Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive121

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Odd block problem 2 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 3 A question about bibliographical data 4 David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) 5 W00t 6 Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage 7 Page needs fixed 8 Rollback on Protected Pages 9 User:Kenny2k 10 Rollbackery 11 Clarification - Twinkle 12 Girard, Kansas 13 Boggle 14 User:John Reaves' comments on my talk page 15 Admins willing to grant rollback 16 Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Artisol2345 17 AfD open 20 minutes, closed by nonadmin 18 Slander Question 19 Edit war between several users and Rothchild 19.1 Rothchild blocked 20 Removal of auto-generated deletion summaries 21 Mentor needed for resocialising problem user 22 Wikipedia:Requests for rollback 22.1 Arbcom 22.2 I have four words for you 22.3 Wikipedia:Rollback policy 22.4 An interesting fact 22.5 Who should create the policy? 22.6 This is silly 22.7 On administrators 22.8 Bureaucrats should judge consensus 22.9 Arbitration 22.10 Vote 22.11 Foundation, decision and tea cup 22.12 Response to Anthere 23 User:Dethzone 24 Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Vote 25 Conflict of interest from 202.49.173.99 26 Re-adding RfR to watchlists 27 SSP Backlog 28 Bot out of control? 29 New CSD criterion 30 Did you know... that T:DYK is an hour late? 31 Proposal to make uploads autoconfirmed 32 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 33 AfD formatting 34 User:Dethzone again 35 Progressive Field 36 Irresponsible and rash admin - immature? childish? 37 Edit protected 38 Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages 38.1 Proposal(s) 39 ΚέκρωΨ Need to be Banned! 39.1 Possibility of Sanctions 40 Any trademark experts? 41 User:NERIC-Security 42 mirror site with dyslexia?! 43 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recombinant text 44 Disputed the balance in articles Albania , Greece ,Epirus ,Pelasgians, Illyrinas,Macedonians 45 Multiple issues 46 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2 47 Request from Jimbo to monitor page from User_talk:Jimbo Wales 48 Jew york 49 Zeraeph 50 Image on Adolf Eichmann 51 Bunch of CSDs needing more experienced admin 52 Independent admin please Image:1982-sapporo-turbo.jpg & Image:1976_Sapporo_2000_GSR.jpg 53 User:Cculber007 54 A small backlog at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion 55 Sockpuppet IP 56 Possible edit war/content dispute over Panimalar Engineering College 57 User requests second block review 58 User:Joeydq 59 Block of Jehochman by Archtransit 60 norco 61 Daniel's comments about me 62 Brine shrimp( 63 Plantgrowreap 64 Anyone watching Category:Requests_to_undelete_images?

[edit] Odd block problem

seems to be cleared. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please could someone help User:Nick mallory? He is having block problems based on the use of a web accelerator - which he has disabled, but he is still having problems. He is a good contributor, but is (I think understandably) getting rather upset by it. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan and to all those who helped out. Nick mallory (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Can someone please check this page?? There are pages going unprotected and it's taking up a lot of my time. Thanks. Somno (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

It's back under control now; recommend tagging it with {{adminbacklog}} in the future. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question about bibliographical data

I am sorry to disturb you with my question, but, after a mini edit-war, as a last solution I decided to ask your experienced opinion. In the New World Translation article it is stated:

Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.[ref]University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.[ref]

I repeatedly asked bibliographical data for this file, and I was answered that the reference itself (as you see it above) is adequate bibliographical data. Is it really? Can this reference stand alone as bibliographical data?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Best regards,

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did. Thank you.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

How do I send this protected article to afd please? Grounds: nn, v, rs, blp. Also listed at Requests for arbitration - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the AfD template to David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). You can go ahead and complete the AfD nomination now as it's only the main article that's protected. For future reference, Wikipedia:Protected edit requests explains the normal process to use. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have I completed it correctly? CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] W00t

I have previously made a request for administrator attention at ANI about this article, which is almost entirely original research and has failed an AfD in this form. I had originally placed a wiktionary redirect template per the results of that AfD, but those edits were reverted to the original article without explanation. I then tried to remove the original research from this article, but those edits were reverted for "near blanking" of the page. I would request that an administrator reinstate the wiktionary redirect and permenantly protect this page to prevent the reinsertion of this material. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected to the original location agreed at the AFD and recorded the fact that a redirect was agreed ar DRV. I have invited combatants who wish to restore the article to create a draft with sources in user space and submit this to DRV for approval. I also protected the redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I get you to restore it to the appropriate Wiktionary soft redirect instead? The redirect currently points to a Wiktionary soft redirect, and all the multitude of internet slang pages that were redirected to that list have since been converted to soft redirects. As it currently stands, it is effectively a double redirect. An example of the soft redirect page can be found at this edit from back in November of the same article. (I could do it myself, but don't want to step on your toes) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

There are requests to be added to the list of users that are more than 24 hours old on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, and the page stated that in these circumstances, a polite message here would be a good thing, resulting in a cheery admin's arrival to sort it all out. So, dear friends, here is such a message!  DDStretch  (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page needs fixed

Template-Publishing-Bios was moved and is in the mainspace. β^_command 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback on Protected Pages

I am not a sysop. I have been granted rollback. On protected pages, if I go into the history, the last edit has the rollback button next to it. I am not going to press it to find out what it does, however I see no reason to believe that it would not roll back the edit. As the page is fully protected, and I am not a sysop, that would be bad. If anyone wants to see for sure, I created a page User:CastAStone/rollbacktest that you could edit and then protect, I will attempt to roll it back. If it rolls back, we need to conteact the devs.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Try it now. I added an "edit" so you would have something to roll back. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Unauthorized:This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators." Perfect. Thanks! Wanna delete the page now?--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but do have rollback, and I get a "only admins can edit" message. We're safe on this one. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Deleted at CastAStone's request. (By the way, I think that's the first time in four years I've ever vandalized a page. LOL.) Antandrus (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I think that's the first time I've abused a function in three years ;). WP:IAR: For the greater good. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kenny2k

I was wondering if this userpage here might be considered somewhat distracting to Wikipedia. Apparently, this user has made very little contribution and has focused his work on making a resource for information on the upcoming Super smash bros. brawl video game. I would like to bring this to your attention to see if it violates our policies on social networking. Thanks. Marlith ^T/C 05:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Definitely a person freeloading off of Myspace. Was the user warned? I'm nominating the page for deletion. —BoL 05:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, here it is. —BoL 05:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He was warned. But he ignored the warning. Marlith ^T/C 05:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he's not online right now. He may be online at midnight judging by his contribs. (0700 UTC) —BoL 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's his view on the page [1] --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 06:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to delete my user page. I apologize if I have caused any problems. It was originally created to stop certain debates about the Super Smash Bros. Brawl page, but it got a little carried away. Once again, I apologize.--Kenny2k (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's OK. You don't have to worry. There's a debate if you're interested. No worries. —BoL 06:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpage deleted per request. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollbackery

Hi. I woke up this morning to discover that I had somehow acquired a new user right overnight. Now I'm not complaining, but if this is to be of any use to me I'll need to integrate it with my existing RC patrol software. This would take several hours, and I'm quite busy at the moment. And apparently people are having a bit of drama because there was no consensus to implement the proposal.

