Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive63

Ta bu shi da yu getting married!

So you're saying I've only got until December 2nd?? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

zOMG! Congratulations, ta_bu. Very happy for you. :D — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Its nice to read something positive here for a change, I'm sure no one minds the noticeboard abuse distraction.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I wish you the best! (Radiant) 10:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin: Yes, you've only got to 2 December. However, if you lose the latter part of your name to Ta bu shi da yu before 2 December, there might be a serious problem with Nick's head becoming unattached and suddenly being Radiant and appearing in Ta bu shi da yu's fiance's brain during her dreams about clowns causing her not to sleep. Please be careful. Congrats Ta bu shi da yu :) --Durin 14:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiancée, Durin, not fiancé, big difference there ;) – Chacor 15:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Bah! I don't know which pronoun to use, and it wasn't clear from Ta bu shi da yu's userpage. So, I defaulted. So there! ptbptbptbptb :)))) --Durin 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, how can you assume which one it is? yandman 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yandman. We all know ta_bu is straight.  :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations, ta bu. I also wish you the best. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Hey, it's been awhile since I've spoken to you, (we worked on Cheshire cat) but congratulations! I'm very happy for you. ♠PMC♠ 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

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

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

It's a White House Correspondents dinner. I don't think it's at the White House, and regardless I don't think the White House will be releasing any images of Stephen Colbert. This is a still image of a television broadcast; the fair use for this is rather strong. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at the White House: "The dinner and awards ceremony in the Washington Hilton ballroom honored..."[1]. This is a press affair. The people taking pictures are doing so for commercial media companies. —Centrx→talk • 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WHy the hell do we still have that crap article? Undue weight. And Colbertcruft, which has caused problems enough in the past. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps participation in the featured article proccess would help. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Guy and HighinBC, there were some strong arguments against it on its FAC review. From the talk page history, it appears that Raul654, the FA director, supports the article on some level: Raul decides whether articles are promoted to FA, based on the FAC consensus. You could bring your concerns to WP:FAR, but many of the reviewers there discourage reviews strictly based on POV unless attempts to address the POV have been tried and failed first - FAR is not dispute resolution. If attempts are made to deal with the Undue weight and fail, FAR would be appropriate. On the other hand, if the article fails other points of WP:WIAFA, an immediate review would be appropriate. Some of the sources might be examined per WP:RS. Sandy (Talk) 15:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, now that was informative. Thank you. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Improperly closed MfD

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

Just a note: even good faith nominations may be speedily closed - these two things do not exclude each other. And my decision stands: not a snowball's chance in hell for it to be deleted unless we incite a site-wide movement to delete the the plenty of humorous and relaxing pages. Misza13 20:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You closed it fourteen minutes after I started it; it wasn't even given a chance. What proof do you have that there wasn't "a snowball's chance in hell"? I see it as a bad faith closure of a good faith nomination; and things that were being said in the IRC channel don't help. _JD^talk 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

3 speedy keeps in first four minutes, 1 delete = speedy snowball close. --Majorly (Talk) 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

3 keeps and 1 delete (2 if you count the nom) is certainly not a situation to apply a "speedy snowball close". -- Steel 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The score was only intended as a bit of harmless fun in keeping with the spirit of the original page. I've removed it. (Which is just a shame, as bringing it up here probably earns you extra points). I have no opinion (perhaps leaning towards keeping the page), but I've reopened the nomination because I don't want J_Di or anyone else to turn this into a dispute. Misza13, I don't disagree with what you did, in fact I supported it. I guess perhaps we should wait a little longer in future before snowball closing – Gurch 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Even speaking as a keep voter, snowball's chance doesn't quite apply here... too few votes and this article hasn't been nominated multiple times for MFD before... other articles as old as this one have been MFDed and deleted before. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) However, if you want to do something right, you have to do it extremely, and a snowball close is an extreme close. I'm torn here. Extremely torn. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note that J_Di has now withdrawn his nomination "because of some people's inability to take this seriously". (Radiant) 12:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • He gets one point for adding a backhanded slap with his withdrawn nomination. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  The whole nomination was utterly ridiculous. Will this person decide they need to delete BJAODN next? The time spent on writing this up on AIV could have been spent deleting articles in need of deletion, like List of Blue-Painted Gundams with Wings. Pardon the pun, but this is extremely pointy. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Snowball is generally applied in situations that are not controversial. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles in Category:Proposed deletion deleted too early

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

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

Yes, I know it's 5 days, but look at the deletion log:

• 20:20, 23 November 2006 HereToHelp deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 19 November 2006"
• 05:52, 23 November 2006 The Epopt deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 18 November 2006"
• 20:48, 22 November 2006 Crzrussian deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 17 November 2006"
• 08:50, 22 November 2006 Quarl deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 16 November 2006"
• 07:41, 22 November 2006 Quarl deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 15 November 2006"
• 06:57, 21 November 2006 Crzrussian deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 14 November 2006"
• 07:37, 19 November 2006 Srikeit deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 13 November 2006"
• 15:03, 18 November 2006 Winhunter deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 12 November 2006"
• 19:24, 16 November 2006 UtherSRG deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 11 November 2006"
• 05:17, 16 November 2006 Crzrussian deleted "Category:Proposed deletion as of 10 November 2006"

Notice how early the categories of 18th and 19th were deleted compared to the others. None of the articles that were in the 19th category can have been there full five days (that is, 120 hours), and probably neither were most in the 18th category. --Derlay 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal if they deleted proded articles after 4.5 days instead of 5.0 days. Anybody can de-prod at any time so it's not really gameable. Any extra "eyeballs" benefit lost is 1/n (as opposed to all-or-nothing discretized benefit). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-25 07:57Z

Unusual delete request - not sure where else to put it

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

• Fixed now, Cryptic deleted it. In general, for such cases you can use {{delete|reason}} and insert a plausible reason. (Radiant) 12:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not "an idiot". Most experienced editors (probably all of them) have made a similar mistake at some point. Don't worry about it! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, honest mistakes are simply an matter of time. The important thing is your determination to repair your mistakes. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I still do that sometimes... Snoutwood (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Marking our sources

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

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

Bad idea. The last thing we need in a place like Anarchism or New Antisemitism (or any of the perpetual edit wars) is a quality scale for references. Endless new edit wars.Thatcher131 12:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Ack, what a bad idea. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all. Invites lame meta-edit wars over how to grade sources in places where edit wars are already ongoing over which sources to use, and provides yet another large-scale tagging project for people to rack up thousands of edits doing, essentially, nothing at all. Given the ongoing citation-creep problem, looking in my crystal ball tells me that FAC will contain comments like "oppose, whole paragraphs without A-class sources". As Tango and other point out, this is entirely a matter of subjective interpretation and inherently violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR, foggy everything-is-subjective metaphysical speculation on the talk page left aside. Opabinia regalis 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, a waste of an idea. It's going to add another layer of needless bureaucracy to an already hulking mass. - Hahnchen 00:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• The source grading effort continues on Bilingual_sign and Wolfenstein 3D. A variety of templates and categories now exist for the purpose. (Radiant) 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The source grades look weird. It's not clear what they mean from looking at the page, and they reduce the readability of the source. If they must be there (and I suspect the idea will be squashed soon), they should go after the reference, not before. Carcharoth 16:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea, just list the citation that a dubious on the talk page. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Whereas I applaud the boldness of the user, this really is a non-starter. For one, it looks crap, it's presenting data that should be on the talk page to the reader, and secondly it's another needless layer of bureaucracy. Which is only going to get worse when some webmaster finds out that their website has been labelled C grade. - Hahnchen 16:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The grading categories certainly shouldn't appear on the article itself. The purpose of categories is to allow navigation between related articles. I can't imagine readers wishing to see other "C-sourced" articles, even if they know what that meant. Similar categories and templates are placed on talk pages and that is where this type of evaluation should go too. -Will Beback · † · 21:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible Block Evasion

I'm not sure on what happened with User:Agravity as the page has been deleted and recreated to obviously remove the content was there, but I noticed a link on Levitation changed from that users page to a yahoo group by an anon IP[2] who's been repeatedly adding an essay to the talk page of Levitation[3] [4]. Perhaps an admin can look into it and see if this is indeed this user and deal with him appropriately.--Crossmr 20:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

3rd addition from another IP, [5]. Same ISP.--Crossmr 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote if this happens one more time, semi-protect Levitation and Talk:Levitation. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Kennethtennyson

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

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

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

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

Help on wikipedia editor review

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine

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

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

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

wikisky.org

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

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

Project page vandalism

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

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

125.* blocked for 31h, 59.* has been given bv warning. Next time when you have a simple vandalism like this please go to WP:AIV board, they are able to act faster Alex Bakharev 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt action. However considering that the 125* IP has involved in a series of such actions, shouldn't it warrant a more stern action. I see a lot of disgusting comments in his own talk page and even in 125.238.104.244's contribution page there are comments like 'faggot' and others. This is FYI. Thanks again. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A statement on the state of your Wiki

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia has some issues, but doesn't every Internet or real life community have its problems? We're not a utopian society, and neither is any of the other societies that exist (including Citizendium). Ideally we want to make changes and fix problems, but we must look at reality. Reality was meant to be in sharp contrast to ideality, and we must accept our current predicaments and expect corrections of problems are not bound to happen. Nishkid64 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine too many people willing to give their real names at Citizendium. You're hanging yourself with that one. Your expert editors are limited to people that don't give a damn about their privacy. In that case, I wouldn't trust the expertise there any more than here. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I know very well about that as well, which is why I was cynical about it myself. I won't try to argue that this is irrelavent, because I am myself not completely convinced on the naming issue, but what I admire about the project is that it acknoledges that there is a problem and tries to fix it. I don't think Citizendium is any harm to Wikipedia either, even if Citizendium has some initial success and then flops (though I hope it doesn't), there is no doubt that there will be at least something produced out of the experience that will be useful to Wikipedia (even if it is just the mainspace contributions that can be transferred here, but I am thinking more of the community structure). But what I am saying that the concerns raised by Larry Sanger and a bunch of other people are legitimate concerns that Wikipedia should try to address rather than ignore.--Konst.able^Talk 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As a rule, I tend to disapprove of places that require loyalty oaths, uses weasel terms like "compendium of knowledge", and a focus on bullshit terms like "family friendly". Not to mention the idea that things like notability or NPOV is based on "the preponderance of opinion in the English-speaking world". Spare me. The concerns raised by Larry Sanger are there to attempt to criticize Wikipedia and benefit from the publicity, while not acknowledging their own ideals are likely to piss people off in huge groups. Insulting the contributors who do the maintenance work here only reinforces for me the idea that the ArbCom came to the right decision concerning you. Enjoy Sangerpedia. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit confused by your statement. I think if you look through my contribs you will find that most of them are maintenance work and probably only several hundred are actual non-maintenance article contributions. I would never insult anyone doing maintenance work as that would make me a hypocrite wouldn't it? I am just saying actual article contributions are more valuable. And it is quite skilless, I mean to write a wonderful article such, as say Demosthenes, and pressing a block button on vandals doesn't really compare in skill levels does it? That does not mean in any way that people should not do maintenance work, or that they are idiots or that they are wasting their time. But I do regret not spending as much time on articles as much as I did on janitorial work. I see no offense in what I said.--Konst.able^Talk 03:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say it's odd that you take such offense at someone linking you to WP:DNFT and yet you return to another public forum here attempting to stir up the beehive again - i.e. trolling. Why does everyone insist on expounding to the uneducated masses on why they left Wikipedia and why we're all doomed? It's getting very cliché and boring. Why not just leave quietly? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if he's got a few possibly-valid points, he comes off as pretty whiny and petulant. *Dan T.* 03:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like what I'm saying, fine, feel free to ignore it. If it's getting cliché then maybe there is a problem don't you think ;-) Wknight94's attempted ad hominem strawman arguments in putting words in my mouth don't even warrant a response.--Konst.able^Talk 04:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been following your leaving dance for a while - are you every actually leaving? I think you have some valid points but I'd agree with others, when you make such a big deal about leaving in the first place but then pop back every couple of days... --Charlesknight 10:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Citizendium have a lenient sockpuppet policy? Do PhDs get more than someone with a masters? What if that person holds a non-doctoral terminal degree, like an MFA? Is the maintenance of properly-spelled words a requirement? Questioning minds...Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Information in Shirley Phelps-Roper

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

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

Vandalism + Whole list of nonsense pages

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

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

If this is a vandalism-only account, then why waste your time creating a lengthy entry on it here? Just report it to WP:AIV as a vandal account and let them give it an indef block.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 20:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Indef block given as vandalism-only account. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested, 'skurwysyn' is Polish for 'son of a bitch'. One of the few Polish words I know! Proto::type 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Leaving mesages on protected talk pages?

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

That was my understanding as well. I've suggested to the blocking admin that he might want to bring this situation to the noticeboard for comments. Newyorkbrad 17:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no clear justification for the talk page protection, and no explanation on the talk page of why this is done. Is it common practice to pick on blocked users these days? Friday (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is some colloquy in deleted/reverted edits on that page that makes the story a little easier to follow. Newyorkbrad 17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an explanation from Philwelch there: "If you're blocked for disruptive editing of a talk page, you don't get to use your own talk page as a surrogate." I do think that Philwelch should have sought a second opinion on all this though, as he was clearly involved in a dispute with John Reid at the time. Ironically, on the talk page of WP:WHEEL, so if other admins do get involved, someone will inevitable use this as a WP:POINT example... Carcharoth 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that the user, as a matter of principle, requests that other admins not unblock, but comment on the block and/or consult with the blocking admin. It's an odd situation, overall. Newyorkbrad 18:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had unpleasant memories of User:Philwelch. Some months ago he went on some power trip and blocked some editors he had a content dispute with. Other administrators warned him not to abuse his blocking tool, but he went on and blocked some more including me. Dionyseus 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs or links to show that? Carcharoth 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[6][7] [8] [9] and here's the archived ANI discussion involving Philwelch: [10]. Dionyseus 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those. Together with Philwelch's block log where he blocks himself several times, this is not the sort of behaviour I'd expect to see in an admin. Do I really want to think, if I happen to run into Philwelch on a random talk page at some point in the future, that he is someone who could block me for no apparent reason? Carcharoth 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Newyorkbrad: that is indeed a general principle that John holds. One that I agree with. No-one should feel, especially for short blocks, that it is something worth wheel-warring over if the blocked user himself doesn't feel that way. Much better to suggest the blocking admin reconsiders and undoes the block himself. So if anyone does feel the block is unwarranted, please do say so. And ditto for the protection of the talk page, though that is probably a separate issue. Carcharoth 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I've unprotected the talk page, absent a solid reason for it to be protected. Friday (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I was about to unprotect the talk page myself and leave it as such so long as John doesn't continue acting abusively. John's been acting very aggressive, trying to seize control of the discussion and make everyone talk about things on *his* terms. While this certainly constitutes being a jerk, I felt further discussion was the best avenue until he began repeatedly using deceptive edit summaries. This is a tactic I've run into before (User:Copperchair), and my understanding is that deceptive edit summaries are considered completely inappropriate by the community. While I do think that not blocking people one is in a dispute with is a good rule, it's a difficult one to apply with individuals who simply create disputes with everyone around them. Philwelch 05:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Phil. I've posted a note on your talk page asking for diffs showing these deceptive edit summaries. I'd be grateful if you could provide them. I had a bit of trouble getting to your talk page, as when I clicked on the link to your user page (above), the link didn't seem to work. Do you know what's happening there? Carcharoth 06:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. The link went from blue to red. Someone's deleted it. That'll explain it! :-) Carcharoth 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It has become increasingly common practice for some admins to protect the talk pages of blocked users (or even in one recent case a 'warned' user)... especially when the admin themself placed the block or was otherwise involved in the dispute. This, along with things like forcing users to keep warnings displayed on their talk pages and blocks for 'disruption' that consists primarily of edit warring with the admin, are a depressing trend that needs to be stopped. More and more admin abilities are used to enforce the views of individual admins... rather than to uphold consensus as intended. John Reid was being disruptive, but Phil wasn't a model of civility either and nobody's benefit is served by this. --CBD 14:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be argued that Phil's actions were disruptive as well. What I'm more concerned about is that, as Dionysus pointed out above, this isn't the first time Phil has acted like this. How many warnings do admins get before something is done, or do admins have more freedom to push the boundaries than non-admins? I know blocks are not punitive, but they are a permanent record on a user's block log, as opposed to digging up diffs several months later. Is there any point in a 1-second block to record something in the block log, or does that just inflame the situation? Where should the balance lie? Carcharoth 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

An RfC can be raised. Nobody is immune from accountability. Here I agree that Phil's actions were immoderate, it would have been better to leave a message here. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User: 24.47.221.227

This individual from IP address 24.47.221.227 is making repeated vandalism on the page Green Day. I have not investigated other vandalism possibly made from this IP, but I feel action should be taken due to the amount of vandalism made by IP 24.47.221.227 on one entry. -PhattyFatt 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, report vandals to WP:AIV. Thanks. Nishkid64 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I blocked the user for 24 hours. Nishkid64 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

IP 75.110.225.220

An individual from IP 75.110.225.220 is vandalising many different pages, usually adding in information about an individual named Martin Perez, and performing other vandalism. Thank you. -PhattyFatt 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, report vandals to WP:AIV. Thanks. Nishkid64 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 48 hours. Thanks. Nishkid64 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal information

Think these two edits should be removed from the page history if possible? [11] [12] Stefan 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed them. Anyone with oversight might want to remove them permanently? --Majorly (Talk) 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Page history mess created by multiple cut-and-paste moves

Please could somebody take a look at the page histories for Britney Spears' fifth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Original Dolls (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Original Doll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and merge them? I was going to do it myself, but my head started spinning when I tried to figure out which page to delete first. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 00:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest combining Original Dolls (album) and Original Doll, and then combining those two articles with the first one. Hbdragon88 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection can fall off

This is a general note to admins involved in deleting and restoring protected or semi-protected pages. When you delete and restore revisions of a protected page, you can end up removing the protection completely without actively unprotecting it, and without even knowing about it. If you do such activity, please check the protection status afterwards - don't rely on the logs. Here's one example of many: [13]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'd second that. Make sure you reprotect after you delete/restore. Alphachimp 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it simply the case that deleting a page cancels any and all protection upon it? (Radiant) 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it need to be reapplied if the protection is still needed. --FloNight 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

