Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive111

Wikipedia:Merge and delete

An essay newly written by me, about a topic of frequent confusion. Edit away, please; delete if necessary, but I'm pretty certain that my interpretation of the GFDL there is right (though it may need some tweaking). Chick Bowen 01:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From the title, it looks like you might get to use a cool redirect: WP:MAD. :) shoy (^words _words) 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done by Awyong Jeffrey etc. I hadn't thought of that, but it's funny. Chick Bowen 03:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to the disambig entries. (SEWilco 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

Image:HumanVulva-NewText-PhiloViv.jpg

Resolved

There is vulgar text below the image, and I'm not sure how to edit it. Thanks, — Yavoh 05:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It was on the page at Commons, but I deleted it. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Insulting Bots

• I have a question about users who insult bots. For example this edit summary. Is this considered a personal attack ? If it were "Fuck [username]" it would definitely be a personal attack this much we know for sure. Is a bot a contributor, as designated in WP:NPA in the phrase Comment on content, not on the contributor.? I think that if the bot has a "contributions" page, then it must be a contributor. However a bot is also a form of contribution by the owner and contributions are inherent to content, so it's hard for me to tell. I believe it may be a case that the bot is at the same time a contribution and a contributor.
• Is "fuck" considered rude, because in WP:CIVIL it says not to be rude, yet the other day I saw BetacommandBot had left a valid but perhaps misplaced (admin was not the original uploader) message on an admin's talk page about a missing rationale, which was removed with the comment "fuck off, silly trout".
• I'm saying this because many bots accomplish ungrateful tasks and insults directed at them may be perceived as being directed at the owner. I don't agree with the mass deletion tagging of images by bots for deletion, but maybe the solution is not to attempt to antagonise the owner but rather change the deletion criteria, if one is so inclined. I think most bots are made in good faith, take time and effort to develop and keep running. Be it allowed or not, someone who knows should mention the status of bots on WP:ATTACK. Jackaranga 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the policies you cite can't apply to bots; their intent is to govern discussion between contributors. But the first example you gave is a clear example of disruption to the project. — madman bum and angel 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Most bots have pretty thick skin and won't mind. It's all a matter of context as to the verbiage. In this case it's pretty clear that this user is being disruptive. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Attacking bots is probably less problematic than attacking human users, but I'd prefer if it were still frowned upon. Take context into account. Bots (generally!) have a pretty thick skin, but the humans who operate them might not. Particularly in the case of a mass-messaging bot, it seems unlikely that the operator will notice somebody reverting one of several hundred automated messages, however snarky the edit summary may be. Marauding over to the bot or owner's talk page with lengthy streams of obscenity, now, that's probably going to be noticed, and should be avoided. In general, we're all people, so play nice and be considerate. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user was blocked, and not just for that. Users who insult bots typically are trolling for one reason or another and are blocked for likewise annoying actions. — madman bum and angel 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the specific user in this thread was pretty unambiguously up to nothing fantastic. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

/me is tempted to creat User:Insultbot :o) Guy (Help!) 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy making the bots cry by insulting their mothers, than realizing that they have none, and rubbing it their proverbial faces. I'm a cruel, heartless bastard like that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have called bot "stupid/disruptive bot" a number of times in my edit summary. Does the bot feel painful about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by @pple (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Every bot is controlled or managed by a user. If I were a bot controller and someone insulted my bot, I would indeed feel offended myself. Furthermore, you could argue that a bot controller is the bot's parent, so "I enjoy making the bots cry by insulting their mothers, than realizing that they have none" isn't quite true! Waggers 10:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as 'fuck off' or 'leave me the fuck alone' are never acceptable. An occasional outburst is usually overlooked, since responding causes more trouble than it's worth. But an editor who makes it a habit to swear in edit summaries should be advised to change their behavior. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rambutan/User:Porcupine/User:Circuit Judge

Resolved

Hi folks, Rambutan, as discussed above, has asked for his alternative account to be unblocked. I've declined this as I believe it's being used for purposes other than those permitted by the SOCK policy. The user has now threatened to create another account in order to continue editing, despite his main account being unblocked. I'm wondering if he is genuinely here to constructively contribute to the project and I'd like to see some discussion on how we should proceed from here. His comments above seem to reveal perhaps a little interest in some form of community block or ban. Anybody have any further comments or suggestions on this issue ? Nick 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm being against WP:SOCK - segregationa and security. I've taken all reasonable means to ensure links between Porc. and CJ; including a note in the blocklog.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading #SELFBLOCK request, above, I confess I found myself confused as to your intentions with multiple accounts, but nevertheless fairly sure they weren't productive. What possible reason is there to request a block on your "main account" if you simply create another account to edit? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Circuit Judge was claim to be for "segregation and security" I cant see why another account would offer any further security. Gnangarra 12:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, WP:SOCK makes a specific exception - and I quote - for "segregation and security". As to why I have multiple accounts, I only created the other one to participate in the ArbCom elections. I intended to use it for no other purpose, and have used it for no other purpose. I still wish to continue my very-enforced Wikibreak, which I was enjoying very much. I am more than happy to write a full summary of the situation if you want.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I see no reason to block your account. If you want a break, take one. We already blocked your account once and you came back and created a new one so you could continue editing. I see no reason to believe that things will be different this time. Please stop asking this board as peoples opinions will not change. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine Circuit Judge cant participate in the Arbcom elections due to this requirement You must have registered account with at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2007 to vote. You may only vote once per candidate, and you may not vote for yourself. Votes from ineligible voters may be indented by anyone, but please don't bite, and do explain why their vote has been indented. Gnangarra 13:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that since CJ is the same user as Porcupine - who does meet the requirements - then it's OK. I don't see why it wouldn't be: it would be rather stupid if that was a bar, after all!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, folks, here's my summary. Correct me where I've gone wrong, if you please.

Basically, for [very good] reasons I don't want to go into in public, but that Martinp23 knows in full, I requested that my main account be blocked until January 20th 2008 (WP:SELFBLOCK doesn't prohibit this, it just says that it is unusual). Subsequently, I realised that this block would prevent me from participating in the ArbCom elections . For this purpose, I began my participation using the alternate account Circuit Judge, created with the authority of this policy.

Phil Sandifer, to whom I had asked questions about his ArbCom statement, then unblocked the account. I put it to him that this was simply malicious and done to spite me, since we'd had arguments in the past. His reason for the unblock was that I was "clearly not taking a Wikibreak"; not only is this inaccurate, it's also not an actual reason to unblock.

I then posted on WP:AN requesting that Porcupine be re-blocked, and I was called a troll and the Circuit Judge account was blocked. I requested an unblock on the CJ account, and was told that it was a deliberate attempt on my part to lose all links between my former usernames (Rambutan and Porcupine), and to continue harassing certain users. This was in Nick's unblock denial. I asked him for diffs of this harassment, and pointed out that I had taken all reasonable measures to ensure Porcupine-CJ links, including a note in the block-log.

He ignored both of those issues, and came here. I never thought it would be so hard to be blocked on Wikipedia... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec):::Then he should stop changing his name to hide his block logs and keep his word. User has a long history of issues, see [1], [2], [3], including recent ones and shows no sign of changing. I'd limit him to one account and not tolerate further disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, here's my suggestion. Porcupine is limited to one account. Should he continue attempts to get his main accounts blocked, he shall be blocked for disruption. Likewise, if he creates any more socks - he will be blocked for an appropriate period. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree — Rlevse • Talk • 13:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• (ec)How is it disruptive to try to get blocked? If you just do it - which in no way harms the project, then I'll be out of your hair.
• When did WP:SOCK get amended to exclude me? I've taken many measures to ensure links between my accounts, and I think that "not using the main account on public computers" is a perfectly good idea.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, an apology from Ryan for mistakenly and accusatorily closing the thread would be nice.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• • You tend to get excluded from being allowed to do these things when you have a clear history of disruption. Seriously, you need to stop this now, the account is not going to get blocked, and if it does, it will be for disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Appology? Certainly not to you. I closed it to stop your disruption, but I see Nick instigated it to discuss community sanctions which are growing increasingly more likely. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You didn't close it to stop my disruption, you closed it because you thought I started it, a mistake, and then falsely accused me of trolling by it.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • You're still trolling over it now, as you have been for days so no appology - I stand by my word. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your word was that I started the thread, mate.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We block CJ and Ram, leaving porcupine unblocked and you can discuss with Martinp23 how the other pages link. Gnangarra 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ram was just a username change, and no longer exists. I've discussed with Martin, who says he'll do community consensus. So it's up to you folks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the consensus is that Procupine is the account you can use, and this is the account that you must stick to. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Ryan, we tend to stop allowing new and multiple accounts for an editor what that editor has a history of engaging in disruptive conflicts under his previous accounts. Creating a new account solely to make comments in the ArbCom elections – particularly comments directed at users with whom you have a history of conflict – doesn't seem to fit well with the 'segregation and security' doctrine. Try keeping your nose clean for (say) a year, and then maybe we can revisit this question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan, limit to one account, no blocking of main account, and any further socks or trolling leads to blocks. Makes sense to me. Dreadstar † 18:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

May I just ask once more - and I promise that this is the last you'll hear here of the issue - with the point of view of one genuinely wanting to learn, precisely how is trying to get blocked for a Wikibreak trolling?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is our definition of what a troll's behaviour is: "posting controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response." you are asking for a block that its contrary to what the blocking policy states, and you are posting threads here to bait administrators into a argumentative response. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's an element of intentional disruption involved? My block isn't contrary, and my intention is was not to get into an argument, it's simply to get blocked.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean to tell that you didn't knew that this is against policy? if you did then you knew that the request was going to be rejected, pursuing it further after it was is trolling behaviour. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First check out Blocking policy self-requested blocks. Then add the above information to that. No block for your Wikibreak, sorry. Dreadstar † 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I read WP:SELFBLOCK, it says, and I quote, "Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Typically such requests are refused." Personally, I don't interpret this as meaning "No Wikibreaks." I interpret it as meaning "Generally requests for Wikibreak-enforcing blocks aren't accepted, but sometimes they are." This can be further simplified as "Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Typically such requests are refused." --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As yours is being refused. Now this is starting to look like trolling to me. I suggest you accept this and move on. Dreadstar † 19:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you knew beforehand that it was going to be refused as the request itself is contrary to what the blocking policy states (though its not prohibited) and yet even after it was refused you are still insisting on it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the combined block histories of this users three accounts, I find it really hard to believe that Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge doesn't understand our blocking, disruption and trolling policies. If what he's doing here is not trolling, I don't know what is. I also don't believe his promise to behave, he's promised that before and broken it, so I'm not inclined to believe him; he's had his assumption at AGF and lost it. We now have at least four admins and two other users supporting this community sanction. The onlyl dissenter is the subject of the matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't believe me? Fine. That's not something that concerns me greatly. However, what community sanctions are you talking about, and who exactly has agreed with their application? All I see is agreement to except me from WP:SOCK and to ban me from having my account blocked for a Wikibreak.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about the community sanction being talked about in this section, and the agreement of all the editors responding to you here. You're about to get blocked on all your accounts for trolling - not just for a wikibreak. Dreadstar † 20:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The agreement is, as I said, to except me from WP:SOCK and to ban me from having my account blocked for a Wikibreak. With all due respect, you guys [the community] are the reason I'm still here: if you'd just have blocked me then I'd be gone. So, how do I avoid the [absurd] block for trolling? What action do I take now?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine, when we initially talked on IRC, I was slightly more open because it seemed to be a harmless request. However, as you keep insisting over the very solid reasoning of the editors responding to you that your [very good] extenuating circumstances somehow make you an exception to an established rule, I become less and less convinced. As many others have said above, I recommend you stop trying to change peoples' minds, and move on. GlassCobra 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine are you just trolling us to get your block back? If so, it's probably going to work. Stop posting here and go back on your break before you end up getting blocked for trolling. -- John Reaves 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear consensus. I'm blocking the Rambutan and Circuit Judge accounts indef. I will also post a notice on Porcupine's talk page that states those two accounts are blocked indef and he is limited to the Porcupine account, his one and only account. The Porcupine account is subject to standard wiki rules, including all the trolling here today. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What does that last bit mean, "including the trolling here today"? It's happened, and it's not a rule - ?? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that User:Rambutan as a name was shed by means of a username change - it's not an alternate account.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Porcupine for a week for continued trolling and sock abuse per warnings above. Dreadstar † 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. Why do people just want to cause drama. There is no reason whatsoever to give an exception to Porcupine and block him just because he wants a wikibreak. He should just take it. However, I see he has got himself blocked for a week anyway. I support the block on his sock account. --Bduke 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest that someone give all of them (in a sequential order) a little 1 second block with things like (formerly User:Rambutan, formerly ...) so that other admins can quickly pick up the entire block history if necessary. Haha. I see User:Secretlondon is a far wiser admin than me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Ragtag Cinema isn't showing up

Resolved

 – Malformed tag

This is the best place I could find to post about this, so sorry if it's the wrong place. I just created the page Ragtag Cinema, but only the first and part of the second sentence is showing up. I'm not sure what I did wrong when I created the page, is this something an admin can fix? Me5000 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the only content you added when you created the page (do you expect more?). In future, the Help desk would probably be the more appropriate venue. GDonato (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I can see this (1064 second db lag???) , the ref tag was malformed which caused the page to stop rendering at that point. Cheers! spryde | talk 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Article deletion or history merge needed

Recreated article The noob is a GFDL violation from the last version deleted (and subsequently endorsed twice at deletion review. If we're to go through a charade of an AfD for an article with no new information that's already been deleted by consensus and endorsed twice, would someone mind sorting out the history please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyking music parole suspended

Everyking has asked the arbitration committee to look into his two remaining paroles. The one pertaining to commenting on other admins' actions is still in effect. However, we have decided to suspend for three months the parole pertaining to music article. (Note: Unless we say otherwise, in 3 months it resumes) He may edit on music articles just as anyone else. Raul654 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that I already have been editing just as anyone else on music articles through this parole, and nobody has ever accused me of violating it or doing anything amiss at all as long as it has been in place. I have no idea why the ArbCom ever deemed it necessary, why it was in place for so long, or why it will be put in place again in three months. Since the parole has no practical effect on my editing, I only wanted it lifted for formal reasons, and I don't think that is accomplished by a mere suspension. Everyking 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not a party to the original ArbCom action in this case. I just wanted to say that my own experiences with Everyking have been overwhelmingly positive. There's no doubt that he has kept much vandalism away from the musical articles that I monitor. I hope and expect that when ArbCom reviews this case in another three months, they will find Everyking's edits have continued to be of high standing. --Yamla 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the case. Actually, it appears that remedies 3, 5, X, and Amended remedy 4 are still in effect. Thatcher131 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that nothing remains in effect except for amended remedy 4. Everyking 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You understand incorrectly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is only based on what the ruling says. Amended remedy 2 provides for everything to expire in November 2007, excluding the two subsequent amended remedies. If that's not correct, it will take far more than three words to explain the reasoning. Even Raul's announcement above clearly implies the only remaining portions of the ruling were the two paroles, one of which is now suspended. Everyking 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct. Roll the dice, take your chances. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems like an unhelpful sentiment, especially coming from an arbitrator. I'm not going to "roll the dice" because I have no intention of doing any of the things these restrictions prohibit me from doing anyway. I have explained many times that I want the restrictions removed because they are a scarlet letter of sorts, not because I want to do any of the things they prohibit (far from it). I just want the ArbCom to allow me to be a normal member of the community again, and your comments have me feeling like new hurdles are being thrown up to impede this already agonizingly extended process. Everyking 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Remedy 5 (Everyking is obligated to familiarize himself before commenting) is most certainly still in effect. We just assume most people do it, but in EK's case, it merits explicitly requiring it. Remedies 3 (Everyking prohibited from commenting on administrators' actions) and X (Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner) are also still in effect Raul654 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is incredible to me. The amended ruling says this: "Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended for one year, until November 2007." It does not mention any exceptions; it says the old prohibitions expire in Nov. 2007. These remedies are prohibitions (except arguably 5, I suppose). Remedy 3 is explicitly subject to expiration ("from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA"). How can the ArbCom dispute this? Can I not rely on what its rulings say? Everyking 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I just double checked - you're right about the prohibition on commenting on other admin's actions. It would appear that has expired. So, as I read it, the ones still in effect are Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. and Everyking is obligated to familiarize himself before commenting. The one about Snowspinner was not explicitly mentioned as expiring, therefore I conclude it is still in effect. Raul654 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I read it as saying the current prohibitions expired on that date, and I did not think what was in parenthesis was intended as a listing of what was counted as a "current prohibition"; I assumed that was simply a reminder of the main points of the ruling. If it had been meant the way you're describing it, wouldn't it have made more sense to list the exceptions? I think the intuitive reading of the mention of "current prohibitions" means all current prohibitions, unless some are explicitly excluded. Everyking 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So Everyking is free to edit Ashlee Simpson again with no restrictions? Corvus cornix 19:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, uh, yeah. But I've been editing that article without any disagreement from anyone for ages, so this has no practical effect on anything. Everyking 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything wrong?