Is anyone here confident that this feature will still be around in a few days' time, or is it more likely that I'll wake up some time next week and discover I've lost a user right overnight? I ask only because I don't want to waste time implementing something that will be of no use. Thanks – Gurch 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of furor, I would suggest waiting. Viridae^Talk 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of rollbackers already in existance, it will be hard to take it back from all of them. NoSeptember 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well not really; a single site configuration change to make the "rollbacker" group do nothing would accomplish it. I've had myself removed from this group since (a) whoever gave it me didn't go through the proper process and (b) it's of no use to me unless I integrate it with my software – Gurch 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I getting this right. Already improper granting of this right is happening? --Bduke (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Just like when Ryulong was made admin and blocked a Tor proxy and everyone was jumping at him for using his new abilities while "consensus was dubious", people will do the same here. I suggest waiting a bit, in a week or so, after a few people leaving and returning, everything will be back to normal. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "improper" is not valid here - there is no widely approved policy in existence that would govern this process, and against which you could measure appropriateness of granting. Миша13 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Just like the shortlived "Table" namespace, I suspect that the rollback user right could just as easily be 'globally' switched off. Possibly the senior developers are right now engaged in a bloodbath (cf. this rumoured bloodbath in the admins channel) over whether to throw that switch or not. Or possibly there is no such switch. I do recall some discussion somewhere about how it has recently been made much easier to change user rights - did this include adding and removing new classes of user rights? If so, then there probably is a switch that could kill this new user right. Now it's been implemented, I think it will be interesting to see what happens, but I would like to see a wider debate on the Wikipedia technocracy and how to improve communication between developers and the community. One problem is that the community has grown in size and a small group of (sometimes uncommunicative - usually due to pressures of time) developers may need help in communicating with such a large community that demands a lot of the developers (and unfortunately sometimes appears to get little in return - again, due to limited volunteer resources). Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All user rights are specified in the site configuration. Anything is possible; the developers could render the administrator group non-functional, or make everyone administrators, if they felt like it – Gurch 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to the technical issue, but the drama and upset removing this from so many will cause. Add that to the drama we already have over the consensus issue.... NoSeptember 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I sympathise with those who steered clear of scripts and whatnot, may soon get used to this tool, and may then have it ripped from them. But that is exactly why something like this should be discussed first. It took ages to get the Main Page redesigned. A few more drafts of this proposal until a clearer consensus emerged would not have hurt. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are reasons why devs are not supposed to act without a clear and settled consensus in the community. Because when they do, it is incredibly disruptive, and that is what is happening right now. This needs switched off now, before further damage is done. Then calmly and quietly we can pick our way through this issue and decide what to do. If that leads to a consensus to proceed - then at least we can do so whilst still remaining a community.--Doc^g 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe a general RfC or RfArb centred on developers might be useful. There was the shortlived Table namespace. There was the unlogged wiping of block logs. And now this stuff about rollback rights. Developers need to act transparently and communicate with and participate in the community, not act as gods sitting above it. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a very vocal minority that says there is not a consensus. I disagree that there is a lack of consensus. Considering both the numbers and the arguments made there is clear support for the implementation of this harmless tool that anyone can undo. I want to know where it is written that the default action for this proposal is to not let the community have this tool, and that to pass it needs 80%+ support, if it was two thirds opposed there sure wouldn't be anyone saying there was a lack of consensus against it. 1 != 2 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A few more drafts of this proposal until a clearer consensus emerged would not have hurt. Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shrugs - Those who can make a change, do. Those who oppose may be steamrolled by those who can quickly implement the change, regardless of "consensus". I watched several editors do a fait accompli with bots/tools awhile back to speedily mass-userfy userboxes, since there was no way to oppose the action once it was done. People complained, and were ignored or bitten. And now we're faced with something similar. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Disappointed? Yes, very much so, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I'll hope that this is undone so that discussion can continue, but neither will I be holding my breath. - jc37 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, anyone can go and propose this policy be changed. Though I would wait until experience gives us the knowledge we need to make wise rules. 1 != 2 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review as unnecessary at this stage. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I slowed down the approval time from 15 minutes to an hour (though I think a day is more suitable). It was just turning into an assembly line (and apperently, the 15 minutes was added when nominations where approved too fast). El_C 09:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• At the moment, my thoughts on rollback are this: leave it to admins only for now, but then give it out to users once people have tested it at the test Wikipedia, where this really should be tested first, not here. Also, as regards wiping of block logs, where's the discussion on that and when did that happen?? --Solumeiras ^talk 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I shouldn't have really mentioned the block log thing, as bringing that up might stir things up again. It seems to have been a one-off thing, but the principle is still there. Regardless of what happened and why, it seems sensible to have a record somewhere (private if need be) of such actions taken by developers. Then the community can be reassured that the records are being kept and can be consulted if need be. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Solumeiras, any user can have rollback on demand by adding a few lines to their monobook. All this does is make it slightly easier on the server and slightly faster for you when you rollback mass vandalism. What purpose would testing it out on the test wiki serve? --B (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bah, chaps, this fuss is silly. I'm fairly neutral on the whole idea but isn't the best thing that we've moved away from process? Fantastic! Ok, we have WP:ROLL but, for the first time, we're trusting people to do well without strict rules (see also AGF). Handing this tool randomly, without process, to people I trust really does feel rather liberating. In fact, I think we should apply this easy-give, easy-remove model of adminship (and put Special:Makesysop and Special:Desysop in the hands of admins, not crats or stewards. It would certainly finally take this stigma of overbearing importance away from adminship. But that's another debate - the key thing here is that process has been left behind. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall we do the same for blocking and unblocking, and protecting and unprotecting? Remove process and let people do what they like? (Not a serious question by the way, but just pointing out why some process is sometimes needed) Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Except there'd be no need to give out those rights piecemeal - as I say, the ability to give admin rights should be in the hands of admins, to be given out whenever they like. We would be able to leave RFA behind. This whole silly fuss we make over admin rights, which are essentially trivial, would be forgotten. Most of Wikipedia's problems arise from process, not from an absence of it. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I'd love to see RFA left behind (at least in its current form), with the trouble it's taken to have rollback implemented, and the fuss people are making over it, I cannot possibly see it happening at any time. Majorly (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification - Twinkle

Requesting community clarification on the following Twinkle issue:

1) Archived Twinkle discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive350#Twinkle

2) Twinkle talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaakobou#Detwinkled

Thank you in advance, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly admin shopping Jaakobou. But fair enough, I'd welcome a review from a neutral admin if you really want it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, please try WP:AGF - I'm not asking the question to embarrass you, Only asking it to avoid similar issues in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. summary: I've been de-twinkled on, "persistant misuse of the tool" (2), and i'd appreciate clarifications regarding the Twinkle policies. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Right on the top of WP:TW it says "Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle." It is generally accepted that if you misuse the tool (i.e. use it to revert edits while in a content dispute), that an administrator may remove it from your monobook.js file for a period of time. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Consensus was established in December on AN - here - that misuse of automated editing tools was grounds for having those tools taken away. Looking at the diffs Ryan provided on your talk page, you have been edit warring. We don't do that. And you have been edit warring with the aid of TWINKLE. Therefore, you get your TWINKLE taken away for a period so you can't edit war with it. As for this particular case, endorse Ryan's actions here. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 15:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive been following this. I support ryans actions here as well. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note: this was not opened due to ryan's actions at all. I've opened this only to recieve clarifications regarding the use of the tool.