List of vaporware

An anonymous dynamic IP keeps removing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. from List_of_vaporware. Both me and another person has reverted his rmeoval, last time two references was added but the person keeps removing it. I've already reverted the edit twice now, how should this be dealt with? Debolaz 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me as if the game in question is no longer vaporware. The dev website gives a release date "officially fixed as Q1 2007". The IGN review is dated 11 April 06, and the Cnet site is undated; the dev website news release is dated June '06. From the information provided, the IP seems to be correct in that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is no longer vaporware; rather, it is actually going to be released. Since the release date (Q1 07) is perfectly sensible, and there is no other information to the contrary that the game won't be released, it no longer appears to fall under the category of vaporware. That is, unless there are press releases/other sources that say anything to the contrary. Ourai ^т _с 21:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As explained to the IP, this game has had release dates *numerous* times before, people has been invited to play it before. But then the release date closes and suddenly it's pushed to next year. Essencially, what you're describing here has happent several times in the past already. It is _because of this_ that people and notable sources which was listed claim it's vaporware. Based on this exact same thing happening several times already, it's highly probable that the game won't be released in 2007 Q1. In my opinion, based in this history, the game should be listed as vaporware like Duke Nukem Forever untill it's actually released. Debolaz 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But, for Wikipedia purposes, can anyone point to a reliable source for any of this information? That means not comparing one source with another and making a judgement (that's WP:OR). If anyone can cite a source that says this is vaporware, then it's vaporware for Wikipedia purposes. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the last removal. Sources was listed. Debolaz 22:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The sources listed there were published before the developer announced the newest release date. From what I can see, the most recent information says that it is going to be published, same as any other game. If anything else, the fact that they have playable versions of it going through testing indicates that significant work was put into the product; if there's already a working build out, cutting the entire project at such a late point in development seems especially silly. The dev says it's going gold in Q1 2007; unless there is a newer source than it (July) that contradicts, it appears to be a legitimate game, and not vaporware. Ourai ^т _с 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this is just a repeat of history. Thing is, nothing ever happens despite of marketing and release dates. Say we keep it off for now, are we going to have the same discussion when the release date is pushed back again, and they publish a new release date again or can we keep it on then? Yes, my question assumes it will be pushed back but that is with a very good reason. Debolaz 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could split the difference: have a section of the article for "Past nominees" (or whatever). You could list this game there, with information about previously announced releases that didn't come to pass. The reader can then decide if he/she thinks the 2007 release will happen or not. John Broughton | Talk 13:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the whole page a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? Even if it had hard and fast and clear criteria for inclusion (not just perpetually slipping release dates, but evidence that the software is heavily promoted) it would still be speculation and 'extrapolation'. If the page deserves to exist, it should look at history, not into the future. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What about renaming to something like "List of software considered vaporware"? Debolaz 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That would make it clearer that there's OR involved, but it wouldn't fix the problem. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I am not going to go any further with this case. I'll leave it with this notice and the community can figure out what to do with the issue if anything. Debolaz 09:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Trax disambig page overwritten with article

The disambiguation page at Trax[14] was overwritten with a large number of edits by User:Kinemagigz and a few unregistered users. The band may be worthy of an article (I'm not sure) so I'm not sure how to resolve this without munging up the edit history. — Miles (Talk) 01:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The text came from http://www.kinemagigz.com/'t'.htm#Trax and had only been given trivial modifications. shotwell 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So what did I do that was so wrong that it warrants removing my first Wiki article without first consulting me in any way?

Hardly seems like the kind of action to keep new users interested, does it?

If you're concerned that the text came from another site, fear not - it's my site!

Please mail me - Kinemagigz.

Speedy deletion of Correlation does not imply causation as per CSD G6

Would someone have time to look at this article ? The main reason I am asking here instead of just leaving it in the backlog of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is because a "copy-paste-blank-create-redirect" move was attempted, and the whole thing is getting a bit messy (to me at least, although I have removed all the redirects and reverted the blankings). The rationale for the non-controversial move is at Talk:Correlation implies causation/Page title. Either a move by an admin or a deletion (I can do the move afterwards) would be fine, if someone can do it. Many thanks, Schutz 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to User:Robdurbar for doing the move ! Schutz 15:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuff I cannot be bothered to deal with

I'm having some revert problems with a user, TheEvilBlueberryCouncil (talk · contribs). It's over some incredibly trivial stuff, and to be honest, I can't be bothered to deal with and engage with the user in question.

Said user seems to think YTMND is relevant to an encyclopedia, so much so that he keeps on adding YTMNDs every time I remove them. We have such genius editors such as this who believe edits like this and this aren't absolutely worthless. I can't be bothered to deal with this user, I'm not wasting my time on endless reverts of YTMND links over a handful of articles, someone talk some sense into him. - hahnchen 16:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have reverted a few of the user's contributions (the other reversions to user's own revisions appear to have already been reverted by someone else) and left a warning message. Should this user persist, I will take further action. Let me know if you need any further assistance. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

XFF headers and AOL

I might be crazy, but I think AOL finally came through with the XFF headers, anyone else care to test this out? Make sure this isn't a fluke--172.161.181.23 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are, it was in the wiki account email today infact. Mike _{(T C)} 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone quietly took notice of the fact that AOL was blocked. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

fiveminute.net: huge WP:EL violator?

This Web site has 100 links within Wikipedia as I type this; most link to five-minute parodies of television series episodes. Ignoring the fact that this site gets some 16,000 Google hits, is there anything anyone can see that indicates any of these links should survive here? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked out a couple - I find nothing notable about the site, it's links or it's shitty parodies. Flush on sight I say, they add nothing at all to encylopedia articles. --Charlesknight 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Same thing I saw, thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

is there a quick way to delete them all in one go? or am I racing you to be the first one to delete 50 of the links (there are a lot in star trek enterprise episodes). --Charlesknight 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The number actually was over 190 (I forgot to click on the larger numbers); I'm working from the bottom, if anyone has time to jump in. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell I there was a lot of them - thanks also to Matthew for help me and RK killing many of those off. --Charlesknight 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a tyvm is in order. What bothers me is that those involved knew that "[s]ooner or later someone will go after the rest too" and decided to not be proactive... RadioKirk (u|t|c)

• This sounds like a job for the m:spam blacklist. (Radiant) 10:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect implementation of the extension of an RfA

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#24_hour_extension_incorrectly_implemented. This probably needs fixing rather urgently. I would have fixed it myself, but I would prefer that an admin review the situation if a bureaucrat is not around (message also left at WP:BN and at the talk page of the bureaucrat who did the extension). Carcharoth 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Page move help

I already posted at WP:RM but there seems to be a 3-day backlog for uncontroversial moves and I'd like to resolve this before bed. Can someone please help move Champagne (beverage) to Champagne? All thats there now is a redirect with no history, but I think MediaWiki is getting tripped up because of the previous move of Champagne to Champagne (disambiguation). --Dgies 06:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Done. I don't know what the issue there was either. I didn't go digging for double redirects, since I'm going to bed too, so you should probably check if there's any left over. Opabinia regalis 07:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted doing a few RM's recently - the tricky part is that a lot of the discussions don't show consensus after the 5 days. That leaves (a rather high rate of) relistings, or closing the discussion as having no consensus. Both are hardly ideal - any ideas on how to make this work better? Perhaps list on WP:RFC as well for the really controversial ones? enochlau (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Growth cone vandalism?

Paskari (talk · contribs) pointed out a possible piece of vandalism at Growth cone, but it's not really WP:AIV-material, because the vandalism is not in progress. On August 25th, Spaghettimonster (talk · contribs) added the sentence "It has more recently been shown that cell fate determinants such as wnt and sonic hedgehog (shh) can also act as guidance cues." This seems like textbook vandalism, so I've removed it from view. I don't know growth cones and I don't know Spaghettimonster. Is this vandalism, and is this a problem user? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm the Sonic hedgehog protine is involved in cell growth so it isn't an imposible claim. This is what happens when you give geeks a free hand in nameing their discoveries.Geni 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Drosophila biologists make up the best names for some of these things, and when the mammalian homologue is discovered, the name usually sticks. Thatcher131 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not my precise area, but since Sonic hedgehog and wnt are cell signalling pathways (see wikified links above) it's probably not vandalism. Thatcher131 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world was Geni reverted?! —Wknight94 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(False alarm apparently - reverter hit the wrong button...) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I have blocked the three open proxy ranges of AOL, 64.12.96.0/19, 152.163.0.0/16, and 205.188.0.0/16 with anon-only, account creation enabled, for being effectively open proxies. These address can be exploited by anyone by installing and using the now-free AOL software [15] . More information on how AOL distributes IP address through the proxy server is located at Wikipedia:AOL. Anonymous editors on these ranges are encouraged to create an account. Naconkantari 01:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse this. I think it's kind of a shame but was inevitable. Chick Bowen 01:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• I endorse as well. It's much less effort to create an account than it is to keep up with the ridiculous amount of malicious editing from AOL proxy IP addresses. —[admin] Pathoschild 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• comment: do you have to use class b's, or would class c's work? further comment: as somebody who worked in aol's netops, i can tell you any traffic you are getting on port 80 from them is through a proxy (or more than one). so trying to block proxies from their space is useless. ... aa:talk 03:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Since you're someone who's worked in aol's netops, can you suggest other useful rangeblocks? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I can't give that kind of information out. I think it would be more productive to find another way to avoid the disruption than to wholesale block users. Do we have any figures for how many users are originating at AOL? What I'm getting at is, we need to determine how many users are affected by such global indiscriminate blocking. ... aa:talk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I fully endorse this, being a former AOL user myself. There was some other wiki with a similar policy... where you had to use secure login. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  The English Wiktionary. —[admin] Pathoschild 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, seems reasonable.Voice-of-All 05:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• (trolling and personal attacks removed) --Dropscone 11:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  Stop trolling. This is your first edit. AOL ranges have been blocked because the software used to access them is now readily accessible on their website, effectively making them open proxies. And that's all there is to it. MER-C 11:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Someone's going to have to overhaul WP:AOL because of this, and it won't be me. MER-C 12:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I notice that it's only some off the proxies, so if we overhaul AOL, it should indicate this. BTW, this seems like a pretty major decision, I'm surprised we're not getting more opposition. Surely, sometime in about 1 month, a bureaucrat will come across this, take offense, and undo it. Not that I don't support the decision, though... Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• I endorse this decision-- what a shame. We're really going to lose a lot of good edits. Alphachimp 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• I weakly oppose very weakly oppose this. Softblocking and enabling account creation make this not too bad, but there are people who will be using their regular internet connection (no additional proxies), and will find themselves blocked unless they create an account, which they might not bother doing. See User:69.145.123.171/registering. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC), 06:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  Armedblowfish, this block only affects users of the openly available AOL proxies, not any other IP address range. That prolifically static IP user will not be affected.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  That's their problem. Tell that to AOL. It's time to separate the bad from the good here, and time to make AOL users accountable for their edits. All of AOL might as well be blocked, but be thankful we didn't decide to do that. I'm tired of giving amnesty to something that's not even our fault. Maybe OTRS ought to forward complaints to AOL to see what AOL users and others alike have to put up with every day? // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps I misunderstand, Ryūlóng, but aren't these exit node proxies used by both regular AOL users and users who consciously connect to them? As for blocking all of AOL, Pilotguy, if I remember correctly, AOL autoblocks are part of JCarriker's (the founder of Esperanza) reason for leaving Wikipedia... more than once. And of course there's 69.145.123.171's argument. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  MediaWiki has been significantly upgraded so that individual administrators can set whether to trigger autoblocks or not, so such things are no longer an issue. Cowman109^Talk 20:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, administrators still have no way of knowing whether the user they are blocking is editing through AOL or not. The only way to do that would be to give admins checkuser access, which would of course be a privacy violation for such a use. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  {{unblock-auto}} was created for that reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  See JCarriker. What I'm trying to say is that the (well-intentioned) AOL users' opinions of us are probably low enough already without alienating new (well-intentioned) AOL users trying to edit as anons. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  logged in users probably wont even notice the block.Geni 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

First, AOL only rather recently began to provide this completely free service. Before, someone would get a free CD in the mail, use slow dial-up and would then consume their free hours. Now it can be simply downloaded, used on high-speed, fast-loading connections, and used limitlessly.

I don't know why only these addresses were blocked, there are other AOL proxy addresses that would seem to warrant blocking under the same reason. This is almost all of them, though. Note that AOL client IPs are much less of a problem. Whereas with the proxy IPs every single page request may go to a different proxy, if the person is not using the AOL web browser he is confined to one client IP until he disconnects and re-dials. With the proxy IPs someone can download the AOL software for free, or hook into it with some vandalbot software and their edits will jump around across the range. This happened even when the service was not so free. This does happen, and just like other open proxies are used to circumvent blocks, the same will be done with the free AOL download.

Anyone using AOL is still able to edit Wikipedia by using Internet Explorer or Firefox, not the AOL browser, as those will use the relatively unchanging AOL client IPs, or they can use the SSL connection or change their proxy settings. —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that some browsers are more equal than others? ... aa:talk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. When "browser" = "abusive open proxy software", then it's very clear why not all browsers are equal or should be treated equally. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that open proxy software is not inherently "abusive". It is a tool that can be used for various purposes - some abusive, others not. Open proxy software can protect privacy. Even though Wikipedia will not disclose your IP address without good reason, assuming you register for an account, the communications between you and Wikipedia can still be eavesdropped upon. However, since open proxies can also be used for negative purposes, it is reasonable to expect users intentionally using them for privacy reasons to register an account and deal with the autoblocks. As for users unintentionally using them, I don't think I'm part of the majority opinion.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, and well said. I should say instead that, in general, not all HTTP software is the same or should be treated equally. Some of them are begging to be abused (AOL's browser, open proxies), and some don't lend themselves especially to abuse (Firefox et. al.). They're all tools that have good uses and which can be abused. When we can tell what tools are being abused and what aren't, it's reasonable to act on that. Equality of access is an issue, but one that has to be weighed against the harm it can do. We don't give everyone admin tools after all. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Also along the same lines, but never announced on WP:AN (only on IRC), I've been preemptively blocking Google Web Accelerator proxies with a link to Wikipedia:Advice to Google Web Accelerator users. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I personally oppose ("strongly" seems appropriate, if redundant) this move. It's abject laziness to not find a more appropriate way to prevent the vandalism. ... aa:talk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  And what do you consider more appropriate? We can't somehow modify human behaviour so any change will have to be technical, this seems to give us two options (1) prevent access from ips which are known to be sources of large quanities of vandalism or (2) Pre-validate all edits. Both have downsides. --pgk 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I must agree; it's easy to say "your solution stinks", but it's hard to say "here's a better one." As a vandal-fighter, I can tell you that many countless hours are wasted zapping vandals using public IPs that could be much better spent doing things like contributing to an encyclopedia. Do you have a better solution (an honest question)? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I did in fact say "your solution stinks." As an editor and contributor (my feelings on vandal fighting are well known) it isn't my job to come up with a better idea. I think the proposed (or indeed implemented) solution is a bad one, and it would be less harmful to remove the blocks and counter vandalism on a case-by-case basis, rather than block users wholesale. Secondly, as a professional programmer, network admin, and so on, I can tell you that such better solutions do exist. Consider, if you will, the myriad vandal fighting scripts sulking around this project. If those scripts are capable of tagging vandalism for a fingers-and-eyes review, or indeed reversing it (as I see occasionally on my watchlist), then we need only to apply such a solution to these ranges. If we block four class B's, that's over a quarter of a million IP addresses. Solutions therefore exist, and this solution, as I said, is one of abject laziness and/or hostility towards users of the much maligned AOL service.

Continuing, has anyone produced metrics determining how much vandalism is being prevented, and how many positive edits are being prevented? Ironically, during my time at AOL, one of my responsibilities was divining metrics from vast heaps of data. In this case, such vast heaps of data exist (or checkuser would not work), and nobody is putting the data to use by mining it for metrics. Imagine, if you will, AOL making a decision that it would only support users on DSL or faster connections. At the outset, this seems like a good decision. However, with something crucial on the line, such as a revenue stream (or constructive edits from a quarter million IP addresses), it would be foolhardy to unilaterally act without having a firm understanding of what the downstream effects are.