Resolved

 – 6+ hours and all is well

My watchlist is giving me "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 1418 seconds might not be shown in this list." for the last 1418 seconds :) Nothing else seems to be affected. spryde | talk 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea me too :-s {i'm 2537 secs behind now :-( } lol PhilB ~ ^T/_C 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I got the same thing, but it seems to have cleared up (I think?), so I'm marking this resolved for now. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still going on... we're almost up to an hour. There's a discussion at the VP, but nobody knows what's causing it. Pinball22 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My watchlist is at 3456 seconds, so it isn't resolved yet. Me5000 18:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as soon as I posted that, I went from no-problems-for-twenty-minutes to "changes newer than 4081 seconds may not be shown". That'll teach me to say things. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Image:SovietUnionTajikistan.png

I'm an admin from Commons. This picture was first uploaded here, then transfered on Commons and deleted here. The Commons description does not mention the name of the author, only the file history. Can one of you please check whether a source or author was mentioned here? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing more substantial in the history than a {{GFDL}}. —Cryptic 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You've already got the upload history. Morwen was last active on this project in July. Aris Katsaris hasn't been active here since Nov. 2006. , or for a while before that due to loss of interest. GRBerry 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad luck. This picture was uploaded in 2004, when our copyright-related demands (and awareness) were much lighter. I'll try another map before deleting this one. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

They both have the "email this user" function enabled. They might well reply if you try that. I'd try Morwen first; I'd bet the answer is that Morwen was the original author. GRBerry 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Angli Cado Primoris (talk · contribs)

Angli Cado Primoris keeps copying the biography from Lunatica's website. See history. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 20:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looper5920 & AGF

Resolved

 – No action required. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please remind this user of WP:AGF i would but he will just remove my posts. see [4] DPCU 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to review the WP:DTTR essay, as it suggests using personalized messages for non-new editors. (Generally speaking, regular editors do not respond well to having generic template warnings slapped on their talk pages.) As to your specific request, the editor in question does not need to be reminded of WP:AGF as you already did that [5], and WP:USER states that the "removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." --Kralizec! (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unrevertable vandalism

Resolved

 – The vandalism has been reverted.- Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is related to the server database lag issue, but I have been trying without success for the past two hours to revert vandalism on the Wonders of the World article. Every time I try to save my revert, the page times out. I have tried using both the undo link and editing old versions from the article history, but either way it just time out. Oddly enough I am able to edit other pages just fine. Here is the last pre-vandalism version. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Wikipedia is just not working too well atm. Jackaranga 20:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I must have tried over a dozen times in the past 2.5 hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A possible troll

Resolved

 – Indef block by Jehochman

Hambla, if his/her contributions are observed, very convincingly seems like a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, aimed exclusively at reverting all my edits, whatever they are.

The momentum that convinced me of this user's behavior is his talk page, where makes very short nonsensical replies in a discussion that's obviously going nowhere. To just quote some: "My pants are shaking", "No it's not."; after I invited him to calmly elaborate his edits, he writes things like "So you say.", "You sure?" and "The pot calling the kettle black.". After I wrote in the bottom: "In the end, all your edits have shown 0% interest in Wikipedia, showing absolutely nothing at all (culminating with "Yes they are") and qualify your edits as plain vandalism, hence you are leaving me with no choice but to revert your edits." and he has responded with "I can say the same about you. If you revert me I will revert you. Woop-dee-doo. Hambla 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)" After I warned him about 3RR he has carefully watched not to break it. --PaxEquilibrium 12:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for repeat vandals

Lag on "user contribution" page is about 20 minutes now, so this means you can't see users' recent edits, so don't be surprised if users have loads of warnings on their talk page but no edits in their log. Also in the case of a user who just registered (so his contributions only span the time when the server has been lagging) the server lag message doesn't show up on his apparently blank contribution page, even though such lag exists. Jackaranga 21:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "199 seconds" for me right now, which is just 3 and a half minutes... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea it's almost gone now :) Jackaranga 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Something's still messing about. I just reverted two blankings (one with Twinkle, once with undo) on an article by an IP that I'm sure replaced it with two different phrases, one for each blanking... but one of them doesn't seem to exist now. Bizarre. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Try switching browsers. I had Firefox and Maxthon open. Firefox was showing a lag, up to 400 seconds, but oddly enough Maxthon had no lag at all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a browser issue. east.718 at 08:20, 11/16/2007

Need a little salt here

Resolved

I wholeheartedly believe that this will never be a valid article^* and needs to be salted. spryde | talk 04:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

^*Unless 2 Live Crew gets back together and really wants to get into the press.

 Done - Alison ^❤ 05:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated as always. spryde | talk 12:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Do sysops have to inform anyone if they take a planned Wikibreak of a long time, say, a week? Bearian 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I love that a week is a "long" wikibreak. :) I've generally done so, just in case I've deleted a PROD or something right before leaving and someone wants it restored. The other option is to quietly notify another sysop to watchlist your page and handle anything major that comes up. MastCell ^Talk 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that an offer?! Bencherlite^Talk 07:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Or just sneak out for two months and see if anyone notices...Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise our salary goes too far into arrears and the Foundation runs into budget trouble. Raymond Arritt 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you've got a sick note of the doctor. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we accrue vacation time and sick leave? Dreadstar † 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. You do have to cash out your unused days by November 15 or you loose them. Vegaswikian 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was told November 1st! That sucks, there must be different secret pay tiers. At least three since Dreadstar wasn't aware of the accrual at all. =( -- Gogo Dodo 02:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh! You lot are lucky! In my day we didn't get time off and we had to pay to edit. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You had it easy. In my day, me boss thrashed three thousand edits a day out of us — before breakfast, mind — and then indef'd us all before lunch. Me mum'd unblock the lot of us in time to lock us in our rooms so's we'd be able to do another three thousand before 'sun came up. Time off? Time off? Splash - tk 23:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The straight answer, Bearian, is that no you do not have to give any notice. Avoid participating in an admin action that you might perceive as controversial if you think you might need to follow up on deletion or blocking. The smartass answer: we do allow time off, but please do keep copies of you receipts and submit them to the foundation those contributions gotta pay for something! Keegan^talk 08:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Range of IPs doing the same spamming

Resolved

I'm an admin but not sure how to handle this one. The page Edirne is getting spammed with the same ad by similar IPs link, all starting with 78.181. Is there anything I can do other than block each one when it violates a final warning? It's clearly the same person advertising themselves. --AW 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You could semi-protect the page for a bit. Saying that, there has not been that much of an onslaught but it is a wide range of ip. Woodym555 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the page for a week. If the IPs keep vandalizing, keep warning them. GlassCobra 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant in regards to the IPs? --AW 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If the abuse is isolated to a few pages, semi-protection is usually less problematic in terms of collateral damage. Is there any reason to believe other pages are being hit, at the moment? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah. That works then. Thanks ---- AW (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Request

After about two hours of research, into the following subject, I found out that this needs to be brought to the attention of an admin. I have found a sourced document on a few pages relating to the US Space Shuttle Program. (See STS-3xx.) This document is located at [6] (See STS-3xx Source #6). After viewing the PDF, I found a source link to the data of it. The source link inside the PDF is: [7]. This data displayed on the page at [8] is internal NASA data, originally located on a secure NASA server. Though this information is available upon FOIA request, I believe it is private data leaked from a NASA employee/Contractor and should removed from wikipedia and/or investigated. I attempted to located the original user that posted this data, but I was unable to find the first person to post this source. I am reasonably sure that this is a direct violation the jsc.nasa.gov "terms of use" for there secure server. The PDF and similar documents are only located on the domain "http://www.hipstersunite.com". This has raised my suspicion and I believe this should be investigated as the information is not for public viewing. --zrulli 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick warning, I wouldn't trust a PDF file on site "hipstersunite.com" not to be a backdoored PDF. The site's front page is the word "hi." If anyone needs to look at this PDF file, just enter the URL into Google, examine the Google Cache and "View HTML." I don't see much incriminating on this document. -- Quatloo (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is in any way a reliable source. There is no admin intervention needed when removing such sources, just drop a note on the relevant article's talk page. If the user starts to war over it, then we might have an issue. Keegan^talk 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

There's one entry on there that's about (just looked at the day) two days old. I'm sure that's more than twenty-four hours. --Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 21:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just approved a bunch - including yourself. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks! Heh, I wish I was approved that quick with NPW! --Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 22:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page diappeared in movewarring fiasco

Resolved

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada has vanished, I don't know where the screwup came, but it's either deleted and then recreated as a redirect, or hidden under one of the previous names.

List of massacres during the Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada (edit | [[Talk:Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

<eleland/talkedits> 00:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's taken care of; thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow, you guys are quick :) <eleland/talkedits> 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There are bonuses for fastest-finger-first. Be first often enough, and they send you a "fastest admin in the [East/West]" t-shirt. Coolio. Splash - tk 00:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of biased terms

A host of similar ips of the 86.153.132. series and sockpuppets User:Billy660 and User:Billybob690 have been adding biased material (for ex. changing Indian-administered Kashmir to Indian-occupied Kashmir) to articles on Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas. Attention required. --Lokantha (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This person has done several anti-Indian edits: [9] [10] [11]

--Lokantha (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122

Could someone uninvolved who knows the history of this incident have a look at User talk:Ryoung122? He seems to have calmed down quite a bit, and is providing useful information. Would reducing the block from indefinite to expire in a month's time be useful here or not? I'm not going to be around to respond tomorrow, but I'll leave a note at the blocking admin's talk page (User talk:Maxim), pointing at this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I read most of the ban discussion, and mostly agreed with it. If Ryoung122 has settled down, that's great. Based on his level and length of time misunderstanding how to get an encyclopedia written, I'd let him settle down for a couple of months prior to un banning. If he thinks he was banned in error, he can email arbcom. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My concern at the moment is that the "indef blocked" tag on his user page means that his user page may get deleted. People talk about indefinite blocks not being indefinite, but the "temporary wikipedians" category being applied through the "indef blocked" tag sends a different message. I think we should really use long blocks (eg. months and years), if we think there is a chance the editor may reform. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, maybe a note on his userpage/talkpage somwhere should be placed so it doesn't get arbitrarily deleted? as far as rehabilitation in general, I'm not hopeful, but we should be open to it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

|category= fixes the deletion problem. Daniel 01:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Project Aircraft

Looks like things are getting out of hand again. Can someone look at this[12]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.245.10.108 (talk)

I'm not an admin, but that that user was warned by another Ctjf83 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism related question

This user has three first vandalism warnings (at initial post) is there a certain amount of time between vandalism that you go back to the first warning, instead of continuing. Also, if two different users give a first warning with in a short amount of time, is there any policy preventing another user from updating the second warning to a more strict one, but just changing the number from {{subst:uw-vandalism2|Article}} to vandalism 3 or would it need a repost, with my sig. Ctjf83 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please never refactor someone's talk page comment unless it is offensive. There is no obligation to follow a 1-2-3-4-block order as far as I know. I often only do 1-3-4 when it's obvious vandalism. One important thing to note is that, with unregistered users (their username is a IP address, like the one you mention), it may not be the same person from one day/week/month to another. So it's important you take this into consideration. Also some IP addresses are shared by many users such as in schools. In this case repeated vandalism can lead to a block, not as a punishment but to stop the vandalism. Also in some cases you can even start at lvl 4 for example if it's a user who is moving pages to stupid names or swearing at other users. I think it's important to distinguish people who want to disrupt because they think it's cool, and people who just don't understand the policy. Jackaranga (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:BigFrank102

Need action on BigFrank102 (talk · contribs), he is a sock (see, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tony360X (second)) and now attacking me on his talk, 'Complaint by Wine-O's'. He needs to be banned. --Bryson 05:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, banning is not the appropriate action in this case. Secondly, the sock case has not yet been confirmed. Lastly, he has not been adequately (or at all) warned for his misconduct. I have taken the liberty of doing the latter, and his behaviour will be watched. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 207.232.97.13

I request a block for 207.232.97.13 (talk) (contribs). This user continuously adds unsourced material and copyright material and removes relevant, concise information from reliable sources. This user has disrupted all efforts to create a balanced article on the contentious topic Alcoholics Anonymous and ignores discussions on the talk page. This user acts as though Wiki policy does not apply to them. Any help is much appreciated. For details see User talk:207.232.97.13#Disruptive editing and other material on this user's talk page. — DavidMack 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

On the face, it doesn't look disruptive to me. Try WP:RFC. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Logical Defense

This person Logical Defense (talk · contribs) has uploaded an unfree image, refuses to provide a fair use rationale, and keeps deleting the "no rationale" tag [13] from the image page with rude and inaccurate summaries [14] [15]. -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image from the page about the man. I suggest trying WP:IFD - I would delete it but I'm a nonadmin. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Molag Bal unbanning

Resolved

 – Molag Bal remains banned. GDonato (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrolled new pages

As you may or may not have noticed, a change has been made to Special:Newpages to enable patrolled edits there. This allows users to mark a newpage as reviewed. See full details here. However, for unknown reasons, it has been set so that only admins can patrol pages. I would request input on the poll on the talk page as to who should be given the ability to patrol, so that the developers can be assured they are implementing community consensus. Mr.Z-man 01:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Note also that unlike other wiki's patrol is only enabled for Newpages, not recent changes. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a idea how this got approved? last I knew, it was still being discussed as experimental.DGG (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i been experimenting a little, and i like it.DGG (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be able to patrol just fine, and the documentation says any autoconfirmed editor can do so. Nice idea, from the looks of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just discussing the new function. The tab has been there for a year but 'twas just turned on today. I have the idea that marking a page revision as patrolled for quality versions would build a nice individual log of the forthcoming "stable versions". I can read and article, mark it, move on and do the same for the next article I like (and I read/have read many, many articles). I check my patrol log, and I have my own Veropedia. Me likey.

What I don't understand is why you would want to hide patrolled pages from newpages, since you can mark as CSD page as patrolled to draw attention to it. I'm sure I'll figure out that use eventually.