I think there needs to be a clear clarification regarding "do not use while in content dispute" issue - since it is not clearly noted by "you take full responsibility" text given on the WP:TW page... It was my understanding that I should not 'abuse it for malicious' conduct and therefore I used it to 'speed up my editing', I did use it while in editorial conflicts (full edit summaries) because it was unclear that it is not allowed. The issue of 'edit warring' is unrelated but since you've brought it up... a little while ago I noted on this page (archive link) that User:CJCurrie has been using the admin rollback tool on me in clear content disputes and the issue was ignored... To be frank, I have since changed my editing style a little since it created a misunderstanding of policies. I'm not asking to shorten my Twinkle time-out - only to see that there is clear explanation on future use of twinkle (and admin tools) for everyone, me included. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The policies are not unclear, and you're missing the point of what's been said. There's no specific policies regarding certain actions that are or are not allowed with Twinkle and other wikitools. The requirement is that you take complete responsibility for whatever you do with them. It's not about the tools, it's about you. If you do something that's a violation of policy, such as edit warring, vandalism, etc., you can be punished. If you're doing the policy violations with automated tools, such as Twinkle, one of the punishments available is the loss of your ability to use those tools. It has nothing to do with the type of tools or specific actions taken. You just have to follow the wikipolicies, and if you don't, you can be punished in a variety of ways including losing the ability to use any wikitools you were using to speed up or assist in your improper editing.

Clear now? Gromlakh (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't went over all the twinkle edits, but i'm somewhat/fairly sure i've not used it for the purpouse of edit warring... i've been explained on a problematic revert on Operation Rainbow where a reversion of a misuse of the article page [2] partially included a content dispute and therefore I should not have used the tool.

I still believe that there should be some explanation on the WP:TW article, otherwise - the only implication is that of malicious use.

btw, what is the point of having the "good faith" [3] if the tool is only meant for vandalism?

p.s. do these rules apply also for the admin rollback?

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never understood the point of Twinkle's "revert good-faith edits" function. The edit summary it leaves sounds like saying "I'm slapping you in the face with a trout, but I'm being polite while doing so". --Carnildo (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, I love that comparison. I think it's kind of for user's who make test edits or something, but look like they tried to contribute positively, not knowing anything about Wikipedia... vandalism was done, but not trying to bite the newbies, so trying to be nice about their try? нмŵוτнτ 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the source of my confusion as there's no clear indication on the twinkle page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Girard, Kansas

I could use some more opinions on this page, which i came across during a recent changes patrol. The page has got some pretty massive copyright violations going on. The entire history section, which is huge, seems to have been copy and pasted, and not just from one source, going through and googleing random paragraphs came up with several exact matches to different places, i think much of the page is copied from [4] [5], [6], and[7] [8] to name a few. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, my first thought was to speedy tag it, but that didn't seem appropriate, then i considered blanking the sections, except there is such much copyvio, its difficult to tell which bits to removed. Any thoughts?--Jac16888 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor who added all this content was User:Smulthaup, who, at a glance, could do with some of his other edits reviewing too--Jac16888 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The first reference (1905 History of Crawford County Kansas) and the second reference (Cutler's History of the State of Kansas) were published in 1905 and 1883, respectively, so they're out of copyright. The others are presumably subject to copyright. From reading the article in general, though, the history section looks too large and overwhelming for a town of 2773 people. To address copyright concerns and to address the weightiness of the history section, I'd suggest working with the editor to summarize the content and to cite copyrighted (or non-copyrighted) sources. I don't think this is really an admin matter -- it's just a matter of good editing practices. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like Smulthaup (talk · contribs) hasn't been active since October, and he was already told about the need to cite sources. If you're looking for a new project, I have a suggestion for an article you could edit.  :-) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boggle

See this [9]. Where's my money? Guy (Help!) 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a price list available? ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they need that numbered swiss bank account information... Dureo (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this lucrative? I'm not opposed to selling out... — Scientizzle 18:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admins willing to grant rollback

To cope with the inevitable demand for this over the next days, admins may wish to consider adding themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests. Thanks.--Doc^g 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really necessary, as we have WP:RFR _→AzaToth 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Why do something simple when we can create a bunch of hoops to jump through and endless bureaucracy to maintain the hoops? Silly Doc. --Ali'i 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'll go and create Category:Wikipedia admins willing to block users, Category:Wikipedia admins willing to delete stuff, Category:Wikipedia admins willing to protect stuff and Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats willing to promote users. Majorly (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first one might be redundant to Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks, but maybe you should. The last one you note sounds like it might work just as well as requests for adminship. ;-) --Ali'i 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is such pages are unnecessary. We don't need a category for goodness sake. If admins want to grant rollback, they can. If they don't, they don't have to. Simple as that. Majorly (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh... yeah. Doc, you were the one who complained this process would result in endless bureaucracy, and so far it is you that has been responsible not only for this but for two other needless process pages which have both been deleted – Gurch 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Those pages were me making a point, and I am sorry for that. This is me trying to find constructive ways to minimise the bureaucracy which is already evolving on the RFR page. I was chased away for using the wrong ticks.--Doc^g 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Constructive ways, by complaining the whole thing is bureaucratic, and creating even more bureaucratic pages with a request for bureaucratic limits on who can have rollback? Majorly (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Majorly. And I just got rollback! Thanks wimt :-)--Phoenix-wiki 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! Doc said above "I opposed this on grounds of more process", and then adds more process. Is there a glimmer of chance that in granting use of rollback we might just exercise some judgement here?--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More process? Where? I just see a category for people who will respond to requests. I can't imagine much of a simpler thing than that. Friday (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And what, exactly, is wrong with a page that fulfils the same purpose? Majorly (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. I am not opposing that page. But I'm flagging up that admins can grant it besides the page too. I've granted a few requests already.--Doc^g 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, that. It's quite common with a new process that people may try a few different ways. Sometimes, over time, one way emerges as the most common. Sometimes, we retain multiple approaches for quite some time. Friday (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories scale far more efficiently than pages. They don't need to be archived, nor do they generate much discussion. A request page will eventually grow so as to require sub-pages, archives (bot-archived), and endless fighting over process. It's starting already. I don't see much need for a request page, unless we're going to turn it into a clone of RfA, which sounds evil and bad. Let's avoid the bureaucracy, just this once. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Too late :( --Doc^g 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFALITE. --Ali'i 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been terribly impressed with a lot of what's been going on lately, regarding WP:RFR, and, how the situation's been handled by some involved parties, but, I gotta say, I like the category idea. So much so, that I've added myself to it as well. As Mackensen said above, it scales a lot better, than a page, there's less process, and, less to do overall, to grant / etc. IMO, it somewhat encourages shopping for the right admin, but, it just might work. Great idea, Doc! :) SQL^{Query me!} 05:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• On the other hand, we supposedly trust our admins; if one admin is prepared to be bail for a non-admin with rollback, then that's good enough for me. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Artisol2345

Ok, I'm requesting this again, since the last time I requested this, I didn't not sufficiently explain the situation, which might've caused everyone to skip it.

