection again as its semi-protection has recently ended and the high level of vandalism has started once more. The article always receives high levels of vandalism when not semi-protected due to the subject of the article. Can this article, given the constant high level of vandalism it is subjected to whenever semi-protection ends, have indefinite semi-protection like the woman article? The article should be treated like those of country or religion articles which receive high levels of vandalism and are given indefinte semi-protection because vandals won't just disppear when the semi-protection ends. It's an article which will always receive high levels of vandalism if not semi-protected because it's not a current event which may draw attention then subside. Usergreatpower (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a high-level of vandalism. No edits today, some good and bad yesterday, nothing particularly requiring intervention. Nevertheless, you could still propose it at requests for page protection. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with User:Sceptre - could an admin familiar with him please intervene?

• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past few days Sceptre has been continuing in behavior similar to that which has resulted in him being disciplined in that past, and as I'm not an admin and have been in personal conflicts with him before, I'd prefer not to get directly involved with him myself, but rather let an admin who's had more experience dealing with him take care of this. On the Osama Bin Laden article, he's been unilaterally removing sources from the article which cite individuals or groups that have referred to Bin Laden as a terrorist, claiming that the article calling him a terrorist is a violation of WP:BLP, and yelling at other users in his edit summaries such as here and here. (Nevertheless he's incorrect about the article factually stating that Bin Laden is a terrorist, as it only reads that certain groups/individuals have referred to him as one and cites sources to back these claims up.) I posted a comment about this on the article's talk page claiming that it seemed like he is trying to cause drama for drama's sake and is essentially acting like he owns the article by giving his own opinion on it more merit than the current consensus. In response, he accused me of "wikistalking" him (just as he's accused me and many other users of in the past, including one other user whom he edited warred with over this article, though just to be fair, the user did facetiously call him a "terrorist sympathizer" right before, which was also uncalled for). I'd personally like to stay out of this one since I've been in a few ugly conflicts with him before, but I think his behavior is uncalled for and is strongly reminiscent of the behavior with had him recently blocked for three months in the first place. If he keeps going on like this, I won't be surprised (or sorry) to see him blocked again, though this time I'd like to see him wait the block out, as it was rescended a few weeks before its expiration (which I thought was unfair considering that even while blocked, he continued to engage on his talk page in the same disruptive behavior that had him blocked in the first place, though that's ancient history so I won't go into it further.)--ParisianBlade (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've told Sceptre about this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Without wanting to go into the shouting, which is unfortunate, Sceptre does have a point in that use of the word "terrorist" is discouraged. Wikipedia:Words to avoid says:

"The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremism" and "terrorism" are pejorative terms, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighters" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article."

It should also be noted that this directive is the subject of a slow-burning debate on the related talk page, but there does not appear to be any consensus to overturn it at this point. Now, if anyone can be referred to as a terrorist, it's OBL, but Sceptre's edits, as far as I can see, are not unduly disruptive or incorrect, and in some cases are an improvement (such as changing "terrorist" to the more specific "jihadist"). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

Jihadist is actually extremely POV. It implies that Bin Laden's actions are a valid jihad. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Words to avoid doesn't apply here - it's not being used in the unqualified narrative - a sourced reference to say that intepol and other law enforcement agencies have him listed as a terrorist is just that - a sourced reference outlining the position of those organisations. If they were writing "the terrorist Bin Laden" he might have a point (which I cannot find in the history). Leaving aside the content issues, What I cannot take in good faith are comments like Don't you think following a minor around is creepy? ? Are we now allowed to make backhanded slurs on other editors as sexual predators? Sceptre wants to call notice to his status as a minor - great, he should go and sit in the naughty corner for a bit until he grows up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the "creepy" edit is here: [12] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

em? I lined to it in my post? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the content dispute itself, I haven't been keeping up with it on a regular basis and it wasn't my main concern. My main concern was the immature way that Sceptre is going about participating in the dispute (the yelling in edit summaries; the accusations of "wikistalking) which I think is very inappropriate. The dispute itself may actually be legitimate, but if so Sceptre should behave as an adult if he expects to be treated like one in my view.--ParisianBlade (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of conduct why Sceptre was blocked in the first place? And wasn't he only unblocked because he was being given a last chance? Jtrainor (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not real familiar with the situation, but yeah, it does look like he was on his "last chance" a couple chances ago. He needs to be shown the door- he's apparently unable to behave like a reasonable adult. Friday (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also unfamiliar with the case and I thought this was bad, but looking through his history I'm surprised he's been here this long; he is a liability in my opinion despite any good work he gets done.--Patton123 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, he's been immoderate, using ALL CAPS IN AN EDIT SUMMARY, and he violated assume good faith by making false accusations of stalking and somebody having creepy interests in minors. Prior incidents have lead to final warnings and indefinite blocks have been imposed and shortened twice. I believe the behavior this time is not bad enough to warrant a ban, therefore, I suggest we ask Sceptre nicely to stop making accusations against other people, and if he agrees, wewatch a bit longer to see if the behavior improves or worsens. Jehochman ^Talk 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If he could just play nice and work on Doctor Who episodes, everyone would benefit... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked him until the 9th of december, the expiry of his block that was lifted early. He asked for an unblock and promised to behave in an adult fashion and clearly failed to do so. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Would we have blocked someone else if they did not have Sceptre's prior history? I'm not sure this would be on ANI were it another user. That bothers me a little bit. Still I understand if given the circumstances we treat him as being on a shorter leash than others. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[E/C] The incidents that led to his previous series of blocks were attacks on Giano and Kmweber. Within a week of being unblocked he repeated the type of personal attack against the same editor that had caused a previous block. On December 1, Sceptre compared voting for Kmweber for ArbCom to voting for a pedophile for PTA.[13] (after complaints, he redacted the comment). His comment to ParisianBlade seems like a personal attack as well.[14] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The last ref is hardly a personal attack; he's heatedly describing changes to the page, unlike Parisan, who puts "trying to cause drama again" in the edit summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• To joshua: no, I wouldn't have. I also would not have blocked him for this if we wasn't on a last chance reduction of a formerly indefinite block for personal attacks, stalking and harassment. But he was. His block was shortened with some consensus at AN/I to three months (to end Dec. 9). Later it was lifted (and consensus was reached about that) provided he comport himself like an adult and edit mainspace. This flare-up and flurry of accusations doesn't fit that at all. So I just reinstated the rest of the 3 month block. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the block FWIW; I used to have a rather positive and congenial relationship with Will/Sceptre but he seriously went off "the deep end" a few months ago, and I continue to be saddened by his descent from a quality editor and respected admin to an instigator and propagator of lame fights and his descent into incivility for incivility's sake. He may have valid points to make, but his shocking incivility prevents others from considering them. Its a shame, really. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I wish I was seeing the encyclopedia benefit from high quality/GA/FA Doctor Who/Lost/House/Road articles minus drama. The readers of these articles are the ones punished when Sceptre gets blocked. I do, however, think it is important to point out that ParisianBlade's recent edits have been mostly about Sceptre. Seraphim♥ 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse this action. I was pretty sure this would happen; Sceptre has not been away for long enough to get the disputes out of his system. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I made a nub mistake and hardblocked it. It's been changed. Sorry. Not sure how far back the ip blocking goes, I guess. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Would we have given a five day block to someone who didn't have Sceptre's particular history? No, we would have called them a SPA and indef-blocked. For all the fuss over "contributions", I frankly really don't see much benefit in continuing to treat him with kid gloves when he chooses to be disruptive - I heavily doubt Dr. Who articles will suddenly vanish from the encyclopedia without Sceptre around. There's always plenty of people willing to contribute to the various pop-culture stuff. Badger Drink (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

True but Sceptre is one of the few people who actually contributes to those articles well. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I think if he were to go, someone else would rise to take his place. While this may seem counter to general "Wiki" philosophy, I believe that in certain situations, too many cooks do have a way of spoiling the meal - the final push to GA/FA status being one of those situations. Hence, people who have the capacity to contribute in a manner much like Sceptre back off, out of a desire to not interfere. The general culture against "me too"ism prevents said editor's voices from being seen much on Talk pages and the like - but it would be folly to assume they're not out there. Badger Drink (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Quite arguably this block should have been indef. Sceptre was supposed to have been on his last chance already. Giving him more isn't really justified, but I hardly care now anyway.

• BTW, "jihadist" is hopelessly wrong. "Jihad" is a traditional Muslim concept of justified, defensive warfare whereby certain behaviours (the killing of innocents, for example) are strictly prohibited. It also a wider sense as "struggle" - overcoming the evil within yourself, for instance, can also be described as jihad. Bin Laden and his lot totally fail these tests, I think. Moreschi (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Jihad as an agressive war is certainly not outside the traditional concept of Jihad. This is made worse by the fact that some argue that any attack to reclaim an area that was historically Islamic is defensive in nature. But yes, jihadist is in any form hopelessly POV. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed. The problem here is essentially that of Muslim tradition doing one thing and saying another. While Jihad in the Koran is not particularly aggressive early Muslim history consists of, well, large-scale violent conquest. Moreschi (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Not agressive in the Koran? Mohammed takes over the entire Middle-East as Jihad. Not much of that was anything remotely resembling defensive war. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • As I said, difference between theory and practice even then. But lines will always be blurred. The Roman Republic never unleashed the legions until it had thoroughly convinced itself that it was under threat, even against the most negligible adversary. Same process no doubt at work in the early days of Islam. It's surprisingly easy to persuade yourself that you're in serious danger, and must therefore do one to others before they do one to you. Moreschi (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
          • As inhabitant of a territory that to had to fight for 800 frigging years just to reconquer what the Jihad warriors had taken from us, and which is still being claimed by the most radical muslims as the arab territory of Al-Andalus, I'll say that I find Koran's most ardent proponents to be a tiny little bit on the "too forward" category, independently of what the Koran actually says about Jihad. As Moreschi says, one thing is what the Koran says about Jihad and a different thing is what people calling themselves "Jihadists" (or, more accurately, people looking for validation to their lifes from a superior instance) will interpret from reading it. The point here is of Osama considered himself a Jihadist, if I have read it correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As the previous blocking and unblocking admin, my comment on this situation is Sceptre proved himself willing to undo his vote commentary, which is exactly the kind of behavior we look for, being able and willing to remove your problematic comments is a Good Thing, no matter what whining comes of it. Second, in my judgment Parisianblade inflamed this situation. This doesn't excuse Sceptre's behavior in anyway, but baiting restricted editors is a no-no. Third, all in all on balance, Sceptre's behavior seems to be run of the mill, this editor needs a trout and tea break, no reason to make a production out of it. In the time of his unblock, he did good work, responded to reasonable admin intervention, and also got into trouble: its not like we havn't seen that out of a lot of other editors on this wiki. Also, can we please not get into an argument about terrorists and jihad and such?--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything else aside, I just have to say, the thought of Osama Bin Laden coming out of his cave to sue us for libel over a wording difference amuses me. Grandmasterka 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No remember the concern is Do No Harm. Obviously there's serious harm from labeling Bin Laden a terrorist. Someone in the US Government might read this and decide to put him on the no-fly list. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Jeez, look what happened when wikipedia called Ted Kennedy a senator? :P Protonk (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Joking aside, I mostly agree with this summary. ParisianBlade has not been the voice of reason. Sceptre is indeed often willing to respond to criticism. The argument about terror vs. jihad. vs. whatever-else doesn't belong here. But I don't agree that his actions were run-of-the-mill or were within the bounds of normal editor responses. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, calling him out for "trying to cause drama" definitely wasn't the best way I could have handled the situation and I tend to have a low opinion of him in general because from my perception he has a bad habit of acting unilaterally and thinking that his opinions override consensus and in certain situations trying to edit Wikipedia from a non-neutral POV for his own personal gain (e.g. removing legitimate references to specific websites from articles simply because he has a problem with the site). There was an incident awhile back where we got into an edit war and he ended up reverting my notice of the edit war from WP:AN and lost his rollback because of this, since then I've had a hard time dealing with him. If you'd like though, put a restriction on me interacting with him directly for a certain period of time (if I have a concern about his behavior, I should just report it to an administrator instead of confronting him directly because this just inflames the situation more often than not).--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator and unfamiliar with Sceptre's case, but the other day I asked him to reconsider an unnecessarily inflammatory and inappropriate statement, and he reconsidered and even removed it. From reading the WP:ANI thread dealing with Sceptre's early unblock, I understand there were concerned voices. I believe Tznkai bears the unthankful responsibility of watching over Sceptre and keeping him out of trouble, otherwise it's just another case of giving enough rope ... I guess Sceptre was responsive to my concern because I didn't order him to do anything but asked him to think about it. Which brings me to what I actually want to say here:

Echoing Jayron's comment about "incivility for incivility's sake", this is precisely what is not needed. I too am among those editors who believe that WP:CIVIL is often used as a weapon and injustly and against common sense and against the encyclopedia's interest, particularly when good contributors get poked, pestered, and baited (all in a civil fashion) until they snap. This wasn't the case with the incivility referred to in this thread, and I interpret it as a misguided imitation of some of our more vocal contributors, because their outspokenness gets attention.

I would like to point out that it doesn't help when we applaud witty editors for clever and biting replies. Chuckle silently, but the cheering in the peanut galleries can lead to the misconception that there is something chivalrous about being rude. There isn't. Recently I saw someone characterize a very dismissive and sharp statement that led to a block as "pure class". I often disagree with these blocks of productive editors for being uncivil, but I also disagree with encouragement, backslapping, and the notion that it is somehow "cool" to be rude and witty. It's cool to be witty. Sometimes despite the accompanying rudeness, but never because of it. In a collaborative project, there is nothing recommandable about rudeness or hyperbole for its own sake. I ask Sceptre to think about this too. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ParisianBlade I think you're behaviour was fine...--Patton123 16:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Brian Beacock and Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World

• There is an ongoing issue with these articles and a homophobic anonymous user who hops IPs constantly to post disgusting things about Beacock. While the usual policy is to RBI, the fact that this happens so constantly makes me wonder if there is something more permanent that can be done. JuJube (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean, beyond semi-protection of the articles? I mean, it doesn't look too bad but if it's getting out of control there's always Wikipedia:Abuse reports for ISP reporting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like much has happened there lately. Hopefully the kiddies have moved onto bigger and better things. --Tom 16:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:89.167.221.3

Resolved

 – This thread is continuing at #Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses, below.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone enable account creation for this IP please? It appears that there is something awry with whatever WP uses to determine IPs. Brilliantine (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've left a message w/ the blocking admin asking them to take a look. Protonk (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ta. I reckon in a couple of hours when normal people over here wake up, all hell might break loose - my gut instinct is that the block affects a substantial portion of users of two rather large ISPs. Brilliantine (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I sent an email to the XFF project at meta. My question is: if it impacts so many users, how come there are so few contributions attached to it? Protonk (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Because 1) This hasn't ever happened before, I have always been recognised by Wikipedia as my assigned IP and 2) It is the middle of the night. It is possible it might not be such a huge number of users, but this area of London is pretty densely populated and this ISP has become fairly popular recently, so it will be a significant number at least. Brilliantine (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, so you are saying that this ISP normally forwards XFF info but stopped recently. Roger that. Protonk (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Exactly, as in within the last few hours. The strange thing is that other sites like whatsmyip.com still return the correct IP address, so it is a wikipedia-specific problem. Brilliantine (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: The problem has been temporarily resolved, as the blocking admin has unblocked the IP. However, I'm not marking this "resolved" as the XFF people haven't responded yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally denied the appeal against the block, but then went off to sleep, and saw the resulting discussions and discovery this morning. I think it needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency, as any new block may seriously disadvantage editors and anonymous editors. There have been new incidents of vandalism that at the moment are registered as coming from this IP account, and in other situations, another block may have been forthcoming. What I have done, however, is merely reverted the vandalism and formally issued a notice which I've kept at level 4 once it reached there. I've done that to show that there are ongoing problems that need resolution. However, leaving it as it is, unresolved, may well lead to other problems...  DDStretch  (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are still disruptive edits from the address, and the IP was blocked again today, this time for 2 days (block now lifted). However, until this matter is resolved, it is likely to continue to occur that someone will block the address. I would suggest putting a note on the talk page advising blocking admins of the situation, but I don't want to give the appearance of "a license to vandalise". Would short term blocks of 1 hour at a time be appropriate, at least until the situation is resolved? In other words, treat the IP address as if it were a sensitive IP address? StephenBuxton (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This problem is being discussed below. I suggest that any further comments be directed to the thread below. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unable to create account

Resolved

 – Direct further comments to #Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses, below.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I am trying to create a Wikipedia account so I can upload some information. However, every time I try and create an account, I get the following error:

Login error Visitors to Wikipedia using your IP address have created 6 accounts in the last 24 hours, which is the maximum allowed in this time period. As a result, visitors using this IP address cannot create any more accounts at the moment. If you would like to request an account be created for you, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account.

I am not sure why this has come up, as this is the first time I have ever tried to create an account? Please may you give me some advice as to what I should do?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.3 (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are such problems with IP's changing periodically but try after a few hours. If it still does not work, note it here and you will get assistance (or an admin will know what to do and will assist you immediately).

Topology Expert (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like your IP has been blocked quite a few times. Are you a hoax (if it is not your fault, creating an account should solve the problem but that does not seem to work; best wait for an admin to respond).

Topology Expert (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a problem with this particular IP address at the moment. Everyone on an entire ISP is appearing to edit from it. This include for example me, and also User:Sceptre (with the result that I was autoblocked when Sceptre was blocked yesterday), in addition to, judging from the IP address' talk page, many other users -- Gurch (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) There seems to be a problem outside the control of IP users who are classed as using this IP address at the moment. The problem described here is another consequence of this problem (see WP:AN#User talk:89.167.221.3 for more details.) In short, as far as I understand it: anonymous users said to be using 89.167.221.3 may not in fact be using this IP address. It is an unprecedented problem that does need some urgent attention. In the meantime, it may be best to assume good faith and help anyone wanting to create an account from there if possible (though I don't know how this is done myself.)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Use the WP:ACC tool. Anyone with the ACC flag can create you an account, even if more than six accounts have been created in 24 hours. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This problem is being discussed below. I suggest that any further comments be directed to the thread below. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD proceedural close

Resolved

Hi, could someone look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/En Thangai and see if we could do a proceedural close? It's a batch AfD and some are worthy of keeping but looks like most never were tagged for deletion. -- Banjeboi 14:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Block review requested

• AALIYAH2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had previously blocked this editor for three days for uploading copyrighted images with no FUR (Please check both deleted uploaded images as well as the first revision of uploaded images which have been properly tagged by other users.), hoping that they would stop and communicate. But no communication occurred. At the expiry of that block they began the same pattern--uploading images without comment or rationale. When asked to stop this time, the user blanked their talk page and began vandalizing pages in quick succession.