I don't have any personal vendetta against the proponents of this decision, but again, I must call it what it is: abject laziness. If people spent as much time coming up with a solution as they do playing cops-and-robbers, we would have a solution already. Consider the jig. When one discovers a problem that will require repeated, consistent results, one does not simply sigh and resolve to complete the task ad infinitum. Rather, the intelligent person will analyze the problem, find its common points, and build a mechanism for doing the work for them. This way, you wind up watching many automatons doing your work for you, and your bandwidth available for accomplishing said tasks is remarkably improved. For those of you taking notes, it is possible to distill this down to one common adage: work smarter, not harder. Instrumenting such large blocks is quite the opposite: it is not working (as in trevail rather than sufficient) at all. ... aa:talk 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I support this move... we've had nothing but repeated problems due to the bizzare setup of AOL proxies. Anything to stop the massive vandalism spree by AOLers is fine by me.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Could you explain why? This isn't a vote but rather a discussion, so you've essentially said nothing. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This will not prevent abuse by AOL users at all. Vandals will simply create accounts, which will make things even more difficult for us. --Ixfd64 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we should not only block anonymous editing, but also block account creation on the AOL proxies, as we would for any other open proxies. Existing users could continue to edit Wikipedia through the proxies; new users could bypass the proxies, and edit from their own IP addresses, by using an external web browser instead of the browser in the AOL software. We certainly wouldn't be preventing anyone using AOL from editing. Is there some compelling reason not to fully enforce Wikipedia:No open proxies against the AOL proxies? John254 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a new (hypothetical) situation. Somebody from AOL wants to start editing Wikipedia. They can't edit under the blocked IP from AOL. So they go to create an account. They can't since account creation is blocked. So they go to IE or something like that. Problem is, AOL parental controls blocks all external browsers. any ideas? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As the AOL page says, they can use the Wikimedia SSL service, or they may be able to change their proxy connections. They could also create an account at school or at a library. —Centrx→talk • 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly, strongly endorse this. Frankly, we should've done it a long time ago. I also concur with John254 on this point and am sorely tempted to reblock with account creation disabled. We don't owe AOL a damn thing. Mackensen (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Did they ever actually enable the XFF headers after they said they would? —Centrx→talk • 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, they didn't. And if they did, it's not effective for the ranges I blocked. I originally was going to block account-creation, but decided against it after some discussion on IRC. Feel free to reblock with account creation disabled if this would be better. I personally would support blocking account creation. Potential editors can use the SSL service to create an account (provided there isn't a problem server-side with an increase of traffic there) or use a public library or a friend's computer. These three ranges are the ones I have found are the most used through personal experience. Naconkantari 05:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If I remember correctly, they did, only that our XFF whitelist doesn't have CIDR support. You should probably ask Tim Starling on IRC about this, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • About account creation enabling/blocking - you could compromise and block account creation on some percent of them. This will allow a persistent person trying to register to do so if they are patient enough to wait for their exit proxy to change to one with account creation enabled, but make it harder on anyone who wants to register a large number of accounts. (Note that I am actually opposed to disabling account creation because of the people using these proxies as part of their regular internet connection.) Just a thought, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I don't like this idea. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. Quote Jimbo's user page. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• • How then are these open proxies any different than other open proxies? JoshuaZ 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • A question to challenge the mind! It's easy for me to say "they are" but I'll get back with a more substantial answer soon. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Frankly, the only difference is that more people use them. From a technical standpoint they're the same. Beyond vandalism, we block open proxies because we can't trace edits from them. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I know they're the same from the technical point of view but I just don't like the idea of locking anyone who uses AOL out. Ultimately what I think doesn't matter. A fact I'm used to. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • But we're not doing that. We're blocking anyone who uses their proxy. Installing Firefox alone gets around that. Mackensen (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I wonder, do we have any estimate how many productive anon edits we get from AOL? JoshuaZ 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• [16] and [17] sums it up pretty clearly. Naconkantari 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Agreed with Pilotguy. 98% of computers with AOL have another browser (question: if the user can't figure out how to open the other browser, can they figure out how to edit Wikicode properly?); and what's more, they're not blocked from editing - they can register a user account. In the cost/benefit analysis, I believe the encyclopedia has far more to gain by soft-blocking these IP addresses. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Administrators can now edit the block reason at Template:AOLblock. If you do edit it, please keep it as short and simple as possible, and remember that many AOL users don't have a strong understanding of proxies and may believe they are personally targeted. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

1. AOL attracts mainstream (i.e. non-computer geek) internet users. Forcing them to create a username to edit is just one more roadblock and goes against what I feel is a fundamental value of Wikipedia - allowing anyone to edit (who does so in good faith)
2. What may seem like a simple task of creating a username is not one. I (being a known computer-geek) am often asked by those over 50 (which I see regularly in my vocation) if people on the internet can track you - if I tell them my name can they com find me - if I give an email address what can they do to me. And although I reassure them it isn't that scary and give them guidelines. Forcing these users to register means we will lose many of them - and the valuable contributions their age and experience can bring to the project
3. Occasional editors (like me) who value the anonymity that AOL brings (through the use of an open proxy) - where 1) every edit I make has to stand on its own - my edits are subject to increased scrutiny because of the IP address, 2) I can edit where I want without being harrassed on my talk page (note I know that this can be a bad thing because of vandals) - and can make edits without the baggage of a "reputation" or a POV - I can ask hard questions to positions I may even support without risking my reputation, etc. These editors make substantial contributions to Wikipedia.

If we want to allow open proxies for anonymity or whatever then we should allow all open proxies. I don't see any reason to single out AOL open proxies. Such a move is patently unfair... Nil Einne 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many technically less skilled people who do not understand what "proxy" is or where to change the settings, yet they can still write good texts .... their contribution will probably lack wikilinks, categories and such stuff, but still may be valuable if they are experts on some topic (Much smaller expertise on article topic is needed for tasks like adding links or categories, so potentially many users can fix such article).

Also, due to new measure against impersonation, it is sometimes hard to register - when registering this my name, I got many messages like "Ook! Ook! is too similar to existing user Hhkkhhkk" till I gave up, picked up some nonsense name and headed to request a name change. There are many users here and this similarity detection quite limits what you can pick up .... many user may be discouraged by this for editing.

--Ook! Ook! 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

As far as I'm aware, this change shouldn't affect you at all. If anything it might make things better. Also, if this does cause problems for you, your only real option is to ask AOL to either use a different proxy for their subscribers, allow you to not use a proxy, or go back to the pre-open proxy days. If my ISP in NZ or a friends one in MY forced me to use a proxy which also happened to be an open proxy, I am pretty sure that I would have had no luck in convincing people to unban the open proxy so I don't get why we should make an exception for AOL. BTW, I guess you've read Wikipedia:AOL and tried it's solutions right? (since you have an an account I really don't get why you have any problems, just login from secure or use a different browser which doesn't use proxies) Nil Einne 13:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Open proxies should be blocked no matter how many people use them. Provide a decent explanation and rewrite Wikipedia:AOL in a form that assumes good faith and tries to be helpful to AOLers instead of starting with "Abusive users from America Online (AOL) can be difficult to deal with". Kusma (討論) 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• May I remind the mob that these are not open proxies, but rather the original poster has said they are effectively open proxies. Any proxy on the internet is "effectively" an open proxy if people are able to use it, as they are in this case. Why the distinction between "i have to enter said proxy into my browser's configs", or "i have to be added to an ackle" and this situation? In any of the above cases, it's a trivial effort to make use of the proxy. By that logic, I could say that any keyboard can be utilized to vandalize the wikipedia, all you have to do is go to BBUY and attach it to your machine. Yes, I am aware of reductio ad absurdium, but indulge me. ... aa:talk 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you realize that this change was precipitated by AOL making their client software free so that anyone can now use (or abuse) their proxy network at no cost? That makes their network an open proxy, i.e. an internet proxy that effectively anyone can use for free. AOL's proxy network was always problematic for us, but it didn't get blocked until they decided to make it open. So now it is blocked like many other open proxies and proxy networks on the internet in accordance with our long standing policies. Dragons flight 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you understand there is an important semantic difference between "an open proxy" and "effectively an open proxy"? There's a critical step here. One that requires forethought and malice, which we do not assume of anyone. Even AOL. This is completely inane. It's a damn lynching. ... aa:talk 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Then I have no idea what distinction you see between what AOL has now done and any other open proxy. Dragons flight 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • But most normal open proxies have legitimate users (why would you create a proxy if you weren't intending to serve users) who may be forced to use said proxies by the ISPs. The issue here is no assuming anything. People who edit using normal open proxies, even if they are not legitimate users of said proxy may not be doing it because they want to vandalise. They may be doing it because they want anonymity, because they are banned from wikipedia at their school/work/whatever etc. Nil Einne 12:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine then, it IS an open proxy. If I am able to edit from it without having to pay for the service and it masks my real IP address, it's an "open" "proxy" which is to be blocked. Naconkantari 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse these blocks per the commenters above and m:Meta:No open proxies. AOL users can use our secure login ala Wiktionary or standard browser as already mentioned. Yamaguchi先生 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse we have a clear policy on open proxies and I have yet to see any good reason to ignore it. And might I respectably suggest that some users appear to have failed to understand the issue. AOL only recently changed their service to make their proxies effectively open proxies. Whatever has happened in the past is therefore irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have a policy intended to prevent problems before they occur and we are simply abiding by the policy. Nil Einne 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• If we're doing this, we should do what Wiktionary does and put advice to AOL'ers at the top of the Main Page. I'm not too sure about the move in general, but I can't think of anything better for the time being, so it's probably best just to get the documentation sorted. --ais523 13:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Probablly wise to speak to the devs before putting something like that on the en main page (or even the blocked page), I belive secure.wikimedia.org is served by only a single server. Plugwash 13:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much point they will find any instructions when they try to edit. Otherwise no need to advertise AOL on the main page.Geni 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse and more fully impliment. Indeed we do have a clear policy on open proxies and we need to follow it here. Account creation needs to be blocked from AOL's open proxies too. Then we can work on technical solutions such as making sure the XFF headers work or that people can use the secure login to identify the actual IP address. - Taxman ^Talk 14:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx neutralised account creation on the 21st. I think that settles the matter unless someone can come up with a better solution.Geni 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I use AOL. This means I...have to go...to Mozilla Firefox? Just to edit WP? No! TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll wish you never looked back... MER-C 06:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse per above. MER-C 06:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallelujah! per sanity. This should have been done as soon as the blocking software was upgraded. Proto::type 09:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes it overrides it, IIRC autoblocks are bottom of the pile, so these have the effect of stopping autoblocks impacting signed in users in those ranges, given the dynamic nature of the IP addresses autoblocks served little purpose on AOL so this is what we would want. --pgk 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern was that a signed-in user would be blocked (for vandalism or something). Then that user tries to edit and is autoblocked on an AOL iP. Does that shorten the "indefinite" block of the AOL IPs? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The effect of this is to make autoblocks irrelevant, a user gets blocked and that block lasts as long as the admin puts in, if an autoblock occurs these blocks being higher up just keep the IP blocked but don't blocked signed in user. (The block of the user is higher up the tree again so the account which was blocked remains blocked for the correct duration). --pgk 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure what my feelings are on this. Is this proposal to ban ALL AOL users from using Wikipedia unless they register an account? (And I should note from personal experience that registering an account does NOT make one immune from IP blocks, having been knocked offline a dozen times over the last few years). While I can understand the rationale, I think if you're going to block one particular ISP's ranges, then we might as well once again restart the debate over banning non-registered users from editing Wikipedia, period, an idea I personally support. 23skidoo 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Other ISPs don't provide access for free. AOL does through their new broadband software. Naconkantari 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  This is not about blocking one particular ISPs ranges, as noted above AOL users who use FireFox etc. get allocated a semistatic IP outside of the ranges of these proxies and can edit without issue. The problem with these proxies is that AOL has essentialy opened them up and made them available to anyone regardless of the ISP they pay and without passing the originating IP details through, i.e. they have become anonymous open proxies open to everyone. --pgk 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indef blocked 172.201.21.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Erm, that isn't within the proxy ranges. It's an AOL address but one of those which is semi-static for a single user, it can be blocked for longer than 15 minutes. --pgk 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This user has already been blocked for something, should I unblock for shorter? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Reblocked for 48 hours. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• I fully endorse the blocking of the AOL ranges, and I'm actually with 23skidoo on this one. It only takes about a minute to create an account, all you need is a username, password, and you're done! No email needed, no confirmation (except for the little picture). If AOL has decided to open this up to all people in the world, as in anyone can use the proxy, that constitutes an open proxy. I applaud the admins who had the guts to implement the blocks, and the account creation blocks. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I continue to be disappointed that a change such as this would a) be implemented without discussion, b) refuses to acknowledge there are non-geeks trying to use wikipedia, c) disrespects our heratage that anyone can edit, d) does not assume good faith, e) shows no coordination with the wikimedia foundation in the use of XFF headers.

WHAT IS GOING ON!!! Spending just a few minutes researching this and guess what - this has been an issue for sometime and a technical solution is in the works with AOL. Are you admins here that cluless about how to sign-up for mailing lists, and yet expect AOL users (usually less computer savy than most) to figure out 1) that they need to use another browser (what is that they will ask, etc.) and 2) be able to find it and then 3) be able to navigate to the same page they were on before.

Foundation working with AOL in July, and days after you start blocking all these IP's (contrary to long established practice and without discussion re its impact), XFF headers are implemented. Abeo Paliurus 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Spend a few minutes researching this (or just read the start of this thread), and guess what the situation has changed since July in that AOL have opened up their network to anyone not just direct subscribers. This is what has prompted the change. We don't expect people to figure out the stuff about changing browsers etc. We have a page dedicate to it prominantly listed in the block message, do we expect contributors to be able to read? Yes. As for (3) that isn't about being "tech savvy" that's about being able to navigate wikipedia, if they can't do that either we've got bigger problems to worry about (the site being unnavigable to the non tech-savvy) or there is a good change they aren't going to be able to edit coherrently. As for the XFF header stuff, yes we all know about that and it isn't supported by wikipedia yet, but when that is fixed the IP they appear to come from won't be the proxies, so blocking the proxies will have no effect. Blocking the proxies for anon accounts is the right thing to do, it resolves a short term problem and is rendered moot when the XFF changes gets implemented in mediawiki. --pgk 10:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, real vandals will just find something else, and the lack of openness is going to deter many legitimate users. Abeo Paliurus 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wr deleted, what now?

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

Leave a hand-written message. -- Eugène van der Pijll 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ;). Apologies for not being clear; what I meant to ask was if this is still a block-able offense. Does this situation warrant a report to WP:AIV for example? -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings is not by itself a blockable offence. Changing other people's warnings into praise is vandalism, and blockable, though. Kusma (討論) 10:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue all along is how to keep a record of a person's bad, but not-yet-blockabl behavior, without myself watching a dozen user's talk pages every day. I think the only solution for now is to leave 1 second blocks with explanations in the Block log, if a person insists on removing warnings. —Centrx→talk • 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting the title of the template in caps in the edit summary makes it easy enough to review past messages. yandman 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the idea of giving one-second blocks. If people have not done something to warrant a block, they have a right not to have their block log tainted.[18] The Wr template was often used to harass; indeed I saw more use of it for that purpose than for any legitimate purpose. If the editor who is being warned is editing from an IP, we have no way of knowing if the person behind the computer today is the same person as the one who replaced the entire George W. Bush article with the word "poop" last Thursday. There are some IPs that show good edits followed by a day of vandalism, followed by more good edits, etc. That's why, before reporting at WP:AIV, users should ensure that the IP has been warned for this bout of vandalism, unless it's clearly the same person. (Sometimes you can tell becuase they target the same articles with the same kind of vandalism.) As Yandman points out, a good way of making it easy to review past messages is to put "Test2 warning", "Bv warning", "Test4 warning" in the edit summary. But it does seem unnecessary to insist that a particular IP keep a previous vandalism warning from last month on display.

With regard to logged-on users, if it's a vandalism-only account, it will usually be blocked indefinitely, pretty quickly. It can be reported at WP:AIV as a vandalism-only account. That's less timeconsuming for the reporter than edit warring on the vandal's talk page. Such accounts generally don't last long. It's unusual for a regular editor to vandalize. Sometimes they vandalize user pages of users they're in dispute with. Again, there's no need to force them to keep warnings on their pages. Administrators should never block based solely on the existence of vandalism warnings, since some trolls send vandalism warnings to good-faith editors and admins who remove spam links.

Of course, altering a warning rather than simply removing it is another matter. But do we really need a template for it? How long does it take to type one line telling someone s/he's not allowed to alter warnings? And is it really worth blocking for? Blocks are to prevent harm to the encyclopaedia? Does it really do terrible harm to the encyclopaedia to have "Please do not vandalize" changed to "Please do vandalize" on someone's talk page, which will never be read by people coming to Wikipedia to look something up? If a blocked user is doing this, just revert, and if necessary, protect the page. If the user doing this has not been blocked, then isn't it better to have him messing around with his talk page than messing around with Pope Benedict XVI?

Whoever deleted that template deserves a barnstar. AnnH ♫ 12:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, blocking for one second seems like a very silly idea. On the other hand, I've always listed the template name in the edit summary when giving a warning template, and I encourage everyone to do the same. Warnings can be changed but the edit summaries are immutable. And naturally, I agree with Ann's points about the basis for blocking. Give us admins some credit, we're clever enough to work out who needs blocking and who doesn't. --bainer (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Right to Vanish and deletion of talk page

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

User pages are no problem, and they're done routinely, but user talk pages are a different issue. Since you're mostly deleting other users' contributions, not the departing user's, then the CSD don't really apply. A courtesy blanking would be uncontroversial, IMO... Titoxd^(?!?) 07:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(Ed. conf.) Only rare exceptions for user talk pages, since they contain information about the user's past activities. I think blanking the user talk page for leaving members is the best thing to do. No real reason to delete it unless there's material which needs oversight. – Chacor 07:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see:

• m:Right to vanish
• Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?
• Jimbo's comment

...all of which indicates that deleting a user's talk page can be done when a user wishes to vanish. --Stéphane Charette 07:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:User page: "As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally (see also m:Right to vanish)." Emphasis mine. It has very little support within the community except for OFFICE matters. – Chacor 07:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The guideline, as well as m:Right to vanish (in addition to Jimbo's comment when this recently came up!) all seem to indicate that it is perfectly valid. I understand it isn't done often. So if I have to ask for just such an "exception", then consider this my request. The user in question left Wikipedia after a very stressful time dealing with bitter AfDs. He specifically requested that his user page and talk page be deleted. Right-to-vanish guarantees a user such rights. We should honour the user's request. --Stéphane Charette 07:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And he can request that. And he can easily have his user page deleted. But user talk pages are very specifically NOT deleted under most circumstances, as Chacor said, generally for OFFICE matters. The fact that several admins have chosen NOT to delete the talk page further reinforces this: it's just not done. You can blank it and move on. If you want to vanish, leave: if you're not planning on coming back you shouldn't care what your user talk page says. If he really cared, he could request a bureaucrat change his user name. But in essence you've already made the request and it's been denied by several admins. Since when do we go admin shopping here? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, it looks like S charette broke 3RR on the usertalk page in question. – Chacor 07:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not "shopping". I am curious to know why the page had been deleted when the user in question left Wikipedia, and now more than a month later the page suddenly re-appeared. People blanked the page and the request for deletion. I reverted it to get back the explanation and the user's request to delete. You're not going to all of a sudden claim that I'm in violation of 3R while we blatently ignore the the right-to-vanish rule that specifically allows talk pages to be deleted, are we? m:Right to vanish specifically states:

However, if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection. [...] Delete your user, user talk and subpages

--Stéphane Charette 07:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is unresolved. We either need to modify the right-to-vanish page and the guideline to explain that right-to-vanish is not supported by the community, or someone who can delete pages (IANAA) needs to delete the page in question. We cannot claim that we have something, yet not provide when we're asked. --Stéphane Charette 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish is a page on meta, local wikis frequently have their own policies on things. --pgk 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does right-to-vanish link back to a page on the English-language Wikipedia explaining what to do? --Stéphane Charette 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No idea, but meta != en, I would guess it originated on en and was moved there as a more general concept, en wiki policy moves on but meta reflects the original concept. --pgk 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of inconsistency in all of this. Talk pages of vandals are deleted all the time. The question I ask myself before deleting someone's talk page is: will deleting this page hide evidence of sockpuppetry. If not, I usually grant their request and indefinitely block them as well so that an admin has a chance to undelete their talk page should they return as I've previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive57#Blocking_on_meta:Right_to_vanish. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason stated for not deleting user talk pages as specified by 'right to vanish' is the hypothetical need to access past information about the person written there by them and others. As that information would be readily available to be viewed or restored from the history of the deleted page I don't see much validity to that argument. The reasons for deletion are clearly spelled out on the 'right to vanish' page itself... most notably the fact that it is detrimental to Wikipedia to needlessly antagonize people by insisting on maintaining a record of them they do not want. Why do we always go to such lengths to humiliate and infuriate people for no appreciable gain? --CBD 14:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I used to argue that user pages could be deleted but talk pages should not, but I am coming around to the idea of deleting both. Assuming a person wants to make a clean break, there is very little in the talk page that would be of current use, and if the editor comes back under a new name and begins acting up, the talk page can always be undeleted. Thatcher131 20:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that as long as the user truly vanishes, the talk page should be deleted on request. However, if the user returns, then the page should be undeleted. Prodego ^talk 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was one of the primary issues, there were several people regularly leaving, having there talk page deleted and then reappearing shortly after. --pgk 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly I recently came accross someone who after being caught in some misconduct had their acounts "vanished" - It turned out that the person in question was already at least on their sixth account trying to hide checkuser and sockpuppetchecks. A blanked talkpage is as good as vanished, as searchengines don't pick them up. But having the history available when a similar pattern of conduct appears is worth keeping it. P.S. The case under discussion here had moved the talkpage elsewhere anyway Agathoclea 20:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This should be handled on a case-by-case basis, but in general I don't see what is the objection to deleting the userpage of a user who is truly disappearing. We should be particularly lenient in allowing deletion of talkpages belonging to users who were editing under their real names or easily identifiable usernames, made mistakes, and don't want the mistakes following them around on every Google search for the rest of their lives. It is unfortunately when an editor becomes so alienated from the project that he or she not only no longer wants to contribute, but feels a need to sever the connection that formerly existed. However, when that occurs, it is submitted that the (former) user's feelings should generally be respected unless there is some overpowering reason not to. As noted, admins can still review deleted pages and that should be good enough to access information that might be needed for any legitimate Wikipedia-related purpose. Newyorkbrad 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that in this case, the username is the person's initials followed by his last name. --Stéphane Charette 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I put back on his page the {{dbuser}} tag? --Stéphane Charette 09:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have discussion stalled, or are there no objections anymore? --Stéphane Charette 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

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

Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, articles should not link to copies of press reports archived on any site in violation of copyright. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Intermediate sources: State where you got it, citations should state the original source (i.e. the LA Times) and the intermediate source (i.e. "as retrieved from LexisNexis on October 16, 2006"). Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Bearcat and Bucketsofg are expected to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied. For violation of his previously imposed article ban, as well as edit warring, block evasion, and sockpuppety, Arthur Ellis is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

For the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis is indef blocked per request. [19] --FloNight 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unjust Deletion: Please reconsider...