Oh, and don't waste your time trying to patrol the patrol log. Keegan^talk 07:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, seems I am completely wrong as usual. Why is it only for a page that's never been viewed? Gah. Keegan^talk 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Character limit on deletion reason

It seems a character limit has been inserted into the deletion reason box that prevents inserting of characters if the box is at a character maximum. I'm not sure if this is a new feature but it is making it difficult for me to insert my deletion reasons as I do not use an automated bot and like my deetion reasons to contain the articles contents so that others can see the contents and judge for themselves if the deletion was valid. Is this a bug or feature? –– Lid^(Talk) 03:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

it was a requested fix. I dont use a bot either, so I'm learning to write my summaries more concisely. If it really doesnt fit, there's the editor's talk page. DGG (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it was meant to be fixing, the previous way didn't seem broken. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think writing deletion summaries more concisely would be better, to both the deleting admin and people viewing the deletion rationale. The deletion summaries are meant to be short and succinct, not long and comprehensive. Detailed rationales can be provided when requested by an editor. —Kurykh 04:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the solution to that be to shorten the maximum length of the reason rather than prevent text to be inserted? Right now the length is the same as it was before, only that text can not be inserted into it. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This feature forces admins to use their alloted words succinctly and eliminates the scenario of truncated summaries that may cause confusion or leave the reader/editors hanging with unprovided information. If I may state it a bit bluntly, and sorry for the lack of diplomacy, you are writing the summaries for the benefit of others, not yourself. —Kurykh 04:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell it doesn't force anything, the maximum length of the deletion reason is still the same. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

right, the fix was to prevent anyone writing more than would actually be kept and displayed. DGG (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well this fix forces you to delete some text from the box and then add your deletion reason. Seems like an extra step. Now if the preloaded comment was limited to 50% of the size, that would be a better solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I highly recommend checking out User:^demon/CSD AutoReason. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur. AutoReason is the awesome. Natalie (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you like that, you should see a similar script I put together for blocking. It automatically sets times and options, so you don't have to hit 20 buttons to do a username block, for example. </shameless advertising> east.718 at 21:39, November 17, 2007

Green Party of Canada

I'm having a very difficult time updating the Green Party of Canada page as Greenjoe has decided that one chart that I spent over an hour putting together should be deleted "just cause" I couldn't give a source as the one reason to put the chart up was confidential. I tried to explain to him that green.ca has information proving my point in ther archives, the point was ignored and he coughed out the same sentence, threatening to ban me because he thinks I started an edit war. I'm heavily involved with the party and I just want to add some important anfo. but this guy is nuts and I need help right now. Political junky (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to read up on this situation, and this is simply an edit war, to which the typical response is dispute resolution thataway. Also, GreenJoe is not an admin, and he can't ban you; he was only giving a warning about violating 3RR. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with page history move

Resolved

Please can an admin move it back from User talk:Solumeiras/Archive3 to User talk:Solumeiras, I've accidentally moved too much page history when I archived it. Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 12:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:IceManDone subtle vandalism

Resolved

I'd mention this at AIV, but he's--- subtle. Adds false info a little at a time and then stops. Has done this for several days. Newly created account. I left a single warning. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking in account sneaky nature of his edits, I've blocked him indef. No AGF for such actions. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good shooting. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:NicholasMom

I was looking for a second opinion on this user's page. It seems to be written from the perspective of a third party and the user has had only limited contributions, some of them questionable. The page has some negative information and a full name of the subject. Thoughts? IronGargoyle (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the last edit to his userpage was just under an hour ago, I think we should give him some time to make come contributions to Wikipedia, or it would look like we were biting him. After a few days or so (or longer), then it will be a good idea to post back here if he/she has made no encyclopedic contributions. Qst 17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

New, admittedly still small, group who might be of use

The new Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility has created a new group of Accessibility advocates at Wikipedia:Accessibility advocates. I promise not to overuse the "a" word any further here. Anyway, part of what some of us have indicated we would be willing to do, if requested, is maybe serve as some form of mentor/"adopter"/advocate for individuals who are either returning to wikipedia from being banned and/or those who might be told to get some sort of help of that type were they to wish to continue as editors. Right now, the only two of us who have agreed to doing so are me and User:L'Aquatique. Like I said, we're new. Anyway, if any of you think it would be a good idea to ever have one of us involved in such instances, I wanted to let you know that we could try to maybe work in at least a few such instances. -- John Carter (talk)

Am I correct to apprehend that the mentorship/adoption/advocacy is in its character essentially unconnected to the general purposes of the accessibility WP? (Although that question sounds, for some reason, derisive and accusatory, I don't mean it to; individuals willing to mentor, adopt, or even advocate for other users toward the amelioration of certain problems and ultimately toward the improvement of the project and the 'pedia are, IMHO, always to be welcomed, and they surely need not be constituted under the auspices of any particular group, and so I ask only to ensure that I'm not missing any particular connection between the specific purposes of the accessibility WP and the nature of the mentorship/adoption/advocacy to be performed). -- Joe (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But the term usually has a different meaning , universal accessibility, and I assumed you meant those who were interested in reformatting articles so they could be read by screen readers, etc. DGG (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Inactive users?

Do we have a category or anything with "Inactive users" in. Some people have only edited once or twice, and others haven't edited in over a ear. Surely these inactive user accounts should be deleted. We have over 5 million users, yet only 5,000 users edit most of the time! What happens to these inactive users? Davnel03 09:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, we can't delete accounts. Viridae^Talk 10:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This sound more like a proposal than something an Admin should deal with. You might find a more useful response over at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals). -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We used to have Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active, but that category was deleted after a discussion found on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#October 12. (The term "discussion" is used rather loosely in this case) - auburnpilot talk 03:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User: SoxBot

Earlier today, there was a misunderstanding with {{Archivebox}}. User:Soxred93, the operator of SoxBot, saw it on WP:SUBST#Templates that should be substituted, because the previous version of the template did need it, but not anymore. This led to 300-400 talk pages having the template substituted, before the bot was blocked. I reverted most of the edits, and Soxred93 indicated he understood there was a misunderstanding. I am not sure if his bot has been unblocked though, so if an admin could check? Thanks. -- Reaper X 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think most, if not all of the edits have been reverted. It was unblocked three hours ago. log. Woodym555 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli closed

The above-linked arbitration case has been closed. Stefanomencarelli is banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Spammy articles that slipped through RC

While doing some work for veropedia, I made some analysis of all the articles on wikipedia as of oct 17 or so. This report at User:Eagle 101/potential crap 2 contains all articles that have 0 wikilinks and at least 1 external link. Qutie a few of these are showing up as spam for companies and other poor quality articles. There are about 5,000 articles that fit those criteria. Enjoy! Discussion and questions can go below as usual :). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you tagged them as meeting the {{CA}} criteria? Guy (Help!) 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cute... I'm wondering how many of these become red-links ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, first one I clicked was Rambo apple. Seems to be a type of apple. Are you asking for help cleaning up this list? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the list of ones starting with M to a page in my userspace to look at. The first few that haven't already become redlinks (or AfD'd) are OK or just need cleanup, but I'm sure lots won't be. Pinball22 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ironic, monitoring potential spam and at the same time including an external link to a site we have an article about, so an internal link would have more than sufficed :-) Fram 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We have a veropedia article? I thought that got deleted... —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, was pretty strongly kept last week. Pinball22 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Personally I don't think its quite ready for a wikipedia page, but thats just me :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick cleaning them up is always an option! If its a legit article, wikilink it and perhaps find a few references! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• For those looking to cherry pick the list for the crapola of crapola, I posted a sort here with those at the top of the list being the most likely in need of deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 22:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you : ) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a problem if non-administrators (like myself) tried to clean up, reference, and de-linkfarm some of the articles on that list which might be salvageable? -- ArglebargleIV 01:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I just now noticed Eagle 101's invitation above to go forth and clean up. -- ArglebargleIV 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked through five of these and from the looks of it I guess more than half are delete-worthy. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 02:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've sectioned out the list 25 pages per section, hopefully that helps admins and others who are going through the page to make use of it. (User:Eagle 101/potential crap 2). Perhaps mark sections that you have gone through, or whatever :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you both consider it reasonable to delete from the lists the occasional ones that turn out not to be crap.01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I guess I'm a little puzzled; in my usual inverted way I started at the bottom of the list, and the second one up (Mussel Rock) has a dozen or so wikilinks, four non-list type inbound links, and two external links, and hasn't been edited since October; yet the list says els: 1 sents: 0. Did I miss part of the discussion here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC/U MfD

Since it is a major part of dispute resolution, I'm noting here the nomination of the RfC/U page for deletion by User:Sceptre. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (2nd nomination). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would've done this myself but I had to go after nominating. Funny how there's two Wills in this section. Now to wait for Wimt and WMC ;) Will ^(talk) 22:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention WJBscribe (talk · contribs) :) an interesting discussion... I might pop over and take a look. Anthøny 13:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot closed

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 12:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beverly's Passions

All of Beverly's Passions (talk · contribs)'s history is the creation of hoax articles about TV shows whidh do not really exist. Including their User page. Is it okay to let them keep a hoax about a nonexistent TV show on their User page, or should I MfD it? Corvus cornix (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Violation of WP:BLP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And for good measure I deleted all the other articles they created for the same reason, along with User:Witcha's page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Corvus cornix (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Extending a block

Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been atrociously rude on Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues, to the point that I've had to refactor it to remove the more offensive text in response to OTRS ticket 2007111410017735 - Callmebc is currently blocked for a month, I am wondering if this individual can edit Wikipedia at all without violating policy. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, based on my past experience with him. [16][17][18][19] He's had plenty of clues provided, opportunities to change, and still been blocked multiple times over the last six months.[20] He's here to push a political agenda, and he'll pester and troll anybody who tries to stop that. Please indef block. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you ask for the input of User:Caribbean H.Q., who issued the original block and who might have also reviewed the edits made by Callmebc that you have been refactoring - obviously they would need to be made party to the same info. Seeing that it is a 1 month block I don't think we need rush into a decision. For the record, I have no opinion on whether the block should be extended or not - I would await the comments of the blocking admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive110#User:Callmebc is likely relevant here, as the discussion was centered around a potential block/topic ban for Callmebc. I don't believe anything came of the discussion, however. - auburnpilot talk 03:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc has repeatedly demonstrated that his contributions will be to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He was indefinitely blocked (see block log by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in May of this year, but was unblocked by Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) 11 days later, under the promise that he will not re-offend. Since then, he has been blocked a grant total of 7 times, for a range of reasons, including WP:3RR violations, WP:POINT editing, incivility, Personal Attacks, harassment... the list goes on. Callmebc has shown again and again that he cannot contribute to Wikipedia in a positive and constructive fashion, and I propose an indefinite block on his/her account in order to prevent further disruption. Anthøny 13:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. This user has nothing positive to contribute here. GlassCobra 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who believes this user has something positive to offer the encyclopedia is invited to peruse the whatlinkshere search for his username. I was going to recite particulars of his interaction with the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard back in April about the Killian documents, where he wound up launching an Arbcom case about the outrageous fact that he was blocked for 72 hours. (Arbcom, for some reason, declined to take the case). But having looked at the last ANI posting about him I realize it wouldn't be adding any information people don't already know about his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, user blocked indef. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone want to protect User talk:Callmebc? He insists on attacking the author of an article. (SEWilco (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Unblocking IPs

Resolved

Hey all. I accidentally broke IP unblocking in rev:27450; unblocking an IP address by address rather than by block id will always fail. This has been corrected in rev:27594; however, it may be some time before this is synched up (hopefully not too long). Until then, please be aware that you will have to unblock IP addresses by visiting Special:Ipblocklist, searching for the IP to unblock, and following the unblock link from there. The unblock links in block logs will not work. I hope that this will not cause too much inconvenience. If there are questions (or if you just want to give me a good bitching-out :D), don't hesitate to contact me by e-mail or my talk page. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We all make mistakes :) thanks for the notification, anyway! Anthøny 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim Starling just merged in the needed changes, so this should no longer be a problem. Sorry again! AmiDaniel (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

About the newpages "patrolled" feature

When I patrol a new page on Special:Newpages, after I click "Mark this page as patrolled", I see a screen that gives me a link to return to Special:Newpages. I would also like to have a link to the page I just marked as patrolled, in order to save me the trouble of hitting the "back" button if I wish to read or edit the article. I imagine this feature would not be too hard to add because it exists in a similar form whenever you login. Please forward this request to the techies who can discuss whether it's a good idea. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I will post this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), which is the correct page for these requests. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is a fast-track process for COPYVIO allegations possible?

I ask because there is a reasonably good quality article on a notable person, Stanislav Petrov, being copyright violation blanked despite the fact that it does not share words (with the exception of quotes (also quoted in other sources)), phrasing, or overall structure with the article being cited by the editor concerned. John Nevard (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the template again. There is no copyright violation. Keegan^talk 06:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:66.215.28.84

This IP (contribs - talk) and a couple others (1 - talk | 2 - talk) on the same network have been used to add misinformation to or otherwise vandalise countless game articles over the last year; the earliest examples I have seen date back to August 2006. The pattern of vandalism suggests it is the same person in each case. The most constant behaviour I've seen is modifying articles to either state that a game was not/will not be released outside of Japan, or simply removing information about non-Japan releases. A relative handful of the edits have been legit (or at least seemingly so). This person has also strangely but non-maliciously reworded talk page messages on several occasions (with the rare straight removal of text). Every time the user was blocked, they came back to start the same trouble shortly after the block expired. The last time the IP was banned for six months. Again it started within a day of the block expiring. I have pleaded with this person to stop on two of the talk pages, to no avail. They have never replied or explained their action. I think it is time to contact the ISP as although this person has shown no true malicious intent, they have wasted the times of many editors for over a year now, and no amount of blocking short of a permanent one will stop them. The IP has changed a couple times, so it can't be completely static. It is possible that another user could inherit the block, although the current IP has been causing trouble as far back as December.--Drat (Talk) 10:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User: 67.86.124.43

67.86.124.43 (talk · contribs) has been posting anime titles on several Cartoon Network articles. Even though anime have been shown on several of Cartoon Network's feeds, those he adds on the lists are anime shows that are not shown. He doesn't even provide reliable sources on why he lists them. In particular, he lists anime shows on Cartoon Network Philippines, even though in truth, only Pokémon, Mirmo!, and Zoids: Genesis are the only ones currently shown there. Several anime have been shown there since 2000, but those he added (such as One Piece and Full Metal Alchemist were never among them. With him posting possible misinformation (he has been warned before), what do you think is the best way to do with this anon? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Protecting some pages

Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has stated his intent to keep vandalising these until we realise he was right all along and go to him in craven supplication. Or something. I've semiprotected, which should slow the rate of vandalism, and will watchlist and monitor them. Anyone else who feels like reviewing them and seeing if they give undue weight to Awbrey's obsessive interest in the work of Charles Peirce please feel free to have a look in.

• Ampheck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boolean domain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boolean-valued function (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Comprehension_(logic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Continuous predicate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Descriptive science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hypostatic abstraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Inquiry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Logic of relatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Logic of Relatives (1870) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Logic of Relatives (1883) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Logical graph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Logical matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Minimal negation operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Multigrade operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Normative science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parametric operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pragmatic maxim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Relation composition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Relation construction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Relation reduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Relative term (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Semeiotic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sign relation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sign relational complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sole sufficient operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tacit extension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Triadic relation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Guy (Help!) 11:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the folks at WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Logic, and WikiProject Philosophy might be interested in these articles and in a better position than the average admin to know if the articles suffer from undue weight. I suggest you post to their talk pages. GRBerry (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I put it on the philosophy project to-do, will have a look at the other projects when I get a minute (or anyone else who feels motivated, feel free). Guy (Help!) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

beginner sql tutorial dot com should not have been un-blacklisted!!