Given this return to disruptive behavior and the vandalism of pages, I have decided to indefinitely block this account for persistently uploading copyrighting images, making misleading or malformed fair use rationales, and vandalizing a string of pages following warnings regarding the above. I suspect this block is largely uncontroversial, but I'm submitting it here for review. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. This editor never communicated beyond blanking their own talk page, and Protonk's summary of events matches the contribs & talk page history. This editor was either unable, or unwilling, to discuss the possibility of following our image and copyright policies - and we shouldn't worry too much about which. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. Clearly justified in light of the non-communication.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support block: completely uncontroversial. I've encountered AALIYAH2010 a few times before, and they have been warned countless times for uploading copyrighted images and adding unsourced material, but sadly, they have never responded or made an obvious effort to stop. No issues here. Acalamari 21:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support block: Yep MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban kazak

Resolved

This arbitration case, formerly, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65, has been closed and the final decision is available here. Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) has been banned from editing Wikipedia-en for the duration of one year.

--Tznkai (talk), on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 04:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice that he hasn't actually been blocked yet. What is the normal protocol here? Do we only institute a block if he tries to edit? Or is this just an oversight?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The case is also still "open". I figure this is just 'mid-clerking' and will be finished up. If so, I applaud the sentiment of coming here w/ the info before finishing up the housekeeping. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

All clerked up now. Protonk (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend

Ok, so here's the story:

AussieLegend and I wer edit warring on Windows XP. Eventually, I gave up, sick of it, but no. Aussie had to virtually "stalk" me. She reverts almost all of my edits, (legit ones), nominates everything I create for deletion, no matter what, and attacks me in clever non-direct ways. I was wondering if someone could just...block her for a day???, please??? I am tired of getting on wikipedia and having him/her (think it is a her) harass me. Please, can someone intervene? Anyone? It would be appreciated with the highest level. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 23:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What edits of yours, besides your edits to Windows XP, your unexplained removal of discussions, and your editing of other people's comments, has AussieLenged reverted? AussieLenged gave a good reason for reverting your edit to Windows XP, and there is now consensus to revert it. In spite of this, you kept reverting those reverts. What's wrong with nominating pages for deletion, as long as there is a valid reason? You keep leaving harassing messages, such as [15], [16], and [17] on User talk:AussieLegend. If anyone here needs blocking, it's you. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have had serious concerns about Encyclopedia77's edits since his/her first attempts to bulldoze those edits into Windows XP without discussion. The only person actually edit-warring was Encyclopedia77. I even had to warn him about possibly breaching 3RR.[18] I certainly wasn't the only one reverting his edits. Two other editors also took exception and reverted.[19][20] Invitations to discuss the edits on the talk page, by way of edit summaries[21][22] and invitations on the user's talk page,[23] were fruitless. Ultimately Encyclopedia77's response was deletion of the discussion, twice.[24][25] The list of unacceptable edits by Encyclopedia77 is considerable. For example, when I tried to discuss the edits at Windows XP he edited my comments on his talk page to change their meaning.[26] After I changed them back and left a warning about doing that[27] his response was a silly comment on my talk page.[28] He has deleted content from my talk page archives[29] and accused Josh the Nerd of being a sockpuppet.[30] As recently as today, after having suggested that he acquaint himself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines several days ago,[31] he has again deleted content, this time from my talk page.[32] Encyclopedia77's editing style and general actions raise a number of red flags making me somewhat suspicious that his vandalism days aren't completely behind him and he certainly bears watching. To be fair, and assuming good faith, I don't think all of his "errors" are malicious and he needs some mentoring. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Would seem there are some rather major concerns with 77's editing and behaviour looking at the diffs and contribs. Incidentally, as someone who's been on the other side of a content debate (I wouldn't really call it a dispute) from AussieLegend before, I've found them to be civil, to favour discussion of points of contention, to put their point forcefully but not to engage in ill means to do so. We've been quite able to reach acceptable compromises from different points of view. Orderinchaos 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe you Reverted 2 times in a day, Aussie. Even then, if I make "redundant" templates abd images, so? Others do, too. like the {{VandalNoticeSmall}} template, some onn't like the {{repeat vandal}} template. See {{test5}} and {{test6}} and {{block}}. They're redundant, arent they??--Encyclopedia77 Talk 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with making justified reverts twice in a day. Reverting more than 3 times is where you get into trouble and you've come perilously close to that, which is why you received a 3RR warning.[33] You also get into trouble by posting false and unjustified warnings to user talk pages, as you did not long ago to mine.[34] Perhaps you'd care to explain that before somebody lists you here. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a warning, not a "You did it!!". Besides, you have attacked me. Those warnings are justified. And your response to "...redundant templates and images"...? --Encyclopedia77 Talk 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please show us this "attack" you speak of. I'm not familiar with those other templates you brought up, but if they are redundant, then perhaps they should be nominated for deletion too. Why aren't your defending your templates in their deletion discussions?

P.S. If you hadn't reverted this edit of yours, I would be creating a report for you on this noticeboard right now. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm now seriously considering listing after this edit, which added {{VandalNoticeSmall}} to the page of a user that has never been blocked,[35] unlike Encylopedia77, who has been blocked twice.[36]. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My response re templates is pretty much what Josh has said. I'd also add that {{test5}} was nominated for deletion and there was consensus to keep it, which you would have known if you'd checked the talk page. As for your Warning, warnings are posted in response to actions. What action justified the warning? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN vs. WP:AN/I

Just for the record, when are editors supposed to report an incident to WP:AN/I instead of WP:AN? I thought that one was for more serious disputes, but I'm confused as to the difference between the two.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, ANI is really for all disputes, especially time sensitive stuff. AN is really for announcements and things like that (such as announcing an ArbCom decision that concerns admins or announcing a change in the blocking tool). In practice there's no much distinction now. As a general rule of thumb if something needs dealing with it should be on ANI. If it needs review or general distribution it should be on AN. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Joshua has the basic rundown. I find between the two that ANI sees more traffic (lol, probably because WP:DRAMA redirects there) but that no one is going to get really steamed with you if you post a request in the "wrong place". Both are kind of general noticeboards. Actually, it looks like ANI sees about twice the pageviews as AN (or has over the past week). Protonk (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the myriad number of pages to check here, there and everywhere, how do we feel about merging AN and AN/I? I too felt much of the content seems to have merged. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Heck no! The thing is so big that we have to aggressively move to subpages anything that gets more then a few comments, and you want to merge the two? I would suggest a WP:CN (community noticeboard for things of concern to the community) and AN for things that require

administrators to handle?) if we do ANYTHING (and I don't think that's a great idea) SirFozzie (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No!  :) Too much going on in one thread. It's too bad. Dynamics of a system like this: popular, general processes are over-attended and parochial processes are backlogged. So it would probably be a net negative to split the noticeboards further. Protonk (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Fozzie and Protonk. AN/ANI can be hard enough for people with slow connections to cope with and mashing them into one giant page would be a nightmare. Sarah 04:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of overlap, and people often use them as equivalents. Personally, I guess I figure it depends on how much the word "now" applies -- some threads need urgent attention and then become irrelevant after one or two responses (more AN/I), where others can serve as important points of discussion or announcement for a few days (more AN)... that's just my take on it, though. As has been mentioned, AN/I seems to get more traffic, and is therefore often more busy and noisy (sometimes that's good, and sometimes that's bad). – Luna Santin (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel like this section header is kind of like WWE's Raw vs Smackdown.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more like Thunderdome. Two noticeboards enter. Only one will leave. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have to start wearing huge earrings and chain mail, I am sooo leaving. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I thought that was part of the standard dress code here, and have been wearing it ever since my RfA ... --Kralizec! (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion request

Resolved

 – Deleted by User:MBisanz--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Back in July 2008, I cropped the image from the Gorgoroth page into Image:Infernus2008.jpg and inserted it into the Infernus article. However when I was asked to remove it and have it deleted, I did the former and I was unable to do the latter, instead changing the image to the giant rabbit expecting it to be speedily deleted. However this has never happened, and the older image is still in the history. Can this be deleted immediately please? Thanks very much. Dark Prime (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Chuckle. A giant bunny under the name of "Infernus" is somehow ... could it be that bunny was the leporid equivalent to Basement Cat or something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Did we use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch to remove it? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If MBisanz did use the grenade, he at least didn't mention it in the log, which I'm sure he should have. It must say so somewhere in the deletion policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I delete something, it's dead before it hits the ground. :P MBisanz ^talk 17:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, just a minor nitpick, but surely that should've been G7 rather than G6, right? It's not that big an issue — deleted is deleted — but just seeing "CSD G6, non-controversial housekeeping deletion" in the deletion log doesn't really tell non-admins much about why it was deleted. Oh, and to Dark Prime: in the future, just add {{db-author}} to the page and it'll get taken care of. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a non-controversial housekeeping deletion. That doesn't mean more detail isn't desired, but rather that the difference is trivial.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Big backlog of Commons images

Hi all. There's currently a rather large backlog of images moved to Commons that need to be deleted from here: Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons currently has 811 images, and Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons has another 1,614. Any volunteers? Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, volunteers for this task are always helpful, but I trust no one will mind if I remind anyone doing this please to follow careflly the instructions under "Before deletion" and "Files not to delete" on the category page, and note that many files tagged {{PD-US}} are, in fact, not acceptable at Commons and should not be deleted from here. Chick Bowen 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(And sorry to be issuing instructions without doing some of these myself--very very very busy these days. Chick Bowen 23:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Bot Approvals Group candidacy

I have been nominated for BAG, so per instructions I am posting this to invite comments at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Anomie. I will not watch here for replies; please reply on the nomination page. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben Gross - attack article?

Resolved

 – Article deleted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This 3 days old article seems to be intended as harrassment, at least in its current state. --Túrelio (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gone, thanks for reporting. Can someone check Hasmonean High School for further BLP vandalism from User:Fcheese and possibly 217.206.* IPs that might have slipped through? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Block notices+

Resolved

 – Users can remove expired block notices from their talk page, but not unexpired ones, nor declined unblock requests when the block has not yet expired.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Are users/IPs allowed to remove block notices from their talk page? I know you're allowed to remove warnings, but I wasn't sure about block notices. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the only thing they can't remove is declined unblock requests during the duration of the block. MBisanz ^talk 14:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Cheers :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty Incident

I've just reverted a wholesale set of changes at USS Liberty Incident see [37]. I reverted the changes as they used an unreliable and partisan source for one edit, removed relevant information (such as the fact the Liberty opened fire first on the Israeli motor torpedo boats), introduced a number of fringe and conspiracy theories with undue weight and included speculation with no supporting references. On past record I expect howls of protest about censorship and suppressing the truth. I would welcome admin oversight and comment on my actions. Justin talk 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, I can't be bothered to read the whole thing in detail (article is way too long) and am not an admin, but at first glance the "The position that the attack was not deliberate is supported by the following arguments:" section you reintroduced appears to be original research, unless I am missing some sort of sourcing. I would suggest it needs a reference for each point. I am not in a position to comment further since I don't have the required knowledge to evaluate the sources which the edits you reverted cited. Brilliantine (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement was originally sourced but its now detached from the source. I'll fix it when I get some admin feedback. Each point is actually sourced. Justin talk 18:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, albeit a thorny one. The Liberty attracts a strange confluence of conspiracy theorists, armchair security experts and anti-semites (Or conversely, people who would accuse others of anti-semitism without cause). As such, the article itself runs into FRINGE problems all the time. Unfortunately this isn't like the moon landing--there isn't a mainstream and accepted (and verifiable) story versus some crackpot. there is an unclear progression of events, muddy interpretations of actions, and rampant speculations present in otherwise reliable sources. This is something best handled at mediation, not AN. If you want, we can help you start a case there and find a mediator. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I don't have strong feelings about the content, so it isn't really a content dispute. The essence of it can be seen on the talk page, where there appears to be a concerted campaign to put a number of fringe/conspiracy theories into the article. It was raised at WP:ANI here, where a number of admins expressed a suspicion of meat puppets working together. However, as you put it so succinctly the article attracts "a strange confluence of conspiracy theorists, armchair security experts and anti-semites (Or conversely, people who would accuse others of anti-semitism without cause)" so no admin seems to want to touch it. And those that do get some unwanted attention such as this [38]. I have a sneaking suspicion that the current campaign may have started there as I noted earlier, as the very same day editors arrived pushing fringe theories with undue signficance. It also seems to consume an inordinate amount of editing time if you have it on your watch list, so I have some concerns I'm getting a little undo happy - as I said to Narson recently I wasn't too sure that I threw the baby out with the bath water on my last revert. Justin talk 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw the original complaint at ANI (in mid-November) about possible editing by meatpuppets, since a number of different users, most of them brand new, were taking turns doing the same revert. The problem of the meatpuppets seems to have receded. Most of what's happened at Talk:USS Liberty incident since that time has appeared to be a source-based discussion, with plausible reasons being offered by each side. The possible meats have stayed off the article itself. Of course, this is no guarantee that the current form of the article is in perfect balance. But there doesn't seem to be an urgent need for admin attention. Conceivably some people at WP:MILHIST might be willing to review the article and give their opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I've done that. Justin talk 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Justin, when I said "it was a content dispute" I didn't mean to insinuate that you were on one side of the dispute, just that the presence of absence of that content is more of a content dispute than anything else. Sorry for the confusion. I think you are probably right about no admin wanting to touch it. I know a little about the subject and I'm loth to get involved. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Involved editor objects to the very POV nature of this article (and bringing this "content dispute" to AN). I didn't realise that this AN had been raised, otherwise I'd not have reverted Justin's reversions earlier. However, unlike some people I did go through his reversion line by line and could see only de-merits in each and every one of his changes. Here they are: a) inserting a claim that a burning ship firing on approaching torpedo boats is somehow relevant to their subsequent attempt to sink it b) removing the WRMEA reference, needed for listing arguments (any partisanship is neither here nor there) c) the moving of Dean Rusk's by-line, which is harmful d) beefing up the claim that Israel used the wrong armaments to sink the ship (huh? torpedoes are the most highly effective!) e) removing the references, from US service-men sources, to a US submarine having seen and photographed the ship (with flag flying correctly?)

Perhaps more significantly (and easier for all to follow) is opposition to what I added - it seems that, in at least some knowledgeable circles, it is quite well known that Moshe Dayan (who had virtually carried out a coup on Israel's anti-war Prime Minister Eshkol 6 days earlier) warned the US that the Liberty would be attacked if it did not move away from Israel. (It was ordered to move away, inexplicably unless it was threatened, though these instructions did not get through). The sources I have are a highly regarded British television journalist and (later) presenter, Alan Hart, who was reporting in Israel at the time and Stephen Green, famous for trying (and sometimes succeeding) to get information released under FOIA. There has been no attempt to deal with the information, only reversions and a claim that, because the book comes from a minor publishing house, we can't use it to cite the author. What on earth is going on here? PR^talk 14:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Suez Crisis

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Discussion should continue on Talk:Suez Crisis, not here.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another troublesome article on my watch list, Suez Crisis, [39], previously I had an issue with LOTRrules editing the infobox to claim an Egyptian military victory against consensus and previous discussions. LOTRrules sparked an edit war with multiple edits till I issued a WP:3RR warning. This evening i noted he'd introduced the same changes and reverted again within minutes of my changes. I would also welcome admin oversight and comment on this issue. Justin talk 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not "sparked an edit war". An IP had added "military victory of the colition forces" which is to an extent true but is not metioned. By adding "military victory of..." it is not only in violation of POV but Original Research. in But I have edited the article and added citations from reliable sources to proove that is was won by Egypt.

Furthermore, I am not in inviolation of WP:3RR. I had taken your advice. In case nobady had noticed the article is on real world perspective, not only on what other editors think on the article. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 17:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources that Justin didn't bother to read and reverted within mere minutes after I had added them.

1. Here it states the Egyptians, although battered and bruised, had won the war with the retreat of the coalition forces
2. Again reinforces the above idea
3. Further supports claims made

Also what other discussions? Kindly point them out to me as there are innumerable material from sources which support the idea that Egypt won a political victory. There were no citations added or the mere mention of the coalitions "military victory" in the article itself. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

None of those source support the contention of a military victory, the Eqyptian forces were routed as specified in [1.] above. The infobox used to specify the difference between the military victory by the allies and the diplomatic victory by Egypt. That was the long standing consensus agreed, rather the POV edit you have inserted. And noting your talk page you have a recurrent history of such edits. Justin talk 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still you have not answered my questions and have attacked me. Nevertheless I forgive. (We are talking about the article in hand not my past history -- they are different than this). Kindly answer them. My "history" is not plagued with such edits. These things happen. I challenge. I Correct. that is what wikipedia is about.

In no where in the above sources is it cited that the coalition forces are "military victors". If they are I would kindly put it in if you find a valid source with my sources. But since you haven't, and many say it is a political victory for Egypt the citations are viable and appropriate for an article such as this. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also we are talking about the overall result of the war. Egypts was political, end of story. You wouldn't say that the Americans won a military victory in the Vietnam war even though their casualties were lower than the others side. But they still lost the war - ie the overall result of the war was that they lost. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying it was a military victory would be basing an opinion on an article. Egypts pyrric victory which is cited as a political victory is true. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the text that is being fought over for now while the wording is talked over (The infobox makes sense without it). I have taken the issue up on the talk page, having read through the sources cited. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Request Semi-Protection for Fly For Fun

Resolved

 – Referred to WP:RFPP--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I just undid vandalism on the Fly For Fun page and noticed that a couple editors asked for Semi-Protection on the talk page (I added my vote to it as well). Looking at the editing history there seems to be enough vandalism going on to warrant the Semi-Protection so I thought I would request it on here. This is the first time I am requesting soemthing like this so if I am in the wrong place please let me know! Thanks! Argel1200 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is just one click away!-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

12.72.195.145 - Serial IP Hopper

Resolved

 – Squashed by a 3h block by Werdna for the time being

Can anyone familiar with blocking ranges block the range associate with this IP: 12.72.195.145. The vandal has been hopping all over this range and is on a big vandal campaign on topics related to Rudolf Steiner. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yay Werdna took care of it...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, but I don't think it's over. Here's some more information: vandalism started with this edit but apparently provoked by this revert which was warranted based on the ArbCom ruling for Waldorf/Steiner articles. Subsequently two threats were made in Talk:Rudolf Steiner#rant essentially to hop IP addresses from a public library (12.72.19x.xxx) and perform scatter shot vandalism on any article remotely connected to "Rudolf Steiner" (there are 790 of them). So the following have been vandalized so far: Rudolf Steiner, Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Eurythmy, Esotericism in Germany and Austria, Rudolf Steiner (film director). These 6 pages have been individually protected. Articles Johann Wolfgang von Goethe‎, Anthroposophical medicine, Biodynamic agriculture, Esotericism have been vandalized but so far are not protected. Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the time stamps. All the vandalism occurred before this range block. A range block blocks all IP addresses associated with the several that have been vandalizing. The range can always be reblocked, rather than protecting a truck load of articles :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He's back at Biodynamic agriculture and Anthroposophical medicine and going strong. Please put the range block on again. Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WP AIV Help Needed

Resolved

 – And...it's clear again. Man, you guys are fast. Leave some for the newbies, won't you?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Any admins out there? Please go to WP:AIV if you can, we could use some help. Thanks. —Noah 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This kind of message seems to be a common occurence these days. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 09:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Breach of privacy

I have learnt today that my Real Life identity has been discovered by a CheckUser, who has spread this information to several other CheckUsers. In his/her doing so, I no longer feel comfortable editing under this name. I ask that an admin delete everything in my user and user talk space, as I intend to leave this account indefinitely – with the possible exception of adding free images I have obtained from Flickr to articles. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time here (and on Commons), but violations like this cannot be ignored.