• Moved to WP:DRV. (Radiant) 16:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a link to Porn on one of your pages

I don't know where to go to report this...I'm not a member and have never been to the site before. All I know is, while looking up information on Uruguay, I was suddenly directed to a porn site. This link was under "Foreign Relations of Uruguay" under the External Links section. When I clicked on "Embassy of Japan in Montevideo" it took me to megapornvids.com. I am horribly embarrassed and very upset that this happened. Please make sure you fix that as soon as possible. It makes me afraid to click on anything on your site. It is not a good impression for someone like me who is visiting this site for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.187.66 (talk • contribs)

It's been removed, thanks for pointing it out. --W.marsh 17:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cripes, that's been in there since March. Foreign relations of Uruguay must not get much activity... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. That's not good for Wikipedia. Nishkid64 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blacklisted the site. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bluelinks that should be redlinks again

Dear Admins, I don't know where to request this so I will put it here: There are several pages that were created but are empty. Because they have been edited, the links appear as blue thought they should be red. This concerns the archives Talk:Christianity/Archive 34, Talk:Christianity/Archive 35 and Talk:Christianity/Archive 36, which will undoubtedly be filled in time. However, the current status is very confusing for someone doing the archiving. Could some admins please delete these pages, turning the links red again. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning IP vandals

What is the policy for blocking IP vandals? I always thought they had to have been recently warned, as historic vandalism could easily be a different person with the same address (unless there is clear evidence to the contrary), yet I've seen multiple IP addresses blocked for vandalising after a final warning when that final warning was weeks ago and they hadn't been warned since. --Tango 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the block log; speaking only for myself, some of the blocks I've done today involve the same type of vandalism from some IPs that resumes weeks later... because they had been blocked much if not all of that time. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The block that prompted my question was actually one of yours, User:206.154.80.162. I don't see any similarity between the current vandalism and the previous vandalism beyond the similarity that you commonly get between completely unrelated vandals (they generally aren't very imaginative, after all). --Tango 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This one on the 15th and this one today were all I needed :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind, people often don't know what their block duration is until the next time they try successfully to edit. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some admins block after an IPs first edit (I won't mention names but this person blocked over 250 people in one night when I found that example). Really, what is the point of watching someone say "poop" and "penis", etc., etc. four times before blocking? By now, several of them know they get four shots so they keep going to test4 and then stop. What is the real risk? How many times have you seen a vandal say "poop" and "penis", get a warning of some kind, and suddenly reverse himself and start making meaningful edits? If that happened, I would be more worried - but it doesn't. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, certainly; as long as those are short blocks. It's impossible to get a gauge on an IP's history—how many people connect to it, how long it will take Mr. Poopy to grow up, etc.—with one edit, but a short block to make sure the damage stops is fine. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people may be testing whether they really can edit, and they might be doing that because they think it is funny. Prodego ^talk 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(To Prodego) Back to my point, how often do you see someone testing to see if they can edit by adding "poop", etc., and then suddenly they start editing like normal people? I don't think I've seen it once. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not too often, but every once and a while I find a few who do. But weeding one positive contributor out of a hundred vandals is worth the effort of giving a polite warning, at least in my mind. Prodego ^talk 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if we get someone who "gets his four shots and stops", the purpose of warning them is for them to stop. Blocking is used when they don't stop. If warnings make the vandal stop, then we've accomplished our purpose. As for the original question: it depends. If a vandal is making the same type of vandalism that he was [almost] blocked before, then feel free to block without further warning. If it seems like a different person, start again. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any IP vandals that have turned into good editors, but I know plenty of vandals that have stopped after being warned. (Who can say if they would have stopped without the warning, but nevertheless, a block wasn't required.) Remember, you don't have to go through the test templates one at a time - you can jump straight to the "This is the only warning you'll get" template (which I can't remember the name of - I normally give test2 and then test4 in bad cases) if it's blatant vandalism and couldn't possibly be mistaken for experimentation. Regarding the case discussed above, I'm not how conclusive repeating the final letter of "fuck" is for determining that it's the same person. Especially when the edit on the 15th was a single edit with weeks of nothing either side and only got a warning from a bot. The extra effort of adding a warning template and seeing if the stop before blocking them is tiny, and it can save unnecessary blocks. We have no idea how often anon users try and make a useful edit, discover their address is blocked because of someone else and just leave - I doubt it's that unusual. --Tango 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no ironclad policy; it's very much a judgment call, and different admins will react differently—and, I've been wrong before. In this case, I remain sufficiently convinced. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if they haven't been warned, I will still block the user if the user continues to vandalize. See User talk:204.98.2.54. That user has not been warned today, but they were last blocked on the 14th for repeated vandalism. I blocked the user for 6 months as he/she is a returning vandal and continues to vandalize regardless of being warned. Nishkid64 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That case is very different - the user had been blocked and had started vandalising almost as soon as the block expired, it's safe to assume it's the same user, so immediately blocking for long makes complete sense. --Tango 11:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Account Deletion Request

Hello,

I hope this is the right place to go. If not, be so kind as to help.

Please delete my account. Far too many random people and random administrators are fighting over it, especially today, and I have been disheartened by this entire random and hostile Wikipedia culture.

If you have any questions...I dare say...post a message...but I fear it may be reverted by a random user or administrator anyway.

Please delete it. Editing has been made worthless. Thank you. Rememberkigali 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S.-If this account cannot be deleted, I do not object to posting my username and password on a forum for the public to use freely. Rememberkigali 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarify, please? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The closest we can get to deleting your account is deleting your user page (which doesn't exist anyway) and user talk page. Any more than that would leave gaps in the edit histories of any articles you've edited, which would cause licensing problems (we have to be careful to credit people correctly). I can't remember the exact policy on when user talk pages are deleted, but I can't see it being a problem in your case. If you want it deleted, just say so here and I'm sure someone will do so (I'm off to bed soon, so it won't be me). --Tango 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

hum.. AGF and all that but look at the user history of that account.... well.... --Charlesknight 23:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF concerns aside, "I do not object to posting my username and password on a forum for the public to use freely" is too close to a threat to let slide. This may be what the user wants, but I'm going to be WP:BOLD and indef the account. The user talk page will remain. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly AGF regarding the forum comment - it sounds to me like an innocent misunderstanding of how things work. If you're going to indef block the user, you might as well delete their talk page. We don't need a record of warnings given to a blocked account. --Tango 11:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• If possible, I would prefer that the talk page remain - this user account was created largely to accuse me of vandalism, and the talk page history includes both my attempts at dispute resolution and the various warnings that RememberKigali got. If he/she shows up again under a different name, I would prefer to have the history available in case this ever ends up in RFC or ArbComm. Thanks, TheronJ 11:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be blanked, then. --Tango 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I had delved into the user's edits prior to the block and was convinced that the request to delete the "account" (read: the talk page) was likely an effort to hide the evidence (what I meant when I wrote "[t]his may be what the user wants, but I'm going to be WP:BOLD and indef the account"). The seeming threat to go public with the account iced it. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. TheronJ 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Benbenek

Hey, would anybody mind closing this down? By WP:SNOW (it's obvious it will go to deletion), but mostly because it's a severe case of WP:DFTT for the author of the article, who is, quite frankly, acting like a real jerk to the voters (read the history, and you'll see I'm not overstating). Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kimchi.sg 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Current events portal

The current events portal is showing yesterday twice with today's events listed under 28 November at the top of the page. I can't figure out why so I would be grateful if someone could have a look at it.

Regards

Capitalistroadster 09:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism two subpages down; I've reverted it. --ais523 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Skulltag AfD

Would a few admins take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skulltag? The article about a source port of Doom that (from my research) is non-notable, but it seems Skulltag's community picked up on the deletion and a number of it's members are protesting. There have been no votes in the deletion discussion despite it running for almost five days, so I'd like to ask if it at least one admin could keep their eye on it. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 00:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, the AFD has now been overrun by meatpuppets vying to keep the article intact. Hbdragon88 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, now that there's been several votes, can someone (who hasn't yet participated in the discussion) close this AfD before it really gets out of control? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 07:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone. A lovely little thread they set up on their forums about Wikipedia and its' users, as well. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What the devil is going on here? Goading them probably isn't the best idea ever. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. As there isn't already enough trouble already...really don't need this headache. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...well, it wasn't me, and by the sounds of things it wasn't either of you two, I seriously doubt it was Hamedog (the closer). There's a couple of other editors, although they seem well-respected enough. The only other "Delete" !voter is an IP, so I can't verify whether he/she would do such a thing by determinance of their reputation. Nonetheless, whoever did it should quit, and pronto - this is bad enough, without inciting further hatred. Please, whoever it was (if you are reading this), stop. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: AFD is not a vote. That some 'voters' are biased, new, or socks of unbanned users does not matter, so long as the closing admin does their job properly. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing about the IP address is that IP addresses can't create articles anymore, so I was wondering if that 4.*.*.* was going to go through with his promise of recreating the article every single time it was deleted. Anyway, I voted delete, but I didn't registern an account to goad them, though I was tempted to. Hbdragon88 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was deleted out of process, and has been restored. The final count was 4 keep, 5 delete, which is not nearly a consensus to delete. Owen 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if you wish to challenge the closer's decision you should take it to DRV instead of wheel-warring to restore the page. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't wheel-warring, I was exercising WP:IAR in response to administrative actions that bypassed policy. I fully intended to take the more bureaucratic approach if another administrator intervened, as you have. Owen 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice how the four keep votes came from users from the Skulltag who registered only to vote keep. I thought that sysops had the power to discard such meatpuppet votes? Hbdragon88 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How to get an archived article deleted

How can I get deleted the following articles, I have had discussions with people concerned in regards to these three article and their contents, and apparently because these articles have been edited to the extent that they are no longer factual but distorted and out of context they should be therefore deleted. Also because these three pages serves no real purpose in Wikipedia other than paint the ECOPAVE company and its trademark protected words Trademark dilution in bad light bad faith,Fact Finder2 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled_garden_.2F_spammers
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Miscellaneous/2006_October_16#Ecopave
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_October_22#Advise_to_new_users_regarding_Trademark_and_Libel_laws

Fact Finder2 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Those pages are archives of discussion pages, and should not be deleted. They are preserved as records of prior discussion. Prodego ^talk 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several threads relevant to this near the bottom of the Help Desk. --ais523 16:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked this account indefinitely. If he wants to appeal his block there are ways of doing so, but this is mere block evasion. Chick Bowen 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet more bollocks from this bunch of spammers. I have also had a threatening email, stating that unless we excise all mention of Ecopave's spamming then the "truth" about our appalling abuse of Ecopave (read: reversion of their spamming campaign and good-faith attempts to get their employees to contribute productively) will be published on the Ecopave Australia website. Only it was written EC0PAVE AUSTRAL1A, an obscurantism for ECOPAVE AUSTRALIA, despite the fact that (as a private email) it stands no chance of being placed on the web where it can damage Ecopave's Google results. I'd say that Fact Finder (and the associated Ecopave spam accounts) shows evidence of ridiculous levels of obsession and we need to be on the lookout for more of this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU#TJ Spyke

Okay, here's the scoop: RobJ1981 came to me requesting help regarding edits made by TJ Spyke. He made allegations that the user was reverting other people's edits for no good reason, and that he was violating 3RR by using a sockpuppet (Edgecution). This was proven by Essjay at WP:RFCU#TJ Spyke and despite this verification, Spyke stated that it was his brother who was on the other account. I find this hard to believe as they appeared to be defending the same edits in the article WWE New Year's Revolution. A CheckUser clerk, Daniel.Bryant, also pointed this out stating that he couldn't believe that these two accounts were being used by different people. Judging from the article history of WWE New Year's Revolution, it does appear that TJ Spyke has been reverting many user's edits to the page without discussing or contacting the users he reverted. Anyway, as per the RFCU, Essjay requested the admin body to overview the decision and do whatever they please. I'm personally involved in this matter, so I am refraining from doing anything in this matter. I'd also like to point out that TJ Spyke has violated 3RR on multiple occasions, and I speculated he was using the sockpuppet to avoid a block. Nishkid64 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

TJ tends to control articles, in my opinion. New Year's Revolution is just the most recent one. I remember at WWE Cyber Sunday, he would remove the official name of a match. After many reverts and a discussion at the talk page, it was finally left alone by TJ. How exactly can others help on wrestling articles, if edits just get reverted with little to no explanation? Wikipedia articles are for everyone to edit, not for one user to control an article and revert anything he sees fit with no good reasons. RobJ1981 23:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked TJ Spyke for 48 hours for continuing to edit war on that WWE page. Edgecution is more likely a meatpuppet if anything as opposed to a sockpuppet. Not sure what people want to do about him. -- Steel 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• The argument might be moot - Image:Newyears2007.jpg and Image:Newyearsrevolution07.jpg are going to be deleted as unsourced here within the next few days - I already deleted Image:Newyears2007.jpg. --humblefool® 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out TJ Spyke CONTINUES to revert the poster. I noticed when he was blocked, there wasn't trouble with the article (that I noticed at least). Then he comes back and causes revert issues once again. The poster doesn't hurt the article, but for whatever reason TJ thinks it does. RobJ1981 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

File:Newyearsrevolution07.jpg has been deleted for having no source. Hopefully this will be the end of the dispute. -- Steel 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh joy, the image is also under a different name which does have a source (Image:New Years Revolution 2007 poster.JPG). Ok, page protected. No more reverting from anyone. -- Steel 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Two technical questions

1. What is currently the first page at Special:Unwatchedpages? and 2. How do I edit the text at Special:Specialpages? I think it's about time Special:Ancientpages had a more accurate description. But I can't find a MediaWiki page that has that text. Chick Bowen 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• The first page is [[]], for some reason (yes, I just typed [[]] there, because it is a page with the Empty Title; this is probably a software fluke). Regarding ancientpages, the text is here: MediaWiki:Ancientpages-summary. (Radiant) 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh. Well, thanks, but I still don't get it, so I guess that indicates this is over my head technically and I shouldn't worry about it. Chick Bowen 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New {{COI}} template

I just created (okay, copied and modified another template to make) a "conflict of interest" clean-up template. Feedback is not only desired, but begged for. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea. However, when will it exactly be used? I mean if it's used right when an article is about to be speedied, there seems to be no point for it. Nonetheless, I think it's a good idea, but maybe I'm overlooking something. Nishkid64 02:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's for the cases where the subject is slightly too notable, or potentially too notable, to speedy. Sometimes we WP:PROD these or slap notability tags on them, but a tag referencing WP:COI may be more precise. Sometimes the problematic article is not vanity per se, but the author did all the original research on the subject, and published it in a vanity press or a website somewhere. Anyone remember Leonardo Ciampa and Lorenzo Perosi? I like the tag; it may be the best way to approach this problem (which is a huge problem, for those of us who do newpage or recent changes patrol). Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is too specific of a tag. If it's a speedy candidate, the creator of the page is not supposed to remove the tag. Anybody can remove a PROD tag. Concerns about original research, references, etc. should be tagged with existing templates and a possible conflict of interest (if there is one) to be described as so. I really don't see the need for a special template... Hbdragon88 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's intended as a more specific version of {{advert}} and/or the {{vanity}} tag but applied to non-bios, as in "This subject might be worth an article but maybe it shouldn't be you writing it." This article created by A Greater Gift (talk · contribs) -- note the name of the parent organization of the article subject -- was what prompted this. --Calton | Talk 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since NN vanity articles can already be handled under WP:CSD, it would seem this template is only useful on notable subjects that happen to have a "COI". Accordingly, maybe you should remove all the talk of deletion and rephrase it more like "someone else should rewrite this, previous author, please make suggestions on the talk page". --Dgies 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's less WP:BITEy than {{advert}}, and that is good. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Massive Image Deletion