This case caused this RFCU to take place, which turned up "likely" that Artisol has used the account AL2TB for abusive purposes. Both accounts may need to be blocked. --EoL talk 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked a related IP. If another administrator does not assist with this case, I will have to take this case. However, as this is really my first SSP case, I'll probably mess it up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD open 20 minutes, closed by nonadmin

Someone want to have a look at this? Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. People who have commented on debates should not close them. —Kurykh 01:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Whoo! This is clearly an experienced user with a grasp of policy, despite this account being less than 48 hours old. Question is whether it's a user who should be here or not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I don't care one way or the other on the AfD outcome but that raised red flags quickly. -- ALLSTARecho 01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeez! This was a good faith edit. Please review the discussion and decide yourselves whether it has a chance of being deleted. I was just trying to save some time by being bold in a very obvious situation, hardly a crime. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Did we call it a crime? --EoL talk 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no harm in keeping a discussion open for at least a few hours, preferably a day, and waiting for an uninvolved participant to close it. Even where the article really is a speedy keep, the drama caused by non-admins closing discussions isn't worth the fuss. If it really is such an obvious case the article is going to be kept either way. Patience, patience. Wikidemo (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this article AfD as an obvious keep, rather it's an obvious delete, IMO. There are serious notability issues with the sources provided, as I explained in the AfD. However, I totally agree that any AfD should not be closed by an involved editor, even if it is an obvious WP:SNOWBALL and/or WP:SPEEDY close. I do WP:AGF that the closing editor meant well, so, no, it's not a crime. Editors disagree all the time here, it's part of the process. Just don't take it personally. — Becksguy (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No I don't take it personally, but all of this "should this user be here or not" and "raising red flags" just didn't sound like AGF to me, when all I had done was close a discussion that could very easily be reverted. That's all. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slander Question

Recently, I saw this message at my talk page, in reference to this AFC. Is it something that Wikipedia needs to be involved with (ie:ComCom)? I tend to stay away from Wiki legal issues, so excuse me for my unfamiliarity. Just thought it would be better to error on the safer side of asking for a second opinion. Thanks! Icestorm815, on a self-enforced wikibreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.49.202 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter for editors, but the Foundation's legal team, and I have advised user on his talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section in question. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war between several users and Rothchild

Last month, Rothchild (talk · contribs) added 9/11_Truth_Movement and Alex Jones (radio) to the "See also" section of Tin-foil hat. On January 9, after someone reverted this arguably humorous but nevertheless blatantly POV edit, Rothchild reverted it back and, for good measure, added "Tin-foil hat" under the "See also" section of the Alex Jones article. Then in the Talk page of the Tin-foil hat article, the user said, "I was about to add the Ron Paul campaign but I keep KISS in mind." Several reverts were made back and forth by myself and others. We explained to Rothchild that the edits were POV and inappropriate.

Today after I noticed Rothchild had reverted back again, I said in the Talk section, "I think Alex Jones is loony too, but Wikipedia articles are no place for my opinion," and then I deleted the whole "See also" section, as it was irrelevant. I also fixed the Alex Jones article. Rothchild quickly reverted both back and replied, "Just because Alex Jones seems to be your hero does not mean you have to keep reverting my edits."

Rothchild is showing clear troll behavior and is making repeated bad-faith, POV edits and reverts. The passage of several weeks time between Rothchild's initial edit and the revert did not deter the user, as he or she seems to be watching the articles closely so as to quickly revert any edit.

I don't know what do do at this point, so I'm turning here for help. --Skylights76 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rothchild deleted this section, but I reverted...I have not formed an opinion on the dispute as of yet. — Scientizzle 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his/her talk page--the edits are clearly disruptive. Additionally, edits like this & this are inappropriate. Further disruption may merit a block. — Scientizzle 07:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Skylights has been clearly wikistalking me. I am new to wikipedia and I don't feel welcome here.--Rothchild (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're new, and yet you know terms like wikistalking and sock puppet. If I had to guess, I'd say it's you who is a sock puppet, and it's you who was wikistalking me when you came here and deleted this section. You'd feel more welcome here if you made quality contributions instead of trolled.--Skylights76 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My brother has been trying to get me into Wikipedia and he edits here all the time. He told me that your what defines a Wikistalker. But seriously though. Just drop it. It was a simple link and you started to cry ZOMG VANDALISM!!!! You completely missed the theme and the tone of the article and my additions were a perfect fit. There's more important things in life then making a big deal over a link. I hope you feel so much better about your self for making Wikipedia such a safe place.--Rothchild (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm sorry if this isn't the appropriate forum for this dispute, but someone had removed all the explanatory info at the top of the page when I posted this section. Anyway, what do you advise regarding the edit war in question? I believe that he/she will just revert back.--Skylights76 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be sockpuppetry, but without further evidence we can't link this user to any blocked or banned user, so that may be a dead end. However edit warring over unrelated items in a section is trolling, I recomend that a block be issued if the situation persists. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rothchild blocked

Continued disruptive behavior, in my opinion. Blocked for 48hrs. I'm signing off, so any admin may overturn if he or she wishes... — Scientizzle 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins who helped in this situation.--Skylights76 (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of auto-generated deletion summaries

Recently, in the middle of the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js/Admin opinion (but not as a result of it), all auto-generated deletion summaries were removed. These are the pre-filled log summaries which say, "Content was ... and the only contributor was..." which admins can still change before deletion. A few admins have complained about the removal, including myself, though there hasn't been any overwhelming continued objection there seems to be only one person in favour of removal. I think few people are aware of what has happened. At first the summaries were replaced with "-", then they were replaced with "no reason for deletion was given", now the auto-generated summaries have been restored again, perhaps accidentally, by removal of content from MediaWiki:Excontent. It's all a bit disorganised at the moment. There is currently a bug report to get the auto-generated summaries put somewhere else on the deletion page instead of the log summary. I've raised it here so admins are aware of the change and any discussion about it, and to get more input. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of the auto-generated summary ("content was $1"). The argument against it seems to be that some sysops might include un-deletable libel in their deletion summaries, but I don't think that is a real issue (are there seriously still admins doing this? Why haven't they been desysopped already?) We should also delete MediaWiki:Excontentauthor to get the old behaviour back for pages with just one editor. Kusma (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mentor needed for resocialising problem user