Thanks to everyone who has made my time here wonderful, I wish everybody a happy holiday and a prosperous new year.

– amicon 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User page and talk page deleted... Tan | 39 00:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WWWWAitaminute here. Firstly: If you feel a Checkuser was done inappropriately, we have an Ombudsman for that. Secondly: Without going into too much detail, there seems to be an issue of a pretty solid user getting shafted here, if the deleted-edit log tells me what I think it does re: their identity. Not to stir up drama, but WTF happened here??? GJC 00:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's only been spread to other checkusers then there is no violation of the privacy policy. I'm also not sure how Checkuser can reveal a real life identity (unless the user has been using sockpuppets, one having been associated with the real life identity, which could well be the case - signing up under your real name and then realising you don't want to do that and changing accounts isn't that uncommon). --Tango (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(echoing) WTF? All a checkuser could find out would be your IP address, and they're perfectly within their rights to share this information with other checkusers. Are you sure you aren't being hoaxed somewhere? – iridescent 00:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea if this is what happened, but my IP address easily leads to my real life ID, as it's a static IP that's registered to me and my info is in the whois info for the IP.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There are other possibilities, and I strongly suggest that we don't speculate about them. I think we should have a big discussion about our privacy policy, but his is perhaps not the best place for it. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

<speculate>Clipboard content possibly.</speculate> RMHED (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is not good. We need an explanation from the checkusers. The repeated accusations of checkuser problems need to be addressed. Answers would be appreciated. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for what? The accusation make no sense. IP data (in the vast majority of cases) is only going to lead to 1) a place of employment/education 2) the town where the ISP is located. Unless the user is claiming the CU took the IP data along with information gathered from the account and did detective work to find their identity this is a pointless discussion. BJ^Talk 04:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If the person edited under a previous identity from a specific IP address or series of IP addresses (say a small university or a small country with few English speakers) then it wouldn't be at all hard. Indeed it might be obvious. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the "detective" part, if we have CUs doing that it is a tad creepy. BJ^Talk 04:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As much as I understand the concern here, I don't think it's best to jump to conclusions here. I sincerely urge the originator of this post to send any information they have regarding checkuser abuse of power to the Ombudsmen (or to Jimbo, if it's really that bad). Speculation of what exact abuse MAY have occured or HOW something may have happened without corroborating evidence is probably not super-helpful. SirFozzie (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's probably true. I've sent the user an email suggesting they talk to the Ombudsman. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

From a cursory look, this seems like diva behavior. If there are legitimate issues, there are appropriate venues for a redress of grievances. This noticeboard is not one of them. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• When did we start deleting the talk pages of vanished users? Thatcher 11:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say we've always applied wide latitude to users' requests for deletion of "their" user and talk pages. Is this one a big deal, do you think? Guy (Help!) 12:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I remember an awful lot of indignant arguments over the years that various departed users talk pages should never be deleted, as that is a record of their interactions with others and is part of the community record, not their personal space. (I wonder how many such disputes I could find in the ANI archives...) And, since I've given up my CU and adminship, the only way I have of looking into this dispute is checking Amicon's talk page to see if he was ever warned of any behavior problems or ever notified of any suspicions that might trigger a checkuser. (For instance, if he edited in a particular disputed topic area, there might have been a reasonable suspicion of one kind or another. But the talk page is deleted, so... Thatcher 13:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Amicon and I had our disagreements, but I do not recall ever seeing any accusation of improper or unethical behaviour that could in any way have made a checkuser necessary or appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, Jimbo changed the policy wrt to talk page deletions a few month back. See [40]. MBisanz ^talk 14:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Okely dokely. Thatcher 14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that I've been contacted in regards this matter (in fact, judging from the timestamps, right before this post was made). I do not understand the purpose of this thread. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyme

Resolved

 – User:Everyme blocked indefinitely and talk page protected.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed my block has been reset and extended to two months for block evasion following this discussion. Unfortunately, I yielded no response to this comment. What can I say? Of course I'm ignoring the rules when it comes to doing minor mainspace edits, and why wouldn't I contact friendly people I have had positive contact with in the past, like Privatemusings or Casliber? So, what's the score here? My block is reset and more than doubled in duration for harmless contacting wikifriends (oh how I despise that term, but it's somewhat true in the cases of e.g. PM and Cas) and apparently also for stuff like this (or e.g. [41], [42], [43]). Could someone please introduce some sanity, or at least honesty? Make it indef rather than two months. Two months is designed to drive me away for good anyway, which will eventually happen, but entirely on my own terms (namely when I finally manage to curb my obsession with things like messed-up formatting and other inaccuracies). I fully intend to continue doing such minor mainspace edits where necessary and I may occasionally contact old "acquaintances", too. If that's unacceptable, then Wikipedia and me will have to agree to disagree. But please at least make it official in that case. Again: I do fully intend to continue evading that block with minor mainspace edits and the occasional comment or question on some friendly users' talk pages. Please do not remove this as trolling. I feel this is a legitimate request for clarification from admins. If nothing else, please at least give me some clarity and officially declare the quoted edits as unacceptable to the tune of extending a block from three weeks to two months. Also, please take into consideration that I'm having a hard time not editing when I see an obvious minor error, not asking a pal when I have a question or contact them in response when there is something noteworthy (or just plain funny) going on. I don't feel I've done any wrong with the edits -- other than evading my block, which in turn shouldn't be a self-serving institution with no need for checks and balances and some sanity. 78.34.134.4 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Block evading to complain about your block being reset for er block evading???? Frankly I'm tempted to extend it again. Have you never heard of the unblock template? Don't reply here, Use your talk pageSpartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not asking to be unblocked. And the catch-22-type irony which you comment on is inherent in Wikipedia, not in my decision to post this thread. 78.34.134.4 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• A block means you're not supposed to edit, period, until the block has ended. Not "you're not supposed to edit except to fix minor formatting issues and to chat with friends." This is like telling a child "you're grounded except for playtime, birthday parties, and to go to the movies with your buddies." Any other admin who wants to extend this block has my full support.GJC 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, to me it seems more like saying "you're grounded, and no TV, and no phone, and no doing your homework and no helping with the chores. " 78.34.134.4 (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's an odd analogy, because Wikipedia isn't a job. I'm going to reset the block and block the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• What would the collateral damage be on a rangeblock? I'm clueless about how to calculate such things.GJC 07:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's a major German ISP and the block would cover a /16 (60k some odd addresses).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, thank you very much, Ryulong. I for one do indeed see work on Wikipedia as a volunteer job, and I will certainly continue to ignore all rules that keep me from improving it. As I said: Go indef if you honestly believe the little edits I'm still making are (intentionally or otherwise) harmful. You know, that's what blocks are supposed to do: Protect Wikipedia against harm. But that's not what you guys appear to be interested in. It seems you are more interested in demonstrating the power of the system, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. So sad. 78.34.149.223 (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh, this IP is blocked for three months as well. At this point you should have realized that you are not to edit the English Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Suit yourself while I continue to ignore all rules that prevent me from improving Wikipedia. Two months and a week now (in addition to the original three weeks) for "block evasion" with the intent ... to make minor edits and some harmless talk page comments. It's not even supposed to make sense, is it? 78.34.144.149 (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• It makes perfect sense. Let's go for another analogy: If you were a volunteer in, say, St. John Amulance, and you were suspended for improper conduct, would you expect to continue being allowed to attend duties and treat people? Of course not, same applies here. _TalkIslander 12:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Two words: Make me. Also, the ambulance doesn't allow anyone in without even registering, that's where the analogy ends. And you have to receive formal education and pass exams to work there, too, especially if you want to work in the administration. On a more (or less) humorous note, I wonder if my block will be reset/extended if I stop editing anything but mainspace. 78.34.151.162 (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if Everyme's block was extended to indef? seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I have been saying from the start, by all means please do it. 78.34.151.162 (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected this page for a time. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, if you are reasonably certain that the IP is indeed Everyme and not someone acting like him (I have no opinion, I have not followed the history of it), then by all means, change it to indef. Fram (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that is def Everyme, I support the ban if it matters. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support an indef block, but I don't see how we'd do it on the IP... as for the account, there seems to be consensus to indef-block, so I've gone ahead and done it. _TalkIslander 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I indef-blocked on my understanding of the situation, and of the apparent consensus. If anyone strongly disagrees with me, go ahead and unblock/reblock for a period of time. _TalkIslander 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the user pages that Everyme redirected to User:Everyme, hasn't he already had a number of indef blocks? Grsz¹¹ 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see here for a list. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This was explained to me some time back, but I still didn't quite understand it. Is Everyme blocked or banned? It sounds to me like he was blocked, yet the same blanket rules applied to banned users applied to him (e.g. no edits whatsoever). So really, what's the difference, in his case? I'm struggling to see any difference between a block and a ban. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Block="Nobody has unblocked him yet"

Ban="Nobody would be willing to unblock him".

It's a question of semantics more than anything else. – iridescent 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Blocked" means that they have been prevented, in the system itself, from editing Wikipedia. "Banned" means that the community has decided the editor should not be editing; this can be "topic banned" meaning they should not edit articles about a certain subject, or "site banned" meaning they are no longer supposed to edit Wikipedia at all. Site bans are typically enforced by blocking the editor in question. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we know that. However, what Iridescent is describing is the more literal difference between an indef block and an indef site-wide ban. _TalkIslander 22:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we do, we know that he probably already has another account that he's already using---only this time we won't know it's him. Personally, there is an old adage about the devil you know vs the devil you don't know.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was just clarifying for User:How do you turn this on. Indented a little too far, I guess. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyme, you know I like you, but this is poor form. Rather than evade your block to contest its details at a noticeboard, please post a request for one of our code monkeys to nick a transclusion template from the old WP:CSN board so that you can walk the straight and narrow while you present your position. You have many virtues as an editor, but civility is a problem. You know how to reach me by Skype and email. I'm a sysop at three other WMF projects and would proudly mentor you at any of them. Let's take steps in the right direction. Sincerely, Durova^Charge! 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ditto here. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something as this tit-for-tat IP post and block is nonproductive. We have had one RfC and maybe it is time for a forum again at another, or here, we can open a case to discuss options. Ultimately, are we at the point where Everyme's participation is a net negative or can something be salvaged toward 'pedia building? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost every time I see this page (admittedly not very often!) I see Everyme being blocked, asking to be unblocked, or complaining about being blocked but not unblocked. Is there a place where one can see why he/she/it was blocked in the first place? (Just curious.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some relevant recent threads in reverse chronological order, i.e. most recent first: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive491#User:Everyme, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Everyme, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Remarks_by_Everyme. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Very instructive indeed! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to protect the talk page? Grsz¹¹ 14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I am wondering. It seems as though Everyme is intent on continuing to use it for discussion other than requesting to be unblocked. He is also requesting that certain people don't comment on it, namely myself and Grsz11. If he's not going to request to be unblocked, I don't entirely see why he needs it. _TalkIslander 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget that - Everyme's continued incivility, plus his assurance that he has no wish to request an unblock, has led me to remove his access to his talk page. Unfortunate, but there you go. _TalkIslander 14:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent adjustments to Everyme's block, while the talk page use is fine with me, if an unchecked "prevent account creation" box means he can create a different account, shouldn't he rather work to have his indef lifted rather than just avoid it with another account? Grsz¹¹ 06:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11, this is all under control now - me, Keeper, MBisanz and Everyme are sorting it. Though your willingness to help is commendable, could I (with the highest respect) ask you to step back now and leave this to us? Cheers, _TalkIslander 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That edit was made two days ago before things were being "sorted", and is meaningless now. Grsz¹¹ 05:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hersfold Non-Admin & Co.

Resolved

What's the point in having alternative accounts when they just end up stopping being used? For example, Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has the said account and La Pianista (talk · contribs) has La Sockista (talk · contribs). I would like to see more alternative account usage please, preferrably in rollback. Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What? I could see forbidding rollback to anyone with alternate accounts, but I can't imagine a good reason to encourage rollbackers to have alternate accounts.—Kww(talk) 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I mean they could be used more often, like when they're on public computers. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is this thread about?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Public accounts. If someone is working from a public computer, it is necessary, but not required, to use an alternative account to prevent the risk of compromization by hackers. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT for more. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I have both AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) and AuburnPiIot (talk · contribs). I prefer not to sign in with my admin account when using a less than secure connection (like from my BlackBerry). Both accounts have rollback, but that's more of a convenience issue than anything. - auburnpilot's sock 05:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with AuburnPilot)Actually, I think you're misinterpreting the policy. Alternate accounts are generally discouraged. They are tolerated for the reasons listed at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. For reasons of transparency, we would prefer that all editors keep all of their edits under the same name. While some of us (I use User:Aervasock) do choose to access Wikipedia through a non-privileged account when not on our home computer, that is certainly not a mandate, nor even a suggestion. It's just an allowable option.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have User:Orderinchaos 2 as an AWB account. It means that my edits on my main account, with which I have admin access, are more readily open to scrutiny without people having to wade through uncontroversial semi-auto edits. Orderinchaos 09:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Use an account more on public computers to prevent it from being compromised? That doesn't even make sense. That makes the opposite of sense. Unused accounts aren't any easier to compromise, but ones that you use on public computers certainly are. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's to prevent the admin account from being compromised. The alt account is presumably disposable should it be compromised. Powers ^T 15:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of your giant flamboyant signature? John Reaves 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of WP:CSD#I9 on fair use images

Resolved

 – Stifle is right. Where a fair use claim exists (even a malformed or incomplete one) or where the speedy is contested, just take the image to IfD or one of the various pseudo-speedy deletion routes available for images. Don't reinsert speedy tags, it isn't worth the trouble. As for the policy question of where I9 ends and NFCC 2 begins, that is both easy to answer and beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Soundvisions1 is currently applying {{db-i9}} tags to certain images with valid fair-use rationales. I've removed these, as my understanding is that it doesn't apply to FU images. Could someone else have a look and give a second opinion please, as I'm going off-wiki soon. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a cut and paste, mostly, from my comment on the Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion where User:Tivedshambo made the comment: The source is irrelevant. No it is not. And considering the criteria is specific about these images (and will hopefully be made more specific by the proposed addition), as were the links and the portions of A.P's contracts I provided to for reading, I would say you should not be "clearing out WP:CSD". For others - L.A. Times v. Free Republic is an article I sent this editor to as well as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches - "Reviewers should consider the commercial activities of the image's copyright holder and the image's role in those activities. Example that fails: An image of a current event authored by a press agency. Certain press agencies market photographs to media companies to facilitate illustration of relevant commentary. Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image." I would also might like to point out that, even though this image is tagged as being from from A.P and the article is was taken from at MSNBC states "© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." the above editor implied that MSNBC may have "borrowed the image from us or another source" and removed the CSD tag the first time. (Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 4#Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg)

And for also the full CSD I9 criteria reads (Bold markup added by me): "Blatant copyright infringement. Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images." A.P falls under this, and make it more clear I have proposed adding "and from press agencies such as the Associated Press (A.P)" to that just to make to even more clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who's right as to the applicability of CSD:I9. The speedy tag should not have been replaced after it was removed in good faith. All of these images are already at IfD for discussion. Just have the community discussion. What's the rush? -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To everyone: In case i9 is not clear enough with the comment "This includes images from stock photo libraries..." perhaps it should be further clarified. Beyond that the Non-free content Policy, under Unacceptable use - Images, clearly states: A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. The fact remains that the CSD was removed. The proper course of action after that is to have a discussion (which is already taking place at IfD), not to edit war and replace the tag. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please back up. Issue 1 - images at IfD. In case you, or anyone else, has not looked, the Nom (not made by me) reads, in full, "recent photo by news agency. fails Wikipedia:NFCC 2 (they charge for this use, we are basically stealing this from them) and Wikipedia:NFCC 8 (this photo doesn't significantly add to the readers' understanding, seeing as it doesn't even show that much)." That alone is pretty clear but I did the leg work and found that A.P licensing doe snot allow for "fair use" of this type, it is already covered in the i9 CSD tag and thusly, I am the one who added the i9 tag. That is fully acceptable and is done all the time. What happened next is the really issue. Issue 2 - removal of the tag. Another editor came in, decided it was not a copy vio because a FUR was being used and than implied that MSNBC/AP "borrowed" this image from Wikipedia and removed the copyvio tag. That is the issue that kicked this off. I reverted because the removal of a blatant copyvio for the reason MSNBC might have taken a Wikipedia image is ludicrous. Now the editor said that i9 for "fair use" images but, as was explained in the actual nom, this is not really an allowed "fair use" image. The Policy is clear on these types if images and so is the i9 tag that was removed...again after it was restored by me. It takes more than one person to edit war but there is no requirement that a blatant copy vio needs to be discussed beyond the point it is confirmed as a being blatant copyvio. Certainly not because an editor does not fully understand a CSD tag and how it relates to these types of images. But even if they do not understand that the actual CSD when it is explained, backed up by policies and discussions and restored explains but still removed that is far more of an issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD tags can be removed by anybody except for the person who created the subject of the tag. They should not be replaced. Instead, other methods, such as XfD should be pursued. This isn't complicated. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it isn't. Lets start over. What is the real issue here? It appears clear, to me anyway, that the editor who removed the tag is not fully understanding of the tag itself or the policies and guidelines that define what a "valid fair-use rationale" is. Aside from me I do not see where you, or anyone else, has attempted to answer their question which is: "User:Soundvisions1 is currently applying {{db-i9}} tags to certain images with valid fair-use rationales. I've removed these, as my understanding is that it doesn't apply to FU images." My reply was, and is, there is not a "valid fair use" rationale being used because the image is not allowed to be used with one. The {{db-i9}} tag is being used because "images from stock photo libraries" are considered "Blatant" copyvios and it clearly says that. To confirm you can also look at the "Non-free content" Policy, under "Unacceptable use - Images", wjere ti is even more specific: A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos. Now a second opinion is needed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's important not to leave likely copyvio's sitting around while the argument takes place. As wp:copyvio states, If the criteria for speedy deletion do not apply, you should replace the contents of the page with the {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}} tag, and list the page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems; see instructions. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, it may be deleted by any administrator. Looie496 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a point chunky, however if someone thinks the tags are being removed for bad reason (systematically over many images) I don't see much reason why we can't have the discussion here. Alternatively mass nom the images in question to an IFD to discuss the issue at hand. I will note that comments on *process* are not as useful as comments on the actual material at hand here.