An admin, User:Betacommand, today deleted several hundred fair use images, including many that were marked with the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag. There is no indication that User:Betacommand considered any of the reasons for the disputes on the images talk pages before proceeding with what looks to be a blanket torching of these images. Now, many of these images had, I think it's fair to say, fair use issues... but many were entirely appropriately sourced, tagged, with copyright and source information, etc. My question: Is this deletion in accordance with Wikipedia policy? Jenolen 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering how that giant backlog got cleared so fast. I commend him for deleting the non-disputed ones but I wouldn't have deleted the disputed ones without reviewing the reasoning, which I doubt he could have done in the amount of time those were all deleted. VegaDark 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, taking a look at the delete log, it might have been possible to open them in tabs and then take a couple second glance over each one. In some cases it's obvious enough to do it, in others it's not. In terms of official policy, I hate to say it, but the backlog is massively massive, things seem to be tuned for speed more than detailed looks. If you have any tips on how to make it work better, it might help things out :) -- Tawker 08:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The criterion allows for a full week before deletion, giving ample time for anyone who wants to dispute that an image is replaceable to mount their argument. I only found one example where someone had disputed whether the image was replaceable, Image talk:Wayne McCullough.jpg, which really isn't reasoning at all. Did you find any other examples? --bainer (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have (now dead) links to several images - and the associated talk pages wherein I'd made my fair use cases -- listed on my user page. Jenolen 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The question now is did the admin use a deletion bot? I ask that since I saw this on the blocking log: "01:17, 28 November 2006 Dragons flight (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Betacommand (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Using an unauthorized deletion bot)." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, adminbots get shunned by the community, I guess it could be a peice of javascript though, one button to do the work of 3. Really, I have no idea - -Tawker 08:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I had placed a {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag on Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg and provided a rationale in the tag. I'm not sure the fair use claim was ironclad, but it probably at least warranted a few seconds of thought by an admin. --Dgies

I have blocked Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as Zscout370 noted before I got here. His deletion log demonstrates that he deleted >1500 images in less than 2 hours, which amounts to less than 5 seconds per image (actually its even less because of a couple gaps of ~10 minutes). Regardless of how he accomplished this, any process that acts with bot like speed requires a bot approval. Since I can find no evidence of any such approval (and would be very surprised to see it since I7 requires human attention to identify and resolve disputes), I have acted on the assumption that this behavior is unapproved and blocked Betacommand for a week for operating an unapproved admin bot. Dragons flight 08:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I would also like to note that his bot appears to have made no notice of {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} or any accommanying talk page discussion, so I expect there are more than a few people who have been upset to have their arguments ignored. A few of these have already commented at Betacommand's talk page. Dragons flight 08:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

deletetion every 5 seconds is manualy posible. But for 2 hours?Geni 12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder blocking an admin does not restrict their admin abilities - kind of an interesting thing to note -- Tawker 08:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

certianly used to limit them somewhat.12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Woah! Well I did ask for help with the backlog, carefull what you wish for I guess... The place is ready to blow over this issue already. Just flat out automated deletion of everyting tagged was probably not the wisest move. I think we just proved everyone who has been complaining that reasonable complaints are ignored right. I'm all for enforcing this, but let's try not to turn the entire comunity against it in the process shall we. --Sherool (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I had an image that I had contested the delete of image deleted by Betacommand without comment in this recent set. I have been involved in the discussions about the use of promotional tagged images at some length in the last two days. I resposted another image to the same page, and it was immediately marked by User:Abu_badali for deletion. The same user then has attacked dozens of images uploaded with a promotional tag in only a few minutes, using the argument that any image marked with a promotional tag should be deleted because it could hypothetically be subsititued with a free image as long as the person is living - in this case many of the images marked were provided by the artists to me directly, inclusing some because no free or even promotional image existed. User:Abu_badali then began marking other images such as CD covers I have posted with the so-called rationale they should be deleted because few pages linked to them, which would delete 99% of the album cover images on Wikipedia, as well as likely 98% of all images. This is an obvious personal attack, and yet another example of editors gone wild, which I am now expected to spend hours contesting every one of these CSD's or have someone destroy hours and hours of legitmate work and Wikipedia page layouts to match. I ask for admin assistance on this issue, please, this type of stuff is getting insane on here. A review of User_talk:Abu_badali, and now comments being posted on my page, indicate this user engages in this kind of behavior on a repeated basis. I have never asked for an Rfc before, but there is certainly a need for one here, in addition to a block. The timing of the original issue might also suggest a sockpuppet relationship between Betacommand and Abu badali. And as a Wikipedia user and professional journalist, is it just me, or is there a motto on Wikipedia that for every person engaging in this kind of attack behavior there are a dozen apologists? Tvccs 11:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay admins and apologists - if there was any question about intent, harassment, legitimacy, use of a CSD bot, etc. regarding User:Abu badali - in the middle of his dozens of CSD requets in a few minute span of my images was an image he deleted from the Cadillac Catera page. This was not an image I'd created, it was a free image from another user and marked as such, it was simply one I'd replaced with a promtionally tagged image at one point, which was then reverted, and which I'd subsequently left alone. Abu badali removed a completely free image from a page, the same type of image used to illustrate hundreds of cars on Wikipedia, using the rationale "23:04, November 27, 2006 Abu badali (Talk | contribs) m (rm purely illustrative use of unfree image per WP:FUC#8)". I am completely sick of this stuff, and of the people that apologize for the type of behavior exhibited by this and similar users. Is there anyone sane that has a bot thay can remove his CSD's? Tvccs 11:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And now I get to offer a clarification/correction - it appears the image that was removed from Cadillac Catera was the one referenced below - not the free image at the top of the page, which I thought was the case as in checking the top image tag, it indicated it was no longer linked to any page, and I thought I was seeing a cached page version which still had the image after deletion. Everything else I stated stands, and that was hopefully the only image I've uploaded without a totally clear source. I'm so glad NOT to be dealing with this. Tvccs 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See my note on your talk page: if you can't manage to comply with the requirements of a tag which you yourself selected to place on the image when you uploaded it, your case is thinner than Janet Jackson's excuse. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Seen and replied - I see the image had already been removed before I even had time to clarify the tag - see if you like the clarification, as the image still exists in an orphaned state, and if so, restore it please. Tvccs 12:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And I've deleted that image under CSD I6, since you didn't provide a detailed fair use rationale. Like it or not, we haven't accepted with permission images for a long time, unless a valid fair use claim is made, and at least since 4 May this year we haven't accepted images tagged only with a generic fair use template and no detailed fair use rationale. These requirements are not hard to meet, and were in place long before you uploaded that image. And even though it's deleted now, we have image undeletion so if you can provide a detailed fair use rationale (and proper sourcing information too, Yahoo Groups doesn't count), I can undelete the image and we can all be happy. --bainer (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear what Betacommand has to say about this accusation, although I'll admit it looks pretty serious. He was only recently granted adminship, so if he is misusing it, perhaps those powers should be revoked. A bot with admin powers would be strictly regulated and unlikely to be approved and he would know that. He is also a member of BAG so I think this probably has implications for that as well. His talk page has a concern about blocking misuse as well. Apparently he blocked an ISP proxy calling it an open proxy. I don't know much about this case but thought I'd bring it to attention here. -- RM 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Interiot once clocked me doing image deletions at 7.3 seconds, but I'd already checked each one and opened a billion tabs. That's not sustainable, of course, because you have to go through and get another batch ready. This has to have been bot-assisted in some fashion, if he kept up that rate for two hours. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well at 5 seconds per edit, that isn't so fast as to necessarily require bot approval. And if it was manual-assisted bot, then it doesn't strictly need bot approval either. The issue here was that a bot was possibly used with a) administrator access and b) that the actions performed were not correct. The latter action perhaps requires a hand slapping and a warning, but running a bot with administrator access performing an administrator function, even if assisted, is questionable at best. Nevertheless, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if nothing went wrong. Still, at minimum the block was justified. -- RM 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

well for one minute I managed to get down to one delete ever 2.4 seconds but there is no way to keep that up. Especialy if you are dealing with challanges.Geni 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's think about this logically then. Clearly he wasn't dealing with challenges, as is well evidenced. So if one were to simply be misusing admin tools, you could easily maintain a fast deletion rate without the use of a bot. Perhaps that is the case here? We're making the assumption that a fast edit rate is not possible without the support of a bot, but that's assuming proper deletions, which clearly did not happen here. It would seem then that a bot may not have been used, but only a misuse of administrator tools. Still a serious problem of course. -- RM 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

no you can't mentain a deletion rate that high for any length of time (I just deleted 30 images in under a minute but only because I spent the previous few minutes doing setup) and physicaly it will start to hurnt after a while (blisters pain in joints whatever). For long term sustained rates you do less preloading which slows the deletion rate. If it posible to delete once every 5 seconds without prep that is right on the edge of what is posible (I'll run some tests shortly) which means there is no way you could keep it up.Geni 13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about we simply ask him how he did that instead of speculating? He appears to be around now. (Radiant) 14:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But then we miss the chance to start up competative speed deleting which might keep our backlogs clear once and for all.Geni 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I assumed that since the Images in question were in the category, and that it was backloged I assumed that the disputes for wether or not the image should be deleted had been resolved. I modified my version of firefox, for a short time to allow for clearing this backlog. I set it up so that if I middle clicked a link it would open up the deletion page with the Image and the preset summary. I also had it set to autosave, and close the tab. That is how I mananaged to get the speed. Looking back of the Incident that was not a smart idea. The reason that I set that up was because of the massive backlog. But I see that i should have been more careful. Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) quoted from his talk page. (Radiant) 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Since BC states he was not using a bot and admits his mistake, I think we should unblock him so that he can help fixing it. Thoughts please? (Radiant) 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the block so long as discussion happens here dealing with the issue. I'm not sure what is meant by the comment "Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete?" Does this mean to imply that it wasn't a big deal since only a few may have been incorrect or is this an honest question for some other purpose? -- RM 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant "mis-delete", not "missed deleting". (Radiant) 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

going by follow up comments probably not. I've pulled the block. I can't cheack for autoblocks though.Geni 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering how many Images that I had made an error on. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete? -- Well, if you didn't look at the disputes going on on any of the image talk pages, then, technically, 1500. I'm not sure why we're supposed to do your job of going back and looking at all 1500 images, and finding the ones that were inappropriately deleted, when this should have been done the first time. They all need to be looked at, and for more than an average of five seconds. Look, I don't mean this to be snippy, but it is very frustrating to play by the rules, learn about all the image tags, upload some images that do make articles better for Wikipedia users, work with admins to get the image tagging and licensing issues all settled... then have the whole thing blow up because a few Wikipedians decide to change the policy on promophotos. Very, very disheartening, and like I said, I don't mean to be a downer about this, but today, Wikipedia is NOT as good as it was before the promophoto jihad began. Also -- NONE of the images I uploaded, that you deleted, have been restored, even though I am one of the editors who left a message on your talk page. You can find of list of the images in question on my talk page or by using your bot. Jenolen 17:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the Images that were brought to my attention. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A good many actually, it appears you didn't check for disputed tags, which actually say to keep the other tag as well. I reuploaded the only one on my watchlist no problem, but as not being an admin able to check the tags on the deleted files I can't really give you an exact number --T-rex 17:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did a few of these a while ago, the ratios were actually pretty high for disputed tags, of those not all actually had any dispute, but even then a good amount did. I would be uncomfortable giving exact percentages though. If you feel like a dispute was deleted before being resolved, or even if one was resolved to keep and then deleted anyway, bring it up at WP:MCQ and someone will fix it for you. 1500 might be too many for betacommand to do all alone. Does anyone think there needs to be an improvement in the dispute procedure? Currently most of the disputes are just 2 people arguing back and forth until an admin deletes, at which time no one is informed of the decision. This has to be balanced with the fact that any additional steps will only increase the already high backlog on this section. - cohesion 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the fun, now, I've noticed at least one of the orphaned image talk pages -- wherein the case for keeping the image was made -- has been deleted by another admin, because, you know, it's a talk page with no "article." Which is, of course, frustrating, but not entirely unexpected. Sigh... So can we be bring back these ~1500 images, and their associated talk pages? Or has this ship sailed into Wiki-seas from which there is no return? Jenolen 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fast action by User:Metros232 restored the specific talk page I referred to above, but I still fear that much has been lost. Metros suggested a temporary hold on {{db-talk}} activity, but we're well beyond my level of Wiki-comprehension. Jenolen 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G8 says an exception to the deletion of orphaned talk pages is made for "talk pages of images on Commons". This won't be the case here, as these are fair-use images on Wikipedia (I think). But just in case this does apply, I thought I'd point it out, as these exceptions to the rules are easy to miss sometimes. Carcharoth 20:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What about user talk pages/Rfc's? I have a fair use image that was being compared and dicussed to a free image that was removed from a Rfc Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chowbok page beacuse it "no longer linked to any page". Thank you. Tvccs 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar continue to vigorously edit despite your own WORD

Hkelkar, who is an advanced student of physics, has requested a continuance extending from November 24 to December 19 during finals. He has agreed to not edit outside his user pages during this period. While a continuance and continued evidence are arguably futile, see Wikipedia:Snowball clause, as the suggested remedy is a one year ban, a continuance is granted suspending further action until December 19.

 +  
 + :Support: 
 + :#Fred Bauder 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 
 + :# I dislike continuances in general, but this is tolerable. Charles Matthews 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC) [[20]]

I can't stand by any longer. At first I thought I would just quietly alert your advocates in email (which I did), but this is beyond the pale and beyond what even I can stomach. Since no one else seems to either notice or care, I will say it myself. I am furious that you would have the unmitigated gall to stand before the committee in your own arbitration pleading "finals" while simultaneously, contstantly, vigorously, and practically up to this very minute disregard your own word.

In addition, I assert that any admin who has communicated with you during this time is complicit in what you are doing. I find it hard to believe that the admins in question have no awareness of your pledge.

Since I've let the cat out the bag, I'll let another cat out as well. I've looked at the evidence suggesting that you are sockpuppet of user SubhashBose (or whatever). It is my belief that not only are you his sockpuppet, you are impersonating an actual person named Kelkar, who is indeed in his "advanced physic finals", but far from you. I also believe his English is faulty, that he's a friend or aquaintance of yours, and that he gave you permission to do this. He is the one speaking in the IRC chat that Aksi cites, not you.

I can't describe how personally odious I find all of your actions to be. I'm not one to whine to authority figures about another person's behaviour, but believe me, I will whine like a stuck pig if you add a single coma outside of this page.

I am done with you. NinaEliza 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) NinaEliza

I've contacted Hkelkar about this. I have the feeling that he just got the datesmixed up, as he has declared in email to his advocates (myself and User:TheronJ) that he is on a wikibreak until 19 December from today. I'd therefore request that if any action is to be taken, we leave it until tomorrow (UTC), and if Hkekar is still editing, he should be warned before any other action is taken. I think the allegations of Hkelkar not actually taking his finals are a bit out of order, as I have no doubt that he is, and we need to WP:AGF in any case. Another admin will want to review this, I'm sure, as I'm implicitly involved in this case, but I thought I'd offer what I've been told to the discussion :) Martinp23 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The message by NinaEliza here was also posted here. Martinp23 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no administrative action to take as the motion for a continuance has not been voted out yet, therefore it is not in effect. However, continued editing may indicate that the request was not made in good faith. I have called Arbitrator Fred Bauder's attention to the matter. In the mean time, if you believe Hkelkar is impersonating someone else, you may wish to add evidence to the evidence page. However, the real life identity of the editor doesn't really have bearing on any possible sanctions or remedies in the case. (It may, however, be related to the method he used to "prove" his innocence of sockpuppetry charges. If you believe this is not sufficiently addressed in the case, please add evidence to the evidence page or a proposed finding of fact to the workshop page.) Thatcher131 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar was actively editing today even. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User continuously repeating same edits

In Goldfrapp article user [email protected]‎ endlessly repeats same edits (changes genres, and also some images), despite being reverted all the time, with general consensus not on his side. He also has very bad editing style (apparently he does not use preview) with up to 10 edits following in rapid succession. I request ban of user [email protected]‎ from editing the article.