I'm distressed to see that this site somehow got off the blacklist or onto the whitelist when it still appears to be dangerous, as indicated by http://beginner-sql-tutorial.com. I think Wikipedia needs to review its policies and procedures for dealing more carefully with potentially malicious sites. For example, any site that uses obfuscated Javascript should be viewed with suspicion, and certainly it should not be whitelisted if it fails to pass a simple automated check by Exploit Prevention Labs or an equivalent facility. There was some previous discussion about this particular site, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive319#User_202.62.80.3_-_apparent_extreme_hazard, and it's hard to understand how whoever made the decision to allow these links to be reintroduced could have failed to take reasonable precautions. Again, I would strongly advise that you review your practices. This kind of abuse could give Wikipedia a real black eye, and deservedly so. - JCLately (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not being used anywhere, and it's still blacklisted. [21] ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's because I'm quick :) --Isotope23 ^talk 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's not on the whitelist; it was removed from the blacklist after a request for removal was posted and it was confirmed that the IFrame exploit had been resolved. I didn't remove the site from the blacklist (or contact meta about removal there) until I personally confirmed this fact. It appears the exploit is back now, and the site has again been removed from articles and added back to the blacklist (and I contacted a meta admin to have it added there for global blacklisting). At this point, I think as a "repeat offender", it should stay blacklisted, even if the exploit is resolved again, until the site owner details how they are dealing with this situation such that it will not happen again. Clearly their last attempt to resolve this was not successful. That said, well I realize that that users may want to direct their anger here if they are led out to a site that maliciously attacks their computer, but Wikipedia isn't responsible for 3rd party content at external sites and this sort of malicious scripting is only going to increase. All we can do is due dilligence to try and stop feeding out to these sites, and I think in this specific situation that was done.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, the site owner has apparently rectified the situation again, though I'm still a bit cautious about removing this from the blacklist sans some sort of assurance of a more permanent solution to the problem. Anyone who wants to participate in the discussion is welcome. It might be worth having a conversation on a guideline or best practices for dealing with external linking to sites that are compromised with malicious scripting.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for page protection

An editor which has used several sockpuppets (User:Bone18 and User:Billy660 and User:Billybob690), and uses multiple ips of 86.156. and 86.153. series is constantly adding anti-India, biased, unsourced material to:

• Indophobia,
• Anti-Pakistani sentiment,
• Jammu and Kashmir and
• Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

I am tired of constantly reverting his/her edits. Need advise. --Lokantha (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Invalid RfC

I have spent some time looking through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 and the history of its contributors. None of them have provided any evidence of recent attempts to resolve the supposed dispute, and most of them are actually rehashing past disputes including the Ecyclopedia Dramatica arbitration. It is very hard to see this RfC as anything other than an attempt to see off an opponent in a dispute. I suspect it should be deleted as not properly certified (as in: the supposed attempts to resolve the dispute are not evident) or perhaps simply archived. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I cannot help in the deletion aspect as I'm not an admin, but I agree that the RfC shows lack of evidence against MONGO (who I know to be a long-term contributor). Maybe it would be an idea to ask the certifier(s) to provide evidence via diffs, in order to make this request valid - that might work. Qst 17:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose deletion because it could be used as evidence in the future (including by MONGO) but given what the page looks like right now and the lack of recent DR archiving sounds right. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The "{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}" section of an RfC could use a small improvement: for each signature, a diff that shows a genuine recent attempt by the signer to discuss and resolve the issue. Untruthful signatures appear to be common now. Weregerbil (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Squeakbox's comments: See Wikipedia's not a crystal ball. This RFC can only used in the "here and now". Not for anything that may or may not hapen in the future. ;) That funky visitor from the Vorlon Home World !talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And some believe the problem is in the "here and now," whether that problem truly exists or not (and I'm not getting in that argument). Squeakbox is merely seeing a secondary benefit to keeping. —Kurykh 23:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" part of WP:NOT is only in reference to articles. It has absolutely nothing to do with pages in the Wikipedia project space. Natalie (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

George Cross Recipients

Resolved

Please could admins note that the George Cross is a highly notable award for gallantry, and that its recipients are also highly notable? And, bearing that in mind, could admins please avoid speedying stubs about its recipients, especially when an editor (NOT the original author) has removed the speedy tag with an explanation given in the edit summary? Thank you for your consideration. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• The entire island of Malta has a George Cross :-) But yes, it's an assertion of notability and no mistake. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? We have an article on the island of Malta! DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples, please? These can be undeleted if this is indeed a problem. Chick Bowen 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Douglas Merriman. The deleting admin has refused to recreate. Another editor (neither the original creator or myself) is now working on a new version in their sandbox. There have been some misunderstandings of policy and who did what along the way. Hopefully the situatioon is now sorting itself out. Just rather disapointing to have such bizarre ideas of non-notability floating around among admins, and I personally am rather upset at wrongfully being accused of a breach of wikipolicy for removing the speedy tag. Heigh-ho, just another day at the office! DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The original article was Arthur Douglas Merriman. It was deleted by a different admin because of a lack of context, which it indeed suffered from. Duncan is rightly a bit peeved because he was accused of maliciously removing the tag. It wasn't malicious because he was perfectly entitled to remove it, not being the author of the page. The article has now been recreated with a reference and a bit more context. Kerfuffle over. ;) Woodym555 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted as lacking context (true: it said that Arthur Merriman had a George Cross - a context-free factoid). Re-creating with some information would have been rather more effective, I think - see WP:HOLE. The sooner we get WP:WIZARD in place the sooner we can wave goodbye to problems like this. There is a small concern that the creator might be simply creating substubs from www.link-ex.net/wiki_en which is not a reliable source, so I left a note. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You would notice him in a hole because he has a George Cross pinned to his chest ;) Yes it was the stubbiest of stubs which needed a hook, but I still don't think it should have been deleted, simply tagged. Woodym555 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and I'd not have deleted it, but there is at least some burden on the creator to do more than "X won the George Cross, here's a link to my website" which is what we had here. It was speedied as A1, not A7, and it did indeed lack context. See the discussion of Eric Moussambani in WP:HOLE - there is some sense in the humour, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedied articles

Is there anyway to see a list of speedied articles? I ask because without such alist, it is impossible to review if the speedy process is being used appropriately. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No such list exists, for reasons such as this. —Kurykh 23:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Struck out my inaccurate comment. —Kurykh 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is the deletion log but that's not going to tell you much more than the name of the page and the reason for its deletion if you're not an admin. Metros (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So realistically, only admins are in a position to see if admins are using speedy appropriately? DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but trust me, with 1,400+ admins on here, I severely doubt there willl ever be some super-secret plot to speedy delete articles inappropriately. Metros (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't for one moment think there is any kind of plot, rather I suspect that speedy is sometimes misused by people making poor judgments about notability, or unfamiliar with the possibility of tagging stubs with appropriate templates, or averse to talking to editors, or looking at edit histories. DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And if that occurs, the articles can be brought to deletion review. Metros (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone knows that they've been deleted that is, and assuming the original author 1) knows about deletion review, and 2) hasn't become so dispirited and demoralized that he or she can't be bothered, and 3) they haven't thrown a hissy fit and been blocked for venting their frustration. There is no way for us to know how many potentially worthwhile articles have been lost by improper speedying, it is a "closed system" - only admins can delete, and only admins can see what they have deleted, and apart from the original author of a speedied article, no-one else is ever likely to know what happened. In short, there is a massive and I believe fatal lack of transparency to the speedy process. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Woodym555 (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If the person is notable, can't we just that someone else would come along looking to make that article at some point eventually? At some point along the way, someone will notice an issue. And yes, only admins can see the deleted content, but once again, admins are not plotting and if it was a truly notable article, an admin in the DRV would raise that objection. Metros (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As with any process controlled by humans inevitably there will be errors, but based on my experience the tendency is not in the direction that DuncanHill implies. For every article that is unjustly deleted there are many more pieces of absolute crap that are given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to stay. I don't think allowing deleted articles to remain in plain view is wise, among other reasons because many of them are plainly defamatory towards living persons. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be very nice if non-administrators could view the text of "ordinary" deleted articles and a smaller classof administrators (than is currently allowed) could view the text of "extraordinary" deletions, such as is required by copyright or libel laws, or by moral, legal or ethical standards. (This blog post is a rather interesting take on the issue.) --Iamunknown 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Iamunknown makes a good point - and I think there is some truth in what Raymond says - perhaps a line could be drawn between speedies for BLP violations, and speedies for other reasons (eg alleged non-notability or "lack of context")? For every notable article speedied, an admin ISN'T speedying a pile of crap somewhere else! DuncanHill (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific objection to something you've seen? If something is truly notable, it will be created again, and I've always thought the great majority of admins have very good judgement. I don't see why there is a need to add another layer of bureaucracy to a system that works well. Letting everyone see deleted articles and having partial admins have both been brought up plenty of times before. Grandmasterka 01:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For a specific example - see my thread above about GC recipients. For more examples - I am not able to tell you, because I am not allowed to know! DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think it's important to hide the content of deleted items. Much of the time articles are deleted because they are obviously libelous, copyright infringements and/or a number of other things that shouldn't really see the light of day. In any other case most admins are usually willing to restore to user space on request. At the worst-case scenario you can always contact OTRS with a request to review the deleted file. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that I'm merely redundant to other comments above... I'll go away now. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a different reason for wanting to see deleted articles (other than libelous, copyvio, etc.). It is so that I can use them as a training tool to help learn what should be deleted and what is okay. I know the policies in the abstract but it takes experience to develop judgment as to which articles fit which policies. Glancing through deleted articles would be a useful experience to build judgment. (Conversely, I've seen some articles on New pages patrol which were accepted by other patrollers and I cannot understand why. I wish that patrollers would explain why they did NOT mark a New page as deletable.) Sbowers3 (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedies are commonly misused by many many administrators. You don't need to see the deleted texts to know it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's easy enough to contact another admin and tell them to check out an article if you have any concerns. Remember that admins have to pass RFA though, and they're unlikely to do that unless they know what thery're doing and how to do it properly--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix - the point is we CAN'T contact another admin - because we have no way of knowing what admins are doing. We have no way of helping them improve. We have no way of spotting a bad egg. We have no way to know if they are doing a good, bad, or indefferent job on speedies. All we have is "admins must be good otherwise they wouldn't be admins" which is, if you will excuse my French, utter bollocks. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, I checked your deleted contributions, there are quite a few and deleted by several different people. I think you are doing something wrong, at least some of the time. That is, I think you are not making the case for these articles. I disregard the MySpace blogger, but some of the rest might have potential if you ran them through WP:WIZARD or something. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy - my deleted contributions? What deleted contributions? I am not aware of any of my contributions being deleted. Are you perhaps a) lying or b) incompetent? You expect me to assume good faith when you write utter nonsense like that? Where are these deleted contributions of mine that you claim to have looked at? DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, administrators can see a link on your user page hidden to non-administrators, which lists all your deleted contributions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So what of my contributions have been deleted? I am not aware of ANY being deleted - I certainly have never been told of any being deleted, and have not noticed any disappearing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick run through your last 100 and all of them have been disambiguation and stub sorting of other editors' articles. Didn't see anything you created that has been deleted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn right nothing of mine has been deleted - so can someone make Guy stop lying? Or is that asking too much of admins? DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Deleted contributions" doesn't just mean articles that you originally started. It includes all articles to which you contributed and that were later deleted. As an example, someone created Carlton Jakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about a week ago. Another editor flagged it as a non-notable biography under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A7. You later disambiguated a link, changing Georgia to Georgia (U.S. state). Finally, the article was speedily deleted. Your disambiguation edits show up as deleted edits, even though the article wasn't one you started. By the way, if you want to look at any admin's deletion, protection, or block logs, go to their contributions page and click "Logs". As an example, Elkman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) gives logs that explain what I'm doing. Basically, Guy isn't lying here; he just didn't give you a full explanation. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So he's criticicising me for dabbing pages which were subsequently deleted? OK - as it now seems to be policy, I won't dab or fix wikilinks again. I won't bother editing, if Guy's attitude is tolerated. DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume Guy just misread them. Please don't take this personally and please don't stop editing. I think the issue over GC recipients has been resolved as much as it can. One admin didn't look into it that much. The problem of who watches the watchmen will always be around. Admins in this category will be happy to tell you what was in a certain article if you feel it shouldn't have been deleted. Woodym555 (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't assume good faith as long as people like Guy talk utter bollocks and make entirely unjustified attacks on my edits and get away with it. If Guy can't read he shouldn't be here. As I can no longer assume good faith of the admin team (though there are many splendid individuals on it), I do not believe it is possible for me to continue making constructive contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy's list of my deleted contributions makes fascinating reading - it includes articles which I marked as hoaxes or proposed for deletion, categories I had renamed as they were malformed, user talk pages where I issued vandalism warnings, and at least two articles which have not been deleted at all! DuncanHill (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

long term edit warring

Through happenstance, I ended up making some edits to Cuba today, where I had the misfortune of running across "El Jigue", 208.65.188.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been maintaining a long-term ownership of the article. My initial edit [22], which corrected the formatting of a reference and removed an enormous quote in the ref tag itself, was described by El Jigue as a "pro-Castro POV". I guess Fidel Castro really likes short references notes. The user has proceeded to revert every single edit I've made to Cuba, no matter how minor or neutral, including reinserting vandalism. A perusal of the user's talk page and the Cuba talk page indicates that this person has harrassed many good editors away from Cuba and related topics, I assume by making immediate and blatant aspersions to their motives. I have warned the editor repeatedly and, I think, nicely, but have been ignored, culminating in a final warning about civility, assuming good faith, and article ownership. The response was a charming accusation that I am "purging" "anti-Castro" editors and a similar accusation on the article talk page.

A perusal of his history shows that I am not the first person he has arbitrarily set himself against. El Jigue has made what I assume are positive contributions to the article, but his behavior has been unpleasant, to say the least. He has removed other editors talk page posts because he thought they introduced a "alternate POV", accused other editors of censorship, and generally refused to assume good faith of any one.