The problem here is we have a bunch of tags added by one person and the same tags removed by one other person. My suggestion is to have a sane discussion here or elsewhere (perhaps WT:CSD) about the particular class of images. —— nixeagle 20:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

←From WP:CSD: CSD I9 "does not include images used under a claim of fair use". No mention of credible, valid, or otherwise. Therefore the tagging was incorrect. It's there in black and white. The correct tag is {{ifd}} or possibly {{subst:dfu|reason}}. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You just sated that the only thing i9 says is "does not include images used under a claim of fair use". Holy mouse turd batman! WTF am I reading than? I see: "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images." I am going to use your oneline reading as a new proposal a CSD. I am seriously done jumping between three locations. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"News Flash": I almost fell over when I saw this. We have have had proof all along sitting right here: Image:Marked-ap-letter.jpg. It is a letter from the Associated Press that is giving permission for two images to be used. But the very last paragraph should be extremely clear: "With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights, and specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copy-protected Associated Press photo in which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use." Does anyone want to volunteer for A.P image patrol? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would we care if the AP agrees that our use is a fair one or not? The whole doctrine is based on the concept that the objections of the rights-holder are irrelevant if the user meets the established criteria for fair use.—Kww(talk) 23:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say the exact same thing. Thanks, Kww. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just came to say "Good luck, we're all counting on you." Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should we care? I guess we should care when AP takes us to court over whether these constitute fair use or not. The objections of the rights-holder are certainly not irrelevant when they have the means to have their day in court. Now I'm certain the cries of "but they haven't yet" or "they haven't because they know we'll win" are sure to ensue. However, as indicated in my letter, it's possible to be be forthright and actually secure permission (OMG what a concept) to use the image. I did it with two of the best known images in the world. --Wgfinley (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AP is never going to take us to court over these images until they've taken to Wikimedia legal council (Mike Goodwin, I believe), and Goodwin's said that our use is legal, and Jimbo and whoever else is in charge has decided to fight it out. If we believe we can make a valid fair-use claim, it's not our job to deal with their objections, and if they have real objections that would pass legal scrutiny, they know how to make them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Topology Expert (former title: User: Moondyne and User: Sarah)

Resolved. Enough of this. Martin 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Argh, I hate adding stuff to archived discussions, but, for transparency: I have blocked Topology Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for trolling this board with unsubstantiated accusations of abuse and, when asked to stop, for widening that to include others who he disagrees with. Review is welcomed, as always. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merit, but I am relieved that you didn't block User:Moondyne and User: Sarah ;-) [51]

LOL :) Just noting here that a user, User:Michael Hardy, with one of the worst justifications I've ever seen following an unblock request at, of all places, a WikiProject talk page, unblocked him. I have reinstated the block, as after consulting with others, it could not justifiably be called a violation of WP:WHEEL given the obvious conflict of interest of the unblocking admin and the lack of due process or consideration. Orderinchaos 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the "conflict of interest" here? I think you are assuming far more unity among the math project than actually exists... — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The language and rationales provided by Michael Hardy before and since suggest a conflict of interest, not his affiliation with the math project (which I'd imagine would indeed be quite wide and diverse). My mention of the project was only insofar as noting it was a rather odd place for an unblock discussion to be taking place. Orderinchaos 05:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree it was not the right place to post a notice about a block. The user who posted it is only an occasional contributor on that page, and I have no idea why a notice was posted there. But there was no actual discussion about it. Someone actually removed the notice for a period of time, and even after someone else restored it nobody has commented on the block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Orderinchaos 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"I've unblocked this user. I find some of the behavior of those who blocked him to be unreasonable and in some respects disrespectful to me and to any others who might be concerned. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)"

Beggars belief. Michael Hardy unblocked Topology Expert because of something that someone else did or said? Because Michael Hardy was offended by comments made by the blocker? He might just as well have said "I have unblocked Topology Expert because he is about the same age as me." If this is not a flagrant abuse of administrative privileges, I don't know what is. Hesperian 04:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and I think there's a couple of issues that the community needs to address. Firstly, admins who became admins back in the early days of the project before RfAs even existed and who apparently have not kept pace with current policy and culture. I personally like Michael and I don't want to see him dragged through an ArbCom case but this does seem to be a real concern. Michael really needs to acknowledge that he will familiarise himself with the relevant policies before using his tools in future to ensure his actions are actually compliant with current policy. Secondly, as a result of this incident, I have concerns about allowing users to use "expert" in their usernames. We have here a self-admitted primary (grade) school aged kid terming himself an "expert" and then berating other editors with his "expertise" and behaving condescendingly, arrogantly and dismissively towards other users, particularly those outside the maths wikiproject. What's ironic is, knowing the background of some of the users who have had problems with this kid, he's berating people who really are subject experts with advanced degrees and PhDs etc. There's something really wrong with this scenario - a primary school aged kid who has self-styled himself an "expert", treating real subject experts like crap. TE may be a great mathematics editor, I'm happy to defer to the maths editors on that, but his behaviour towards other editors not acceptable and he continues to behave this way even after being blocked, with more than half-a-dozen incidents of name calling currently on his page. We have always evaluated contributors based on the merits of their actual edits, rather than on who and what they claim to be and I think that TE needs to accept this and start behaving like he's participating in a collaborative project and stop treating other editors in such a condescending and dismissive manner. Sarah 01:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding usernames, I think that you actually have a point. I think it is not a good idea for a username to convey the meaning of substantial authority (regardless of whether such authority is justified by the user's real-world credentials or WP contributions). There is, in fact, something in WP:USERNAME policy regarding this, as it says the following as a part of the section about inappropriate usernames: "Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. For example, misleading points of fact, an impression of undue authority, or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual." Maybe this needs to be fleshed out and elaborated further. On the other hand, there is a fine line here as in many instances a username may reflect the user's interests rather more than the meaning of authority. E.g. say TE changed his username to PKpUser:Topologist. Would that be better? Much better? Regarding T.E. himself, I have to say that I am not particularly surprised to find him involved in the kind of a situation as the above thread. I have had a few interactions with him at wikiprojectmath and on math related articles and have found his behaviour to be frequently annoying, childish and stubborn. So to the extent possible I try to avoid direct engagements with him. He tends to edit math articles on basic graduate-level math definitions and it is clear that he has access to a few graduate math textbooks and has actually understood something in them. (So I don't think he is a primary school kid). His edits are usually fairly mundane, frequently redundant and, mostly harmless. He does make math mistakes, reasonably frequently, but they are usually caught by others since the articles he edits are on rather basic math topics and it is typically easy to spot a math error there. It is clear that he is generally a well-meaning editor who is, however, unaware of his own limitations (sometimes agressively so, which is the annoying part). Hopefully, this episode will teach him some humility, but I have some doubts about that... Nsk92 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I offered to be a kind of mentor for TE, and this has been accepted. He is usually a good, helpful and cooperative editor in my opinion, but occasionally gets into sticky situations, of which this has been the most serious. I must say I have been impressed at how he has kept his word and got straight back into editing mathematics articles after his block expired and refrained from coming back and posting here. I will try to work with TE, and will bring up the issue of the username some time in the future. I suggest we mark this as resolved now. Martin 07:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To User:Nsk92 (and unrelated to the issue of Moondyne):

Wait a minute. That ‘age’ issue was irrelevant to that discussion and was just to defend myself against Hans Adler who said that I was not an expert (but later said sorry about this). And as I have already mentioned, I have never had access to graduate textbooks (which particular articles are ‘graduate level’?). What you are also implying is that by having access to these texts (which I don’t), I merely copy stuff from there and put it on WP (I think many users can justify that this is not the case because my editing frequently has problems with WP:OR).

And please, if you don’t think that I am a primary school kid (which I am in terms of age but I have finished school ages ago), keep it to yourself, there is no need to publicize this on a forum (and as a matter I fact, I was basically forced to admit my age (it was not my choice)).

I know, I have made mistakes in the past, but that was a long time ago and those mistakes were minor (and not because of my lack of understanding (I do understand topology (and math) very well)). Since I am not bothered by the opinions of other users (real-life people can judge me) and would rather leave deciding whether my edits are good or not (memorizing and understanding a textbook means nothing; pyou have to be able to invent your own theorems (and definitions), be able to come up with links between different parts of mathematics by yourself and in general I prefer to prove a mathematical theorem (such as Urysohn or Tychonoff in topology) by myself (and am mostly successful (and successful for the two examples mentioned) in getting the idea of the proof and carrying it out)).

I created this account at the time I was learning topology and was not concerned with the username. Nowadays I am more mathematically precise and less prone to making ‘precision errors’ (as I said, apart from topology, everything I have learnt is from Wikipedia; I have looked at a particular definition, thought about it and come up with a few results myself. That is how I learn rather than learning from a book). If my edit was wrong it was most likely because I did not think about the definition at all.

Since it is not necessary now, I will not reveal my identity but maybe when I do, you will regret what you have said (I don’t wish to boast; merely only to explain some of what you have said).

Topology Expert (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, I did not hold my breath that you would learn much humility from this episode... Nsk92 (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

TE, the first thing you need to understand is we don't care who you are. You could be a famous professor of mathematics at a renowned university or you could be a grade five student at a local primary school; we don't care. All we care about is what you choose to do when you log onto Wikipedia. Your merits as a Wikipedia contributor are judged entirely on your edits so these constant referrals to who you are in real life and how people would "regret it" if they knew who you are in real life are not only unnecessary but irrelevant. We don't care and it makes no difference whatsoever. All we care about is your edits. Being an "expert", even a real life expert, does not excuse people from following policy or give them a free pass on behavioural guidelines. Secondly, you have voluntarily revealed on site multiple times now how old you are so you can't now claim that it's "confidential". Sarah 23:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And a note to math editors reading this: In future, I would prefer that my age is not referred to. If you know my age then that's fine but it is best to keep it confidential because it is irrelevant and seems to always pop up in discussions.

Topology Expert (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Undue authority" and credentials

Just to notify that the above thread has sparked a Bureaucrat discussion of how to interpret "undue authority" relative to credentials, rather than the more usual implied admin or other official role. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Undue_authority_and_credentials. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well commenting on that, there have been experts who were young (take Gauss and Galois as prime examples). And did I ever say that my highest level of achievement is finishing school (given that I have)? For all you know I might have a higher achievement than that. Don't assume that just because I am young(er), it implies that I am only in school. Even if it were true I would consider publicizing that as WP:OUTING.

Topology Expert (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone there commenting about your age. All we are talking about is that a user's expertise should not generally be flaunted in a discussion in order to weigh one side over the other, because wikipedia has seen too many trusted users fake such expertise. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that I don't want to 'make' users think that I am an expert by 'topology expert'; it is just a username and should be treated lightly. I don't claim to be an expert (judge this from my edits; not from my username).

Topology Expert (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention no real expert would go around with a username with 'expert' in it :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I wasn't going to say it, but I thought it ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Its just suppose to indicate that I am a topologist.

Topology Expert (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

But the worry is that someone who edits a topology article with you might say "gee, he's a topologist, I shouldn't press him for a source on claim XYZ." And that's bad. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, Protonk, but to be honest I don't think that happens much. What might happen is that people with questions on topology might go to TE's talk page to ask him questions about it, but we assume that editors, if out of their depth, will pass the question on or ignore it; either one is fine. The inclusion of "expert" in a username doesn't worry most people here - after all, people will argue with genuine, proven experts with credentials. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see a difference between presenting yourself with the label "expert" and "Dr" or "Professor." Expert is a self administered label, which can mean any degree of expertise; Dr/phd/Prof are different.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If a hypothetical such as the one described by Protonk were to occur, then I'm sure TE will immediately deny any expertise. The name only becomes a problem if TE decides to act like an authority on topology. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir. Are you really a frosty beverage? Jehochman ^Talk 09:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I can answer topological problems and I know topology very well. If it is something I don't know then I will admit it but generally people ask questions at the ref desk (and I answer every question there unless it has already been answered or I am the one asking it!) And in general, I would not want people to say that I am right because of my username but if they do so explicitly and I was wrong, then I will remove my change, but if I was right, then I will not. But one thing has to be made clear: I do not claim to be an expert but that does not mean that I am not an expert (I created this account when I really was not an expert (I was learning topology) but now I am in terms of knowledge!)

Topology Expert (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin usernames seem to be devoid of "undue authority" references. The only admins I can think of whose username might indicate a credential is User:DrKiernan - that is, if you discount User:Jengod, User:SirFozzie, User:Taxman, User:Master Thief Garrett and User:King of Hearts, User:BorgQueen and User:Deacon of Pndapetzim. Kingturtle (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In my off-Wikipedia experience, I've found that people with those abbreviations after their names which confer some degree of authority (like a Ph.D.) treat them one of two ways: either they're always relying on them like a crutch; or they're a bit embarrassed by the credentials, & explain that they only have them in order to earn a living at their chosen trade. Oddly enough, the credentialed folks in the second category are not only the more interesting & honest types -- but exhibit more of the necessary knowledge & experience to actually be considered authorities than those in the first. -- llywrch (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You may discount Kingturtle as well :) Cenarium (Talk) 17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if mine counts... :P Orderinchaos 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What was Light Characters in the Wheel of Time: a redirect to?

Resolved

 – New redirect was reasonable, so I took care of it--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone allay my curiousity? What was Light Characters in the Wheel of Time: a redirect to? --SSBohio 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There was never a redirect or other page there. Perhaps you wanted Light Characters in the Wheel of Time series? --NE2 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what NE2 said. SSBOhio (Shouldn't you change your name now?...;) ), if a page is deleted it will show logs of the deletion to any non-admin (example for a page I deleted) giving you the reason for deletion. That sometimes (for pages deleted due to a discussion) leads you to a page where you can find out more about why it was deleted and what pages were related to it. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And now THAT version redirects as well. Redlink gone, and peace reigned throughout the earth. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I took a closer look, and it looks like the actual redirect that was deleted was Light Characters in the Wheel of Time:. I missed the : the first time around. And for me to become SSGN Ohio, I would have had to start out as SSBN Ohio. As I do not glow, I cannot be part of the Nuclear Navy. So, I'll keep my initials. :-) --SSBohio 02:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It redirected to Light Characters in the Wheel of Time series originally. And you don't need to glow to be on the Ohio, you could have been a coner. :) Protonk (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I lived in San Diego, and the closest I came to the "Silent Service" was taking a date to Point Loma to watch the submarine races. Thanks for your satisfying my curiosity about this deletion. --SSBohio 04:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Take care, thanks for indulging the odd questions of strangers. Protonk (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another one for the edit history blacklist

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikia&diff=256191441&oldid=255789444 - not sure where the edit summary blacklist is. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know we had one. If we do, could someone tell me where it is?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The spam-blacklist will catch edit summaries. Won't do anything about the ### DOT org though. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know; in this case he is spamming without the http syntax. I guess we should just remove Grawp vandalism via oversight, per WP:DENY. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

New Tool/Bot

You can now get notified when a user you have blocked requests to be unblocked. Opt-in here. (According to Peter this isn't spamming. Remove it if your opinions differ. _David^WS _(contribs) 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent tool. Thanks. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a good idea in both halves: to be told I've made a mistake or to be told I've made the right decision. Either way, everyone wins. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 18:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Feedback is always helpful. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner IP Hopping Vandal is Back (12.72.195.162)

The IP hopper vandalizing topics relating to Rudolf Steiner that I reported yesterday is back (see this for details). Once again can an admin who is familiar with blocking ranges nail this hopper (unfortunately I have zero knowledge of how to do so :( )? Seems the 3 hour block wasn't enough to stop him. May need to instate a longer one this time.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Several of these were reported to AIV yesterday, and I too blocked them for three hours each. Unfortunately I do not think a rangeblock is viable, as the IPs in question are part of the dynamic allocation pool used by one of the biggest American ISPs in the tenth largest city in the country. If I am reading the sub-allocation blocks correctly (and I may not be), but there appears to 130,050 IPs in this range that are distributed across the whole of the most populous state in the Union. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about blocking anonymous editing from a single public library. So we'd need to cover 12.72.192.* through 12.72.195.*. This looks very doable, and I think we could leave that kind of a rangeblock in place for a week. It is at most 1024 addresses even if all of those IPs exist. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This editor has said that he will stop vandalizing these articles. Thanks for all your help. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Even better than a range block in this case :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The British ISP Problem

Resolved

 – Article removed from IWF watchlist, according to this morning's papers Guy (Help!) 12:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As described in a recent Wikinews article [52], in order to block images of naked children hosted on our servers, British ISPs are now routing all of their internet traffic to Wikipedia through six proxy servers, thus rendering it difficult, if not impossible, to block vandals without locking out enormous numbers of legitimate users. Now, far be it for me to suggest that we resolve this situation by deleting our images of naked children :) However, if these ISPs are going to proxy all traffic to us, it would be extremely helpful if they could implement a system of XFF headers so that we can identify the underlying IP addresses, as we did for AOL. Has anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation contacted them about this? Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. Also, XFF headers need to be sent to us. They (the IWF) may forward that if they can continue to block the material to anyone proxied through them. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Not all British ISPs, mind. Said he, from a British ISP. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation is aware of the problem, and is working on solving it. As a note, edit warring over any images involved in this is highly disruptive and may create a problem by presenting the image that the foundation has taken some sort of actions here. I'd ask that admins keep an active eye on the pages involved to prevent disruption there.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Resident Evil: Degeneration article

Resolved

 – Article full-protected for 48 hours; one WP:3RR warning issued.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi im reporting a rather heated edit war going on in the Resident Evil: Degeneration article between an IP user and a registered user by the name of User talk:OsirisV. over the plot so much so that foul language has already sprung up. I suggest and admin step in before things get out of hand. Deus257 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyrigt Violation

[53] is a picture of a postcard. Sorry, I didn't know the right place to report this, because I haven't used wikipedia in a long time, but this image needs to be deleted. It also should be deleted from wikipedia commons. If you do not believe me, look at the metadata of the image and ask yourself if that makes sense for a photo supposedly taken from an aircraft.

BTW: This is the only fake image, the rest of [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ewok_Slayer/Images ] are all real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk)

It looks to me like the picture was taken with a Canon PowerShot A20, I don't think it looks to be a scanned image of a postcard. As of now, the only reason the I can see that the image should be deleted is lack of copyright information, the user seems to be inactive so I doubt that will happen. For the future, the best place for this would be Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.§hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Take that back, I found the copyright tag in the image page's history, it was removed recently. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, because I took that photo. Look at the exposure time...(1/15 sec for an outdoor photo?). I can't login, cause I haven't used that account in years and don't remember my password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please delete the photo.-- --(U | T | C) 03:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The admins over there will handle it now. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Increased activities via open proxies

I'm observing an increased activity of edits via open proxies (OP). See [54]. Since 6 Dec a significant portion is of the same type, e.g. [55].