P.S. Sorry for using URL to link to his user page - because of @ in his username, normal linking does not work! Futurix 11:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for the User name. They have been asked twice now to pick another one, but haven't. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New guideline Wikipedia:Version to protect

This subject has caused much aggravation on Wikipedia, and if you know of any previous attempts for solving it (other than "Wrong Version", which I think is unhelpful), please let me know. Otherwise, please try to find some holes in it. If you find that you agree with the proposal, let's try to make this a guideline. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a proposal to find "the right version" to protect. It's foolhardy. All it does it add ammunition to people involved in the edit war. I don't want to know what would happen if this was used during a heated debate. It'd be bedlam. We already have people who don't believe that admins are ever neutral. This just adds fuel to that fire. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to these concerns on the talk page of the proposal, where a healthy discussion is in swing concerning this proposal. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

IP talk pages

I found this Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion that says "a bot will begin blanking these pages per the discussion". That was in March, and the category now contains several hundreds of IP addresses. Does anybody know the point of this? (Radiant) 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive9#IP_talk_pages, looks like it ended up being a "meh don't delete them, just blank them"...so we should prolly either blank the talk pages and decat them or maybe just decat them. Syrthiss 14:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can set a bot up to blank these if you want.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I suppose then that we should get rid of the category. Since that involves editing all those pages anyway, we might as well use a bot to blank them once. Doing this on a regular basis doesn't appear to be worth the trouble. (Radiant) 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I thought one of the Tawkerbots was doing this, but if not, then yes, someone should do it. Chick Bowen 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery IP

I'm not certain where to post this, but an IP registered to the National Portrait Gallery (London), 217.207.85.50 (talk · contribs), seems to pop up every few months to slap on a copyright violation directly at the top of certain articles ([21] [22] [23]), most recently yesterday at William Herschel (as such). This strikes me as extremely unprofessional if, in fact, the person really does represent the NPG. I left a note, but I believe this calls for direct attention by admins, if for the copyright question if nothing else. Thank you. --CalendarWatcher 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as something Wikimedia needs to deal with directly, and not for admins. - hahnchen 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I left a message at User talk:BradPatrick. Chick Bowen 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This kind of thing crops up from time to time. Galleries and libraries who own paintings may mistakenly claim they hold copyright to any images of the works of art or claim that they must give permission for those images to be used. However, many countries uphold the idea that photographic reproductions of public domain two-dimensional works of art are public domain themselves. Aside from trying to educate them (which likely won't go over well), there's not much we can do other than remove these notices. Shell ^babelfish 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Many museums (at least in the U.S.) do own the copyright on images of their objects. They limit photography, let individuals use the photos for their stated project (book or whatever) and retain copyright over any use beyond that. I am not familiar with UK law at all, but the gallery's website states the following: "We also exert strict controls on all photography in the Gallery, which is allowed only on the understanding that copyright rests with the us and that any further reproduction deriving from the resulting photographic materials is subject to our written permission." link to relevant page I'm not saying this person is right about these photos, but they certainly could be. I'm far from an expert in copyright law, but I am pursuing graduate studies in museum studies and this subject came up recently in one of my classes. Of course, they can claim that they have copyright and not actually have it as well. But they frequently do. Dina 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. For the US see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. In the case of artwork that is public domain, images that merely reproduce the artwork can not be copyrighted because copyright protects creativity and there is nothing creative about making a reproduction. The purpose of limiting reproduction is to maintain the market for their own reproductions, of course, but while reproducing an image might violate the museum's agreement with whomever made the original photograph, its not a copyright violation on our part to host the image. I don't know about the UK. Thatcher131 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

UK law is irrelavant as the Foundation has no presence in the UK. Raul654 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Without endorsing Raul654's comment, this has come up before. No action has been taken by the Foundation in this regard.--Brad Patrick 19:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Law school must have entire courses devoted to teaching how to write sentences like that. Thatcher131 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The National Portrait Gallery are big enough and scary enough to take on Wikipedia if this were serious. They will have taken legal advice already. This is a token protest, they are probably advised not to risk a test case. The British Galleries collectively would not want to risk an outcome similar to the "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp" they prefer things left as vague as they are. Giano 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I take Brad's statement, deliberately content-free as it may have been, to suggest a reasonable course of action when this sort of thing arises--i.e., remove the notice as CalendarWatcher did and do nothing else. Certainly we cannot threaten institutions and we should not invoke the Foundation in doing so. Chick Bowen 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:12.154.254.227

This ip is vandalising those articles: Agim Ceku and Kosovo Protection Corps

I checked up on the history, and it looks like a content dispute to me. Also, f I could advise, when you revert, please leave in other people's changes in the meantime (e.g., you reverted this one too) - the undo button does well for this situation. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeals

It seems to me that a blocked or banned user has very limited means at their disposal to appeal the block or ban. If they want to go to ArbCom to appeal it, they will have to use a tedious mechanism of edits-by-proxy via email. The vast majority of bans are entirely uncontroversial, unambiguous trolls or other abusers of the project, but there are some users who get caught up in disputes which perhaps escalate beyond the point of no return, to the regret of all. I have now had two or three users email me about this kind of thing, and there is a discussion on WikiEN-L at the moment as well.

It seems to me that we have three ways of dealing with this:

1. Unblock the account on the strict understanding that it is used solely for the purpose of appealing the ban
2. Allow the person to edit anonymously or (for privacy) through an openly declared alternate account, again solely for the purposes of appealing the ban
3. Do nothing.

Or maybe some other option I haven't thought of (quite likely). I have to say that option 2 looks a bit contrived, but I also think that simply unblocking indef-blocked accounts is likely to be perceived as asking for trouble. If an account is restricted to WP:AMA and WP:RFAR, for example, I don't see it matters much either way whether it's a role account or the main one. That said, a carefully-worded exception to the ban evasion clause of WP:SOCK would not, in my view, expose the project to much risk, as the mechanism for dismissing frivolous cases at ArbCom appears to be reasonably effective.

Clearly this is not intended for the unambiguous cases, but for those where there is a decent history of productive edits with perhaps one spectacular piece of foolishness which is regretted in hindsight. nobs01 (talk · contribs) is an example: I believe he has a sincere desire to contribute to the project (and yes, he could always wait a month), but has discussed the issue in perfectly civil terms on WikiEN-l; it may be that a request to ArbCom would convert the ban to a topical ban or parole. Or I could just be falling prey to Mary Poppinsism again, who knows. Anyway, I thought I'd start a debate because it seems to me that we ought at least to think about it. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any examples offhand, but I thought historically this was handled by unblocking the account and limiting their participation like you suggested. I would think they could easily be blocked again if they didn't keep to the arbitration and advocate pages (or perhaps there talk page also) or if they continued whatever foolishness got them to this point in the first place. Its also possible that some of the folks over at WP:AMA might be willing to devote time to acting as proxy in the case that someone wasn't able to be unblocked for whatever reason. Shell ^babelfish 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding #2, beat to a pulp then beat the pulp. The last thing we need is official sockpuppets (no matter what the stated reason).

I would go with #1 or with #4, they post their arguments on their user talk page and ask another editor to post them here. This would only apply to community bans; arbcom bans must be appealed to arbcom. And regarding nobs specifically, his one year block expires on Christmas Eve eve (or Boxing Day minus 3, depending on your continent), which is way sooner than any arb proceeding is likely to take. Thatcher131 20:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, some requests are turned round pretty quickly. Cases not so, obviously. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is similar to that of Shell. The blocked editor can request arbitration through (ideally) an arbitrator or (if absolutely necessary) through some other trusted proxy individual. They can either request at the same time that they be unblocked for the purposes of participating in the arbitration (usually the Arbs are amenable to considering such requests, and I've seen Arbs make specific conditional unblock recommendations in their case acceptance statements) or request an injunction to that effect as soon as the arbitration case is opened (I've never seen such a request denied without very strong grounds).

In cases where an editor would like to have the length of his ban reduced, I would think that emailing an Arb requesting that a Motion in a Prior Case be filed would be sufficient; there's not necessarily a need for an entirely new Arb case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some banned editors have made it clear that they are not interested in participating in the dispute resolution process in any way except disruption. Others, yes, need ways to appeal, but those can usually be arranged either through their talk page or through e-mail. I do not see this as a major problem. Chick Bowen 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights

This page has (as of right now) the wording:

"In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available)."

Someone pointed out the inconsistency with WP:FUC and recent enforcement efforts, and I figured it was a simple matter of fixing this to refeer to the state of the actual fair use policy itself. But after a couple objections I was reverted because aparently this "unilateral policy change" had not been debated at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights itself. Pointing to miles of debates elsewhere and pointing out that WP:FUC and WP:CSD disagree with the wording on the page had no effect and they insist that this is not sufficient consensus to change such a central policy page and so forth... I was half way though writing a lengtgy sarcastic rant about how silly it is to insist that one our of 3 policy pages remain unchanged and "out of step" with the other two pending further disuccsion, all the while the two oher policy pages are the ones that are beeing actively enforced, but I though better of it and descided it may be more productive to see if anyone else have any ideas on how to resolve this without causing more drama. --Sherool (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone can tell me how these recent enforcements came about, please let me know on my talk page. I don't understand why fair use images used in the proper articles and the correct templates and rationales are suddenly being deleted either. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Stbalbach

User:Stbalbach has threatened to "complain loudly across boards and mailing lists" about my "BS"[24] with regard to Template:Cquote, on which I am purportedly "playing games" and "not operating in good faith", but like "a 2 year old"[25]. I would be happy to reverse these changes to a protected high-use template—which were the result of unanimous agreement on Template talk:Cquote—on reasonable request, but threats do not a reasonable request make, and these threats have not been accompanied by any explanation of why the decision in the discussion on the talk page be wrong. I don't think threats and insults like this are appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for seven days. Appropriate? -- tariqabjotu 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is excessive. The user appears to be a productive contributor, though this sort of behavior may or may not be common in interactions with others and is ironically fitting with respect to the sort of threat. —Centrx→talk • 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright; I've shortened it to fifty hours. Sorry, my judgment on block lengths in not-so-straightforward situations may be imperfect. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Note: I am also in - hopefully polite - disagreement with Centrx about Cquote). While I agree User:Stbalbach has gone a bit overboard, I don't think a block for his behaviour is warranted, especially since he wasn't warned. Besides, I see nothing in WP:BLOCK that allows a user to be blocked for a threat to complain. Note well: complain... not sue, or physically attack. Mikker ^(...) 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agh... I'll leave to you all to decide. You do have a point though, Mikk, but I don't want to tweak the block again. -- tariqabjotu 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are personal attack/assuming bad faith issues separate from any threats about complaining. Regarding complaints, he was threatening to raise all hell upon me over the matter. He had already stated in a previous comment that he would bring the matter up with other administrators if need be; the subsequent comment is above and beyond that, specifically in order to intimidate me into doing what he wanted (restore it or else). I think it is borderline whether this warranted a block, but it is unequivocally wrong behavior. —Centrx→talk • 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Centrx, Stbalbach's behaviour was "unequivocally wrong", but blocking him for it is also unquestionably not in line with policy. WP:BLOCK allows blocks for those who enagage in "personal attacks which place users in danger" or engage in "persistent personal attacks" [emphasis added]. Stbalbach didn't place you in danger, nor did he persist in violating NPA after being warned. Ergo he should be unblocked. Mikker ^(...) 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The blocking policy is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and contains specific examples for that purpose. These are personal attacks and disruption, conduct that is "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia". A block does serve the purpose of preventing such infractions temporarily and discouraging them in the future. The question of whether a block is warranted is whether that same purpose could have been served as well or better by a simple warning. —Centrx→talk • 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; but I still disagree with the block. Anyhow, I've said my piece - it's up to others to decide. Mikker ^(...) 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't behaviour that merits a block. Neither you nor Tariq-7-day-block-abjotu appear to be displaying much sense of proportion. Stbalbach has contributed since 2004 without being blocked, including on controversial articles like Movement to impeach George W. Bush, so snide asides like "though this sort of behavior may or may not be common in interactions with others" are quite unnecessary, and more than likely entirely mistaken. They certainly are in my limited experience of the editor in question. Your own behaviour, making non-trivial edits to a protected template, and then ignoring the complaints from mere editors, is not such as to get any sympathy from me. Edit summaries like "Not appropriate for an encyclopedia as opposed to a children's television program" aren't best designed to avoid conflict either. There's a depressingly familiar air about the whole thing. Certainly no editor would have been blocked had the recipient of the comments complained of not been an admin, of that I am certain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tariq-7-day-block-abjotu hey, hey! not necessary! -- tariqabjotu 01:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I made no snide comments, I made the change after it had been brought up over the course of months by a dozen editors, in which time no one at all objected, and I reverted it back when a second editor requested it without being vicious. It is really quite that simple and requires none of the wild presumptions you are making. —Centrx→talk • 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The one-week block of a prolific editor in good standing was appalling, however. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I get it. -- tariqabjotu 08:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Dermo and User:Dermo69

These two accounts are apparently operated by the same user. Dermo69 edits while the user and talk pages are redirected to Dermo which makes checking contributions more difficult and seems a little out of step with WP:USERNAME. I've noticed several of Dermo69's recent edits that have raised eyebrows, e.g. an undiscussed move of Nirvana (band) and insisting on the inclusion of unsourced material on Scanger. I've dropped him a note about editing under one account, but am not entirely sure of precedent / exact procedure on this. Thoughts? Deizio talk 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, "dermo" means "shit" in Russian. Just in case. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• They appear to be Irish, so the username is probably just an unfortunate mishap. I've seen a lot of trouble on his talk, but I'd wait a few hours to see if he complies before blocking about the double account thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Natalie Merchant again

Well, I will continue to post this here until someone decides to check the page out :-P I just need a quick answer: if the information about the artist's husband name and daughter is public (as in, already published in a reliable site, check here), can the information be reproduced in Wikipedia? As I am involved in the reverting process (I do think it is correct to include such information, as it has no birth date), I can't semi protect the page. And since I just gave him a 3RR warning (which looks pretty much like any of the warnings he has received this month), he cannot be blocked due 3RR (although he reverted the article 9 times in the last two days). Advice? And yes, I have already reported this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, but I don't have any hopes of getting help from there as they are backlogged as no other noticeboard. Tried to get him to discuss, but he apparently is not interested. Reporting this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection would not help because he is not interested in discussing.

Unluckily, with no real solution, I would leave the article war edit for a couple of weeks and then full protect it to force him sit down and discuss. And in case you haven't heard from my previous posts here, the article has been in edit war for 7 months by now under different users, with this ip this month. -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's done on another site doesn't mean it's appropriate. The primary point is: does it serve the article? My belief is that it doesn't. Furthermore, it could encourage stalking - or at least gawking - by people who go to school with the girl, etc. That information may sorta be public now, but not as public as it would be on Wikipedia.

On a side note, Jimbo has some very pointed statements about this on the talk page of the article about him. He makes general statements about this information being actually a form of original research. He's just another editor and his opinion doesn't have any more weight than any other, but I found this statement to be pretty insightful.NinaEliza 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)PS - I'm not an admin, so take my statements with a grain of salt:).NinaEliza 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with including the names. I'd be more careful with information about where they live. I have this information for the person I created an article on, but I am not including it on purpose because it could encourage stalkers and other troublemakers to seek them out. I'm actually surprised my source gave the information. If it's a large city like Kyoto, it's okay. I'd avoid the small villages. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations backlog

Where's Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations is excellent for spotting obvious copyvios, but if anybody can lend a hand, I need some help keeping the backlog cleared up. --Interiot 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Somehow the page went out of my watch list. Giving a hand now. -- ReyBrujo 02:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Username with non-Latin characters

Found this new user ﾗｺﾘﾆﾋﾆﾗﾐ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) watching Naruto-related articles. While the name already is a violation of WP:USERNAME, I've had to revert some vandalism ([26]) and spam ([27], [28]) from this user. Should anything be done with him? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 03:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(S)he should be warned, both about the vandalism and about the username. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm reporting to AIV, seems like she should get immediate block. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked per violation of WP:USERNAME. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

CAT:PER has been backlogged for over 48 hours now, and it has 16 items now (so the number is growing). (UTC) --ais523 11:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ecopave Australia nonsense

There is an editor on several IP addresses blanking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecopave Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 October 16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) of all mention of Ecopave Australia, obviously to whitewash their history of their edits. The relevant discussions are obviously Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled garden / spammers, Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 October 16#Ecopave, and the AFD discussion. I have requested offwiki that Khoikhoi sprotect the pages, but the IPs used should probably be checked for open proxies as these are their only edits.

• 58.166.253.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 138.217.71.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 144.131.164.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 138.217.85.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All protected, all blocked. I don't think they're proxies, however. All the IPs are located in the same city (Melbourne). Khoikhoi 03:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's probably User:Fact Finder, who was blocked a couple of days ago for the above concerns. There's some other links on the user talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And Fact Finder can, to be blunt, fuck off, for the reasons I stated on his Talk page. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the unintended consequences of spamming Wikipedia. Ironically, the sooner it's caught, the better for a spammer's reputation, since Wikipedia's high Google ranking means that spam notices, AFD discussions, and talk page warnings bubble up to the top of Google hits. --Calton | Talk 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Ecopave spammer's actions will have elevated our debates about the Ecopave spamming to the top of the Google results fior Ecopave, GEO320 and mastic roller hybrid? How terrible. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this article in the Wikipedia deleted articles archives and being an investigative journalist and a reporter for a major newspaper, I thought that its only fair to show the other side of this story to this article titled Ecopave Australia nonsense, For what I can gather after reading the Wikipedia guidelines, is that the above administrator Guy may also be taking part in Flaming (internet) against Ecopave. It also appears that this article is in response to the evidence that was presented by a Wikipedia user (Fact Finder) who was later permanently blocked and their user talk pages deleted by Mr Chapman. I have read the Ecopave response and you can read about it here Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard [29] Susanfg 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact Finder has been making semi-literate rants, frivolous legal threats, and personal attacks for a while, and showed no sign of participating in the creation of an encyclopedia. At one point when I was engaging him in discussion, he noticed somewhere in my user page or personal website that I'm a member of Mensa, and started insinuating that I was lying about this. He's also accused an administrator of abuse for having more than one IP address from which he logs in (as most people do, if they participate from both home and work, for instance), and even alleged that Wikipedians were sending computer viruses to his company. He has the preposterous idea that simply mentioning his company/product name, Ecopave, without obfuscating it in SCR1PT K1DDI3 manner, is somehow a trademark violation. *Dan T.* 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Admitted stalking

Following opening an RfC against me, User:A Link to the Past has begun sifting through every edit I make on a daily basis and leaving little notes on my talk page about what I need to stop doing. He's already admitted to it and rebuffed several polite requests to stop, so I'd really like it if someone else would take action here. --InShaneee 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Classic case of ALTTP being a dick, if you ask me. --172.191.198.107 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism going on

There's someone patiently vandalising Anton Chekhov today (and other articles, it looks like). I'm loathe to tackle him myself in case he starts sabotaging my userpages. Would appreciate an intervention, preferably final. Cheers. qp10qp 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Many thanks. qp10qp 17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam socks

There's a list of single purpose accounts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Spam only accounts. The contributions are clearly part of a coordinated spam campaign. Apparently abandoned and no immediate danger, but they might be sleepers. What is the procedure to deal with those? Am I right to assume they may be blocked indefinitely without needing further warnings? (excluding the IPs of course) If so, should I add a (not quite appropriate) {{spam5i}} or would a simple "spam only account" in the block summary suffice? Femto 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Support blocking entire bunch of them as spam-only accounts as soon as each account does the same spam routine. Kimchi.sg 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, cleaned them up. Femto 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

E.Shubee

This user continues to personally attack other editors because he does not agree with them. The warnings have been low key and subtle in hopes to assist him become a better contributor. I really feel this user needs to be heavily scrutinized. He is not contributing but is in fact creating issues on Wikipedia violating disrupting wikipedia to make your point. He currently has been adopted by The Hybrid, but I'm not sure if that is enough. He has been blocked twice for various things. I feel that he needs some stronger guidance in order to help him become a positive contributor to Wikipedia. ----Maniwar (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To point out some other discussions about E.Shubee see here [30] and here [31]. --Maniwar (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to lodge a further complaint as both an observer and recipient of the ongoing and escalating attacks said user has been levelling at any and every editor who comes into conflict with his personal views. His adoptive editor recently un-adpoted him (Dispute page) because of the problems involved in attempting to mediate a matter between the user and a number of other editors, and this has touched off another round of untrue statements and character attacks against other editors in general and myself in particular. This has been a pattern of behavior with not the least sign of slowing; even after multiple warnings, and even several last warnings, no censoring statements have been given the least bit of respect, and I believe that stronger and more long-term measures are necessary for the integrity and peace of this internet community. Zahakiel 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Need review of endless ongoing situation

The failure of an administrator to enforce an arbitration has resulted in a situation where a user keeps making edits, posting POV flags, and engaging in endless circular and idiosyncratic claims regarding the classification of far right groups.