He has been blocked a few times for the same issues I'm bringing up here. He was also blocked for a time, for the same issues, from Spanish Wikipedia, although the EsWiki admin I spoke to said he did not return after the block. I feel like a long vacation may be in order, but as I am obviously involved, my blocking would be inappropriate. At the very least, there is a dire need of more people paying attention to this user and the articles he edits regularly. Natalie (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing this up took a little longer than I though, so I'm going to bed. I've notified the user in question of this discussion. Natalie (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just reading this and the talk pages show that this user is not here to contribute in any positive way, as was his block at the Spanish Wikipedia. Unless someone says different, it might be best to consider him banned from this Wikipedia, and as such I have blocked the IP for 3 months, as he's been using it for nearly two years at the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that works for me. Just for the record, today I looked at 205.240.227.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an old IP of El Jigue's. Considering that extensive block log, I'm not opposed to considering this a ban. Natalie (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A permanent ban will work nicely. Be on alert though, El Jigue has numerous IP addresses to edit and post from; he won't go away easily. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He's a single issue editor, though, which are the easiest kind of sockpuppet to stop. If and when El Jigue returns with a different IP address, he won't edit Israel, Bill Clinton, or cat. He'll go right to Cuba and it's daughter articles. I've watchlisted a couple of his most favorite targets and others can do the same. Natalie (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Tezza1 is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fair use" dispute

There is an ongoing debate (or, should I say, dispute) about whether Image:Arrivavoyager.png and Image:Arrivasupervoyager.png are usable under WP:NFCC. (See also here, here, here and here, as well as the histories of the two image files, especially the first one. It really requires an administrator to make a ruling quickly, before it escalates. Thanks, RFBailey (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another reference: [23] --RFBailey (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings

I have blocked Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The block note is on the user talk. Just posting here as a courtesy. Regards, Mercury 08:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At Privatemusings's talk page I cut my standard offer in half: if the editor does productive work at another WikiProject such as Commons I'd discuss unblocking in three months rather than six months. Durova^Charge! 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You blocked him for sockpuppetry (false he is now on a single account) and "an inability to properly source biographies of living persons". Forgive me for assuming good faith, but PM has been actively involved in talk page discussion as to why the sources he is using are not reliable, and has asked for input from people experienced in the policy at WT:RS. He has been polite throughout in the face of a whole heap of reverts without discussion, and has gone out of his way to seek input from the other people involved. Tell me again... why have you blocked him???????? Viridae^Talk 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a discussion with reasons here: [24] I hope that helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems very bizarre. The sockpuppetry is old news. Suggest unblock. Catchpole (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. PM emailed me asking for help because Durova had declined to post a note here when answering the unblock request. I was half way through writing my own when I saw Mercury's come up on my watchlist. That doesn't make things any clearer at all... Viridae^Talk 09:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed part of the talk page conversation, Viridae. I by no means declined to do so. Two factors operated: the editor's stated desire for minimal drama made an e-mail to ArbCom advisable, and it seemed unlikely that any unblock discussion would succeed while Privatemusings had an unfactored f-bomb on his talk page. As I explicitly stated there at the talk page, I would have opened this thread pretty soon myself, regardless. Durova^Charge! 10:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An unfactored f-bomb? What does this mean in English? Catchpole (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An four letter epithet for sexual activity. Or I should say, unrefactored. It's late. G'night. Durova^Charge! 10:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will assume good faith and ignore what I took to be Durova initially declining the post here. Regardless of that, why exactly is he blocked? Viridae^Talk 10:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I think that some of us were a bit shocked upon reviewing the sock puppetry in this user's recent past. Playing characters with funny voices[25] is not what Wikipedia is about. Perhaps the consensus on the previous AN/I thread wasn't unanimous after all. Since then, PM has not stayed away from controversial topics, and instead has kept stirring the pot on a BLP-sensitive article. I'm sure PM doesn't want this nth review of his blocks to be a source of dusruption and I suggest we let the ArbCom handle the appeal this time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should it come to arbcom? He was blocked for sockpuppetry in which he is no longer engaging and politely engaging other editors on the matter of sources for that article? He has been nothing if not patient, having faced a whole crapload of reverts without communication, and fairly terse responses to his good faith attempts to get to the bottom of the situation on the talk page. And yet it is he that is blocked. Viridae^Talk 10:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is this much difficulty in reaching a decision about these succession of blocks (and getting to the bottom of those matters you speak of) then perhaps that indicates that this would be best settled more conclusively at arbitration. --bainer (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave him blocked and take it to Arbitration. That's the route for administrative actions that are disputed in good faith. Thatcher131 12:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher here. We've now fairly exhausted all angles of community discussion regarding this Administrator action - the ArbCom now need to have a look at this one. Anthøny 13:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that PM is a net-negative for the project. He's either unwilling or unable to recognize the disruption and drama his actions have caused. Agree with Thatcher and others that he should remain blocked pending ArbCom review. Chaz ^Beckett 13:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the block. However, I agree with Anthøny's point. There have been numerous, non-binding discussion about Privatemusings. Disruption, drama, perhaps not enough to block, but enough to draw too many resources away from other matters. The matter needs some finality as it has taken up too much time from too many editors. ArbCom review seems the only way to get some closure on this issue. -- Jreferee t/c 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• So... Privatemusings is indefinitely blocked for non-legitimate "use of an alternate account", despite no allegation that I'm aware of that he is editing under any other account currently, and doubt about his "ability to reliably source"? Why can't people just come out and say, 'blocked for doing things I disagree with and am annoyed about'? It'd be refreshingly candid. Argumentum ad infinitum can be disruptive to the point that a block is needed. However, as usual, this goes directly from, 'novel theory of an excuse to block which has no history or established consensus' (we certainly don't block every newbie through the door who doesn't know how to include reliable sources... in fact, we never do it) to 'indefinite block'. It seems intended more as an effort to 'get rid of' the user rather than any sort of effort at correction. It wasn't, 'your position on reliable sources is wrong IMO and your continued arguing of this point is becoming disruptive'. It wasn't, 'ok the disruption has gone on long enough so I am going to issue a short block and may issue longer ones if the problem continues'. That's what policy and IMO common sense suggest. Instead, this was, 'that's annoying, so let's indef block him'... again. This is the third indef block for completely novel reasons on this guy in something over a week. That is ALSO disruptive. Indeed, IMO far moreso than someone who merely dares to hold a disputed opinion. If you think that disagreeing with someone about the reliable sources policy is blockable then warn them... give time for people to discuss whether they agree it is blockable. If they do and the person continues anyway then place a short block. If that is upheld and they continue... longer blocks. That's what policy says. We only place indefinite blocks when people have failed to respond to reasonable efforts to get them to change. Not, 'any time we think up a new theory of what is blockable'. --CBD 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not block folks because I disagree with them, I block folks, to prevent disruption. In this case I have blocked for disruption. The account is clearly here to disrupt the project. Assume good faith please. Mercury 16:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But you were in an editing dispute with him at Giovanni di Stefano. I've never heard of an indef block simply for citing sources deemed unreliable, and probably whatever is in the YouTube video could be reliably sourced to something else. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion here, to include the rationale below, and on the talk of PM, then comment. Respectfully, Mercury 20:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mercury was in an editing dispute; his edits to Giovanni di Stefano were on biographies of living people and external links issues and not on the editorial content of the page. These are maintenance issues and this is not a content dispute. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad! I confused User:Mercury with User:Mervyn when looking at the article history. It's still an odd block. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Tis ok, no harm. :) Mercury 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In view of how past discussions of Privatemusings have gone, I suggest leaving him blocked, closing the discussion here, and taking any concerns to arbcom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We are at the time of year where arbcom are pretty much non-functional. Got any other suggestions?Geni 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Further rationale from the blocking admin

This part of the sock policy referencing good hand bad hand accounts would appear to preclude usage of an alternate account for the purposes of disruption on on site drama. Regardless of whether or not the primary account is not editing is of no consequence. If the primary account has stopped editing, then the editor has given up that account that was used for more useful work in favor of disruption. This is not good either.

In any event, this editor is very clearly disruptive to the site and needs to not be a net loss. We are here to build the encyclopedia and it would appear that PM is not here for that goal. If the above logic does not help, I have also used what I believe to be common sense for this issue. I hope this helps to clear things up a little. Best regards, Mercury 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree. Giovanni di Stefano is not an article we need aggressively edited by people who freely admit they know little or nothign of the basis for the disputes. If you're going to edit war it's probably best not to pick an arbitrator to argue with, or an article that is under active scrutiny by WP:OFFICE, Jimbo, Mike Godwin, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. Privatemusings' edits to that article were irresponsible, and he showed a complete lack of sensitivity to increasingly direct comments from Fred about the incredibly complex nature of this dispute. Having been involved in it in the past I would recommend the use of a ten foot pole for this one; this looks like a case of fools rushing in, and possibly endangering the entire project as a result. Contentious articles need careful handling, and when the subject is litigious that is redoubled. As Tom says above, appeals should got o ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At the present time there is no evidence of involvement by Mike Godwin. Fred's comments are mostly showing a lack of understanding of how 230 years results in a significant drift in legal practice and UK libel law. If the project is at risk it means the foundation has done something stupid and we are going have issues sooner rather than latter whatever.Geni 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That word "scrutiny" is the one you're after there :-) It's probably also rather unwise (to say nothing of rude) to assume that Fred has not taken the trouble, in the months this dispute has been running, to check out the likely legal position. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of months to understand 2 legal systems (the football club is in scotland)? Tricky. The problem is that isn't consistent with the basic terminology errors (there are very few attorneys in the UK) and clear not getting of UK libel law ("Cleverly implying" is a really really bad idea). Fred's understanding of UK law is less than impressive. He studied US law so it is to be expected that he is going to have a hard time adapting.Geni 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you a UK lawyer, Geni? Fred appears to have a better understanding of aspects of British law than me, and once a lawyer always a lawyer. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No but if you wish to claim that fred's understanding is anything special why the mistakes?Geni 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We really are getting off the topic. :) Mercury 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The element here that is on topic is that WP:BLP is a policy best applied conservatively. At best, Privatemusings had shown a consistent inability to recognize that. I think this is an editor who may get better in that regard and that's why I've offered generous terms for revisiting this block in just three months. The interests of the project take precedence at some point, and too much volunteer time was going into management of this situation. Everyone here on both sides of the issue who acted in good faith has my thanks. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Conservatively" is not the way I would describe the general historic aplication of BLP.Geni 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For "couple of months" read "since May", at the very least, and Fred has been in extended correspondence with legal counsel. Advice to all: don't go near that article unless you genuinely are a legal expert in English, Scottish, Italian and US law, and have double-checked your sources, and then checked them some more. And talk to Fred first. DAMHIKIJKOK? Guy (Help!) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. The Stefano article is one that needs huge sensitivity given the BLP concerns expressed both on and off site by the subject of the article. Some mistakes have been made in the past, some good faith editors have probably made the dispute worse, but that was a while back, and really there is no excuse to continue on with the controversy given what we all know now. There is a task force trying to find a sensitive solution to this issue and if editors want to be a part of that they should email Fred or Jinmbo. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What, pray tell, do we all know now? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much let the block stand or open an arbitration request, unless you think the middle ground of a three month review is an adequate compromise. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the blocked editors points here, I'd personally like to see any diffs whatsoever supporting the allegation that User:Privatemusings edits have been "disruptive" if that's indeed the rationale behind the block. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't take it upon myself to supply diffs for another administrator's block, but Privatemusings specifically asks for my input.[26] So I'll provide something brief. I full protected the Giovanni di Stefano article yesterday because it had been a locus of BLP concerns. Although I'm no expert in any legal system, common sense tells me to treat BLP issues conservatively. And if that isn't generally the way to handle things in some editors' views, a biography of a controversial legal professional is probably not the place to experiment with the outer limits of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. This was a normal and routine protection, yet Privatemusings tried to get the protection lifted repeatedly and implied on the article talk page that I didn't know what I was doing - before asking me anything about the decision.[27][28][29] One might suppose that Privatemusings would be more circumspect, particularly in light of the caution Fred Bauder delivered at WT:RS at about the same time: Privatemusings was approaching the level of disruption that merits an indefinite block, in Fred's opinion.[30] Then, having been blocked for BLP and sourcing issues, and the block already having been declined by another member of the arbitration committee, this editor renews the problem with a post that SlimVirgin steps in to refactor. I won't post those diffs here per WP:BEANS but they're in today's user talk history. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He simply thought you stated reason for protecting the article ("BLP edit warring") was inaccurate. That's not really disruptive. Privatemusing seems to believe, although this information keeps getting removed from his talk page[31][32], even in redacted form, that otherwise easily sourcable information is being forbidden from the article. I understand this editor keeps picking controversal areas of the wikipedia to edit, but he has a point. We don't have a separate policy called WP:Biographies of living lawyers, which makes clear not to mess with any "biography of a controversial legal professional" though maybe we should. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings asked for a quick presentation and that's what I've given. Based on the discussions so far, consensus for unblocking isn't likely to form. Several editors have weighed in here with the opinion that arbitration could be a good solution. Kendrick7, would you like to see how this discussion shapes up after this has had some more time? Durova^Charge! 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One man's troll is another man's idealist, and you'll find both editing in the same place. Our project thrives on idealism to a point, though obviously there's a point after which it becomes harmful, so I would hope a way could be found to convince Privatemusings to limit himself to not going over that ledge. There's no hurry in finding that way, of course. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How would the community react to a proposal to unblock Privatemusings based on assurances that he would (1) edit from a single account, and (2) refrain from editing BLP's. I believe this would address both of the reasons for a block that are perceived as currently germane. If a consensus to an unblock on those terms cannot be reached, they I will consider a request for a limited unblock to allow him to file an arbitration request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the history, I do not think I can support this proposal. Historically, I have supported and even authored such proposals. But not in this editors case. That is to say, I do not support an unblock at all. Mercury 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither would I. He gave an assurance in the past to edit only from one account, and broke it. His gossip page, his excessively polite goading of Essjay, his constant stirring up of drama, show that he is not, and never was, here for the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia. If he wants to appeal to ArbCom, he can email them. ElinorD (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, it appears that consensus to unblock does not exist. Unless that should change, I invite this user to send me an e-mail as an Arbitration Committee Clerk, and I will forward it to the arbitrators for their consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

His gossip page? So you are saying he's also User:Petesmiles? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, huh? Mercury 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

K, yes he is. I don't think this is a secret anymore as PM has recently acknowledged he is Petesmiles. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, he pointed that out just now on his talk page. It wasn't cleat that account was blocked per [33]. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I would not support the unblocking of this user. He has caused too much controversy, used too many accounts, and continues to insist he sees nothing controversial in his edits, which suggests the same behavior will continue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Given this editor's conduct since the block I don't think I could support anything more lenient than a review after three months' service to another wikiproject. I'm having second thoughts about that offer and might withdraw it if problems continue. The obvious solutions here are to pursue that offer or to arbitrate, since consensus to unblock isn't likely to materialize. Durova^Charge! 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin and Durova. I tried talking some sense into him on his talk page and I got no better results than when I tried talking to Jon Awbrey - they both will not accept that the opinons of others must be taken into account. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This was all discussed a few days ago. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive326#I.27ve_blocked_User:Privatemusings. And incidentally, that discussion was closed far too quickly, in my view. It was very obvious that he was blocked, not because he was technically but innocently in violation of some rule, but because he had a long history of stirring up trouble. But as soon as he asked to have his other accounts blocked, and Privatemusings unblocked, it was done without any waiting to see if there was any consensus, and the noticeboard was archived as "Drama ended with amicable resolutions on both sides". See also Fred Bauder's protest. ElinorD (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, he edited for a long time at WP:BADLINKS, then he tried to apply those ideals to an actual article and ended up in an edit war, plain and simple. The conflict at the British lawyers article, who doesn't want the world to know he is a [redacted], is again a reflection of the same sort of idealism. That people just label this as "stirring up trouble" is disconcerting. Admittedly, the editor should take a breathe now and again betwixt his quixotic quests. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC) say that three times fast!

Somebody asked me to comment here, because I'm a bit of a buddy of PM, and I've come to his defense before. First off- I don't believe he has ever abused sockpuppets. Given that he was so open about his identities-- informing multiple different admins, I truly haven't seen any evidence that he guilty of sockpuppet abuse. At worse, he was confused about sockpuppet rules and ulimately corrected. But when you openly TELL multiple admins, even ones who disagree with your POV, what your other account is-- I don't think you can really be guilty of sockpuppet abuse per se. I genuinely don't believe the sockpuppet usage was any kind of bad faith.

And PM has had helped out at the encyclopedia-- he was a valuable contributor to the badsites discussion, helped mediate, and did get some things accomplished.

But, that said-- I can't in good conscious call the block to be overturned. This pushing too hard on the BLP issue, the incivility to Durova, assumption of bad faith, being a tad too aggressive at the Giovanni article, when great sensitivity was required. The blocking admin doesn't seem to have any conceivable ax to grind whatsoever, and although I do think PM was generally acting in good faith, he seemed to have stumbled across a few too many lines in too short a period.