This coincides with a remarkable increase of number of working OP's that I'm daily adding to my database. This increase is due to OP's using a particular port. Probably caused by a new virus/worm spreading since beginning of November. - RonaldB (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The ####alk spammer has been very active tonight (see my block log), so that's probably why those so many are showing up right now. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Resolved

 – Protonk dealt with it Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 07:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please delete these edits? They're a little on the defamatory side (but don't require oversight). Andjam (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone feel like padding their edit count?

This category is full of charmers like these:

• Image:Airport.gif - derivative work, dodgy source, no permission. Very likely copyvio.
• Image:Alfredstower.jpg - no permission.
• Image:Argentine PNA 02.jpg - who took this photo? (no source)
• Image:BJUP.jpg - obvious copyvio is obvious.
• Image:BT GMDD T6H-5307N .jpg - another blatant copyvio
• Image:Bardarsheep.JPG - um, no.

Some of these have been floating around for more than two years. So if you are fairly proficient at image issues and want to pad your edit count, have fun. MER-C 10:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the images you mentioned. Comments below:

• Image:Airport.gif - agreed it is derivative, and uploader said "source - Myanmar Times", but might be worth going through IfD here.
• Image:Alfredstower.jpg - see King Alfred's Tower - not sure what you mean by permission here (the tower was completed in 1772). The upload details contain an e-mail address, so it is possible to e-mail and clear up the paperwork to see if it was intended to be freely released. We do have a similar picture already in the article, though, so it would be no great loss if this one went. On the other hand, if this set of photographers really are releasing their images into the public domain, it might well be worth following up.
• Image:Argentine PNA 02.jpg - uploader is still active, why not ask them about this picture?
• Image:BJUP.jpg - should be OK as fair-use in British Undergraduate Philosophy Society (where the journal is covered).
• Image:BT GMDD T6H-5307N .jpg - uploader is still active, why not ask them about this picture?
• Image:Bardarsheep.JPG - agreed. Deleted as possible attack page and unencyclopedic (person's head photoshopped onto a sheep).

So I've deleted one of those five six. I'll try and follow the other four five up later today. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this category is extremely problematic. I'll take a crack at it now, but I suspect I would be a little more heavy handed with it than many would be. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you find any academic journal covers, could you bung them my way? Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will- I only worked at it for a few minutes, I wasn't really in the mood. I'll have another crack at it another time. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Airport.gif. It was from here. Chick Bowen 17:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hello all. Today User:Fastily requested rollback at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. I decided to decline his request for the reasons stated in this edit. Despite my decision User:Ruslik0 granted rollback to User:Fastily a few minutes later. After a long discussion User:Ruslik0 removed rollback. Most probably you'll ask why I brought this matter up here then. It's because User:Ruslik0 wrote in his last comment at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback “Well, I removed rollback. However I strongly disagree with your interpretation of necessary prerequisites for rollaback.” This was my reply to his comment. While I really regret to bring this matter up here, it's simply necessary for me to know, whether my course of action in this issue was reasonable and right.

To summarise my reasons for declining the request:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Thanks for taking the time to review. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to note that when I granted rollback I did not know that the request had been already denied by Aitias. After a discussion I undid my action. However I think Aitias' interpretation of the relevant policy is overly strict. I think the ability to distinguish vandalism from good faith edits can be demonstrated not only by mass reversion of vandalism, but also by other productive activities. Ruslik (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with mass reversion of vandalism at all. However this user had nearly no experience in reverting vandalism (cf. my links above). I think it's quite important to emphasise this. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Ruslik that "the ability to distinguish vandalism from good faith edits can be demonstrated not only by mass reversion of vandalism, but also by other productive activities", the granting of rollback is also based on need for the tool. If the editor only has 2 or 3 reverts of vandalism, that hardly demonstrates need for the tool. I would also have denied rollback as Aitias did. I'm not sure I would have kept after Ruslik to remove the tool after it was already granted, though. More probably just sat back and monitored the user's use of the tool, to see if the trust was warranted or not.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I though getting rollback was not a big deal? Easy come, easy go. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to say that I agree with you. Ruslik (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you turn this on, please don't start a debate on principles here. I asked for an admin review of my decision, no more, no less. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'm saying I think your decision, while careful, was possibly too careful. It's supposed to be no big deal, so I don't see the need for high standards when granting, because unlike adminship, it can be removed easily. Just my 2 cents. What exactly did you want reviewing? – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with How do you turn this on, Fastily is an experienced user who has been here almost a whole year, has several hundred edits, no previous blocks, and no history of edit warring. I see no reason to deny rollback. This seems like it should have been a rather obvious decision to grant it IMO. Mr.Z-man 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I briefly commented on the original discussion, so I'll give my view. I support the granting of rollback to this user, but it should've been handled differently. Usually when two admins disagree about whether rollback should be granted, they should refer it to a third uninvolved admin. In my experience, rollback has generally been removed if another admin disagrees (but there was a e/c in between) until a decision can be realised, and then reinstated (or not) depending on the outcome. Every admin has a different general standard for granting rollback, so a third admin is sometimes helpful, and prevents a drawn-out dispute. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that a third uninvolved admin should probably consider this issue. Ruslik (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu

A request for comment is underway regarding admin User:Hemanshu. Desysopping is being considered. More input would be appreciated.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Resolved

hello. I'm quite new here and trying to resolve issues regarding the article osho. there is one aggressive editor by the name of semitransengenic that seems to me to be in no way trying to improve the article I have looked at his posts and I found that he appeared here on the 2 jan 2008 out of nowhere and was immediately a proficient editor . I find this unbelievable and have the idea that he was posting previous to 2 jan under a different name and has changed it to hide an anti osho agenda. would it be possible to have a look at this possibility for me ? thankyou (Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

This new user has now leveled a series of user conduct accusations against me, including the heading of this post, and is currently contravening WP:GF & WP:NPA. There is absolutely no evidence of me being aggressive with this user, in fact it's the contrary. I took the time to discuss a number of issues, and did so politely and pragmatically:[56][57][58][59]

I have since asked him to cease making allegations. He had previously been asked to comment on content, not on the contributor, but is insistent on ignoring good faith with this fantasy about me editing previously under a different username. I request that this post be removed or it's heading changed, as this amounts to a false accusation. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you haven't yet provided any evidence to back up your statements. Please show us some diffs of the conduct you object to ("immediately being a proficient editor" is evidence of almost-nothing, thus far--he may have been contributing anonymously for some time before creating an account, or perhaps he's familiar with wiki-markup from working on another wiki. AGF clearly applies here]] and tell us what administrative action you are requesting. Thanks.GJC 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

thankyou for your input gladys. are you an administrator? I am here looking for administrative assistance regarding the comment I have posted above! (Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

ok gladys I found your admin status. it's the ip address I want to get checked as he is dominating the editing at the article osho and after reading the archived posts and asking him about it he said he was just used to prog... he did not mention any other wiki at all! I immediately got the thought that previous he was posting under another id. this perhaps is not out of order .. unless as I thought he had been editing under the other name and under that other name could be seen to have a involvement (financially) with anti osho book or similar . if checking this is not possible or in your opinion unwaranted then I will leave it alone.. to make the title clear ..it is not me I think he has been aggressive to ..it is the article in question. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

thanks gladys.thats what I was looking for a 'check user' on semitransengenic. I was reading that .Assume good faith link you included. and I can go with that ..I have since birth here come with the idea of improvement! give it another try so to speak but please at the least do me a favour (please) and assign me a moderator for this article one of the other editors there jalal also asked for one today! thanks for your comments (Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

I have a serious objection to this users line of inquiry, irrespective of the user 'new' status, someone needs to make it clear that the allegations he is persisting in making here are serious breaches of WP:AGF & WP:NPA and are therefore intolerable: "involvement (financially) with anti osho book or similar"???? Semitransgenic (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If Off2riorob has evidence that another user has a conflict of interest then the relevant noticeboard would be the best place to address it. If there's no grounds for the assertion then it's not helpful to make the charge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have since found undisputed evidence that the user semitransgenic has been posting under multiple names and multiple ip addresses.. from all of which he has been propogating his anti cult agenda. see my postings at... User talk:Will Beback ‎ (→New User / editors personal anti cult agenda (semitransgenic) how am I suposed to assume good faith with him when he hides his posts under multiple identities. he (semitransgenic ) has already been involved in a serious outing case on the osho articles which should have imo resulted in a block.Is it possible to have him removed at least as a biased editor from the osho page so that people could at least try to improve the article.. while he is an editor there that is impossible . thanks (Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

• I don't see evidence of "posting under multiple names and multiple ip addresses". I see that he edited under an IP address before getting an account, and that he's occasionally forgotten to log-in before editing. He has acknowledged his edits and hasn't tried to use multiple accounts to skew consensus or evade 3RR, so far as I can see. I'm not sure what the outing issue is, but if it's more than six months ago I'd suggest that it's stale. Back in January I did caution him against making negative personal comments about other editors and I've given you the same advice. If you think an article needs improvement then I suggest you discuss that rather than the possible motives of other editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated press

Resolved

 – Guys, keep discussion in one thread please. The discussion going on right now is not about the article, but about what has already been posted here.

— neuro^(talk) 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the AP has gotten hold of the current story [60]. DriedOut (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The AP didn't say what the offending article was. I think it may be this one, but I'm not sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer Chergles (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the one, Virgin_Killer. Since wiki servers are in Florida, US law rules and US law is very strong in child pornography. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses for more info. D.M.N. (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"There shouldn't have been any collateral damage". I'm so glad such tech-savvy people are telling me what I can and can't view on the Internet. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain isn't known as the "nanny state" for nothing, it seems. Resolute 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean the United Kingdom... – ukexpat (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the image on the article is clearly a child and should be removed. The actual album cover has been changed for this reason. Why not show the new album cover? 86.154.11.85 (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Could the image not be termed a shock site? Titch Tucker (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just an album cover. It's not an erotic image, it's just a naked girl, posed as erotically as dog vomit. It's no more shocking or pornographic than a statue of a nymph in a park. Naked child != child porn. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's may be so for you and I, but there will be certain rather sick people out there who may see it differently. Also, it is not a statue, it's a little girl Titch Tucker (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't legislate for what a tiny minority may get from an image. There are some people who are sexually attracted to animals. Do we remove pictures of animals from our articles? After all, certain rather sick people out there would see porn were we see a picture of an animal. Censor the Virgin Killers album article and you've got a can open and worms everywhere. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• As some people may know, I am British. My ISP does not block this image. Neither does ScanSafe, the web filtering service we use at work. I suspect a bit of mischief-making, at some level. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's genuine. Details are in bug 16569. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not disputing that it's genuine, it's the scale of the problem I think has been somewhat exaggerated for effect. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Urgent, guidance needed!

Resolved

[Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I just recently applied for account creation interface access, and it was denied. I then appealed the decision, and I've just received a very disturbing/worrying reply...

Extended content

My appeal: Hello fellow Wikipedians, I would like to appeal the decision of Stifle to decline my application to access the Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface. The following is the information I understand I need to include: user_id: 346 user_name: Belinrahs user_onwikiname: Belinrahs user_email: [email protected] log_id: 21886 log_pend: 346 log_user: Stifle log_time: 2008-12-04 11:43:44 log_cmt: Thanks for your interest in working the account creation interface. Unfortunately your application has not been successful this time. This is because you don't seem to have a lot of experience on Wikipedia. Please try again in a few months. Regards User:Stifle I would like to, respectfully of course, disagree that I "don't seem to have a lot of experience on Wikipedia". First of all, I would encourage you to either talk to User:Neurolysis, my on-wiki adoptee, about my qualifications. If it isn't feasible to contact him in the short-term about this issue, then I would welcome you to look at the adoption page where he has given me some questions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neurolysis/Adoption/Belinrahs ). Secondly, I have an edit count of over 1,200. I most certainly realize that edit count doesn't mean I have wiki experience, but what it does say is that I have spent a reasonable amount of my time on the wiki. At this point, the thing I seem to mostly do is reverting vandalism (using Huggle) and doing some minor copy-editing but I believe it does show I contribute to the wiki in good faith. The reason that I did apply for the Account Creation Interface was to help those who wish to register an account, but had trouble doing so. I'm known among my peers for being able to take on multiple tasks and do so efficiently and with a high-quality end result. Thank you, and I will understand completely if you do not agree with my views on why I should qualify for this position. I'd also like to note that if you have any questions that you'd like to ask me, I'd most certainly be pleased to answer them. Once again, thank you for your consideration. Garret Smith Wikipedia: Belinrahs Reply from appeal: Email removed per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I should note that the IP in question is a dynamic IP now -- my ISP, HughesNet, has made my previously static IP into a dynamic one and all Hughes users run from proxy servers, a poor choice on my ISP's part.

But most of the vandalism in question, that led to the block on this account, occured when it was static. What actually happened was that my brother was vandalising the page Maple Valley Schools from our IP. I didn't know it was happening, and I went out to get a drink. Low and behold, he got on my computer and, if I remember correctly, vandalised from my logged-in account. Soon after I got back, he wasn't there and I was blocked for "same vandalism as IP".

Anyways, the fact that Promethean, who I've seen around Wikipedia, wants to run a checkuser on me is actually really scary -- all the checkusers I've read through as research to learn more about Wikipedia -- that were successful ones -- led to permanent bans...

I don't want to make it sound super-severe but I majorly need guidance. Wikipedia's become my home-sweet-home on the Internet and I'm on almost every day. To be blocked for such an unfortunate misunderstanding would be tragic for me. If you look at some of my more recent contribs, they haven't necessarily been mainspace edits, more personal edits, but in the past I've done a lot of vandal-fighting and copy editing. Thanks for your help guys. I hope I can get some good news. I wish I never would have applied to get access to that stupid account creation interface if it leads to my permanent ban! Once again thank you from the bottom my heart for the help. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the account creator issue, I don't think you have anything to worry about when it comes to Promethean (talk · contribs) and checkuser. First of all, he isn't a checkuser. Secondly, I imagine there'd need to be a great deal more than a few edits made by an IP a year ago before any respectable Checkuser would run a check. If that's all there is on Promethean's desire to have a checkuser "follow up on that", don't worry. You're fine. I've pointed out this thread to him, so hopefully he'll shed some light on what he meant. - auburnpilot talk 21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a response that was meant to be sent to only to the list was accidentally sent to you, and therefore it isn't 'official' in any way. Additionally, any checkuser asked to preform a check for the reasons Promethean gave would immediately reject it as fishing. I wouldn't worry about it. Prodego ^talk 21:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say there is an ongoing discussion concerning your access request and appeal. I have been asking why your original request was delined. The reason declared was lack of experience, although I personally would have said you have enough experience. Another issue that has been raised is your block log. However, the block in question was over a year ago, so I see no issues surrounding that either. Everyone makes mistakes, does the wrong thing occasionally, or suffers a temporary lack of good judgement. There is another issue which I've just emailed you about, which from a personal PoV I'd rather remain off-wiki, but I'm sure that that too was an honest mistake. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was given adminship six months after being blocked! No reason to worry about that. --Kizor 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As was I. [61][62] In the long run, blocks are never as big a deal as they seem at first. - auburnpilot talk 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm happy about the private issue as well now. I just want a word with the tool admin who originally declined, (which I've been wanting to do since you appealed, incidentally) and then I'll see what I can do. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help. I consider this issue now resolved as I'm at rest and all is back to normal. You all deserve a cookie. *hands you all big chocolate-chip cookies*. Thanks! [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the email per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence. Please, never, post emails on Wikipedia without the consent of all the authors. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Belinrahs, This was my mistake and I realised it before you made this thread, for starters you were not intended to get the email but further more when I looked at your block log I didnt exactly look at the year of which the block was given that as well as the fact that I dont keep track of the date precisely when I dont need to led me to believe your block had occured much more recently then it did. I'm sorry for any distress I may have caused you and in hindsight, I probably should have CC'ed you the email (which I sent to the other ACC users) that says "Scrap that, that block was over a year ago" but then again, you shoudn't have got the initial email...doh!   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Amigo29 90

Hello there. I was looking around where to post this, but since it really isn't "vandalism" that I am reporting, I guess I will report it here. User Amigo29 90 has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images claiming them as his own. He has received sufficient warnings to stop his undesired behavior. It would be best, if possible, to block the user's right to upload pictures for a limited time, since his written contributions are useful. Colombiano21 (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not possible. A user cannot be blocked from uploading, as far as I know. — neuro^(talk) 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, a user can be blocked from editing (which will include uploads) per the blocking policy in the case that he repeatedly uploads copyvios. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And indeed he has been, by Alexf, for 1 week. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then, thanks. Colombiano21 (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Kalkaski

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

User:Kalkaski seems to be a vandalism only account. Not a frequent contributor, which is why I didn't list at WP:AIV but doesn't seem to have made a valid contibution to Wikipedia since 17 August 2008.

• Edit summaries for all edits back to 18 August 2008 - [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]

The user has had a number of warnings on his talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as vandalonly. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerk appointments

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) and Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs), who have been assisting with clerking our cases, have been formally appointed to the position of Arbitration Committee Clerk. The committee appreciates their assistance as well as those of our other Clerks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yay. Daniel (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Move protect common vandalism targets?

Hello, my apologies if this is the wrong place to bring this up. I've noticed that some pages on my watchlist are moved for obviously bad reasons. Why not protect certain pages from being moved around, when there's no likely reason to ever move them in the first place? Pages like parts of the body, famous people, countries, etc. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the moves are being made enough that it matters... ie the work to debate which articles should have indef move protection, and then to protect them is more then the work to revert a move when it happens. Wikipedia already has auto-confirm which means new accounts can't move pages until they do X number of edits and wait Y amount of time. (I think). —— nixeagle 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What articles are you referring to. I could take a look and see if the amount of move-abuse warrants a protection. Kingturtle (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think lovemacs was referring to groups of articles... ie protect all the body parts, protect all countries, etc. Of course if there is an article that is on your list that is getting moved many times... then I'd suggest either listing it here or listing it at requests for page protection. The latter is the "correct" option, but admins are watching here anyway :). —— nixeagle 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you notice that a particular article is being targetted by someone for repeated moves, point it out with diffs and we'll protect it. But one move isn't usually enough and it's better to revert, block and ignore than tie ourself in knots. People have proposed wide-scale move protection in the past, but there's low-level opposition because it's anti-wiki and concentrates power in the hands of admins, who don't want it. Nevertheless, a proposal - at WP:VP or on the talk page of WP:RM? - that's been thought out and is well argued may fly, so feel free to make it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been done some time ago for names of countries, by several admins. It is not done wholesale for other categories or types of articles due to the work involved. Redvers comments are very valid as a proposal if you care to make it. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If a specific well known page move vandal moves a page once, it usually gets move protected immediately, although not always. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Forming a Citation Study Group?