See the recent request for enforcement and the long discussion which went nowhere here

See the requestr for another aDMIN TO REVIEW here

See the post today which is the exact claim that was refuted in arbitration and for which the user was placed on probation here

What is it going to take to enforce this arbitration? This is an enormous waste of editing time and energy.--Cberlet 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From a quick review, it looks to me like Intangible's edits on Far right have become disruptive. He has repeatedly added pov tags, seemingly on the theory that it is in principle impossible for Wikipedia to assemble a list of far-right or far-left groups. Tomorrow I will apply the arbcom remedy and ban him from the page for a week, unless I have misunderstood what is going on. Comments invited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of arbcom decision might be one. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Intangible. Intangible 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, this list was absent from the far right article for almost five months, until User:Cberlet seemingly thought it was necessary to add it again to the article. I removed the sort-like list from far left after discussion on that article's talk page [32][33]. Intangible 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else want to speak up? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have previously commented extensively at Talk:Far right, Talk:Progress Party (Norway) and Arbitration enforcement (the current as well as archived Intangible threads). You are free to consult any of my prior comments. However, since I am wholly inadequate, biased, and uninformed, I've decided to sit this one out. Thatcher131 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think your analysis was well-informed, neutral and, um, adequate. At least adequete; maybe better. But I do think Intangible's work on Far right has become disruptive. His demand for a universally-agreed-upon definition is unreasonable, and his use of pov tags has had the effect of holding the page hostage to an impossible demand. I am banning him from Far right for one week under terms of his probation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Usernames containing non-Latin characters

This user has been told several times to change his username, due to the non-Latin characters that exist in it. However, he has repeatedly refused to do so, noting in September 2006 that "Thank you for your concern, but this is my name and I have no intentions of changing it." About two weeks ago, Mets501 apparently offered up a compromise (which he presumably accepted) whereby the user would register User:Yamaguchi and just redirect that to his page. However, I'm unsure whether that solves the issue; the non-Latin characters still appear in the article histories, among other places. So, is that compromise sufficient, or must Yamaguchi change his/her username? -- tariqabjotu 03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems to only be a redirect, no real user exists by "Yamaguchi". I'd say do a username change to the all-latin one, he can continue to sign with "先生" if he wishes. – Chacor 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered explaining to him that he can edit his "signature" to his hearts content? I bet he's seen it on other people's posts. That might get him to change his name....just a thoughtNinaEliza 03:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that I have had this account many months before any such Euro-centric policy was put in place. If it comes down to these type of threats despite my long service to Wikipedia, I will have no regrets leaving this project. Yamaguchi先生 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have such an aversion to change usernames. You can change it to Yamaguchi, and still maintain your signature. -- tariqabjotu 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good example for why we may need to rethink this policy. JoshuaZ 03:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason a valid and long term contributor to wikipedia should be forced to comply with a policy enacted AFTER he came to wiki ... thats simply unfair.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. There is no reason to force a name change, at minimum this should allowed until after the single login process is complete to see if policy changes at that time. VegaDark 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If people can now register meta-wiki accounts that are valid across all the WP projects and languages, how can en.wikipedia maintain this rule? Anchoress 03:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamaguchi,

I'm a black girl in the ole' US of A, so please believe me when I say I understand the concept of Eurocentric bias. However, I don't think that's the case here. For one thing, no-one can read your non-latin additions - or at least I can't, I just see two little boxes. The second thing is that your signature could be totally non-latin, if you wished it (I've seen that, at least). I don't know what the policy is exactly, but I'm sure the admins could weigh in. Just please consider it - I hope you don't leave Wikipedia over this (or anything else).NinaEliza 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Though the reason for the policy may be technical, the technical limitation itself represents a bias. It's one thing to ask new users to change their username, but longstanding users should not be required to do so. Chick Bowen 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We should probably consider deprecating this portion of policy, as it runs contrary to meta:Single login specifications (SUL) and does not address the grandfathering of accounts registered prior to March 15, 2006 when this policy change was made. [34] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• This section above is the perfect reason why the policy should exist. How the heck are we supposed to differentiate between two people with different Japanese characters? Forgive me (and my English, euro-centered thinking, honestly), but I have no Japanese experience, and honestly, I don't think I should need it, seeing as this is the English Wikipedia. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Right. If we ignore the "bias" here, and the SUL issue, there is good reason for having this rule for the English Wikipedia (and for most Wikipedias). If I'm engaging in discussion with Patstuart, I'll just say his name, or maybe Pat. But with an all-Japanese, all-Korean, all-Arabic, etc. username, that's not so easy. It would be nice if some sort of transliteration could be associated with usernames under SUL to make things easier for those Wikipedias unlikely to have many users with keyboards that can handle non-Latin characters. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There's a really easy and friendly solution to this; instead of asking for roman characters in the user's name and then telling them they can use non-roman in their signatures, why not the other way around? Ask users with non-roman usernames to use roman (or romanesque lol) signatures, for ease of communication with other editors. Anchoress 04:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That's not a bad idea (does SUL have single-signature?). -- tariqabjotu 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Dammit, edit conflicted with Anchoress and he said close to what I was going to say: While I'd prefer the rule for convenience at least in its current form it is going to run afoul of the SUL when that's implemented. I strongly suggest we at least for now drop the policy and discuss a better one. Possibly we can add a policy encouraging such users to have signatures which include a transliteration of their usernames? JoshuaZ 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The idea of using roman-alphabet signatures when an editor has a non-roman-alphabet username works for talk pages and places where people sign their signature. It doesn't work when you are looking at a history page or recent changes, as those pages show the username, not what appears in the signature. Carcharoth 10:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think people will be throwing hints at racism in a few minutes. This bit is about the English Wikipedia and not about any euro-centric biases or anything. I live in India, and I do not have any kind of Hindi/Urdu symbol in my username. Why? I understand it causes difficulties, to users and administrators; and that is the reason why we have the WP:USERNAME policy. We are here to make an encyclopedia, and not to fulfill our fantasies. It is a project where we don't derieve anything but self-satisfaction. Arguing that this policy did not exist when the user joined the project is lame and ludicrous. I honestly don't want this user to go, I think she's a fabulous user; but in no way I will accept this policy and possibly give an upper hand to vandals and problem users who will exploit this loophole to vandalise / troll a minute or more further. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to decide on the SUL issue, this should go to Meta. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend allowing this specific user to keep their name as a "grandfather clause", due their choosing this handle before policy was enacted. That would not allow new users or vandals to make similar names. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the rule could be changed so that usernames require 75% or more latin characters. It would allow Yamaguchi to keep his name, and would allow people to identify users based on the latin characters. VegaDark 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask. Why does anyone care, why are we making an issue out of nothing? Does it really matter that you can't see Yamaguchi's 先生? Sure, some usernames are impossible to get at, and impossibly to refer to, and if the user wasn't an active constructive editor, I wouldn't mind. But when you get absolutely stupid needless blocks such as for User:° based on this stupid application of twatty rules, something is wrong, the pencil pushers have taken over. - hahnchen 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The rationale is given on the WP:USERNAME page. For many people those character don't render (me included) coming out as little boxes or question marks (i.e. each character is indistinguishable), look at an article history and see the list of authors as indistinguishable, not too useful. That is why there is no issue with these in signatures where it is little more than an incovenience if it doesn't render, since you can still see the underlying username by "hovering" over the link. "based on this stupid application of twatty rules" - the kind of quality argument I would hope most people gave up years ago, this is the school playground argument every rule I disagree with it "twatty". We are a project to build an encyclopedia, we put all sorts of practical restrictions in place to meet that goal, this is no different, if you want a place to show off your artistic ability or cleverness in picking a username there are plenty of other sites which exist to let you do that. --pgk 10:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I envisaged that anyone reading my previous statement would have a sense of humour or some sense of imagination. Maybe pedantic would have been a better word, or turning a blind eye a better phrase. But I fail to see how indef-blocking a constructive user such as User:° is of benefit to the encyclopedia. I know we all love bureaucracy and doing things by the book, but some discretion really wouldn't hurt. If your browser cannot display the degree symbol, then something is wrong with your browser. Sure, it might be a little harder to navigate to their user page, but was that even a big problem? - hahnchen 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My sense of humour is fine thanks, though maybe I should get that checked since I can't see anything vaguely humorous in your comment, nor do I see where imagination comes into it. Your point here is far nearer my own view on the subject, apply some common sense if someone has made numerous good edits then jumping in and blocking is foolish as is the start of this "they have been told" (again perhaps to the playground, the prefects have told you...). Hopefully we are all trying to reach the same goal and some reasonable discussion will resolve the position or we have RFCs specifically for username issues. As above I agree with the policy and for the issue it would be better if the software stopped those names being entered or we block them at creation, the reasoning being as above and for the other WP:BEANS reason. --pgk 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Trial in DYK

If any admins have fancied updating the Did you know section of the Main Page but haven't been able to find the full 30+ mins to go through the entire procedure, a trial is currently being carried out to make the job of updating a bit easier. Rather than browsing through the list of suggestions and evaluating each one individually, the template is now being prepared beforehand at Template:Did you know/Next update. Just paste the new template over the last when updating is required, make sure the image is protected, and add the talk page notices. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If this system is implemented, there should be strict control over T:TDYK. There is a lot of trash here which the updaters decide not to promote in each individual case. Grammatical mistakes, typos and "4th century" should be rooted out. It would be embarrassing to see them on Main Page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what's the problem with "4th century"? I know it's tied to one culture's dating system, but what's a better alternative? Or is your point that it should be "Fourth Century"? Newyorkbrad 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that for the moment, the "next update" template isn't protected. Part of the idea was that anyone can fix errors on it before the entries hit the Main Page. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Still, a pretty good idea. Picking the items before hand cuts down a lot on the time you spend updating. In fact I was wondering about such a system myself. -- 131.211.210.16 12:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfair and biased deletion notice

Main page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia

Gang, I seriously am sorry for putting this on the noticeboard, but I did not see any other place for it. I really have to say that this deletion notice is turning into what appears to be a heavily biased, unfair group of people who want this article deleted simply becuase they dont like it. The entire nomination was started by someone who was upset that Warrant Officer (Star Trek) had been undeleted and stated that "this had prompted him" to nominte the "parent article" for deletion [35]. The nominator and voters to date are saying "its original research", "its not sourced", "it doesnt belong on Wikipedia". The article could use a cleanup, BUT- it is extremely well referenced and has been written and worked on for over a year. It contains very valid sources and references to live action productions and other estalished, referenced material. I simply do not understand why this many people would come out of the woodwork this quickly (I count at least 7 or 8 in the past hour) to try thier damnest to delete this article. SO- what am I asking? If it is possible- lets put a stop to this VfD. The comments on the page are biased and unfair and are dismissing the work and research into this article. I would say, what for deletion review, bu the same people will visit that page and express thier views there as well. This is a well referenced article that doesnt deserve to simply be wiped off Wikipedia. Someone put a stop to this, before its too late. Thank you. -Husnock 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I see the problem. This appears to be a debate about the reliability of the sources. At first glance I can't see anything wrong with them, so if I remember I'll take a further look (MacGyverMagic - too lazy to login) = 131.211.210.16 12:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I would delete this post if I weren't the AFD nominator Husnock is complaining about, as AN is really, really not the place for such a discussion. There is an AFD on the article, and discussions should take place there. Please don't spam other boards because you dislike the way an AFD seems to be going. Proto::type 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • EC, agree with Proto. Settle it at AfD. Deizio talk 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with spamming boards. I looked for an appropriate board to post this at but couldn't find one. Where does one go when there appears to be an unfair VfD in progress? And this does seems to be an unfair VfD based on conflicting motivations, especially with the admission that the undeletion of the Warrant Officer rank article is the primary reason that its parent article was nominated for deletion. I am asking admins look into this, since te group voting appears to be completely dismissing the sources of the article and I'm trying to stop the deletion of a heavily researched and well referenced article. -Husnock 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So everyone except you is wrong and has a hidden, possibly evil, agenda?  :) In all seriousness, the AFD (nb, not VFD) really is the place for these discussions. If the closing administrator believes any nominations or AFD contributions are in bad faith, or biased, they can - and do - discount those peoples' arguments. The process to discuss an AFD if you believe there were procedural errors after it has run its course is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Proto::type 13:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm wrong alot too. I'm just saying there should be some path for those who feel an article has been unfairly nominated. I mean, when you get right down it, whats to stop a group of college kids in a dorm deleting half the articles on Wikipedia as a prank one Saturday night? I recall Jesus Christ was almost nominated for deletion once. This article will probably be killed, sadly, but it deserves better. I am going to try and rebuild it into a much better article. A cleanup notice would have been nicer that a deletion tag, especially with the work that has gone into this article. -Husnock 13:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

whats to stop a group of college kids in a dorm deleting half the articles on Wikipedia as a prank one Saturday night? Well, for one thing, AfDs run for 5 days. For another, AfDs are NOT decided by majority vote. For a third, if there is evidence of mass collusion that involves vandalism (as is certainly the case were a BUNCH of good articles to be proposed for deletion by a GROUP of novice editors), then administrators would certainly step in, and this might be a good place - hypothetically - to bring such a situation to administrator attention.

More constructively: it's perfectly okay to improve an article in the middle of an AfD, even if it's just putting up a few more links, and to mention that in the AfD process.

The system for deleting articles isn't perfect, but it's absolutely necessary, and it generally works well - and that system includes deletion review, as noted above, so an incorrect AfD decision can be reversed. And as you note, the article can always be revised/rewritten to a better version and reposted; but do make sure it's REALLY much better before it goes back up. John Broughton | Talk 13:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For one, a checkuser could step in and range-block the dorm. It wouldn't be the first time either. Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, by posting here an in the tone that you have, Husnock, you basically are claiming that the nominator and anyone voting delete on the article is acting in bad faith. You claim the AfD is "unfair". And how, exactly, did you determine that? If an article is nominated for AfD, then it should be judged on the merits of the article. If the article can be cleaned up, it's contengent upon those who wish to keep it to clean it up, source it, etc. If the consensus is to delete, then it's deleted, otherwise it's kept. If there are 500 baseless delete votes based on "Ihateit" and 2 keep votes with solid policy backing them, the article should be kept. By bringing this to AN you are suggesting that this article (and by extension anything you feel should not be deleted) should be exempted from the normal way of handling business on WP. Contemptible. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My main intent here was to discover what one could do while the vote is going on to stop an unfair AfD. My judgement of unfair was that the article was totally sourced with references and was marked for deletion by others anyway. I even posted to the talk page of the AfD page so those voting could come here and respond to this to be fair to them. I have my answer now, though, and its sad. The article will die but I will try and rebuilt it later. -Husnock 14:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G4 - if you choose to do so, you will need to ensure that it is not substantially similar to the deleted content. Proto::type 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a good idea of how to proceed. And how do I get my own Attack page! Can I sick it on vandals? -Husnock 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Elara hit the nail on the head- "contemptible." Husnock, if your RfA was right now instead of many months ago, I would have written something along the lines of "strongest possible oppose." This AfD- like 99.9% of AfDs- has nothing to do with "fairness". There's no vast conspiracy, there are no editors going behind your back to get rid of your work, and you should be ashamed for 1) claiming ownership of an article and 2) claiming other editors are acting in bad faith without any support for that claim (besides disagreeing with them). -- Kicking222 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know anything about an RfA coming up, mine was over a year ago, and I never claimed ownership of the article. I was just fighting to defend it and, as explained many times, I posted here becuase I didn't know where else to go and was wondering what recourse one had if an article was unfairly nominated for deletion. I also never abused my admin powers and didnt block voters and won't recreate the article. I did put some of it on my user page to save the images and will try and rebuild it into a better article. I am ashamed of nothing, not my contributions to Wikipedia nor my life in the real world. -Husnock 15:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The images will not be fair use on a subpage your user space. As an administrator, again, you should know this. And the pedant in me has to point out your RFA was in January, not over a year ago. Proto::type 15:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not displaying any of those images on my user page, since I am very aware of the regs about that (had another huge disute about that one, but thank goodness it has quieted down). And, okay, it was 11 months ago, excuse my bad math and poor memory, I thought it was longer. -Husnock 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, sorry - was about to amend my comment as I did notice you had just inlined the images, which is okay, I believe. Although there are users with a better crasp of fair use than I who can say whether or not it's ok to keep the images stored in a big gallery if the article they are hosted on were deleted. Proto::type 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, I suspect by now that you realise you have made a bit of a fool of yourself. That's no big deal, I don't think I've done that for - oh, at least several hours. I suspect, too, that you now see that your action was quite likely counter-productive, since a number of us who went to the AfD from here have read the article and find it - problematic, to say the least. Fancruft is another term which, I think, expresses precisely how a number of us feel about conjectural articles on minor facets of fictional subjects which are essentially undocumented outside of the fan community. I thought there was a Star Trek wiki somewhere for this kind of stuff? It certainly does not fit within our policies, and the purported basis for bringing it here is, to my reading, misguided at best. Not that I blame you for working to keep an article you've put effort into, but you really should be more willing to accept the actions of others at face value rather than trying to read something into it, and comparing this article to Jesus Christ, as you appear to do in the AfD, is absurd to say the least. I'm sorry this thread got resurrected, I deleted it because I thought it was going to end up with you digging your own hole deeper, and I believe that is exactly what happened. Not an edifying debate. And now, friends, I suggest we walk away and leave our comrade to ponder the law of unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No I dont think I made a fool of myself. I defended an article to the best of my ability and will write a better one that will be able to withstand a VfD. As for the Jesus Christ reference, I never compared my article to Christ, I said that there had once been a nomination for deletion on Jesus Christ and I was asking what course was there to have the validity of an AfD reviewed while the vote was still going on. I stand by every action and defend every word. -Husnock 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Betacommand just closed the AfD as a bad faith nom. This seems incorrect and uneccessarily out of process. JoshuaZ 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I'm sad but it does seem strange. I thought for sure the article was a goner and had made plans for a complete re-write. -Husnock 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the early closure was a bizarrely bad idea. A few people mentioned this to Betacommand but he seems to be sticking to his guns. Friday (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And now an edit war has broken out over the closure. I wasn't going to vote, but I agree with Joshua and Friday that the early closure seems out of process and bizarrre. AnnH ♫ 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop closing this discussion early. The guidelines for early discussion closure can be found at Wikipedia:Speedy keep, none of which apply to the discussion. There is clearly an on-going discussion that will require more than a mere 4 hours to achieve consensus and to cover the points raised. AFD has minimum 5 day discussion period for a reason, and the presumption of a "keep" result by Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Bastique (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after 4 hours is just as bad as the presumption by Husnock (talk · contribs) of a "delete" result after 2 hours. Please follow the guidelines and let the discussion proceed normally. All of the discussion about the closure is taking the debate away from what it should be about: the article, its sources, and how our policies apply. Uncle G 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I concur: this is not a speedy keep (and I'm not sure that anything needs to be a speedy keep in the first place). If a bad faith nomination were to occur, it would mean that a person did not believe that an article violated the deletion guidelines but nominated anyway, simply to harm another user. If that were to occur, the "voters" wouldn't go along with it. Removing nominations is shady business. By the way, the Star Trek wiki or site is Memory Alpha, isn't it? Geogre 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• They would if the users dislike material of a certain fictional universe. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Do you really think that the voters, and enough of them to get preponderance, would act so reflexively? Even if they did, the closer should be reading the arguments rather than the votes, and if people only "vote" with "Star Trek? Pbbbt! B5 rules," then it will be a clear keep. It didn't look like that was the case, here. Geogre 11:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Proxy vandals?