Can someone please head over to User talk:Burra and have a look if they could act as a kind of mentor for a somewhat problematic case? This is the former anon user "Dodona", lately known as serial sockpuppeter PIRRO BURRI (talk · contribs) (socks), trying to negotiate a comeback. The problem has been that over almost a year (or longer? I forget) he has been plaguing talk pages with rather confused, persistent rants, trying to push some weird ethnic fringe ideas about Albanians being descended from Pelasgians and therefore really Greeks, and actually better Greeks than the Greeks themselves, or something to that effect. He used to be unstoppable, and both his English and his grasp of scholarly literature is abominable. I'm a sceptical, but maybe I'm a bit too involved to make these decisions alone. Anybody willing to watch him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for rollback

[edit] User:Dethzone

This person appears to be violating WP:USERPAGE. Again. Which is also primarily what his contributions consist of. Could this be looked into once more, please? Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And he's at it again... *sigh* -Ebyabe (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Vote

Can we please have some more sensible eyes? I've blanked+protected the main voting page due to edit-warring, but the talk page is descending into one massive flamewar, with arrant nonsense being frequently added - so please feel free to go for some aggressive refactoring. It all got so bad we're off to a draft poll. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am profoundly confused as to what happened to the votes. I just went to check to see the number of votes for each proposal and I see the page has full protection and a picture of a cat? This is descending into utter silliness. Bstone (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's utter madness, I can't understand why people is still arguing about it, it's not like it matters! I would suggest everyone just stop complaining about anything that has to do with rollback, and just let it be as it is now. If someone acquires rollback and is using it to do vandalism, then that person will be blocked, or if less severe, will loose the rollback bit. Also as a point is that I will in a near future change Twinkle to only use the built in rollback, so at that point, loosing rollback privilege will effectively disable twinkle rollback as well. _→AzaToth 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a really cool idea (with TW I mean} :b: Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredible that we now have a community consultation process to start a community consultation process to implement the results of a community consultation process. Rollback really shouldn't be this controversial. Hut 8.5 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest from 202.49.173.99

This IP address resolves to Canwest MediaWorks New Zealand which has actually been sold to another operator but one can only assume this IP points to this company still. Users of the IP are editing articles such as The Breeze (New Zealand) and More FM which are the names of the Radio Stations that are run by MediaWorks. Bhowden (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-adding RfR to watchlists

At the risk of crucification, I am advocating that; as we seem to be in at least some sort of a near agreement to try this out a while; we add WP:RfR back to watchlists. Requests have basically stalled since we took it down yesterday sometime, and implementing the course of action we're in the neighborhood of advocating involves notifying the community at large. Please don't kill me, --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 01:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure we need to advertise RfR anymore than we advertise RfA or RfB. It might've been good to let people know the discussion ended and they could now ask for it, but by now, everyone who was involved and wanted it, has it, and anyone who wan't involved, and wants to expand their vandal-reverting abilities, will find it on their own, IMHO. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SSP Backlog

Hello. Dear Admins, WP:SSP has had a backlog for days now, and cases files in 2007 are still open. 34 open cases as of a moment ago. Perhaps some reviews can be done tonight? Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot out of control?

User:CBM has tagged literally 6000 new pages as patrolled in the 60 minutes. This can not possibly be. I see that he operates a bot, User:VeblenBot. Somethings wrong. I mentioned this to CBM but I'm 99% sure he's not online and New Page Patrol is not going to work well unless we get to the bottom of this.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 03:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CBM is doing something extremely useful for NPP. I should have waited for a few more minutes to let him respond before coming here. My apologies.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New CSD criterion

Debate for a new CSD criterion has been taking place on the CSD talk page. The criterion would be CSD#T3, which would allow orphaned and deprecated templates that are not part of series to be speedy deleted after seven days.

The debate has been listed on Template:RFCpolicy list for the past several days. It seems that they are not any strong objections to adding the new criterion, however, as CSD is official policy, some users thought it would be best to post on a pump or noticeboard to ensure that a healthy number of people were aware of the debate. If you have a comment or would care to join in the debate, please visit WT:CSD. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know... that T:DYK is an hour late?

Yup, as usual, the update is late at T:DYK/N if an admin can take care of everything. I went and did all the hooks already; if I weren't logging off for the night I'd do the update myself. Wizardman 04:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's updated now. I wouldn't have noticed it because I was looking for the "DYK is late" box to turn red. It appears to turn bright yellow now, rather than a screaming red, so that threw me off. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to make uploads autoconfirmed

There is a proposal to make "upload" an autoconfirmed right rather than an automatic right, as default on all Wikimedia wikis except at the Commons. So after you sign up, you have to wait 4 days before you can upload. Individual projects could opt-out from this. See m:Metapub#Set upload to autoconfirmed Wikimedia-wide. Please comment over there. Lupo 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (Also posted at WP:VPP.)

[edit] Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html calling on supporters to edit pages on intelligent design, evolution, or creationism, and to organise mass attacks. A transcript of part of the broadcast has been posted at WT:ANI#Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed – meant to post it here but got mixed up. Feel free to move it here if that's better. ... dave souza, talk 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's move it to the parallel thread at WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD formatting

Hi, could someone more experienced please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Fake DIY (3rd nomination)? Specifically there seems to be a recent 2nd AfD ending in no-consensus which may have been quite recent but when I click to find it it seems merged with the presently opened 3rd AfD. I didn't want to step in if I was missing something though. Benjiboi 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they all seem to be there.--Phoenix-wiki 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems fixed now, thanks! Benjiboi 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dethzone again

He's doing the userpage thing again. He undid the stuff that was removed, and only slightly renamed it. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Field

The edit history for Progressive Field disappeared today and the article seems to be an older version than the one I was viewing and editing earlier today. If damage has been done, can it be reversed? Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the page was deleted as housekeeping to merge the history. It was deleted by User:Gimmetrow. Looks like it's still being worked on. Useight (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think. Gimmetrow 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, resolved. Robert K S (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irresponsible and rash admin - immature? childish?

Jimbo Wales' talk page had a memorial to a murdered blogger. People were encouraged to sign a letter of support.

I supported it. I also made a note that Jimbo should not make the mistake and take sides and mistakenly recognize the People's Republic of China government as the Chinese government but should remain NPOV, as much of Wikipedia does regarding the China and Republic of China on Taiwan issue.

Jeske immediately reverted (censored) the entire comment and support of Jimbo. Ironically, Jeske supports freedom of speech yet censors a comment about pro-freedom of speech.

BoL then puts a vandalism warning on my talk page.

Both are examples of rash and irresonsible actions by admins.