The best I can say is that-- I do think PM is a basically good-faith editor who's doesn't seem like he's trying to break strict guidelines, but sometimes has trouble with gray ones. Trying blocks shorter than three months/indef might bring substantial results-- if you gave him a week to think it over and then let him come back with a promise to stay away from BLPs, you might yet be able to salvage him. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alec. Given the lack of diffs to show behavior rising to the level of disruption, I'd allow this user back in a week, which should be a sensible timeout to consider his goals here on the encyclopedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Risky. I don't see any evidence this user is willing to come back constructively. I don't think I can support this either. Mercury 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify that when I say "maybe reduce it to a week"-- somebody would have a very serious conversation with him and lay down some firm groundrules on what exactly it is he isn't going to do in the future. I wouldn't suggest saying "let's just make a week and call it good"-- that might just lead to future problems. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any diffs to suggest he hasn't been editing constructively, by which I mean, he hasn't, AFAICT, been editing in a way which violates wikipedia's guidelines. I'll gladly change my position, but give me something, anything. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: I don't think Privatemusings directed the profanity at me. I simply thought it would be wiser for him to refactor that statement before a noticeboard thread opened, since that's the kind of thing that tends to sway opinions against an editor and it's understandable that someone would use an epithet momentarily out of frustration. I'm very glad he did strikethrough the statement, although the whole issue got delayed enough, with enough apparent doubt about whether I was really acting in good faith, that I now regret stepping forward at that juncture. Durova^Charge! 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't turn into a self-righteous WP:DICK after being blocked is getting paid to be here. In fact, the degree to which someone turns into a self-righteous WP:DICK is directly proportional the block's absurdity multiplied by its length. To point Privatemusings behavior after being indefinitely blocked as justification for the block ignores this reality. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just not true. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am one step away from withdrawing my three month review offer. Suggest you set a better example, Kendrick, or pursue the ArbCom/Foundation options. This is counterproductive. Durova^Charge! 10:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked why?

Still have not got to the bottom of why he was blocked. Firstly sockpuppetry in which he was NOT engaging since the ani thread before and secondly for an inability to properly source a BLP... He had made multiple attempts to understand why people thought his sources were nto good enough, which seems reasobale when the guardian is ussually regarded as a reliable source. So tell me again, why is he blocked? Viridae^Talk 10:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see all the issues surrounding. You have my reason... and others have added to that reason. Consensus here is to leave blocked, and if you must, request arbitration. Regards, Mercury 10:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your block reason is half false and half questionable. I would like one that actually stands up to and kind of review. Viridae^Talk 10:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It did. Assume good faith please. If need be, pursue arbitration. Mercury 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Viridae, you might have missed all the diffs provided demonstrating the good faith of the block here. Actually, that's probably because such diffs have been repeatedly requested and not been forthcoming. But somehow, in my best of WP:AGF attempt, I too will attempt to magically "see all the issues surrounding" the block. Nothing yet, but I'll keep you posted! -- Kendrick7^talk 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Conditional unblock

I have unblocked so that PM can request arbitration. PM is not permitted to edit anywhere else than arbitration pages. Mercury 02:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And his own talk page presumably? --CBD 11:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case has been filed. Interested editors may comment on whether the case should be accepted for an unblock review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Privatemusings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

abuse of power by administrators Secret and Jeffrey O. Gustafson

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.

---

Resolved

Blocked troll trolling Wikipedia ("abuse" is kind of a giveaway) Will ^(talk) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello this is the editor formerly known as user:Rafff18 before I was indefinitly blocked by user:Secret(note: I am not asking you to unblock me but to look into the actions of the above mentioned administrators). The block was a result of a small edit war me and a friend of mine got into with User:Bmg916 and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson because they kept deleting agreed apron and sourced information on the page of the Montreal Screwjob. Instead of going through wp:dr like I wanted secret blocked me indefinitely for several false reasons that I detail on my talk page along with that of secrets and user:Chris G.

latter while I was appealing the block User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson one of the people that I originally was in the dispute with ,did a blatant violation of WP:ACM by deleted the information from my talk page and then blocked me from using it. Please inform these administrators that these actions are unacceptable and further use of theme could result in theme losing there rank thank you.

• And what was your previous account? It's blindingly obvious that Rafff18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not a new editor. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • He shouldn't have to reveal his IP address per WP:PRIVACY. Otherwise, I'm not aware we're doing indef blocks for 3RR now? I don't understand from the talk page what made Secret change mind to extend the 24 block to an indef block before the 24hrs even expired. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Rafff would not stop using sockpuppets and meatpuppets (his friend, according to him continued) to repeatedly insert the same exact information into an article whose sources failed WP:RS and WP:V. Not to mention, the "source" was one person's POV about another's behavior (Bret Hart). If the sources were valid, the information would have been more appropriate for the aforementioned Bret Hart article. The "source" mentions nothing of the Montreal Screwjob, the article in question. However, the blocked user was trying to insert this as a supposed reason for the screwjob taking place, when as mentioned before, the "source" says nothing of the screwjob, and therefore, even if the source was reliable, using it to allude to the fact Hart's supposed behavior led to the screwjob, is nothing more than an assumption. The information they wanted to insert was never agreed upon at any time. It was only this editor who was blocked who wanted it repeatedly inserted. After this user was blocked for 3RR, I reverted their edits no longer based on the actual edits, but because solely because they were using block evading IP addresses, which as we all know, is not allowed. If the user had waited for the 24 hour block to expire instead of abusing sock puppet and meat puppet accounts, they probably wouldn't be indefinitely blocked, and I would have gladly recommended putting the information in the Bret Hart article instead, with a reliable source. Some random website saying they have an interview with some person doesn't mean they necessarily actually conducted said interview. Sorry if the response was long winded. Regards, Bmg916^Speak 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He seems to stand accused of meatpuppetry, and sockpuppetry. I have to insist that just because a lot of editors show up and agree with each other regarding a Featured Article, that's really slim evidence of meatpuppetry -- that occurs on every front page article. No one bothered to file a sock case prior to the indef block. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I figured much of that out. But the guy has made less than 50 edits so an indef seems like WP:BITE. -- Kendrick7^talk —Preceding comment was added at 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was blatantly obvious it was either sock puppetry or meat puppetry. They were re-inserting the exact same information down to the punctuation, and it started as soon as Rafff was blocked for 3RR. After each sock was blocked, another different IP would come along and once again re-insert the same exact paragraph down to the punctuation. Rafff claims it was his friend and not him doing most of this, so I am going to assume good faith and believe it was his friend. However, this would still be meat puppetry if I'm not mistaken. Bmg916^Speak 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you consider it a WP:BITE. However, just to play devil's advocate, he has admitted to editing for over two years anonymously, and refused to admit to use of sock puppets and denied that his friend was acting as a meat puppet when he clearly was. He also has clear knowledge of policy in my opinion to bring up WP:ACM. Bmg916^Speak 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree he screwed up. But, can we at least agree the guy had lousy luck of joining the wrestling wikiproject in late October[34], which two weeks later on 9 November (see Talk:Montreal Screwjob) got a WP:Featured article, and then may have bent, broken, or not understood our rules under the resultant feverish excitement of such an occurrence. I can't forsee the stars aligning just that way again. By the way, I would have another look at the source, [35] does actually mention the screwjob, just not by that name, unless there's another "Montreal incident with Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels" we don't have an article on. Beats me if it is reliable, it has a byline and everything; of course I never thought I'd use "reliable sources" and "pro-wrestling" in the same sentence. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, I must've missed the article mentioning the screwjob before. I honestly still don't see it as being reliable however, as we can't verify that they are actually summarizing this supposed interview correctly and without twisting words and context, etc. As much as I would really like to assume good faith here, and I really hate not to, but I unfortunately believe that this user would go right back to insisting this be put in the article, as he inserted in the information about a year ago as an anonymous user, and because of his insistence on inserting it with sock and meat puppets. Bmg916^Speak 00:20, 20 November 2007 (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.

proxy

i found a proxy that works on wikipedia http://www.browser4all.com/index.php im using it now to post this message, i think you should block it--76.164.193.90 (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nice catch. Should be blocked per Wikipedia:Open proxies. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, I retract my commendation. You could have just come here originally, instead of using less polite methods. I would still go ahead and block the IP, as it seems very dubious that someone intending to make substantial contributions would edit from such a dirty proxy. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've blocked it. Please report open proxies to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies in the future instead of vandalising with them. See WP:POINT. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

School IP range

Hi. The IP address 216.11.203.107 is owned by a school district, and I have gotten several admin warnings to the effect of "Your recent edit of [some page] containing [some profanity] has been reverted. Don't do it again." Just block the IP. Please. There are elementary schools that share this IP, and I'd rather they didn't see that kind of message. The school may have an entire class C IP address range, actually. I'm not sure. Thanks. 216.11.203.107 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you've been getting warnings, it hasn't been at this IP: - 216.11.203.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only contribution is to this board, and the talk page is still a red link. Natalie (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And, normally, we don't preemptively block IP addresses, so without more information on the other addresses there is not much we can do at this point. Sorry. — Satori Son 15:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is 30 active IP ranges for 'Oakland Schools'^[36] within 216.11.0.0-255.255. Aproximatly 10,000 edits. depends which school location--Hu12 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume the IP poster here is a school administrator of some kind, but did not identify him/herself that way, so it's probably not a good idea to block based on this request. I suggest, if the administration wants to have the range or addresses blocked, they should contact Wikipedia through WP:OTRS, so that someone can take responsibility for verifying the request before we act. Mangojuice^talk 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can consenus ever trump Wikipedia's policy guides?

I am writing to enquire if WP:CONSENSUS can trump official Wikipedia policy? The WikiProject Airports has persistently said that they have gained a consensus for including un-encyclopaedic lists on all articles about an airport, listing destinations. Not only is there no proof of a consensus apart for a couple of members of the project but they breach many policies. The ones I have found so far are Wikipedia is not a travel guide, Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia does not include trivia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, Verifiabilty nor can they ever be totally up to date. These are just a few of many policy guidelines which it breaches. Recently I moved the lists from Manchester Airport to sub-articles, one for each terminal, as I felt the list was not directly relevant to the airport and more based on operations, which the airport do not themselves carry out, that is the job of the airlines. Promptly this infuriated a member of the Airports project and the lists we're quickly nominated for AFD. The result of the AFD at first was keep then after a lengthy discussion at deletion review they were grouped as one AFD and the result was delete. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination) you will see that the votes for delete all bring up the policies I listed. The members of the airports project have chosen to ignore the fact that the votes were to delete the content as well as the articles themselves and have continued to add them to the Manchester Airport article claiming consensus allows for them. I am not bothered about the lists on any other Airport article as my main concern is Manchester Airport with it being a top importance article at the project I work mostly on. Please can somebody sort out the mess the airport project is causing to the Manchester Airport article with no intention of ever improving it? Also the lists are subject to constant vandalism by IP addresses adding stupid destinations to it which can easily be found to be false. These lists are neither helpful, formatted nor sourced and should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Please can an administrator get back to me as it seems the project members will only listen to someone with authority. Thank you. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 16:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrator's don't have "authority" - we just have tools. Is there some way admin tools should be used in this issue, or is it better handled in dispute resolution? Natalie (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the tools, we are to enforce policies and guidelines as well as determine consensus on a voluntary basis. It is this part of the job description that And-Rew is calling for action. I'm unfamiliar with the case presented, so I've no opinion to offer on that. Keegan^talk 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that And-Rew is asking for admin intervention in a content dispute - "can somebody sort out the mess the airport project is causing the Manchester Airport article". That is the sort of this that is explicitly not the purview of these noticeboards. And-Rew, you may find one of the suggestions listed at dispute resolution helpful. Natalie (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We have tried discussing the issue with the airports project and they are refusing to budge on their opinion and simply tell us there is "consensus" for the content to be included. Can you agree that the lists are an obvious breach of policy just by looking at it? If you agree they are breaches this could be used in debate as they think consensus trumps all policy. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is why dispute resolution is being recommended. When discussions halt, outside help is needed. Leebo ^T/C 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you agree that the lists are an obvious breach of policy just by looking at it? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent to address the actual issues). First, the question of whether Consensus trumps other policies...Consensus is a policy itself, so it needs to work in conjunction with other policies. By and large, even the other policies have been crafted over time by Consensus, and so reflect the larger consensus of the community as a whole. Because of this fact, usually, the consensus of the whole is seen as a greater weight than the consensus of the smaller groups that can be found within a project. That being said, however, WikiProjects are sometimes afforded a bit of latitude away from the "norm" (such as strict adherence to WP:MOS) in order to deal with unique situations presented by the types of articles that each WikiProject handles. An example: the page layout guide given by MOS is different than that used by WP:AIR, because there was typically additional information that needed to be in aircraft articles that MOS didn't give guidance on; the core aim is for standardization, and because AIR's page guidelines provide for carefully thought-out solutions to the unique problems of standardizing these kinds of articles, this is a place where the lattitude is a net-benefit for the encylopedia. Now, for the Airport issues...I realize that there's been discussion of the issue in conjunction with the AfDs and DRVs, but has the core issue of how to handle such lists been addressed on the Project's talk page? You've said that there's no evidence of a consensus, which tells me that there's also not been a centralized discussion at the project. I would suggest that you start with that, and ask the project members to address how such information meets the policy requirements that you raise. If, as a result of that, you still feel that there are serious policy issues that are resulting in a net-effect of harm to the encyclopedia, I would suggest you refer to the dispute resolution process to work through things. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation for Background check on Editors Being Promoted to Admin

A few months ago an editor put up a link in a Tibetan Buddhist page that is an Englishman's cult claiming to be a prophet (Terton) dismissed by Tibetan Lamas, which basically has wrong information whereby a photo is wrongly captioned. This misinformation page is still up, against Wiki rules. He has given me so many warnings and claimed to know virtually nothing of TB(Tibetan Buddhism) and abusively called it an inner faith squabbling. I claimed then and now that he is a member of the said cult whose former members have claimed great abuses by the cult leader, the former English truck driver! He has since added a badge of interest in TB on his page as well as claiming to be a Freemason. When he gave another harassing warning again today I decided to check his activity on Wiki. To my surprise it appeared that this user is highly controversial and his interest in TB is not new. He has been accused of being the same person as a now banned editor who was double nicking one of whose names was a TB guardian deity by separate people who individually came to the same conclusion.

So I propose in order to promote people to admin status, that:

1) A history of their activity be googled in the format of:

XXXX site:wikipedia.org

2) Controversial editors be listed on an invisible admin 'To Watch Board' as many are pursuing various organizational agendas.

I hope an admin who agrees with me takes this recommendation up with the relevant procedures.

I will continue to observe the activities of the particular abusive editor as shown by the archives for ever, whose writing and behavioral style I have familiarized so that even a new nickname would be pointless. I also think that others, including admins, editors and even users take up this practice and break their silence when they encounter 'persistent' vicious behavior protested by unrelated victims as shown in googled Wiki archives.

I also hope one of the admins can reverse the many warnings he has given me as a protest to his misinformation page which contains a wrongly captioned photo (important for TB practitioners' use) and thereby is against the rules. Both the linking to erroneous information and the warnings based on its maintainability are illegal. The editor concerned is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GlassFET

Try the "XXXX site:wikipedia.org" on anyone before making them an admin and make it a procedural necessity, please. I hope for the future of Wiki the procedure I suggested is considered. Thank you all, --Thegone 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What does being an admin have to do with this? I' notifying User:GlassFET os this discussion. JodyB _talk 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done. JodyB _talk 21:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What article, what information is in or out that you don't like, what is the search you are requesting? you can always check a user's contributions, and should when participating in a discussion at WP:RFA. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty curious about that too, as I'm not an admin, and if anybody nominated me, they must have neglected to tell me about it. GlassFET 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, Thegone keeps vandalizing article by removing links, sometimes substituting his own links for links being used as references. The links he has been substituting lately have been to an old offsite copy of the same Wikipedia article. GlassFET 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of his removal of what I believe are perfectly valid and approprate links: [37], [38],

He's also been spamming some Buddhist forums: [39].