Any interest in forming a Citation Study Group or Reference Repair Squad? Part of Wikipedia and part of getting featured articles is fixing the format of references. This is very hard work as references are often written in different formats. It's hard work to standardize this. For example, if an article has 50 references, then one has to manually fix them. If there is a group of people who is skilled in doing it well and fast, it would be very helpful. Any interest? Chergles (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, some citations have a "Retrieved 2008-12-05" while some say "Retrieved on December 2, 2008." Others say it differently. Some have no retrieved date on some references but have them on others. Sometimes, the use of italics vary. Chergles (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• you probably want the Village Pump for this but have you considered getting a bot to do this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really worth going through so many articles to fix, I think. Just do it if you happen to be on an article that has that problem, but otherwise, it's not something that would particularly bother readers. A bot would probably indeed be a better solution since as long as they are using templates, arguments should be standardized. Gary King (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism?

Resolved

 – A problematic change to Mediawiki:Titleblacklist has been reverted and should no longer cause this problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why am I getting this message:

This page-move has been automatically blocked, because it looks like page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

when I try to move a page? I was only trying to remove the space in the middle of the title of WT:Articles for creation/Submissions/ The Mount Sinai Holy Church of America. Thanks, Martin 17:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Helgoland Airport -> Heligoland Airport

Hi, I've moved Helgoland Airport to Heligoland Airport to make the spelling consistent with the article on the island, which is at Heligoland. However, the talk page was not moved and when I try to move it separately (i.e. Talk:Helgoland Airport to Talk:Heligoland Airport), I get the message: "This page-move has been automatically blocked, because it looks like page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." -- 3247 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that it is impossible for us plebs to move this talk page to where it should be. Could an admin please oblige? DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Fut. Perf. moved the talk page about the time DuncanH. posted. Anything else? -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

False-alarm page move block

Attempting to move The Oriental Bangkok to the more descriptive title Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Bangkok returns:

This page-move has been automatically blocked, because it looks like page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

--Paul_012 ^(talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea why this happened, but I've made the move for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a limit on the number of moves that an account can make in one sitting? Paul_012 made a lot of moves today, they probably got throttled. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Zef shoshi to Zef Shoshi

Same with the above. I've moved dozens of articles to their correctly capitalized form before without obstruction; what is going on? Skomorokh 17:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, but the article needs a lot of work. JodyB _talk 17:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Has the vandal filter gone live I wonder?Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If it has it's doing a terrible job. Whatever this nonsense is it needs to be reversed quite quickly. Thanks Jody for performing the move. Skomorokh 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to direct any questions about the filter to its developer Werdna. I just left a message on Werdna's talk page. Wonder if he was aware that a live demo was going on. I didn't see any indication of one on the bugzilla report or the WP:ABFIL talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Someone added quite a few entries in the last hour, I have reverted until the problematic regexe is found. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Gah guess that would have been the obvious place to look first >.<...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My fault, I had a bad one in there, gone now. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You've caused major problems by badly-thought-out additions to the blacklist several times now. The next time you edit it, I'm going to block you for disruption. --Carnildo (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's probably over the top as a reaction, Carnildo. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And I'll be one step behind you to unblock. Really, Carnildo, don't make such ridiculous threats. Instead, try using those keys in front of you and have an actual discussion (I know, difficult). I'll start it off for you: "Hey, NawlinWiki. In the future, please don't add something to the Titleblacklist unless you are 100% certain it is correct". Maybe after that, you can suggest that NawlinWiki use the talk page to run additions by other admins. But hey, use your own words. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried discussing things in August, when he blocked all pagemoves to titles containing the letter "p", in September, when he added a number of entries with likely false-positives, and in October, when I removed a number of his additions for generating unacceptable levels of false positives. Talking isn't working. I'm wondering if blocking will. --Carnildo (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) While your irritation is understandable the threats and rash action are not. Certainly this does not rise to disruptive editing. JodyB _talk 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Disabling pagemoves for half an hour isn't disruptive? --Carnildo (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No I'd say not. Being a bit clueless is not the same as being disruptive. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Clueless people shouldn't be editing the blacklist either. --Carnildo (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, blocking wouldn't instill clue. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but it would prevent editing the blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I consider it disruptive because instead of carrying on reviewing articles at AfC I had to come and post here to find out why I couldn't do a simple page move. However over-reacting isn't going to help either. Martin 11:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image to be deleted

Resolved

 – I have closed the new Commons deletion discussion as "delete."  Sandstein  20:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I indef blocked a newly registered user (User:Priorem) who was putting this image of some guy masturbating onto heavily used templates, such as Template:User Good Articles. However, when I go to this image (and trust me that it is not safe for work), I don't have the delete option as usual. Anyone figure out what's going on? I feel I'm missing something very simple... Tan | 39 21:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's on commons[71] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Duh. And holy shit, the debate kept that image, despite its obvious trollishness and not being linked to any articles. Wow. Tan | 39 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And has been kept in a deletion debate there; I'll add it to WP:BADIMAGES here. --Rodhullandemu 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons standards are different from en:wiki standards. Active use in articles is not required. Mentioning this without comment regarding the particular issue at hand. Ahem. Durova^Charge! 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

...so, as long as it is not lifted from another web-site, pretty much anything goes at Commons? Good grief. seicer | talk | contribs 00:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Different standards, though. Durova^Charge! 00:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons standards of retention are based more on legality (copyright, re-use under licensing) and actual image quality/value than anything else. Where WP is a repository of information and articles, Commons is a media repository. But if the image (I haven't looked yet) is bad, then by all means fire off a Deletion Request there--the template for that is {{DR|Reason}} on that side, and follow the template directions. Drop a note on my talk here or there, if you do. rootology (C)(T) 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any record or confirmation of the subject's age? -- /me goes to check... Privatemusings (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's got a personality rights problem. Indoor photo, model permission is lacking. But really, that's an issue for the sister project. We wouldn't like it if Commons tried to dictate how to manage articles.Durova^Charge! 01:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add something witty or scathing here, but Durova is really spot on about this being an internal Commons issue. When it comes to the image's shock value use here on en ... that is what we have WP:BADIMAGES for. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the current excitement, and the image being discussed here and lots of others, somebody at Commons needs to be made aware of 18 U.S.C. 2257, which requires "any person who... inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct" to obtain and retain for inspection "the legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer's examination of a picture identification card". Further information here. Basically, you have to be able to prove that the guy sorting himself out in the picture is over 18. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, "the producer's examination of a picture identification card". If the picture is self-produced, then he's allowed to examin his own picture ID and validated that he himself is of age. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite good enough, unfortunately. The term "producer" is defined here. Check secondary producer. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Obvious joke|picture subject matter|word "producer"}} -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

the template at the top of the page

(big wolfwhistle) hey everbody! I played around with the template here on its talk page to try and (a) highlight some troublespots (which could always do with more eyes) and (b) place things one may need more logically near each other.....but it didn't really attract much discussion. What do folks think? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Colbert and Conan

Resolved

 – Seems pretty dead. I've watchlisted them in case, but nothing on late night for about 5 hours or so. Protonk (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Stephen Colbert just appeared on Late Night with Conan O'Brien and mentioned that he had false claims added to the Conan O'Brien article (see contribs of RobertCane (talk · contribs)). They've been removed, but the vandalism started almost immediately. I've semi-protected the article, but a few extra eyes on Conan O'Brien and Late Night with Conan O'Brien will be appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 06:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion

The above-linked ban review has been closed and a motion passed. Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) is unblocked, conditional to the restrictions and mentorship arrangement set out in the motion, available in full at this link. The three mentors assigned are Casliber (talk · contribs), Jayvdb (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs).

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a good idea for a notorious serial ban-evading sockpuppeteer on a final chance to help other, similar users who just had their ban reinstated for a full year?[72] Fram (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am across this. Fadix had has his ban reinstated because he has chosen to reveal the identity of some of his socks in order to attack my candidacy for arbcom. I have previously offered to help Fadix, but that went nowhere - I believe that Jack Merridew, who took me up on a similar offer, is letting Fadix know that he should seriously consider following the same path, and that Jack Merridew can show him the way. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Brian Beacock and its talk page again

Resolved

 – the pages are both semi-protected. JodyB _talk 17:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Look, guys, this is an ongoing problem that won't go away. This IP games the system by waiting a few days in between his rounds of vandalism. A more permanent solution needs to be put into place. If you look, most of the recent vandalism comes from one IP, so that should be blocked for a long term period. If he starts resorting to other IPs as he has done in the past, those can be handled on a play by play basis, but the juvenile idiocy has to be stopped. JuJube (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the talk page. The article page was already protected. Similar edits are occurring from a large block so a range block would probably not be indicated. JodyB _talk 17:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My rope--let me show you the end of it.

I have finally reached my point of exhaustion with 1mikie19. He's clearly a kid, which has been a mitigating factor, but I have attempted (as have others) to explain to him the very basic concept of Wikipedia: it's an encyclopedia, not a scribble-board for every random opinion you have. The edits that broke the camel's back, so to speak, are here:[73] and--when asked to explain how that edit possibly could be justified by any of the policies I'd attempted to explain, the following--[74]. Whether an age thing or whatever, a truly amazing amount of Clue is not here. I'm "an involved admin" but I would appreciate someone else either doing a better job of counseling this child, or doing the inevitable--I'm without an opinion, either way, at this point. GJC 23:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From my POV, this was a clear case of an indefinite block needing to happen until the user has grown up, shown an understanding of core policies, etc. I admire your resolve here, GJC, but I think even you agree this had to happen. Tan | 39 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. No arguments whatsoever. Thanks! GJC 00:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with that; I left a lifeline of sorts (I'm not good with kids), but if it's not taken up I won't complain. --Rodhullandemu 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is that you at the end of the rope? Answer: No, I'm a frayed knot... BTW, I think the editor is a troll(ette? What is the diminutive for troll?) in that all responses are similar puppy speak "what did I do?" but in good grammatical order and well spelt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Trollita, trollito. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That might work. Odd thing when English borrows from languages - "kitchenette" is a small kitchen, but a "Marquette" is a female Marquis. Personally, I like "trollina" or "petitroll". ►BMW◄ 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Trollushka being word. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Japers, Gwen! I'm on a British isp - I am not allowed to mention the existence of that book that has spawned two films, and is ironically referenced in a song by The Police... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What. The one that goes ...that book by Nabokov? Heh, I was only playing with words and truth be told, I've found it's wontedly more helpful not to type the noun troll at all on en.Wikipedia, although I might rarely stoop to throw the root verbwise into an edit summary, as in rm trolling. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Every once in a while, I feel the urge to pedantically point out the the noun related to the concept of "trolling" is "fisherman". "Trolling" is a fishing technique of floating bait on the water to see which stupid fish bites the hook, not "pretending to be a fictional humanoid that hides under bridges and scares goats." Thus, one who trolls is a troller.—Kww(talk) 17:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Were we separated at birth? You are the first I've ever seen mention that private peeve of mine... Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

One more reason not to be too loose with that word as a noun. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the noun related to "trolling" was singer ("Troll the ancient Yuletide carol, fa la la [etc.]") and that rm trolling was akin to the fine old custom of chucking lumps of coal out the window at irritating Christmas waits. Deor (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine motion passed

The Committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good result. I had a lot of correspondence with the guy on OTRS, he is volatile and easily provoked but quite capable of reason and is apparently sincere in wanting to do some good. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just in passing...

Jenuk1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted my removal of http://www.pathetic.org.uk as an unrelibale source from A329(M) motorway, accusing me of having a vendetta against the site. I dispute that, obviously, since I had never even heard of it before yesterday. The site is fairly widely linked despite it being largely personal opinion (what is the objective definition of "pathetic" in respect of motorways, one wonders?) and I have it in mind to add it to User:JzG/Unreliable sources and work on removal. There are several other equally unreliable sources listed as resources in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Roads. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly a more well put-together personal site than most, but a personal site nonetheless and not suitable for usage as a source or external link. GlassCobra 12:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. You may want to post over at WP:RS/N, we live for this stuff over there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Ah, "Pathetic Motorways", the WWW site that invented Walton Summit motorway (AfD discussion) just so that it could decry it as "pathetic". Given that it has demonstrably invented an entire motorway, I'd certainly challenge its reliability as a source. Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia triggering Norton Internet Security alerts

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages?. seicer | talk | contribs 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi folks, just hoping you can help me out with something. Whenever I visit a Wikipedia page (be it an article, talk or WP: page) I keep getting a warning from Norton Internet Security that "a recent attack was blocked" - a supposed "HTTP Acrobat PDF Suspicious File Download" from species.wikimedia.org. I'm pretty certain I'm the only one having problems with this, but I'd just like to be sure that you aren't aware of anyone else reporting a similar issue (in case this isn't just a case of NIS going nuts or my machine being afflicted). NIS updated just tonight, and the last I accessed the project (a couple of days ago) I was having no problems at all, so I'm wondering if something in the most recent update from Symantec is causing a false trigger. Cheers. SMC (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Are you sure you don't have a virus on your PC? Symantec Endpoint Protection does not report this for me, on any page, and my web proxy also does not throw alerts. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Running a scan right now. Why would a virus target species.wikimedia though? SMC (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Scan turned up clean. meta.wikimedia is now apparently attacking me... SMC (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Related thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A recent attempt to attack my computer. DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I too had an update but it was for Windows last night. I'm going to try and reboot my computer and then my modem. Perhaps a static IP makes a difference? Anyways we'll see what happens after the reboot. If you don't hear from me in 2 days then it's most likely a serious virus!!! LOL --CyclePat (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Another related thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages? DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are next user page OK

User User:Robthebig has been copied same text than this The Red Coat to his userpage, are this OK--Musamies (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Copying text as thus is fine, but I don't see what it accomplishes. — neuro^(talk) 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems he is trying to save the page before it is deleted at an AfD debate (or at least, it looks it is going that way). This is called userfying, and he is allowed to do it. The page, however, may be brought up at an MfD later if required. — neuro^(talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he wants to userfy the content, we should just move the article into his userspace. This is to make sure we don't violate the GFDL... though it's less of an issue, what with him being pretty much the sole author the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth userfying? He has done nothing but edit this page, if he doesn't edit anything else his page should be brought to MfD. Yanksox (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia triggering Norton Internet Security alerts

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages?. --CyclePat (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Wikipedia triggering Norton Internet Security alerts has been fixed. A emergency patch has been relased. --Mixwell!^Talk 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Run Nortons Liveupdate to download the latest updates. (This resolved the problem for me)! Also, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages? for further discussion.--CyclePat (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Hungupbg - Persistant addition of unsourced information

Resolved

 – An admin was already thinking what I was thinking. Blocked. — Realist² 20:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have given the above user a final warning twice for inserting unsourced information to articles on my watchlist. Users talk page is littered with various warnings, I would appreciate some help resolving this if at all possible. — Realist² 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

An admin just blocked him. — Realist² 20:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest bluelinking your ability to do that yourself...but it is already there. :) Protonk (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with my user page

Resolved

 – bathed, shaved and in a new suit now - JodyB _talk 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My userpage is displaying strangely; there is a male torso on it that doesn't seem to be in the page history or anything, and it follows you as you scroll down/up. I've really got no idea what's going on, but I'm sure some of you have seen stuff like this before? I have checked another couple of user pages and it appears to be just me; probably a vandal. Richard001 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed your userpage by removing the userbox for mainspace edits. I am unsure why this happened but seems a problem with the template. JodyB _talk 23:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The fun of template vandalism. Burinex (talk · contribs) blocked indef. - auburnpilot talk 23:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Man you're fast AP. The userpage is now restored and the template fixed. JodyB _talk 23:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And I protected the template as high-risk and the image is heading directly to the image blacklist. Secret ^account 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A travesty has occurred.

Ladies and gentleman, something truly horrible has happened. The namesake article for one of our most revered and honored guidelines was blank for over four and a half hours today. This sort of lax behavior on the part of the community can be tolerated no longer. I demand of all able-bodied and vigilant editors to put this article on their watchlists and give it the attention and security it deserves. GlassCobra 10:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good lord! How could such a travesty occur?! I have watchlisted this important article and demand that others do so post-haste! <joke /> Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And if they don't, what are you going to do about it, eh??? ;o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody climbed the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man and nobody noticed it? We should place some CCTV like this one on top of the Reichtag. The problem is... who should pay for it? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could issue Superhero-costumed-Reichstag-climbing tickets. That should raise enough to pay for the CCTV and allow us to do away with the fund-raising drive into the bargain. Win-win. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I heard Rod Blagojevich was selling the Reichstag for bail money. GJC 16:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A fitting response would be to indef block everyone who had ever edited Reichstag. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Naw, I think we should just cover it up; WP:OVERSIGHT the relevant revisions on the article and this page and then indef anyone who ever mentions it. The real problem will be persuading the anon to keep quiet: anyone who lives near Aston willing look him up and 'drop off a fruit basket'? -- Vary Talk 17:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to sue someone. They clearly didn't do their job. They should have anticipated this years ago. But no, they didn't, and this happened. And now we're going to have to pay for it. Completely unfair for us. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

All joking aside, how did that happen? Where were the anti-vandal bots? --Tango (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Clue Bot should have caught that. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I thought the anti vandal bots would have gotten to it...or bitten it. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember ClueBot handling WP space but I haven't been around enough to notice. spryde | talk 19:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The WP page wasn't hit, the disambig page for Reichstag was.[75] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a travesty but more disappointing and shows the err that exist. But I think the heightened awareness will properly hit the right spots and lead towards progress. Yanksox (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to remove vandalism

I was wondering if an administrator could entirely erase some recent vandalism from edit history of my own userpage. The vandalism in question can be found here [76]. I realize that typically vandalism is left in the editing history, but in this case I was hoping that the vadalism could be removed entirely from the edit history because it is of a particularly personal and disgusting nature, not to mention entirely fictional. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism and revert both removed from history. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cydebot appears to be malfunctioning

See this edit. Cydebot duplicated the whole article and pasted it back into itself. It's doing that a lot right now; could somebody block it? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be doing that with all of its edits (one recent one really was just changing the category), but it's doing it with most of them. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: it seems to be working fine when it edits categories, just not articles. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've informed the botop, don't block. BJ^Talk 00:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Can you please post to it's handler or on its talk page? I'm late for a meeting! Tan | 39 00:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was about to block. It does say it is OK to block if it is malfunctioning, but if the botop has been informed, I'll leave it alone. For the record, "Autoblock any IP addresses used" should be unticked for bots like this, as it runs off the toolserver or something, doesn't it? Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is very strange; I haven't edited Cydebot in a long while. Maybe something on wiki changed? If so, look for many other pywikipediabots to begin malfunctioning like this. --Cyde Weys 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a list or category of pywikipediabots that can be checked? Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. And leave Cydebot blocked for the time being. I'll unblock after I've turned off the crontabbed tasks to run some tests to see what's wrong. --Cyde Weys 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Something on wiki most definitely did change; the question is, where's the bug? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Brion on #wikimedia-tech ^connect, the bug's fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#.22Undo.22_button_acting_weird. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Something changed with the last software update, and now any bot that edits pages with multiple sections via screen-scraping (instead of using the API) is causing page-doubling. --Carnildo (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot changed actually. See testwiki:New changes. The biggest change was Image: --> File: --MZMcBride (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That one I was prepared for: ImageRemovalBot and OrphanBot detected the change and shut themselves down, while ImageTaggingBot was able to ignore it. --Carnildo (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a one-character "minor cleanup" that broke it. It's fixed now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, a good ol' triple-equals, eh? Glad it was easy to fix! --Cyde Weys 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Resolved