Shouldn't they be counseled? Wikipeace2008 (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No. SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And the latter has been on his talk page. WE don't usually remove others comment, and I don't see anything particularly offensive about yours. I see you supporting, and also also see you protesting some of Jimbo's wording regarding the govt. Nothing big I think. M-ercury at 05:05, January 13, 2008

It wasn't that I had removed the comment to make a point: As I stated in the edit summary when I removed it, it was the fact that the inherent flaw Wikipeace saw in Jimbo's words reflects what the article linked to on his subpage calls the PRC government. I don't intend to edit-war over it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that in the future, you point that out on a users talk page, we don't remove folks comments for flaws. Regards, M-ercury at 05:12, January 13, 2008

You might even note that I reworded my comments to be more kind to Jimbo and you, Jeske. And nobody asked me to do it. Wikipeace2008 (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain your addendum here? I've certainly never heard of you before, so why would you mention me in such a way?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'd let it stay. Voice-of-All 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit protected

• User talk:ClaxsonKíng
• Please change the name of the sockpuppeteer to France a, as the two categories are being merged - same person operating, as confirmed by Checkuser.
• Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  I've moved the sock template on to his user page and redirected the talk page (page still protected), which I think by convention is where it is meant to be placed. Spebi 09:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Great; thanks.--09:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

There will be a backlog on this page forever, probably. Proposing an idea: Since pages should remain in this category for 2 reasons (1: They are pages of users involved in sockpuppetry, and 2: They have been edited within the last month), why not add them to another category when they are ready for deletion? Something like Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages for deletion. That way, people who have a few minutes can go through a few, determine if they are ready to be deleted, and if so, add them to the new category. Then an admin wouldn't have to go through all of the ones that shouldn't be deleted, looking for the ones that should be. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, when a page is templated with notice of a block or ban that leads to page deletion, the template could put the pages into a dated category, perhaps even thrown forward in time? So someone slaps an indefblock template on the user page today and it pops up in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages for deletion on 2008-02-13 or the like?

Alternatively, those who religiously follow admins about slapping block notices on the user pages of obviously-blocked editors with few or no edits and no user or talk page in the first place (the User:I've_got_a_giant_penis, User:Redvers_is_queer, User:Redd_Anteater_hates_Jewish_people etc etc) might like to contribute to the fight by not bloody bothering in future. That would cut backlogs considerably. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, tell them not to do that then? - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Having categories like that (or something like Category:Temporary Wikipedia userpages MONTH) would be ideal. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought sockpuppets were not supposed to be tagged temporary, so that the record is kept? -- Avi (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

When adding a blocked indef tag, it automatically places the page in that category, which is why before deleting pages in that category, admins are supposed to make sure that there is no mention of sockpuppetterring. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Then the template needs to be changed to not do that any more. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. There needs to be a new template if anything. If the template is changed then it would not add any pages into that category, even though the majority of the pages do belong there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a tangential suggestion: don't populate that category in the first place. Not tagging username violators that don't edit at all is a good start. Миша13 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet ones are not supposed to be in there. I believe the sockpuppet related templates don't put users into that category and there is (was?) a bot that removed users that were also included in sockpuppet categories. So if you use {{sockpuppet}} and not {{indefblocked}}, they will not be in the category. Using a month based category system would be best, having users go through all the pages would just be a waste of time and using parser functions to change the category automatically may not work because of caching issues. Mr.Z-man 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What would be the best way to do this...add monthly categories (meaning how would we do this)? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal(s)

Here's my proposal:

1. Categorize said pages by day, like CSD image categories.
2. Create a CSD criterion (CSD U4?) for deleting such user pages (don't know if it will overlap with CSD G6 though)
3. Create an entry on CAT:CSD like the CSD image categories.

Feedback welcome. —Kurykh 00:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed #2 after some consideration. CSD G6 would cover it anyway. —Kurykh 00:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)This sounds good, I've always deleted them per G6, or not given a specific criterion, but given the sheer number, a new criterion does not seem all that unreasonable. We would also need to set a time limit for when they can be deleted, 30 days seems to be about the norm. So the criterion would be something like:

Userpages and user talk pages of indefinitely blocked users not required for sockpuppet tracking (other possibilities?) purposes can be deleted 30 days after the block notice is given.

This still leaves the question about what to do with the thousands currently in the main category. Perhaps a bot could check when the last edit was or when the block was given and recategorize by date. Mr.Z-man 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would leave them dormant for a month after implementing this proposal, then delete them all at once as they would have met the one-month "requirement." —Kurykh 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work on getting a proposal. I also think it would be best to create a new criteria for speedy deletion (to be titled "U4"). Also, change the wording to :

Userpages and user talk pages of indefinitely blocked users not required for sockpuppet tracking (other possibilities?) purposes can be deleted 30 days after the page was last edited.

The reason being that is how the category page currently explains what can be deleted. What now? I think it would be best to work on getting the U4 criteria first. Maybe open a thread at WT:CSD. The option for speedy deletion is needed even if we can't get the pages categorized by month. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The main point of this proposal is the splitting of the temp userpage category into days. Whether the new CSD criterion gets implemented can be decided another time, although implementation would make things easier. —Kurykh 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, see User:Rjd0060/temp 2. Feel free to make changes. Just a draft for future reference. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed CSD U4 criterion, how about this:

Any pages in the userspace of an indefinitely blocked user not required for sockpuppetry tracking (other possibilities?) purposes can be deleted 30 days after said pages have been edited.

I expanded it from just user pages and user talk pages to the account's entire userspace. —Kurykh 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. Should I open a thread at WT:CSD? - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. Although the need for the proposed CSD criterion is based on that we're going to split the temp userpage category up by days. —Kurykh 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#New criteria proposal. Feel free to comment there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ΚέκρωΨ Need to be Banned!

He is consistently poisioning Wikipedia with his racist and hatered and is not adhiring to NPOV. View his dialogue from the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_%28terminology%29