GlassFET 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And, and for the record, it's not the first time he's posted an "incomprehensible essay" complaining about me on WP:AN/I, where in August he was advised of the proper way to handle a content dispute. GlassFET 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Thegone: 1- The article as linked by GlassFET has a wrong captioned photo as well as being incomplete to mention the third incarnation. The error in the photo captions, first one is the title not the person's name and the second photo is bearing the name of the person in the first photo, should be enough to remove the link and reverse his many warnings to me based on it. The site is a disguised front for the abusive 'Aro' cult whose other undisguised sites GlassFET links openly in different sections. http://www.nyingma.com/artman/publish/dudjom_yangsis.shtml This is false information and its linking and warnings based on its removal are ILLEGAL, period. The links to both persons official sites can verify this as I posted on a previous occasion. I merely changed the link to another which was a portal to many articles on the subjects without any error. He removed them.

2- The main point of my post above was the two specific recommendations for procedural changes to Wiki considerations of admins, as I can easily see people like GlassFET slowly working their way up into that position. This should not be diverted nor ignored and I wish to make i) the archive background check and ii) an invisible 'controversial editors watch board' for admins To be taken up. To see a case in point and how unrelated victims have come to the same conclusions regarding an editor conducting illegal activities click here and do go back at least 6 or 7 pages: http://www.google.com/search?q=GlassFET+site%3Awikipedia.org

I share the point by various users/editors' claims, not knowing of each other, that GlassFET is the banned editor as well as guilty of other misconducts.

This should prove the point for both my recommendations as suggested points of order, which is the main point of my post here, not GlassFET's illegal activities in the erroneous link or his warnings based on that to me. Please adopt both suggestions for safeguarding Wiki's future mainly under attack by 'organized' misconduct by various quarters. Thank you. --Thegone 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are simply barking up the wrong tree. Try reading about how to handle a content dispute. This is not it. I'm happy to discuss your concerns, but I won't accept your claims without any proof. You simply appear to be ranting. GlassFET 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your illegal activities are proved above despite your childish attempt at discrediting anyone as the archives show. I once again emphasize the 2 recommendations to be taken up as organized abuse will only increase in future and not just from pathetic little cults and low level lodges. --Thegone 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats and personal attacks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As messy as that was, just as a technicality that's not a legal threat is it? A legal threat is a statement that one is going to sue, not an accusation that someone has done something illegal (otherwise we would be blocking people over fair use discussions all the time). Wikidemo (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, an indefinite block without warning is way too harsh, and doing so over a good faith if bizarre attempt to seek redress from administrators smacks of WP:BITE. As much garbage as we get on this page we should not punish people for bringing a complaint here, even a flimsy one. See a recent example here of an editor blocked for daring to tangle with administrators. Wikidemo (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrible example. That user was blocked for being a disruption only account troll. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think blocking for a legal threat is a little excessive, but this user does perhaps need a shove in the direction of dispute resolution. Natalie (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no immediate threat. I'll unblock Thegone (talk · contribs). — Sebastian 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that may have been too rash. I only checked Thegone's talk page now and saw that this user has already been warned with a final warning for vandalism. However, all vandalism warnichs come from GlassFET. Given that the two have an issue with each other, this may not hold water. If anyone who investigated this matter further re-blocks Thegone for a clear policy violation then I won't object. — Sebastian 02:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The block was not solely for the legal threats (and referring to someone's actions as illegal is indeed unacceptable). It was also for the incivility. It would have been nice if someone had discussed it with me first before unblocking, you know, as we're supposed to be doing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• SebastianHelm should have informed you about the unblock before or immediately after, but may have assumed that you were monitoring this thread and saw his 02:04, 20 November 2007 above. The incivility I found was 26 July 2007 removal of GlassFET's post on 82.35.40.145 (talk · contribs · logs) talk page.[40] July 26, 2007 removal of AntiSpamBot post on 82.35.40.145 (talk · contribs · logs) talk page.[41] Despite warnings from GlassFET, 1 August 2007 3RR[42][43][44][45] His 19 November 2007 use of "harassing warning" "Both the linking to erroneous information and the warnings based on its maintainability are illegal." are unfortunate, but not legal threats. Also, he meant that they were illegal as not meeting Wikipedia's policies. I don't think a block was warranted for his November 2007 activities. -- Jreferee t/c 07:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• While I don't think Thegone made a legal threat, the editor appears to only be here to POV push and troll. I have a hard time seeing how Wikipedia is better off with this individual editing here than not.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I just went back and reviewed some of TheGone's edits, and they do appear to be improper, but I'm not sure they were vandalism (replacing refs with alternate refs that are WP mirrors). If we are to AGF, this might have been simply a mistake by someone who didn't understand the difference. However, that being said, TheGone has at least been warned, and if he doesn't repeat, then all should be well, but if he persists in such behavior, a block would be entirely appropriate. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Legal? Which particular country's laws did I mean was broken apart from Wiki-land? And that from an aspiring lawyer? I prefer gardeners personally.

None of my points have been answered where Wiki laws have been broken (disinformation and warnings based on my protests) as I showed above by someone who refuses to answer various unrelated people if he is a certain banned editor & even in the attempt to block me indefinitely. As for my incivility it is subjective: there are facts (earth goes round the sun), consensus (majority of every army thinks snipers are not honorable men) and subjective opinions (such as mine that violence produces heavy karma that creates great suffering after one's passing for a very long time and the person needs to immediately start purifying that karma). I was called ranting by 3 immediate rambling messages and more. Still I didn't complain as these are subjective opinions. The main point of my initial post was the 2 suggestions for admins. Some admins above have self-nominated themselves for that position which I would oppose. And maybe they think there is too much freedom in the current world order. They love the mop of censorship.

Another worrying trend replacing 'organized' misinformation I have noticed is wholesale deletion of large sections in pages. Keep an eye on that. I never edited much if at all despite quite a few post-grad qualifications in various fields. But like Archimedes was futile in telling Syracusians not to be complacent I can't do more and every process has its cycle and everything has always been perfect and will be. Educating people as in Wiki is in fact a sacred act and the standards should be kept as high as possible. You are the guardians of this space and it is a much more important responsibility than one can imagine. Keep your sense of humor too and know that this work also accumulates great positive karma as long as your intention is to benefit beings on various mental levels. So I wish you all the best.

Now those few can 'rudely' insult me again and re-block me indefinitely, 'illegally'. --Thegone 03:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, don't tell us your accusations, prove them, or don't make them at all. Secondly, read up on our policies before making any statements about our workings here. Your posts here reflect none of the advice I have just given you. —Kurykh 03:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here my post was primarily the 2 suggestions. I proved them on a previous occasion. If you go to the two tulku sites you will see the second photo's caption belongs to the first photo who lives in US (containing not even a name but the title of all 3, only 2 mentioned in the erroneous link). There are sites in my erased portals links too both in English and Chinese, both of which I believe you can read as well as in Tibetan which has survived the genocide. --Thegone 03:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You continue to remark that the removal of the information you added and the warnings applied are "illegal," when in reality there is no such concept here except in cases of physical and legal threats. We don't need you to make condescending remarks towards us on how we should do our jobs. Anyways, whether the information you add or not is to be debated on the relevant talk page, found by clicking the "discussion" tab at the top of the article, but not to be brought here. This board is specifically for conduct issues. This is a wiki; there are plenty of smart and educated people out there who may disagree with your edits, not everyone who disagrees with you are conspiring criminals, and because your edits are rebuffed and (mistaken?) warnings were issued does NOT excuse you from our rules on civility. —Kurykh 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unintended effects of sub-pages on ANI: IMPORTANT suggested modification

Recently, ANI has started to have sub-pages. The excuse is that it shortens ANI. The real danger is that discussion will end in 48 hours because there will be no further comment on the main ANI page (all of it taking place in the subpage).

Eventually, I expect this to be abused. Rather than keeping ANI shorter, it will be a tool to hide debate.

I propose that neutral volunteers with absolutely no contact or editing of the same articles or talk pages with any of the major participants of the discussion make a summary of the dispute under the link to the sub-page and continue to post that an ongoing discussion is occurring. The topic would then only go into the archives after updates are no longer added. Even this safeguard risks loss of discussion and hiding of discussion as most tasks in WP do suffer a backlog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chergles (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't timestamp the subpage notice, the notice will stay there forever (it says this at the top of AN/I). Once a subpage has run its course, the thread on AN/I can be archived manually. east.718 at 20:37, November 20, 2007

Yes, I think not time stamping those sections, and then after a review manually archiving is better. Then also, perhaps another set of eyes will look at the discussion for closure/action/archiving/thoughts for the future. (just a thought). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of change to mediawiki:newarticletext

Improvements to ParserFunctions now allow us to distinguish Commons-only images from images hosted only on enwiki. So I have proposed changing mediawiki:newarticletext to transclude the image or something similar because right now, if a image: link to a Commons-only image appears in any of the logs, it will go to the image edit page which makes it look like the image does not exist at all. Suggestions are welcome at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Change the image edit page for Commons image?. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Need content

Could someone get me the content/code that was at this deleted page, [46] ,please? Copy it to my user-space and leave a note on my talk when done? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done east.718 at 23:05, November 20, 2007

Backlog of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

There is a nasty backlog starting to form, I thought I would tell you guys before it got any worse Rgoodermote  17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, at 08:24 UTC, CAT:CSD was empty (save for the perennial "dated deletion categories". Good work, people! Bencherlite^Talk 08:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User: 74.36.127.88

This user wants to be banned for some reason. He has admitted to using a sock puppet here (diff). He has repeatly stated that if he is not indefiatnly blocked he will cause havoc until he is. Nn123645 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a Catch-22. However, barring OP, we do not block IP addresses indefinitely because of collateral damage. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indef on an IP is a bad idea, yeah. But a quick glance at the contribs makes it look like some block is in order. Nothing but disruptive edits, going back at least a week or so, it looks like. One or two meh edits. Only specifically good edit I saw was in mid September. Looks like it's been the same person, all along. Gogo Dodo has blocked it for two weeks, and that sounds like an okay enough time, for me; we can escalate, from there, if disruption continues. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Since I'm being accused of not being "neutral" and since it's been implied that I have some sort of vendetta against an independent alternative newsweekly publication here in my hometown, I wanted to get outside opinion... This newsweekly owns a wiki type site. On this wiki type site, is an article about the newsweekly, that being the newsweekly that owns the wiki type site. This wiki type site doesn't use sources/references in its articles. The newsweekly is using its own article on its own wiki type site as a source for its own article here on Wikipedia. Is this acceptable since its owned by the subject of the wikipedia article and since its a wiki type site in itself that uses no sources? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure there's such a thing as a "Quick Question" on WIkipedia.:). Could you provide difs and the name of the article? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

At least one source independent of the publication must exist. If there are none, the article should be deleted. Quatloo (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It would help if we new which article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick answers, in the two parts you asked. Anyone can set up a wiki using MediaWiki. It is free, you can set up a website using it as your software at no cost.

The newspaper can run its site as it sees fit. It is simply using the same software.

Now, if they have copied and pasted the article on itself from Wikipedia, they have to source it to here to comply with the GFDL. Anyone may copy and modify any text, as long as they source it.

Hope that helps. Keegan^talk 04:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the subject linking to itself, that's a valid external link but I don't think I'd consider it a reliable source. Keegan^talk 04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it appears from what is being stated that they're trying to source their Wikipedia article with their own wiki, not copy the Wikipedia article onto their own wiki. Wikis cannot be used as reliable sources because they're far too mutable, regardless of article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly it Jeske, they are sourcing their Wikipedia article with their own wiki. See this edit: [47] where jackpedia.com is used as a source. The article in question is Jackson Free Press and using the wiki they own, Jackpedia.com (a play on the location of Jackson, Mississippi) as source in their WP article. As I said, I've been accused of not being "neutral" and it's been implied that I have some sort of vendetta against Jackson Free Press since the owner of the paper banned me from the paper's online forums several months ago due to a disagreement of opinion over illegal immigration. That's why I brought this issue here before I remove their own wiki as a source in their Wikipedia article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Any chance the newspaper being discussed in public can get in here? I believe the only thing Jackpedia is referencing is the circulation information of the paper, which Allstarecho keeps deleting, and the history of the Mississippi Free Press, which is widely available in books and historic volumes (the paper learned about it in a book about the history of the Black press in Mississippi). There is no way to verify circulation/readership numbers online otherwise (does that mean it can't be true???) However, there is a phone number on the Jackpedia page where people can call to have the information verified by a fax of the materials, which my bosses will be happy to fax to Wikipedia administrators. Also, we have a very legitimate concern about the neutrality of Allstarecho, as he has indeed been suspended from our site under the User Agreement, not for disagreeing about illegal immigration, but for violating our rules of decorum. We can agree to disagree on our user rules, but is he neutral when it comes to these decisions? We urge everyone to look at his posting history as it pertains to the JFP and our owners. Frankly, we're not mad at him about anything, and don't wish to hurt or expose him in any way. All we are asking for is fairness in his editing. Nothing more. Also, even though he knows staff people at the paper, he has never asked for information about Jackpedia to back up his assertions. This would be easy to do; we have nothing to hide. Newspapers factcheck all the time. Jackpedia is a new local wiki experiment, and our staff did post a lot of content to get it going (including information about past Best of Jackson winners). However, many people from the community have posted to it and continue to, including AllStarEcho who put up a page about him and the organization he runs.

We apologize if we're posting where we don't belong, but we feel as if we are being treated unfairly by someone not telling the whole story here. Please look into this. We're not asking for excessive PR here (and haven't deleted negative posts by Allstarecho and others as you'll see). I guess our big question is: How do we challenge the neutrality of a Wikpedia editor in the name of basic fairness? User talk: jfpwebguy

Again with the "neutral" accusations. I brought it here to the admins, which speaks volumes about my neutrality. The fact is, using your own wiki, that lacks 3rd party sources itself, as a source in your article here on Wikipedia seems to be itself un-neutral and in violation of WP:COI. Indeed, I invite everyone to review my editing history. They will find, as someone who lives in the backyard of most articles I watch, that I edit with clear conscience and neutrality. Hell, just today during vandalism patrol, I reverted vandalism to George Bush's article and anyone that knows me personally knows I loathe that man. But I follow Wikipedia policies without prejudice. Unfortunately, because of past history months ago with Jackson Free Press, I'm immediately labeled un-neutral and implicated as having a vendetta. I'm not here for those accusations but here for outside opinion by administrators of Wikipedia. But thanks for putting all of my personal business out there... -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably to the editor(s) of the paper involved:

The issue is with citing yourself as a reliable source. Just as you would not use any self-reference beyond a direct quote without verification by a reliable source, you would not print it. To the best of our ability we maintain editorial standards equivalent to journalistic ethics. In light of this, I hope you can appreciate the inability to accept you quoting yourself. Simply leave those details out if they cannot be independently verified. As for the user in question, he is acting within our policies and guidelines. His outside participation in your community is outside of our purview. Thank you for your partcipation. Keegan^talk 05:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keegan, great to talk to you. We can understand not quoting ourselves as a source. Makes sense. But the problem here is that allstarecho continually has deleted references, that we can prove, to our circulation numbers. This is clearly important information that appears on other newspaper Web sites, seemingly without the same scrutiny. (Not everyone is edited by someone who has been suspended from the site for violating the user agreement, we realize, so we must jump over more hurdles as a result.) It was easy enough to add a reference for the Mississippi Free Press being printed Brannon Smith, etc., but he seems to want us to prove that our owners named the paper after the MFP without sourcing the people who named it. So does that mean that can't stay in there?