...for the image File:Wikistress3D -1 v3 .jpg. Yes, I uploaded this myself but I didn't know there was already one with "-1" and I didn't realise the space I had behind the file.
Sorry if this is in the wrong place but I would like it to be deleted since I've reuploaded the image as "File:Wikistress3D 0.01 v3.jpg" (yes I'm warned that it is a duplicate file). Thanks alot in advance. — Yurei-eggtart 07:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There's WP:IFD for this. Or just tag it with a db tag and explanation. ;) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as requested. Next time you can use {{db-author}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposals

Do I propose bans here or on /Incidents? --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would take that to /Incidents. Malinaccier (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Malinaccier. I asked so that I could propose a ban of Ianxp (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). I think that the site has had enough of him. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a block would be more appropriate than a ban in this case. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The user was indefinitely blocked nearly a month ago and I see no sign of anyone intending to unblock, so the user is essentially banned. --Tango (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to put {{banned user}} on his userpage? If so, I would be happy to (assuming Ian's userpage isn't fully protcted; I'm not a sysop). --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't see that he's blocked already. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean I can unstrike my ban proposal on /Incidents for Ian? (Wow, I'm a mouthful of questions today!) --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• The header at ANI says "To start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard." Admittedly, I put that there a few months ago, but it's nice to have it confirmed that no-one actually reads that header! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Haha. I've definitely never seen it. The distinction between AN and ANI is quite hazy actually. Malinaccier (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Having perused Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ianxp, and noticing he has recently created PhillKnight as a sock account (note the spelling) I would support a ban. I would encourage any admins who notice new socks of Ianxp to block them on sight. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• editors that behave in ways that outrageously flaunt their own intentional violations of Wikipedia policy, most commonly WP:SOCK, effectively self-ban themselves. The formal ban process is usually reserved for situations involving long-term, less obvious disruption. Of all of our most famous vandals (you know who you are!), none has ever been formally banned since it was unneccessary. It seems a waste of time to go through a formal bureaucratic procedure to announce a "ban" on a user that no admin in their right minds would ever unblock, or whose socks we would not block on sight. I see no need for a formal proceeding here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, WP:RBI seems more appropriate in this case. Mr.Z-man 04:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with EdJohnston. It may be because I proposed the ban, but I support. With that being said, I am unstriking my ban proposal for Ian, but per Carcharoth , shifting the proposal over here. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 10:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Striking per above comments. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 11:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which noticeboard to post on? Consult the Noticeboard Noticeboard! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Expired mottos

Resolved

Could someone with AWB or similar tool place db-g6 on all pages with old mottos on all those in August, October or November, or even better simply delete the mottos in these months. Don't worry, they have been preserved. See User_talk:Simply_south#Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day.2FAugust_1.2C_2008, User_talk:MacGyverMagic#Mottos and Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Schedule. Not December as this month has not passed yet. Simply south (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a list of the actual mottoes you want to delete?. John Reaves 12:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete the days containing the mottos, but not their preservation in the schedule. Here is a lisy of the rest Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 10, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 11, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 12, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 13, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 14, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 15, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 16, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 17, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 18, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 19, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 20, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 21, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 22, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 23, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 24, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 25, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 26, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 27, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 28, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 29, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 30, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 31, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 1, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 2, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 3, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 4, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 5, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 6, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 7, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 8, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 9, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 10, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 11, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 12, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 13, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 14, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 15, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 16, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 17, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 18, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 19, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 20, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 21, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 22, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 23, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 24, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 25, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 26, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 27, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 28, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 29, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 30, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 31, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 1, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 2, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 3, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 4, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 5, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 6, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 7, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 8, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 9, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 10, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 11, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 12, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 13, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 14, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 15, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 16, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 17, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 18, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 19, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 20, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 21, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 22, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 22, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 23, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 24, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 25, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 26, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 27, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 28, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 29, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 30, 2008

Simply south (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action. Note that the filtering has been removed.

Related discussion on the use of the Virgin Killer image

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action#Removing the Virgin Killer image

Drama over?

According to this morning's editions of the UK papers, the block has now been lifted due to the length of time the image has been out there. I suspect this whole thing was simply mischief-making by one of the "ZOMG! teh kiddie pr0n!" types on Wikipedia, but it matters not in the long run.

IWF's statement is here: [77]. Note the reference to their online reporting mechanism. The past history of debate regarding the Virgin Killer image leads me to suppose that this report was made by one of the participants in said debates, motivated no doubt by a sincere concern over the image concerned. Hopefully the resultant publicity will persuade IWF to be a little more careful in future, but it should also serve as a reasonable notice to us that WP:NOTCENSORED is not a suicide pact and we should be sure that, as in this case, any images we do include have rock solid grounds for inclusion. Actually I think we mainly do a pretty good job of self-policing on the issue of child pornography and paedophilia, and there are many thoughtful contributions on this issue, as well as the inevitable polarised all / nothing posturing. So actually I think we come out of this looking good, as a project, thanks in no small part to the measured response from the WMF reps. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Ironically I think there'll probably be a jump in Scorpions sales thanks to the free publicity - you couldn't pay for that level of coverage if you were a band. Orderinchaos 18:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See Streisand effect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The drama isn't over folks!! The nightmare is continuing. See the above. (Kreb (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

An unblock notice

After exchanging many e-mails with both disputants and topic-banned users user:opiumjones 23 and user:BKLisenbee where we discussed ways to move forward in order to settle their dispute using collaborative and assisted methods instead of edit-warring and mutual accusations, I am announcing here that I'll be unblocking user:BKLisenbee who has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry since early August 08.

Both users remain topic-banned (Jajouka/Joujouka-related topics) until further notice but will be active at the mediation page user:FayssalF/JK. For this purpose, I have also left a notice at administrator user:Gyrofrog's talk page (the admin who has been working alongside me to sort out this dispute).

P.S. Any help in the mediation process will be appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF, Given the fact that an identifiable anon IP who works for the same people has been editing in a similer pattern here [78], I feel that your unblock is premature. It will lead to vitriol and further problems. The user refused to mediate for a year before his block, is there a reason and solid undertaking from him to do so now?

I object to this unblock as I stated in email and due to the serious violations that resulted in his block see here [79], and his previous editing history that continuously violated WP:OUTING, WP:BLP, WP:NOT . It should have been put to the community for consensus before the unblock was made. Has there been any undertakings in these regards?

The user has a history not unlike ED re his editing and personal attacks on wiki users off wiki. Bad Unblock

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A recent series of edits on Dec. 1 to Jajouka ([80]) concerns me. The topic ban doesn't prevent this sort of thing, and we are bound by WP:OUT etc. from drawing conclusions. I have to assume that the off-Wiki email exchanges addressed such issues, and allowed for some sort of control whose enforcement will not place undue burden upon FayssalF nor myself nor any other Wikipedians. I have to also assume that this is an absolute last chance, at least for the unblocked editor. My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been serious off wiki online posting re wikipedia by the unblocked editor. I have not been informed of any guarantees that have been given. Having been over this for too long with this editor and his refusal to mediate. I am 100% against this unblock. It will only lead to more problems. I am also constrained with what I can say due to WP:OUTING. This editor has continuously been disruptive and uncooperative. His edits will affect a wide range of other pages, not just JJ issue, as there is he has a NPOV agenda regarding several other pages? Despite a year long opportunity to mediate before his block he 100% refused to participate. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would one be against unblocking someone for the purpose of sorting out a mess knowing that no editing will be involved?! The "topic ban remains until further notice" (meaning until problems are fixed) says it all. Neither him nor you will be entitled to use fingers to edit a word at those articles. The purpose is to fix your non-ending problems which include off-wiki harassment from his and your side alike. You are talking about wp:outing, wp:blp and wp:not which concern both of you. None of you has respected those policies in the past. Off-wiki harassment? Both of you! You are on the same boat opiumjones 23.

The recent IP editor edited from Denmark and opiumjones 23 knows who that preson was --it was not BKLisenbee and as known those kind of biased edits can be reverted on the spot per wp:NPOV. Now, are you ready for a mediation or not? Otherwise, what's has been the reason of you and him sending me e-mails regularly if not asking for help. Well, here's it is... let's work here in the field and leave e-mail boxes alone. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns as stated above are more related to talk pages than article pages. I also object and disagree with your above statement re off wiki as it has been directed against me!!. My first email does require an email response. A bad unblock given the history and I have respected 100% the topic ban. I have repeatedly agreed to mediation but other user refused. Recent Danish editors works with BKL and his friends. ie proxy/meat puppet. As a meat puppet has been editing in the last week I think that the lesson has not been learned. The unblock is premature. It should have had community consensus. The unblock comes at a time when real world commercial concerns are driving the issue not wiki issues. ie CD release by BKL pals , Bad unblock without wider community support. Gyrofrog's concerns are also relevant.. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It can be premature though I believe the amount of e-mails i've been receiving from both of you shows otherwise. You fix your problems here and not with e-mails. The Danish IP is under the radar of course and the reason behind the IP appearance is duly noted. And again, this is an unblock not for editing. Nobody will be editing. You got your concerns straight but you forgot that other party got their concerns as well. Hearing from both sides on a mediation page is the norm especially that there are concerns about NPOV --the Wikipedia core policy. As for the wider community view I must say that this wiki dispute has been going on for ages with no one ready to understand it or help due to the specificity of your dispute. At the exception of Gyrofrog, no single admin has ever delved into your dispute. What would the community say about a dispute which doesn't understand? If there's someone familiar with your problems then I'd be happy to hear from them or accept their objections in case there would be any otherwise I see no single problem at all in letting someone back after 4 months of being blocked coming back to discuss and not to edit. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One simple reason is his use of talk pages to wage vendettas Opiumjones 23 (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked him to be careful. You can follow the same advice. He'd present his concerns objectively and you'd do the same. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't smell right about this. FayssalF left a notice at the blocking administrator's user talk only ten minutes before the actual unblock.[81][82] For a four month old indef it would seem prudent to allow a bit more time for discussion than that. Opiumjones 23 demonstrates no desire whatsoever to mediate. Although I have great trust in FayssalF's good intentions, this isn't off to a good start. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it operate a corkscrew. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I was willing to mediate for over a year. The unblock is premature as there are off wiki issue that are ongoing and I have no faith in the unblocked users intentions to mediate. There should have been discussion before the unblock for sure. Off wiki emails that I have been cced by third parties do not indicate any change in the users temprement or interest in good faith mediation and postings on other websites also indicate the same. I can provide copies and links by email if any one wants them; I suggest reblock and time for discussion at a community level. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To Durova... I must say that the unblock was discussed a month or so ago and Opiumjones 23 had little concerns about it (not that important since no one is going to edit any word). Plus, we could keep doing this via e-mail but I can't guarantee for them that i'd be available everytime they need help. It's an on-wiki dispute and should be fixed here with the help of other admins. The other party has no more desire to mediate than Opiumjones 23 as nobody trusts the other but they both have genuine concerns which need to be discussed. Nobody is obliged to mediate but everyone has the right to tell us publically about their concerns which I get via e-mail almost on a daily basis.

In fact, both users will be under the same topic ban because they both acted wrong in the past couple of years which explains the general topic ban I put them under. I've been quite busy lately and i have had little time to deal w/ this issue and other ones and this explains the "10 minutes". I know the story of these two users very well and letting one back is common sense because they have genuine concerns as well which I have been receiving from them (same thing from Opiumjones 23). The difference between the two users is that one have socked and got indef blocked. The rest (outing, blp, pov pushing, incivility) was common practice for both of them. Let's hear them before judging. You are invited to help at this long-standing conflict. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I did respond to you 15 Oct and may not have been clear enough but my comparing BKL with ED should have indicated my concerns. I don't know how that was taken to mean I had little concern. I should have been clearer obviously. You also do not get daily emails from me. Why a user indef blocked for his behaviour , (and his editing problems were not just with this user), should be allowed to publicise their NPOV, Outing other issues on Wikipedia I can't understand.

I have GF Svest but your points here are not at all in keeping with your normal well balanced approach. They are a contradiction of basic principles here and make no sense. The User also refused repeated requests, pleas, and suggestions, to mediate for a year before his was indef blocked. It as you say he has "no desire to mediate " why unblock. Also re the statement "everyone has the right to tell us publicly about their concerns", he has two websites that air his concerns off wiki as it and all these concerns were aired here to death in the days of User:Emermann and the BKL period. It makes no sense and has no precedent here as far as I know.

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I still have a balanced approach. You have done the same things wrong in the past and that was the reason behind the topic ban, otherwise you'd be still editing yourself. You are both topic banned because you both did wrong. Just because he sockpuppeted after that (for which he was blocked) doesn't mean that you are 100% right and he's 100% wrong. I'd have done the same for you if you were blocked indef. Now, what if we listen to his concerns as well? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• URGENT ATTENTION NEEDED BY ADMINS at ~user:FayssalF/JK. Can some admins check the WP:BLP and WP:OUTING issues that have come into play or should I go to incidents. I emailed FayssalF but as he has left it as it was I think it is prudent that another admins looks it over. In the huge comment there there are several WP:OUTING issues which FayssalF assured would not be taking place under his watch. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no outing whatsover. Please show us some evidence. I emailed FayssalF but as he has left it as it was is misleading as I haven't replied to you until today, just after reading your email. Please address the concerns of the other user instead of repeating yourself. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the email, outing exists when wiki names applied to real life situations, sources? Please watch for third party living people being accused of illegal activities such as the one you just redacted.

Will address only re wiki guidelines for sources and verifiability when time permits as outlined in email. Thanks Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

62.30.249.131

62.30.249.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked 6 to 8 times. (It is hard to follow the block log.) The current block is for only 12 hours. It seems to me that this is grossly inadequate considering this IP’s prodigious vandalism. (Twelve months would be more appropriate.) In the last 8 hours it has made 65 edits. I have examined the most recent 12 of these and found only 2 that did not need to be reverted. (I can’t post this to AIV because there is a current block.) —teb728 t c 20:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that one of the addresses that's being used by something like half of the U.K. at the moment? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's Virginmedia/Tesco.net. 12 hours seems reasonable considering the trade-off between allowing legitimate users and vandals to edit at present. we can always unblock for legitimate editors. --Rodhullandemu 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Even ignoring the particular circumstances of this IP, the fact that it's been used for only ten days would indicate a block of one year would be highly inappropriate. We should keep these blocks short so we have some idea of the collateral. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily when I find vandalism, I check for other vandalism by the same user or IP. But if we are not going to protect ourselves from this disruption, I won't waste any more time on this IP. —teb728 t c 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're telling us that you're going to purposely ignore future disruption to prove a point? Mr.Z-man 21:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To Mr.Z-man: No, I'm telling you that it would be a considerable effort to review the other 65-12=53 edits (and how many more when the block expires). The facts that there are a few good edits mixed in with the vandalism and that the vandalism style varies makes reviewing harder. Under the circumstances, it seems like an exercise in futility. I have better things to do. I might feel different if it were a matter of cleaning up a problem that had been solved.

To others: It seems to me that if “half of the UK” has to login in order to edit, that is better than this disruption. If there are brief blocks, they have to login anyway during the blocks. I don’t think logging in is much of an imposition. —teb728 t c 22:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• With the best will in the world, reviewing all the recent edits would be pointless, since all edits from that ISP are still apparently being routed through the one proxy. When VirginMedia/Tesco.net stop doing that, or include XFFs in the headers, we can distinguish between good and bad editors. It is somewhat difficult to argue that in an opening editing model, "good editors" should be required to register accounts when that is not a requirement. As I said above, it's a trade-off, and a regrettable trade-off, between preventing vandalism and permitting good edits from anonymous IPs. At present, we cannot make that distinction, and I sincerely hope that customers of the affected ISPS make their displeasure felt to them, but our concern is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, and that is also why anon blocks must be applied, not so long as to unduly prevent valued editing, but to limit damage. --Rodhullandemu 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I would say that the normal situation is a good tradeoff: It allows anonymous editing at the risk of manageable vandalism. But this situation is the worst possible choice: It allows an intolerable level of vandalism, and blocks good editors. Dozens of vandal edits get in at a time. Unless they are to persist in the articles, they all need to be reviewed. And since they cannot be marked as reviewed, they need to be reviewed by multiple people. At the same time good editors are blocked—blocked unpredictably, perhaps in the middle of a series of edits. I should think that an anonymous good editor would be less annoyed at predictably having to login than at being blocked unpredictably. —teb728 t c 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

deletion rewquest need some deletion

closed deletion request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Coat needs some more deletion, page Sec tank and The Red Coat (comics), can someone help in those--Musamies (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked User:MBisanz who closed the prior deletion. That would be the person I would trust best to determine whether they are all related or deserve separate AFDs/prods or whatever. At The Red Coat (comics), (also at User:Robthebig) he provides a link (which actually further indicates the non-notability of the character), but that still deserves an AFD since it asserts notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Sec tank per the AFD, but given that The Rec Coat (comis) was not listed on the AFD page, I would suggest a re-nom for procedural fairness. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Red Coat (comics) is an exact, word-for-word copy of The Red Coat deleted per AfD. (Not sure if it technically qualifies as a db-repost as it was officially reposted before the original article was deleted.) And it was listed on the AfD page, see the second line there: "a copy of the above article is at The Red Coat (comics)..." 131.111.223.43 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move cleanup

Resolved

Will somebody take a look at L07chleo2's contributions and do a little page move cleanup? S/he seems to have made several copy/paste moves, and my BlackBerry craps out every time I try to fix them. Thanks, - auburnpilot's sock 18:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks to be a good-faith editor who is trying to improve railway-station articles, but has made a couple of newbie mistakes. I've left them a notice of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I just couldn't reverse the copy/paste moves because the BlackBerry browser cuts pages in half if you edit more than section-by-section. The last time I tried,[83] I blanked half of the GWBush article. Thanks to everyone who corrected the moves. - auburnpilot's sock 20:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to possible malware site

Disrupted links so the archive bot can bypass spam filters. Actual domain name is without dashes. Миша13 13:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Information on the site

1. www.free-web-town.com identified as malware site by Firefox: (example [84])
2. www.free-web-town.com identified as problem site by Google: Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page for www.free-web-town.com
3. www.free-web-town.com identified by WOT Security Scorecard as: phishing, spyware, adware, malicious content, viruses