"In the interests of free speech, I reserve my right to "offend" anyone I see fit on talk pages, including Skopjans. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And Macedonians reserve the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to themselves. And everyone else reserves the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to Macedonians. BalkanFever 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC) And they already do, persistently and throughout Wikipedia. So what's your beef? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC) My point is we don't have to bring it up every time someone says Skopjan and FYROM are offensive, because they are two different forms of offense. One comes from being called something, one comes from hearing/reading something. BalkanFever 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Exactly; we don't have to bring it up every time. This whole thread started when a now banned Skopjan editor was "offended" by my use of that word. And then your newcomer пичка felt it had to proffer its "constructive" 2¢ as well. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) " For those of you who don't know "пичка" literally means "Pussy" but more directly is equilivant to the F-WORD!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.136.2 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, thanks for that. If you'd read the thread more thoroughly, you'd know I was directly quoting an earlier abusive post by another editor who'd used the Slavic word "пичка" as part of an anti-Greek slur. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful for anyone to use ethnically or racially offensive terms, particularly since it's a clear breach of Wikipedia:Civility. You don't enjoy unconstrained free speech on talk pages or elsewhere and you have no "right" to cause gratuitous offence. If I see people using terms such as "Skopjans" in future (that includes you, Kekrops) the comments will be removed and the offender will be blocked if he or she persists. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have explained countless times that it isn't used to cause gratuitous offence; it is simply a metonymic exonym. It also happens to be by far the most common term used by Greeks. The name Greeks itself is considered a derogatory exonym by many Greeks; does that mean it should be banned too? You can't censor an entire nation. Finally, who is going to reprimand you for calling Greeks a nation of "crackpots", a deliberately offensive slur, in reference to this very issue? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Americans probably didn't specifically intend to cause offence when "nigger" was the most common term used to refer to black people, but that doesn't make it any less offensive to the target of the term. Nor is this an issue of "censorship", because you don't enjoy unconstrained free speech on Wikipedia, period - you're subject to the conditions set out in Wikipedia:Civility. If you don't accept them you shouldn't be editing here. And finally, don't misquote me or raise red herrings. I've given you fair notice here and on your talk page, and I'm not prepared to debate the unambiguous requirements of Wikipedia:Civility. Other Greek editors seem to be able to manage not to use ethnically offensive terms, so I expect you to be able to do the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of misquoting you. Perhaps you should actually read the policy that you have invoked three times in the past few sentences. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The bit about "Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs" being a "serious example" of a breach of civility is clear enough, and you should also read WP:CIV#Why is incivility bad?. Really, though, I'm not prepared to discuss this further; you know what's expected of you and all other editors, so you should have no difficulty in following this very basic policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet the only one who has made an ethnic slur here is you. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I urge anyone unfamiliar with the issue to read the FA Macedonia_(terminology)#Names_in_the_languages_of_the_region. Greeks do not refer to inhabitants of fYRoM as Macedonians because they have their own Macedonians. So this is very much a political debate. It appears to me ChrisO is trying to force Kekrops to succumb to a specific POV. --   Avg    12:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The fact that the term is used in the context of a political dispute doesn't make it any more acceptable - just as the Serbian derogatory term for Albanians, "Shiptars", isn't any more acceptable because it's used in conection with the Kosovo dispute. It's not as if "Skopjans" is the only term that can be used; "citizens of FYROM" and "Macedonian Slavs" are viable and reasonably uncontentious alternative terms. It's clear that the term causes widespread offence to those to whom it refers, it causes unnecessary tension and aggravation (as this thread demonstrates) and there are viable alternative terms that you could just as easily use; in short, there's no reason to use it. And it's hard to avoid the conclusion that some editors are trying to make a disruptive point when they use the term even though they're fully aware of these factors. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. "FYROM" and "Macedonian Slavs" are equally "offensive" according to those to whom they refer. In fact, they reject anything other than "Macedonians", for obvious political reasons. And you're forgetting the crucial difference between this case and the other examples you cite: Serbs are not offended by the name Albanians, nor are whites offended by blacks, so the only reason they would use those slurs would be to cause offence. Greeks, on the other hand, only use Skopjans because the self-identifying term is offensive to them. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to expand this. The terms "Macedonia/n/s" are equally highly offensive to most Greeks when they are used in reference to the South Slavic ethnic group. Yet I don't see anyone complaining here about those other alternatives proposed by ChrisO above to be universally used across Wikipedia so as to maintain this civility level. All members of the ethnic group choose to tease Greeks (Macedonians or others), by adamantly calling themselves plain "Macedonians". "Macedonia/n/s", undisambiguated, to quote ChrisO, "causes unnecessary tension and aggravation (as this thread demonstrates) and there are viable alternative terms that you could just as easily use; in short, there's no reason to use it". NikoSilver 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But the on-WP consensus is clearly "Ethnic Macedonian" or, where dab. is unnecessary, "Macedonian." Rather than accept this, Kekrops persists in using a perjorative. He should have stopped long ago. He should stop. Jd2718 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP consensus is still heavily disputed, and the WP flimsy consensus regards articles, not talkpages. The alternative is pejorative to the other side, yet still I see no complaint for that. I repeat that the words "Macedonia/n/s" in reference to the south Slavic ethnic group and without disambiguation are highly offensive to Greek editors. I will support this, if it's done for both sides: I.e. if ethnic Macedonian editors are also forced to not offend the Greek editors in talkpages, by using whichever qualifier they choose. Simple. NikoSilver 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW if Kekrops is offended, he is not in any way entitled to offend. However, I see no intended offense by Kekrops. He is merely using the prevailing terminology in his country (just like the others are doing without him complaining). To give you a recent example of the vast usage of Skopje/an in Greece, see this latest article from the accredited Greek News site "SKAI News".[11] I can furnish thousands more, and I can quote hundreds of Greek officials as well. NikoSilver 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Take a peak in Greek governmental sites: [12] (helpful translation by Google). Are you accusing an entire nation of being blasphemous? NikoSilver 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All I see is an attempt by certain users with a certain frame of thought to label a widely used descriptor as "pejorative", by taking the bait of "hey, that offends me!" There is simply nothing that they will not label as "offensive", because the doctrine does not allow them to. NikoSilver 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibility of Sanctions

I invite any "non-warring" administrator to remind Kekrops of the discretionary sanctions available under the recent Macedonia ArbCom decision. The text reads

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

I think that a simple warning should be sufficient to stop this. Jd2718 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I invite any "non-warring" administrator to remind all ethnic Macedonian editors who identify as "Macedonians" in their userpages of the discretionary sanctions available under the recent Macedonia ArbCom decision. The text reads

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editors in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

I think that a simple warning should be sufficient to stop this. NikoSilver 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I find a most welcome solution that words deemed offensive are to be avoided, however this has to happen in both sides. All Greeks should be forced to stop using "Skopjans" if and only if all fYRoM editors are forced to stop using "Macedonians". They should both start using "viable alternative terms" as ChrisO describes it, such as "Macedonian Slavs". Anything else is a biased decision against one or the other side. --   Avg    21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting frivolous. There is very obviously a big difference between identifying yourself using a particular term, and identifying someone else using a term which they find offensive. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One can be interpreted as "name-calling", the other as "impersonation". They can both be considered "offensive". A country's capital is very often used as a descriptor in diplomacy, making the claim that it is offensive simply ridiculous. NikoSilver 23:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Letting the capital stand for the country (Moscow warns, Bonn Berlin declines, Washington objects) is common. Turning that into an adjective to stand for the people is not. In this case, it is offensive. Jd2718 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious that the user Kekrops is disrupting Wikipedia. He is constantly inserting derogatory terms and violates the policies of WP:MOSMAC. I find it very strange that user has not been blocked as he is breaking Wikipedia rules daily in many of his edits. JdeJ (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any trademark experts?