Wikibooks has had troubles in the last few days with multi-IP vandalism attacks which include full or partial page blanking and nonsense insertion. Wikipedia has at least one of these listed as anon proxy (see User_talk:213.81.187.141). Could someone fill me in on how this was discovered? If that's the case, then we (wikibooks admins) have a good record of a large number of IPs exhibiting this behavior.

Adding/clarifying: we don't have a big vandalism problem like wikipedia does, so things like this stick out a little more. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you are running a proxy scanner, which is the best way, one of the quickest ways to determine if it is an open proxy is to google the IP. If it shows up on lists of proxies and blacklists, and also if the same vandalism comes from IPs which are widely separated geographically (e.g. one is in Brazil, the next in Thailand, ...) then that's a pretty good duck test for a proxy. Antandrus (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. Would y'all like to be notified when we find them? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that wouldn't hurt. You might also check out Wikipedia:No_open_proxies and the Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies. Good luck! Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL... we check it all the time, and are quite grateful that you guys do all that good work for us :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Roller Coaster Legalities

It has come to my attention that on several wiki pages having to do with roller coasters and amusement rides there are links to websites with Point of View footage of aforementioned rides. The POV videos are EXTREMELY illegal and putting them on this site only endorses breaking state and federal laws. In some cases, such as disney rides and attractions, the information on the videos are coprighted. I am wondering what can be done about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homsar727 (talk • contribs)

Links to sites which violate copyright are forbidden, and should be removed when found. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, could someone explain why these videos would be illegal? I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I expect that Disney et al will claim that photographing inside their indoor rides (Pirates of the Caribbean etc.) violates their copyright on the artistic depictions inside. This may be true, but then (particularly for an encyclopedia article about that ride) there's a moderate fair-use claim to be made. Even for rollercoasters there's (in theory) an issue, as Freedom of panorama probably doesn't apply, as the photos are taken from inside the park and inside the rollercoaster car (private property both). At least for rollercoasters this seems like copyright paranoia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The fair use claim isn't relevant since these are outside sites. Maybe someone should go bug Brad. JoshuaZ 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that this is one of those weird areas in US law, where even though taking the photos might be a crime in some jurisdictions (e.g. trespass) if they have signs and the like saying no photography, that nonetheless distributing photos that you took is not generally a crime (absent some more specific copyright or false light issue). However, I'm not entirely sure about that. I know there are detailed discussions of this online. Dragons flight 20:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't use a picture of a person without a model release, except in some situations (usually "editorial use", which probably doesn't apply to an encyclopedia). Ditto for physical stuff like an amusement ride or a museum: one needs to obtain a property release in these cases. See http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/ and others. If the source of an image can't produce a necessary release, then even if the copyright is solid, the image should be nixed. Whether or not linking to such images is in itself a bad thing is unknown to me. Vicarious liability? mdf 00:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A) In the US, model releases are generally not needed in noncommercial contexts (i.e. Wikipedia). B) As your own reference acknowledges, there has never been a case where the failure to have a property release resulted in any legal liability. They are a feel good measure to insure against the possible but uncertain risk that such liability could exist. C) Any releases would be the responsibility of the photographer. I don't see it as realistic for Wikipedia to ask every site we link to for documented release forms (that may not even be necessary) before choosing to link to that site. Contributory infringment in copyright law only attaches if we know (or a reasonable person should have known) that the linked to material was a violation. There may be some gray here, but I note that major sites devoted to rollercoasters include these sorts of user submitted videos, and absent some more definitive resolution I would assume it is okay for us to link to them as well. Dragons flight 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Model releases are not required for editorial use -- last I checked, most newspapers, magazines, etc, are intensely commercial enterprises, and regularly use non-released images of people and things under this rubric. Would Wikipedia qualify? Maybe, maybe not: I have no idea. And if Wikipedia is willing to entertain the risk of using an image without a "property release" in hand, what can I say? It's your risk, not mine. And finally, while the responsibility of collecting the releases is on the photographer, virtually all users of images today demand these releases from the photographer because they know there can be no valid license to use the image without a valid release. Whether or not it is "realistic" for Wikipedia to do this is completely beside the point: this is how the Real World works at this time. Looking at all of this, I'd focus more on the editorial use stuff. Is an encyclopedia similar enough to (say) a newspaper? Does Britannica obtain releases for identifiable people/property in images they use? mdf 13:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I said what I meant: non-commercial use. Model releases are not usually needed in either non-commercial or editoral uses. And keep in mind, we are talking about links to other sites, not images on our site. Dragons flight 04:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How it is a trespass? You paid the admissiont icket and there isn't a "no trespassing" sign or anything like that: they want you there. Hbdragon88 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how the law is written. In some jurisdictions it is trespass (or some similar crime) to do things while on private property which you were explicitly told you couldn't do while there. Dragons flight 04:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that it is possible that someone could claim that a photograph, or video, of an amusement park ride is a derivative work, and maybe someone already has, but, frankly, I think this outside the scope of our unwillingness to promote sites that infringe on copyright (and, incidentally, our ability to reasonably police). We also don't need to worry about property releases, which are the responsibility of the photographer to acquire, usually as a defence against some future claim of wrongdoing on their part in order to have gotten the shot. As Zoe said, if you find some site that is infringing on copyright, remove the link, but it isn't obvious what is special about amusement park rides or how what the original poster appears to be discussing is "extremely illegal". Jkelly 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights aside for a second, I'm interested in what the poster means by POV footage. Could you clarify what's POV about it? --tjstrf talk 00:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh I am guessing you have the wrong meaning of POV. It doesn't mean biased, it means actually from the point of view of someone on the roller coaster, like a first-person shooter (FPS) is from the point of view of the shooter. If that makes any sense. --W.marsh 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

He used the abbreviation POV, I would assume that referred to the Wikipedia policy or at least points of view in the philosophical rather than physical sense. Using the abbreviation POV to mean physical point of reference is rather non-standard and ambiguous to say the least. --tjstrf talk 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, this is you being parochial: our usage of POV is the non-standard usage, which is why—if you hadn't noticed—we have to explain it to visitors here. Also, if you had actually read the original comment, it's reasonably clear that "POV" was being used to abbreviate "Point of View" to avoid spelling it out in full each time. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the normal term be first person if he meant that? Well, I guess we won't know unless he tells us. --tjstrf talk 08:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It is clear from the context (at least for those of us who have taken media studies classes) what POV means here. Catchpole 08:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

He's a newbie. I'm pretty sure he does mean it in the real world, first person perspective sense. Dragons flight 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that "POV footage" means videos taken while on the ride, showing the riders' point of view. The danger of a heavy camera flying off into an amusement park would explain why such videotaping would be prohibited. -Will Beback · † · 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

UBX help

I'd like to ask an admin to go the undelete page for User:Llama man/Userboxes/HTML-2, and copy its content to Template:User html-2. I moved the HTML userboxes back to template form from my userspace, but I forgot to do so for html-2. I then put a speedy deletion tag on the page in my userspace, forgetting that I forgot to copy and paste the content to the template. —The Great Llama^moo? 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —The Great Llama^moo? 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism

The IP address 12.26.6.2 has been used repeated by vandals over a long period. Temporary blocks have not solved the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.142.56 (talk • contribs)

Please use WP:AIV for vandalism reports - they're often faster to respond than when posting here. In this case, the IP has already been blocked; it's a school IP, however. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Weatherman5000

User:Weatherman5000 who was blocked for 3 months (to see previous discussion go here) is now editing as an IP on his userpage re-inserting the content. Can we please revert to the previous version and block the page from editing by IP users, if not a full protection? -- UKPhoenix79 00:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Chick Bowen 02:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason prevails at last. Durova^Charge! 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

New block reason template: {{schoolblock}}

Hi everyone, we now have a new template for "anonymous only" blocks on School IP addresses. Feel free to improve on it. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To edit, please create an account at home and log in with it here.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

10:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
MalnadachBot (talk · contribs)

---

Due to persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address is blocked (disabled). You will continue to have access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address might also be disabled.

If account creation is disabled and you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. If editing is required for class projects, please have your instructor or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at the Unblock Ticket Request System with a contact email address that is listed on your school's website. Thank you for your cooperation.

Wow! That's really cool! I wish we had one of those before. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, can you please add it to WP:TM, I use that all the time and would find it usefull to have it there. Viridae^Talk 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ew, I like it. It's attractive, polite, informative, concise and useful—everything a template should be. Nice job. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks Netsnipe! Very clean, friendly, and to the point. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Great work. I think softblocks are a good solution, and hopefully this template will make their use more popular (hint). yandman 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Will this mean more anon-only blocking of school IP ranges? If so, I declare this a Good Thing. Proto::type 09:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See WT:AIV#Vandalism_from_School_IPs - I think this is fantastic. Thank you. --Dweller 09:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very nice. It manages to be polite and informative, and the youngsters shouldn't be offended by it. Well done. Geogre 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yup, quality job. And if WP:RFCU ever identifies the teenaged chat-girls' school I'll be doing the needful myself :-) Guy (Help!) 13:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said above. This is an excellent template. It encourages positive contributions to WP, does not BITE, and says everything it needs to say in a very clear and concise fashion. Well done. -- Kicking222 23:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure you don't go adding it to a boarding school's IP(s), or the instructions will be about useless ;D! 68.39.174.238 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

As a new admin I have a couple of technical questions. They may be covered elsewhere - if so, tell me where and I'll read that.

1. Can we view deleted images - I was looking at DRV and there are a couple of images there that have been deleted (they may of course have been uploaded before the time images could be restored) and when I clicked on the image link it took me to the upload page.
   • Yes, but only directly. They won't show up say when viewing the page they were deleted from. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
2. How can we view deleted pages or previous incarnations of pages when something new has gone over the top? Ie it has been salted or similar. Viridae^Talk 10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Use Special:Log. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just answered the first question myself. Still trying to work out the second. Viridae^Talk 10:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And the second. Thanks for your time everyone :P Viridae^Talk 10:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice you had already figured them out. I answered because I had to figure out both those things as well recently.  ;-) —Doug Bell ^talk 11:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply though :) Viridae^Talk 11:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Glad to hear you both figured it out :) in the spirit of helping future admins, would you consider adding a line or two to the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list or Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide to clarify the things you found unclear? (Radiant) 12:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion, will do. Viridae^Talk 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV/CAT:CSD

Someone care to take a look at these - i'm going to bed. Viridae^Talk 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody like to merge some history from a c/p move?

While reverting some page move vandalism [36], I took a look at the user's contributions and noticed that he/she apparantly moved Tekken (Video game) to Tekken 1, then copied/pasted the content of Tekken 1 onto Tekken (Video game) and changed Tekken 1 into a redirect. Tekken (Video game) now has the content, but Tekken 1 has the history. BigDT 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Any particular reason this wasn't at Tekken (video game) (note capitalization)? If not, I'll move it once things get resorted. -- nae'blis 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast work. I don't see any reason for the capitalization either. Looking at the infobox, I think Tekken 1 could make sense, but I guess the game was just called Tekken since nobody knew at the time that there would be a second one. So really, either Tekken (video game) or Tekken 1 is fine as far as I can see. There's a Tekken 2, Tekken 3, etc. I have no real preference in the matter, though - I only noticed it because I looked at the user's contribution when reverting unrelated page move vandalism. BigDT 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to the parenthetical form since there's no "1" on the first game's cover, but that's up to editorial decision, not me (I was just being bold in getting rid of the miscap). Also fixed Tekken (Series). -- nae'blis 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tud123 just came back and redid a bunch of his edits (though not the page moves, at least not yet). I have to leave and brave the drive home, can someone explain to him/her why this is a bad idea? -- nae'blis 00:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by another user.

User:Dionyseus has been posting "sockpuppetproven" templates on my user page all day, and although one check came back as conclusive and I was blocked for 3 days for edit wars, a second check (also requested by Dionyseus) was inconclusive. I am not a sockpuppet, but I have a different opinion over one article, and Dionyseus has reverted every single thing I ever wrote, along with his good buddy, User:Skinny_McGee a proven sockpuppet who has 3 additional names. I feel I am being singled out by Dionyseus because he just doesn't like that I am trying to write a factual article about a band, and he and Skinny McGee happen to hate one of the members. The template he keeps putting on my page says "Libel." I think that's a really harsh thing for a stupid edit war. Can you please get Dionyseus off my back. And also, you should block Skinny McGee for being a sockpuppet. I got blocked and he did not because Dionyseus made reverts for him and then claimed that Skinny did nothing wrong. Also, Skinny is strongly believed to be, Edward Douglas, a subject of the article itself, and every single edit he's made to date is a HUGE self-promo. Also, I have never made any vandalization or misuse, and that template is for abusive socks. My only fault is edit wars and I am trying to compromise with the other people but they make zero attempts to meet me halfway. Thanks for looking into it. GuardianZ 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all the second check was a check to see if User:Peacekpr was your sockpuppet, the result of that check was inconclusive. [37] Second, the sockpuppeteerproven tag must remain because you used your sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1 to disrupt Wikipedia. Third, User:Skinny_Mcgee's sockpuppet User:Defender99 only made one edit, and the user explained that it is her husband. Dionyseus 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that GuardianZ intends to stick around and be a useful contributor, there is no need to make him wear a Scarlet letter for some indefinite period. The checkuser request is on file and comments are in the history of his talk page. That's enough, unless he becomes a persistent long term source of trouble. Of course, we wish him well and hope he becomes a productive and useful editor, right? Thatcher131 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the tag was required for those who have used sockpuppets for disrupting Wikipedia. If I understand you correctly, you are saying this is not so. And yes, of course I would love for User:GuardianZ to become a productive and useful Wikipedia editor. Dionyseus 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag is available but you don't have to use it, and placing an embarrassing sign on someone's user page will conflict with the goal of retaining a (hopefully) good editor. As long as he is willing to make an effort to be part of the group, we can politely ignore a little past indiscretion. Thatcher131 02:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Dionyseus 03:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully Simple Request

Could an administrator please check the AutoWikiBrowser page Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser regarding the requests there that need an administrator to approve. Thanks :)!! SkierRMH 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon and new editor issue on Dell Schanze

Could I ask someone to take a look at this article and consider the repeated changes that have been made to it in the last day or so? Someone has been pasting a massive, unencyclopedic and unsourced chunk of text in over the sourced article; I bagged it on RC patrol last night a couple of times and left a message for the anon, and other editors have been reverting it as well, but a new user has started on it now, and I'm at three reverts and don't want to break it. The anon and the new user appear to be working on trying to provide a glowing view of the subject with their changes, including changing the labeling of the image in the article, from a look at the user's contribs. Much appreciate the assistance. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected; the new editor worked on the article a week ago as well, making changes to remove discussion of controversy regarding the subject before being reverted. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted and sprotected it. Viridae^Talk 03:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

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

Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 03:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to root out sleeper socks?

This is probably a dumb question but is there a way to root out sleeper socks? Someone is obsessed with the Jim Clark article. (Apparently someone named Pflanzgarten). I got involved when I undid full protection but the repeated IP vandalism was so frequent that I sprotected. Now he's just using sleeper socks to continue. Is there a way to root out the rest of the sleeper socks before we have to go back into full protection? Maybe WP:RFCU folks can determine which accounts were created by the IPs that are attacking the article? Or is it too fruitless since the IPs are so dynamic anyway? —Wknight94 (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we may be able to find them with checkuser. File a request at RFCU and we'll take a look. Essjay (Talk) 08:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from a newbie admin

(Hi everyone, by the way!) The user NoCarrier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently in the 1-month phase of an increasing series of blocks, but keeps disrupting his talk page (removing warnings, adding spurious RfUs complete with forged endorsements of an administrator, etc.) even after a final warning by me not to do so. My questions are:

• How do I extend his block to the talk page? Do I protect it or is there another way? WP:BP doesn't tell.
• Would a temporary or indefinite extension of the block be appropriate here?

Thanks, Sandstein 06:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If he's been warned and banned several times, and has shown no interest in improving the encyclopedia, its time to kill the account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... I'll leave the account-killing to someone else, if one feels that's necessary. I just protected the page and added {{usertalk-vprotect}} to the top of it. The person should hopefully be calmed by the conclusion of the month-long block. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. In other cases it would be appropriate to protect his talk page, providing he has had good time to lodge an unblock request. Once that is denied, then there is no reason why it shouldnt be protected. for the duration of the block when they are causing so much disruption (in my opinion anyway). Viridae^Talk 06:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Sandstein 06:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have the textbook example of a single purpose account. He has made no other edits other to add the Yahoo! link to female ejaculation, and has been warned repeatedly.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Vulgarity/bad language at beginning of "African American" article

The first sentence of the Wikipedia entry for African American is as follows (derogatory n-word censored): "Gogo Dodo is a stupid n*****. is a member of an ethnic group in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American (12/02/2006, apprx. 7:23 AM GMT)

Not only is this a terrible word to use and a terrible word to use given the subject, it appears to be a personal attack and should be fixed/edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.90.40.54 (talk • contribs).

Not sure when you saw this but there was a spate of vandalism earlier on that article. As it stands currently there's no further problem. (→Netscott) 07:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As we often say, vandalism like that doesn't last long. A minute at most. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)