Two editors have been restoring it to L. Ron Hubbard 1, 2, 3. Requesting uninvolved admins to evaluate. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Including a link that directs readers to a "THIS IS MALWARE" shock page in Firefox and Safari (IE7 as well?) is not acceptable. BJ^Talk 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the entire domain is designated unsafe, is removal of the link from other articles also in order? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Woo, /me gets to work. BJ^Talk 01:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not in order. My guess is that one person's directory has malware and thus Google and Mozilla think everyone needs to be protected from the entire site. Many of the links probably fail WP:EL for other reasons, but we shouldn't take these "malware alerts" at face value. --NE2 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking to a site that leads the majority of users to a "This is malware, stop now" page is a Bad Thing. And nothing of value is lost anyways. BJ^Talk 01:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not just Firefox users? I went to free-web-town just fine in the latest version of IE. See also [85]. --NE2 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Any browser or client that uses Google's data, the big three being Firefox, Safari and Chrome. I'm not aware how the IE7/8 malware system works so I can't say where they get their data. BJ^Talk 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that some of the links might contain malware is a very discouraging thing. Plus the site is a website hosting community. How can in either case could this be considered a valid EL or a reliable source? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's the official site for something it's a valid external link. I've seen short line railroads with official sites on a free service. --NE2 01:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LeaveSleaves (talk · contribs). This site is simply not appropriate anywhere on wiki. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of what you or Google thinks. We can link to sites that meet the criteria, even if Google erroneously lists them as malware. --NE2 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The report by Google and other sites is correct. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's correct in saying that there is or has been malware hosted at that domain. Mozilla is incorrect in using that to block access to the entire domain. --NE2 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, scroll up: it appears that someone labeled Wikipedia as having child porn and so now all visitors from some major ISPs are being sent through a handful of IP addresses. We should avoid this sort of thing, and evaluate each link on a case-by-case basis. --NE2 01:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a site that contains malware (my guess is it's a false positive) is independent of the text being added. The PDF is simply a convenience link to a print source that may or may not be relevant. If the link is to be removed, that's all that should be removed unless there's consensus that the text does not belong. --NE2 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: 4. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you object to that edit, please explain why (preferably on the talk page, not here). There's no link now. --NE2 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a brief note on Misou's talk page regarding the 3RR, but since the link has been removed, I doubt it will be an issue. - auburnpilot talk 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

After researching this a bit, I think this might be a false positive on Google's part. It seems malware distributors must have been abusing the free hosting free-web-town.com to spread their goods, but the host itself isn't doing it. For example, digging into the links from Bjweeks above - this list of malware found on the domain suggests that the malware was stored in individual members' accounts. I think the links should probably stay in place for now until more information can be found, as this might be a ham-handed mistake on Google's part. krimpet✽ 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this site has hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. It infected 50 domains. If you read the entire report at Google Safe Browsing diagnostic, it is a bit larger than a few members' accounts. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a free hosting site like Geocities. Some of the members hosted malware, knowingly or not. --NE2 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The list of article with links is here: User:Bjweeks/Sandbox. I don't suspect many of the link are valid under WP:EL but that takes a closer inspection. BJ^Talk 01:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unintentional or not, linking to domains hosting malware is unacceptable. This and 117 related/involved domains have been blacklisted. Of perhaps 200 domains, I removed anything remotely resembling a legitimate site unless it had malware - most were blatant spam (the most creative perhaps being incestlessons.net \o/). De-listing for legitimately useful domains will of course occur upon request provided malware is no longer present.

More information is of course welcome. I spent about an hour sorting through stuff, but I was (am) rushed, and may well have made a mistake. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you verify that there is malware present on any of the links that are now disallowed? --NE2 06:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Everything I added was either pure spam (cf incestlessons.net) or had the nasty when I checked. The proportion of sites someone might want to link to which had malware was very low & as I say, they'll be removed upon request provided they're clean.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

free-web-town doesn't "resemble a legitimate site"? --NE2 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well don, Mike. I note it's now on the meta blacklist. Good call. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. Recall, I'm not an admin here.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock affecting logged in Wikipedians who have BT as their ISP

User:Elonka put an autoblock on an IP address that BT use. It has affected a number of Wikipedians that have BT as their ISP, including myself, User:Shoemaker's Holiday and User:Snowded. Can this autoblock be lifted immediately as I'm having to use the secure server atm with all the problems that brings. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the same as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RE: Block of Ashley someone or other. --NE2 09:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Improper block of Giano

Resolved

 – Relevant block lifted in accordance with ArbCom motion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dramahz alert!

Giano was also affected by the above autoblock on half of London. He was venting on his talk page, and Theresa knott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) came along and gave him an unauthorized civility block. If you check the recent ArbCom ruling, she's not allowed to do that. I recommend removing the block immediately. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally this also caused "half of London" - or at least myself - to then be caught up in a new autoblock. Guest9999 (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. It was a klutzy move all around. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly stupid of me to cause the autoblock as I was certainly aware of it, and I apologise for not thinking to uncheck it. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to go through Category:Requests for unblock-auto, update the template, etc. Guest9999 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 13:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guest9999 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Giano II now unblocked, drama ensues... in other news... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, we are going to make this the last tupid trolled block of me, with a proper investigation of why this Admin blocked me, and make it a lesson to all who think like her. What I want to know is, why I was editing quite OK for some time before Elonka's actions suddenly block me, then why did the page telling me I was suddenly blocked transform itself into WJScribes election page, and then most importantly why some Admin arrived on my talk page (who has never posted there before) and start shrieking at me to stop being uncivil, and then when I told her to take her complaints to Elonka - blocked me! I want this thoroughly investigated - why was TKnott watching this page - what sent her here and why. If she had been watching this page for some time is impossible she she did not know of the Arbcom ruling, so if she was not watching she was sent! Either way she is in the shot! So lets have some questions directed at her. You can do them or I will, but asked and answered they will be! This morning I was quietly and happily editing a page then along come Wikipedia's admins - WHY? The Arbcom are quick enough to sanction me - now lets see TKnott sanctioned. I am sick of all these problems from incompetent Admins - this time I am going to have some action taken against them. This was ridiculous block with no justification or reason, what's more it was against an Arbcom ruling and the blocking Admin knew it. Now de-sysop her!Giano (talk) 14

• She could have had Elonka's page watched, and saw your interactions there and then come to your page... It really could be as simple as that. Oh, and personally, I would be very grateful if you would not insist on having admins desysopped for acting on behalf of editors for whom they have some prior relationship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano, it was not a "stupid trolled" block. Using these labels is making you the troll, not them. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed a personal attack by you from my page [86]. I suugets you leave these matters to those that understand them before you to are blocked. Giano (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please dont personally attack admins by calling them stupids and trolls. And dont threaten me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano II, enough is enough. Regardless of the legality of the block, your actions (calling people stupid and idiots) are getting so annoying. Get a moment and ask yourself why none of the autoblock victims used such a language and see if you merit a long-term block. You are not alone in the project and you must respect people who are sensitive to your usual words "stupid" and "idiot". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

when an Admin mis-uses her tools to block half of one of the World's largest cities and its inhabitants are still being blocked four hours after she was told to desist - you tell me who is imcopmpetent and stupid? Instead of chasing me, the Admins should have been sorting it, but that is too much to ask!Giano (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano, please tell me how Elonka knew she was blocking half of London? How was she aware of the IP address of that user when she blocked it? How, also, did she then restore the autoblock again if she hadn't edited since five hours before those second autoblocks occurred? either way (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this block is against an express Arbcom ruling, I propose it be brought to Arbcom Enforcement. Jtrainor (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not a civility _parole_ block, so the limitation of the parole is not relevant. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Apoc2400 is correct. The Arbcom motion specifically states that Giano shall not be blocked citing the RFAR as justification. This was simple, garden-variety incivility. Giano doesn't get a pass on incivility because the Arbcom revoked a previous restriction. Horologium (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... the Civility Parole was superceded by the ArbCom requirement that such proposed blocks be directed to them for agreement; that is exactly the purpose for that wording - to diminish the disruption that is the frequent result of Giano being blocked for perceived incivility that the parole had failed to address. The civility parole was originally produced to deal with "general incivility" concerns regarding Giano's conduct, which I suggest TK's block fell under. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Do I got this right? An Administrator has to check with Arbcom, before blocking Giano II for civility breaching GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a magical possibility we should concern ourselves with: some admins will run into Giano, block him, and not have any idea that Giano has an Arbcom restriction against him, nor that ArbCom has limited the restriction in that way. To many admins, not out of any philosophical issue, but simply a perspective issue, see Giano as a normal everyday editor and will act accordingly.--Tznkai (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Understand folks, this could be seen as a 'double standard' treatment. Rightly or wrongly, the question will be asked Why is Giano, so difficult to block, when he's been un-civil? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to comment on the wisdom of the block, the people involved, or especially the ArbCom ruling itself: I agree that, because the ArbCom ruling prohibits only "enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole", a block for incivility (as opposed to a block to enforce the civility parole) does not violate the ArbCom ruling. Otherwise, we would have to believe that the ruling was intended to allow one specific user to violate the civility policy, of which I see no indication. Given that the block seems to have been lifted, I don't think that further discussion or admin action is needed here.  Sandstein  17:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't block Giano! Only arbcom can authorize that, and they won't. Good trick. Chillum 18:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems they just did.[87] - auburnpilot's sock 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here we go again. I'll get the popcorn. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to arbcom, I was mistaken. Chillum 19:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Do shut up, Chillum. Must you seize every opportunity to post mean, spiteful, petty, trite comments about Giano? What's so irresistible? Do you suppose they amuse? You don't edit a lot these days, do you? But if it's Giano it seems to be always worth logging on. Here's a suggestion for you to behave with more self-respect on Wikipedia. How to comment with more beauty. With less blah. Here it comes: practise seeing something about a Giano block and saying nothing. Nuff-fing. Try it once. Sit on your hands. Walk away from the keyboard. Leave Giano alone. And when you've infused the beauty, the next step is the generosity. Right now would be a good time to start these exercises. Blatherskite! Bishonen | talk 04:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC).

• The block that is the subject of this discussion was lifted, and like Sandstein, I don't see any further admin action that can be taken either. This discussion has clearly reached its close - the snide remarks and attacks need to stop; regardless of whom they are towards/against. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Developer needed

Any chance we can get a developer to add a feature that the autoblock is turned off by default, and a warning message displayed, for sensitive IP addresses? When a clueless ISP implements proxies without XFF, we should have the ability to turn off autoblocking on those IPs to avoid causing excessive collateral damage. I can understand how an administrator may not know or notice that an IP is listed as sensitive. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that ISPs using XFF is not enough. XFF usage on Wikipedia needs to be whitelisted. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be a very sensible move. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of {{sofixit}}, I recommend the filing of a bugzilla request; adjustments or additions to the MediaWiki software are almost-never made without one. AGK 14:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So, who's heard of the Autoblock whitelist? — Werdna • talk 15:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not me. I'll go add that IP to the list as soon as I find it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Could a checkuser please figure out the IP address of that proxy and whitelist it please? Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RE: Block of Ashley someone or other says 194.72.9.25 (talk · contribs). --NE2 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that IP's contributions look like the represent half of London. I'll check it and see if the IP is currently softblocked and then consider what to do. Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've whitelisted that IP so there will be no further autoblocks generated there if one of the many named accounts on that IP happens to get blocked. The IP itself is softblocked for excessive vandalism. Users there will need to create an account, at least until BT boards the cluetrain. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Best practice

Ok, something for admins to take away from this and apply to general situations is to improve the clarity of communications when discussing autoblocks. Many users aren't familiar with them, even though many users at some point will be hit by one. Autoblocks can be confusing for the blockee as they themselves have not done anything wrong. So when responding to a situation where a user has obviously been autoblocked (ie, they are reporting as blocked but there is no entry in their block log) make sure to clearly explain to them what an autoblock is, and what they need to do to help you fix it.

The other thing would be making MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext more clear. Suggestions would be welcome. --bainer (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A damn good start would be to stop hiding the instructions on how to request that the block be lifted. Thoroughly confused me when I was caught in an autoblock recently. DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at improving the documentation. The instructions are now unhidden and the explanation is more precise. Jehochman ^Talk 05:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've suggested another improvement at the talkpage. DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

IP Block exemption

I'm sure the question is probably being asked somewhere about this, but should we start being a little more liberal giving out IP block exemptions as a result of this? If a well-established regular user is affected by a London autoblock, why not just go ahead and give them an IP block exemption for the duration of the issue? --B (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, if an IP address is shared by a small number of users, then we should help the innocent users individually with IP block exemptions; if it's an address shared by many users, then exempt the IP address from autoblocks. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrator vacation day

Resolved

 – User:Philosopher got there before I did...--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All right, break it up. If you want a vacation, take it. Otherwise, get back to work already! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're like me, you spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. If you're reading this post, you probably spend a lot of time on Wikipedia in the places that make people miserable, or at least see a lot of people being miserable over Wikipedia. Admins especially, deal with a lot of dispute resolution issues, arguing with people over page deletion, and arguing with each other over this or that piece of Wikipedia trivialities.

I say we take a break, together, for at least one day. There are at last count about a thousand active administrators. Wikipedia doesn't need you, and it doesn't need me, at least for one twenty four hour period.

So, my suggestion? Friday the 19th of December, turn off Wikipedia. Go call a friend, spend time with your kids. Read a book. Concentrate on your job, start your own wiki. Enjoy meatspace or the other parts of the internet or both. Spend time doing something that makes you happy that isn't Wikipedia. This project is important to all of us - but it isn't everything.

--Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your basically opening both arms to vandals all across the world by giving admins a day off. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless, we get more bots! Caulde 17:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But what better time of year is there to show the vandals some love? -- tariqabjotu 17:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that all 1000+ administrators heed my advice we have an army of normal every day editors who will watch over Wikipedia fine on their own.--Tznkai (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I dread to think what state Wikipedia would be in when we came back, for starters the CSD backlog would be in the thousands. It would be like a day of anarchy. So yeah sure, lets go for it. Why not make it December 25th?--Jac16888 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Vacation is for those who are under occupation. Would you consider yourself under occupation? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe not all admins taking the same day off, but how about admins randomly being selected to be de-sysopped for a week - just as a reminder of what it's like for the proles? DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not take vacations on different days instead of all at once? Chillum 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia with a massive drop off in administrator population (if that is what happens) will function about the same as Wikipedia on any other day. Maybe a little better - maybe a little worse, but it'll be fine. Remember, this is just one 24 hour period. --Tznkai (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't work out if you're just messing around here, but if you're being serious I will point out that so far today, since about 7.30am (my time, I make it 7.30pm now, so you know) there have been about 2000 deletions and about 120 blocks and unblocks. Thats 12 hours. Imagine the immense backlog if there were no deletions or blocks for 24 hours. Not to mention the fact that it would be like an open buffet for every grawp/WOW/Zodiac wannabe in existence. Grawp accounts probably move about 20odd pages per account before we catch and block them, thats in the space of about a minute. Imagine what he could do in 1440.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I will bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that if every person who frequents AN and AN/I took a simultaneous 24 hour break, Wikipedia will be absolutely fine.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OMGZ Teh Wiki will collapse!!!111!! New policy to be enforced starting yesterday(Cabal decree# 35478B): Administrators must never go more than 3 hours without an edit or admin action! Mr.Z-man 19:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So just write a bot that runs every 2.5 hours which edits the sandbox. Xclamation point 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems like an incredibly silly idea. Why not instead of having everyone take the day off, we work to make this place more enjoyable for everyone? You can start by eliminating the troll-fest that is AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

One simple thing that I think would help reduce the admin workload, would be if "create new pages" was only available to accounts that had been around for 24 hours. Far too often, I see people create a new account, and then within minutes they're creating absolute garbage pages which fill up CSD. If we could put a speed-brake on page creation, I think it would free up admins to work on other things. --Elonka 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not close Wikipedia for editing by non-admins for one 24-hour period? That way, if you want to take a day off, you can be sure no vandalism will occur. If you don't, you can engage in a lot of quiet backlog addressing. I think we should do that one day a month. bd2412 T 20:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I fully endorse Elonka's suggestion that new accounts should have to wait 24 hours before creating a new page. bd2412 T 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, but it got shot down at the village pump recently, will put off too many new users apparently--Jac16888 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A ton of our new pages come from new editors sure a bunch of them are bands i've never heard of, but a lot of the remainder is Wikipedia's growth. Slowing down new page creation rates through time limits would make more sense.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this thread... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea of blocking all non admins from editing for a day is the worst I have heard in my years here, it violates our w"wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" ethos, divides wikipedia editors into admins and non-admions and postulates that admins are the superior editors. That sucks. Admins as a group do not need a day off anyway as individuals can take days off whenever they choose. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am suggesting that admins should voluntarily take a break and that nothing should be done to make it easier or harder for them to do so. The whole point is to disengage and realize that the wiki will survive, not to change the wiki around admin desires.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, our ethos is a means to an end, that end being the creation of an encyclopedia. If locking it up but for non-admins for a day (or even a few hours) out of every month were to aid in that process by giving the admins a chance to (a) catch up with the vandals and/or (b) cool off and get their heads together, it would trump the idea that "anyone can edit" should apply all day every day. That's exactly the reason why we do have restrictions on "anyone can edit", such as page protection, protections against page moves by newbies, and most recently requiring an account to start a new page. bd2412 T 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just give people credit for being self-responsible enough to manage their own time to take breaks when they need it for the durations that they need it. If you really wanted to enforce vacations, make it for everyone and put the server in view-only mode for 24 hours - or better yet, unplug the servers. Both of which make almost as much sense to me as an admin vacation day. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't at all intending to "enforce" a vacation day - this is entirely voluntary. The very real problem here is that Wikipedians in general, but administrators especially tend to end up with blinders - we spend a lot of time on Wikipedia dealing with disputes and cleaning the backlog. The wiki will not collapse without any one of us, even any hundred of us for a day.--Tznkai (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's just shut down editing for a day! No vandals can attack Wikipedia if they can't edit...let's all just take a day off, put the thing on read-only and sit back and relax :-D SoWhy 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Go on, have a holiday. I'll keep an eye on the shop. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm working on writing a little booklet, it's great fun and it will be in real-book form (although self published) which is a nice thought. Of course I can't resist commenting on the wiki's dramas though:( Sticky Parkin 22:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Count me in. Friday 19th? Christmas shopping and Gogol Bordello at the Carling Academy here I come.… AGK 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that when all of the admins get back from this vacation they will find every single page on the English Wikipedia redirected or moved to a page entitled Grawp Rules the World or something along those lines :-D MarnetteD | Talk 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Christmas Day be a better day for you to take off? Surely thats the time to spend away from the wiki. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 03:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting response

We are sort of...piling on this poor guy for just suggesting that people get outside and see the wonderful outdoors/their children/wives/husbands/etc. :) Protonk (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Seemed to me that the only piling on is for suggesting we all do it on the same day. Looks like everyone agreed that individual wikibreaks (and especially drama breaks) are a good thing. (And not just for admins, either).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, drama breaks! It is Pantomime season in the UK (...Oh, yes it is!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh no it isn't(sorry folks, I had to). Instead of an Admin Holiday day, why not have an Admin Appreciation day where we all get free cookies and tea--Jac16888 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rus'

It should be a redirect to Rus, not to Rus' (people).--Alex Kov (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)