Frankly, this was pointed out to us by concerned readers, who wanted us to source the page. But with allstarecho challenging our every attempt at accuracy, that is near impossible to do. It would really be nice if he recused due to his intense anger against us in the past. Perhaps you could keep an eye on the JFP site? All we ask for is the same fairness and neutrality that newspapers are provided. No favoritism. Cheers. User talk: jfpwebguy

As stated before, the issue here is with the sources. You need to provide independent, 3rd party sources/references. That has nothing to do with whether or not I am neutral. You don't have any more hurdles to jump over than anyone else as long as the article falls within the guidelines and policy of Wikipedia. It is fair to say that people edit articles on Wikipedia that they are close to, because of their familiarity with the subject. I don't check Seattle, Washington's newspapers for accuracy because, frankly, I don't live there and am not familiar with them. I am with Jackson Free Press, just as I am with the numerous other "local" articles I edit and watch. Try assuming good faith, another guideline of Wikipedia by the way, and realize that just maybe not everyone is out to get you nor does everyone find JFP that important in life to make it a conquest. At least, I don't. As a very active member of WikiProject Mississippi, all things in Mississippi on Wikipedia will eventually cross my fingers and JFP is just one of those among thousands. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So we have JFP willing to accept that their edits are not sources or verifiable, and we have Allstarecho willing to continue to work within guidelines. Allstarecho was behaving responsibly in this case, and JFP responded favorably to the problem that we are discussion. Sure, I'll watch out that the JFP article stays neutral, but remember that neutral does not mean favorable in all instances and that Wikipedia should not be used to tweak public image by conflict of interest. Leave the references that would otherwise be unsourced out, and Allstarecho please talk out edits on the relevant talk page if you perceive them to be controversial. Problem solved, for now. Keegan^talk 05:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

jfpwebguy, you can avoid the reliable sources problem by publishing the info on JFP's own website. You can avoid the conflict of interest problem by mentioning that info on the article's talk page, for someone else to neutrality-check and add to the article. --bainer (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The unsourced info being discussed above is the *readership* number not the circulation number. (It is based how many people are assumed to look at each copy of the newspaper). We can leave it out of the article. In Wikipedia we don't seem to make a practice of publishing readership numbers for newspapers. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User claiming to have hacked another account

What should be done if a user has claimed to hack a relative's account and then announced the new password on Wikipedia? Should the "hacked" account be blocked as a preventative measure (assuming the password was legit and hasn't been changed since then)? Anyone could take over this account if it's true. I am purposely not mentioning the users involved for risk of that happening in the meantime, but they are both relatively new and inexperienced users who claim to be brothers. Leebo ^T/C 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Test the password: if it works, block the accounts (hacker and hacked). If it doesn't work, block the self claimed hacker only, for disruption. Fram (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, wasn't sure if testing the password would be appropriate, but I guess there's no other way to know for sure. It didn't work (as presented), so I'll assume the "hacker" was just being disruptive. What would be an appropriate block length in this case, 24 hours? Leebo ^T/C 15:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Vandalism only account? Indef (my opinion, other people may be less harsh in this regard). IP address? 24 hour? Other? Up to you :-) Fram (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward a warning, considering the fact that the user and his "brother" both seem to be in middle school or younger. Most of their edits are to school articles, but not vandalism. They're not really grasping the gravity of their actions on Wikipedia yet. I'm trying to steer them toward contributing constructively, so I'll continue to monitor their edits. Thanks for your input. Leebo ^T/C 16:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! Trying to help these editors can't do much harm, and nothing that can't be undone if needed. Fram (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z

Continued from this discussion; I would like for a sysop to revert only the content on the protected article, which is currently violating WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:FAN, and WP:MOS-AM#Content, back to this revision. Everything's a mess, it's categorized in places where it should not be (eg, Comedy, Supernatural, Shows on Toonami, etc.), references were removed, and I could go on about the original research and fan bunk. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you do not own the DBZ article, nor does DBZROCKS despite all of your attempts to do so. Consensus is both against the merger you're trying to push and against wiping everything from the article. Aside from the two of you the rest of us want to repair the problems with the article, not delete everything into non-existence. Your actions hve been nothing but disruptive during the entire atempted discussion on the matter which you have simply chosen to ignore.Xyex (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The page will need to be reverted because references were removed and it's categorized redundantly, as well there is too much garbage on the current page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated by several people, that does not dictate erassure of the article's entire contents. The majority of the issues would have already been corrected a while ago had you not insisted on trying to own the page and keep it in it's nearly non-existent state. There are at least ten of us who have been trying to fix the issues with the article but you have systematicly ignored all of us and persisted with reverting to your wiped article. Wwhich creating in the first place could be classified as vandalism because you wiped nearly everything including solid and sourced information.Xyex (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read the diff; I merely deleted the unsourced crap and undid the overcategorization, and had the reference re-included. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What you did was remove pretty much everything in the article, without discussion, and without any effort put in first to source it. Which certainly can be considered vandalism. No one is denying that the article needs work but removal of nearly all information is counter-productive to improvement and is disruptive, espeically when you and DBZROCKS constantly revert everyone else's reverts back to the original article. Your first change conformed to WP:BOLD but then you proceeded to ignore WP:BRD which goes hand in hand with WP:BOLD and which is what lead to the current situation.Xyex (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry states, Sesshomaru, you do not have any consensus to do as you have been doing. There are multiple people who do not think you are right in how you are removing content from the article, and I had been wondering myself why you would remove that information. This is edit warring, and until you all decide what you think should be done with the article, it remains locked from editting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, see m:The wrong version.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this.. For the unsourced information, take three days to properly cite it. Anything that cannot be cited in any shape or form may be deleted. For contents within episodes, the episode name and the time (i.e. 3:40 for 3 minutes and 40 seconds) should be used. Technically any non-obvious information that is not sourced may be removed, and the burden of proof is on the party that wishes to keep the information. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the episodes themselves cannot be used as sources. Secondary sources only. Quatloo (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF "It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information"

WP:WHEN "When a source may not be needed : [...] *Plot of the subject of the article - If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information.".

Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I meant. WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR, which are both policy, trump anything in WP:WAF, which is mere guideline. An article should have secondary sources, or it should not exist. An article should primarily rely on secondary nontrivial sources and not primary sources. The use of primary sources should be minimal. No argument can be made without secondary sources. This means any claim or comparison to other episodes cannot be done without a secondary source. If "citing" an episode is done without secondary sources (which may be the intent here) to build the article, it's completely irrrelvant, the article has to go. Quatloo (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing an episode can be done without a secondary source. Any form of analysis or interpretation of the primary source must obviously come from secondary sources, but "descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source", which correspond to the mere episode plot summaries we want to use in the DB articles, are perfectly allowed by the policy.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In simple cases, yes. But when the majority of an article is constructed this way, no. Quatloo (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles containing only plot summaries require to be improved with other sections this time using secondary sources, yes, but in any case the use of primary sources is never forbidden. If you suggest that long plot summaries cannot exist without secondary sources, that's not written anywhere in the policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (direct quote from policy) If the purpose of the article is to contain these plot summaries, then yes, I am suggesting that is forbidden. If the majority of an article is plot summaries unsourced to third party material, that is the subject of it, and the article should go. You are correct only in that the limited use of primary sources is not forbidden -- excessive reliance on them is. Quatloo (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Quatloo, you appear to be making a dangerously sweeping statement here. If you are thinking only about television episodes (for example, episode 4 of the first season of The Golddiggers) that is one issue. However if you mean that as an absolute rule, I not only strongly disagree but strongly encourage you to spend some time considering why you might be wrong. I can cite quite a few article subjects where our best strategy would be to ignore whatever secondary sources one can find & simply work from primary sources. (One class of examples would be a number of Emperors of Ethiopia.) I would need to know exactly what you have in mind before I -- & I assume anyone else -- discuss this further with you. -- llywrch (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your opposition. Which of the Emperors of Ethiopia are only discussed in primary sources (their outobiography?), and not in independent reliable sources (something like "A History of Ethiopia"? What we know about them may only be legends and so on, but that's not the point: these legends are reported upon, are discussed in reliable, independent, secondary sources, and so we can have an article on them. This has, as far as I read it, nothing at all to do with the statement by Quatloo. Fram (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the ones after Iyasu II of Ethiopia and before Tewodros II of Ethiopia. Most of the general histories or accounts of Ethiopia dismiss those 70-odd years in a few sentences, & the specialized secondary accounts omit everything before about 1805. The one history of Ethiopia that does cover the period in any detail is by E. A. Wallis Budge, whose account is erroneous & sloppy -- something I discovered to my amazement & chagrin only when I started reading the single source he used (of many that were availabel to him) for the period. There are other examples why we should not follow that silly interpretation of no original research. -- llywrch (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo is partially correct. However, verifiability only limits whether an article should exist. It does not directly affect it's content. Whether primary sources are permissable is entirely dependant on what you're writing about. Articles about fiction almost always NEED TO use primary sources(the work of fiction itself) as a foundation for writing the article.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But this should be minimized and should never be the bulk of the article. The primary source part (the plot summary, character biography, or something similar) should only be there to help the understanding of the rest of the article. The in-universe info should never be the focus of an article, but only a means to make the out-of-universe info from secondary, reliable, verifiable sources more understandable.Fram (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. In this particular case, secondary sources are not useful beyond meeting the notability criteria. Practically all secondary sources would, by definition, not be considered reliable, since nearly all would be stuff like fan blogs. When writing about the subject as a whole, there is a considerable amount of review/commentary from non-primary sources, but very little about the more detailed aspects.--Marhawkman (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So if there are no reliable secondary sources about these subjects (only about the "mother subject"), these articles are per definition about non notable subjects, and should be deleted or merged (if anything worth merging) and redirected... Fram (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If no secondary sources are reliable, the article shouldn't exist. I understand that you might consider the subject important. And I understand that you might want the subject covered in Wikipedia. But if nobody else considers it of enough importance to publish reliable, secondary sources, it doesn't belong in this or any other general encyclopedia. Your complaints about the inadequacy of secondary sources is no reason to switch to using primary sources -- it is merely is a glaring indicator that we should not be covering the subject at all. Quatloo (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles(DBZ character pages) currently exist as sub articles of the parent(DBZ). I'm not really sure how you would go about determining the notability of individual fictional characters. I'm also not sure if the various licensed video games would count as primary or secondary sources.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is IMO not really relevant if an article is an article or a subarticle. Notability of fictional characters should be done in the same way as the notability of people, books, movies, companies, ... Have they been discussed as such (not mentioned as part of the discussion of the mother subject)? A character like Maigret is notable, as can be seen from some of the results on Google scholar[48], like this or this one. [Krusty the Clown]] is notable, and this can be evidenced by some articles from this list. Hefty Smurf, on the other hand, probably is not notable, even though he is relatively well-known and is mentioned 15 times in Google news[49], and appears in comics, cartoons, and video games. These are all primary sources, they are stories set in the fictional environment, using the fictional characters; they don't provide critical commentary about the characters. A DVD commentary (or something similar) may provide such comments, but it still wouldn't be an independent source, of course. Fram (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The way the articles are currently structured, the subarticles exist because a merged version of the article would be far too long. Although.... your idea of a google search gave a rather interesting result. A search for "Krillin" gave over 400,000 hits. O_O` Noit sure what that really means here though.--Marhawkman (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist closed

This arbitration case has now closed, and the decision may be found at the link above. Martinphi and ScienceApologist are subect to an editing restriction for one year, and ScienceApologist is limited to one account. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This was an atrocious decision. We've just given a green light to all manner of bullshit merchants. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure. I'm about to suggest that Martinphi be restricted from articles in relation to Morgellons on the basis of this finding, since his tireless advocacy and endless repetition is completely overwhelming the debate there. SA should be fine as long as he keeps it civil. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I dissagree with Raymond. While I generally agree with SA and his POV, he irritates me. Nothing in this says one can't responsibly and civily remove unsourced crap from the encyclopedia. All it says is be nice, and not to remove stuff with appropriate sources (regardless of how you feel about it). SA is very much his own worst enemy in far to many instances I've come across. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

True. I think it's often overlooked that it's possible to be nice and firm. Grandmasterka 20:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, what in the world are you talking about? I have no idea what Morgellons are. It sounds as if you are accusing me of disrupting the page by sock puppet, and if you keep it up, I'll report you for personal attacks. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he's confusing you with User:Levine2112, who does engage in tireless advocacy and endless repetition. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm, I see. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, remote viewing. Mixing up my pseudoscience pushers there. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks, on the Admin noticeboard no less. Nice. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Guy was commenting on his perception of your editing habits. NPA does not regard whether you feel insulted. Keegan^talk 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarify: insults, not feelings of being insulted. Guy was saying you push pseudoscience in your contributions. Keegan^talk 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And it was for this that the ArbCom restriction was applied to Martinphi, who has been a tireless advocate of fringe and pseudoscience for a long time now. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Secret evidence

I would like to draw everyone's attention to something Kwsn and I added to WP:BLOCK after a long community discussion about a block based on secret evidence. The change Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. And I'll abide by my pledge. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is appropriate.--MONGO (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Confidential Evidence. — Satori Son 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That link to the ANI isn't good, because at some point, that's going to get archived off of the page. The link should be to the archive page, once the discussion is removed. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that discussion is on a permanent sub page, not the main board.- Jehochman ^Talk 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, I missed that it was a slash instead of a pound sign.  :) Corvus cornix (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Individual administrators acting on secret evidence!?!!! Me ............................ Loop. -- Jreferee t/c 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Good call. I tweaked it slightly - I think the problem is not that it's Sooper Seekrit but that Durova felt that she could not expose it to peer review; the community likes to see checks and balances. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

related thread below #Wikipedia:Confidential evidence --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Is it new policy to simply re-list old AfDs, as was done twice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEDO (rather than a new nomination marked as "2nd")? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The first relist was correct, the second wasn't, but I wouldn't sweat it. --Haemo (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

another response In general, it is better to re-list an AFD rather than close and renominate. The purpose of relisting is to provide an opportunity for a semblance of consensus to emerge. Sometimes, though, relisting is done by someone who is not satisfied with the impending outcome (rare and unfortunate); most relisting cases should, in my opinion, consist of AFD's with less than three persons providing input (my personal rule of thumb) ... and there are sometimes quite a few of these. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Confidential evidence

related thread above, #Secret evidence. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Following certain recent events where editors believed by many to be of good conduct were indef blocked on the basis of "secret evidence", a number of editors proposed an addition to WP:BLOCK covering confidential evidence. The section gained a strong positive response.

The issues related to confidential evidence are too large for a subsection, and in any event, they extend outside the narrow limits of blocking policy. So a proposal emerged organically, for a separate policy page covering cases when misconduct may be alleged on the basis of evidence of a confidential, secret, or similar nature.

• Proposed policy: Wikipedia:Confidential evidence (provisional title)
• Comments and discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Confidential evidence

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by JzG

Not to be stepping on Mercury's toes, but I don't understand shutting down the thread. Unless it's a foregone conclusion that any comments made by JzG about me are automatically exempt from NPA, why prevent feedback on the matter?. In the total of 43 minutes or so the discussion was allowed to run, we saw a number of outside views from independent editors agreeing that JzG has indeed been making personal attacks, so my complaint is hardly without merit. I most certainly did post it here because I hoped administrator intervention would be able to put a stop to the behavior. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the comments were not personal attacks. Certainly not as civil as hoped, but not personal attacks. But do take Mercury's advice and open an RfC if you really want a detailed analysis of JzG's behavior. This is something that will not get quick administrative attention. —Kurykh 00:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion should not have been closed. We are talking about administrative actions and behavior, and it is still active. I don't see any conflict on Mercury's part, but closing a discussion where an administrator is being criticized does not look very good. There is an ongoing issue with JzG / Guy, and discussing it here may actually lead to something at a more efficient, less divisive way than an RfC or ArbCom case. Wikidemo (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a relevant thread on the talk page here Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Are_Admins_treated_differently_than_other_wikipedians.3F. DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I do appreciate the concern here. I am not trying to mute this. Instead of clogging AN, please transfer this to RFC, RFC was designed to handle this. AN was not. There is a section for conduct, and administrative conduct. Best, Mercury 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It's closed for me too then! Wikidemo (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)