An editor is expressing concerns at Template talk:TardisIndexFile that Image:TARDIS-trans.png is subject to trademark, and can therefor not be used freely, even though the image itself is licenced under CC-BY-SA. He keeps removing the image from the template. I have been trying to explain to him that trademark is not subject to WP:NFC policy, as trademark is not covered. I want some expert opinion on this issue... I am certain the concerns are misplaced, as I explained on the talkpage. — Edokter • Talk • 21:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There was an issue recently (I'll be damned if I can find it) about photographs of toys being copyvios. But, as a very general rule, 2d images of 3d things are not subject to our FU provisions. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ah ha! Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#Copyright problems with toy photos ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the toys were copyrighted, the police box is not. — Edokter • Talk • 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone owns it' it's probably the Metropolitan Police. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Quite famously, the copyright (or trademark, one or the other) on the police box design is held by the BBC. With a lovely (C) 1963 on merchandise, too. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's here.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)IANACL, but the {{logo fur}} template applies to trademarks equally as to logos. Just my 2c. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)FU provisions don't apply to the template namespace. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the matter, let me reitterate that this is not a copyright problem, but purely dealing with trademark... Something the editor that removed the image keeps forgetting. The trademark may be intelectual property of the BBC, but there can be no trademark infringement as Wikipedia does not run a business selling TARDIS/Doctor Who related products or services. The photograph is of a 3D object, the trademark however is only of the 2 dimensional representation of the TARDIS; see the trademark as registered by the BBC. — Edokter • Talk • 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The approach taken on Commons (and presumably here too) is that we are concerned with copyright not trademarks. Images that are free of copyright may be hosted and used provided that they are free of copyright even if they are a registered trademark - for example Commons includes the Coca-Cola logo. I'm not sure I agree with this, but it is the way such images have been handled to date. Trademarked images can be tagged with {{trademark}}. So if the image is free of copyright, it can be used - bear in mind that a photo of a subject otherwise free of copyright will itself attract copyright if a creative process was used in producing it by the photographer- e.g. lighting, angle etc. WjBscribe 01:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is a copyright issue with images of toys. I can't find it right now, but this was an issue with an image I uploaded a long time ago of an action figure; it had to be deleted from the Wikimedia Commons because although the image itself was appropriately licensed, the appearance of the toy was protected by US copyright law (under which Wikipedia operates). Technically it's counted as a three-dimensional "work of applied art", which the Copyright Act of 1976 defines as "two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, technical drawings, diagrams, and models." Toys were ruled to be copyrightable in this 1983 case. A photo of a copyrighted three-dimensional object is thus potentially a copyright violation, unless the object in question is incidental to the subject of the photo. Hence a photo of a child playing with a TARDIS would not be a copyright violation, as the child rather than the TARDIS is the subject of the photo; but a photo of a TARDIS on its own would have copyright problems. This article in the WIPO magazine explains the legal position (see in particular the "Incidental background" section). I'll wait and see what other people say, but as a Commons admin I'm inclined to delete this image as a probable copyvio. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably this particular image raises questions about whether the "police box" design is copyrightable. I have no knowledge of the particulars of this case mind you. A deletion discussion about the image might be the best way for everyone to air their concerns. WjBscribe 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The original design may or may not have been copyrighted (probably not, since I doubt anyone in the US was interested in marketing British police boxes!). However, I'd think the toy version would very likely be covered by the copyright law. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agian: The BBC does not hold copyright, only trademark. So why does everyone bring up copyright? The box cannot be copyrighted; it is not designed by the BBC. The prop is built by them, but it is an non-copyrightable (public) design. — Edokter • Talk • 12:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's another issue here, which is whether the specific police box in question here is copyrightable because it is a prop created for the television show. Even absent considerations of the overall design of the box, the trademark status, etc, that's a major issue. I replaced the image with a photograph of a police box on the street, which surely carries no copyright problems and is still a fine illustration. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is hidious! I still stand by my position that there is no copyright problem (it's a photo of a stage prop) and that trademark cannot be infringed. But we can speculate as long as we want... I'd rather have definitive answers. Is there anybody in the foundation that we can ask? — Edokter • Talk • 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

commons:Category:De Lorean DMC-12 in Back to the Future, commons:Category:Automobiles in fiction, commons:Category:Batmobile. I'm going to guess and say it's probably ok. At least, make sure people on commons know of the concern here, and let them sort it out, because it will effect a LOT more images than just this one. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• The DeLorean time machine and the Batmobile are ordinary cars with some extra gadgets and trim attached. I don't think that this qualifies them as works of art. Plenty of stock automobile designs required artistic talent to design, but that doesn't make photos of them automatically unfree. *** Crotalus *** 08:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• But a typical blue police box is a work of art? Even if someone specifically created the model, all they have done is create a model of a common object. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I started this mess, and I'm just going to drop it. It seems the picture is also being used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who as a logo, and the issue is unsure enough that I'll just let it lie for the moment. The picture should ideally be the logo for The Tardis Index File, but that's listed on the site as copyrighted and used under fair use [13]. --Phirazo 03:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the actual Doctor Who logo is used, yes, that is copyrighted. But the TARDIS is not copyrightable; it is a stage prop and a replica of a (once) public object. And while the trademark may be "intellectual property" of the BBC, it is not an issue, as that can only be infringed on when used for marketing goods and services similair to those marketed by the BBC under that trademark. While many/most corporate logos are also copyrighted, and thus fall under fair use, trademark alone permits all other uses outside marketing. As such it does not fall under WP:NFCC. I hope this clears it up; It took quite a bit of reading on my part. — Edokter • Talk • 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you posit that there is no copyright, it is not an issue because it is a common object. A more obscure trademark could perhaps be tarnished or diluted through inappropriate use, but not a police box.Wikidemo (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:NERIC-Security

The above account is a multiple-user account, used to keep tabs on vandalism from educational IP ranges.

Does this violate WP:SOCK under the role account clause? haz (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If they're using the account to edit, then multiple-user accounts would violate the GFDL requirement that an edit be attributable to a single person. Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they have edited, but there's a phone number on their userpage. Should someone call them? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about this account as well, and have seen it requesting blocks/unblocks of related IP addresses. Since these requests seem to be granted, some kind of confirmation of the account's ownership should probably be obtained. I wouldn't block the account, though, as their work is benefiting ours. Any IPs they are keeping track of are IPs we won't have to worry about. - auburnpilot talk 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm calling called. Nobody answered. - auburnpilot talk 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a reverse search on the number for the heck of it. I am not getting any results. I did get a false positive though. Rgoodermote  01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See here on the Neric.org site. It's definitely their number, and the answering machine says the same (although I didn't leave a message). - auburnpilot talk 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I did not trust the site, but a machine answered huh. If memory serves me, there is an account used by multiple users. It is owned by a shareholder or something like that. But it seems the account has a legit reason and as I have read not editing, the account is not a sock...maybe not the last of its kind. Rgoodermote  01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Business hours are over in the US, and will be for the next 60 hours. Try calling them then. east.718 at 01:53, January 12, 2008

Probably best to do that, by the way I am not doing it I have school in 60 hours. Rgoodermote  02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I set this account up as a "roll" account, to keep my personal edits (and POV) seperate from my responsibilities as an administrator for our regional educational network. I have two related goals; for my organization to insure that the districts that we serve become aware of the inappropriate edits, and I can say that based upon phone calls and e-mails received these past two weeks, they are waking up to this as an issue; by creating an account associated with this task, should I change jobs (no plans for that in the near future, but one never knows), that the work that I am doing in my roll as a network administrator would continue with my successor.

Our "normal" operating hours are M-F 8-4 (+5) which is why no one answered (I'm at home right now). Whatever the consensus is, I will be more than happy to follow. Let me know. --NERIC-Security (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding edits, the only edits that have been made with this account have been reverts to vandalism, and notices on the associated User_talk pages. --NERIC-Security (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not the edits we are concerned about. You identified yourself with a corporation/businesses which is a concern because we do not know how many people use the account or have access to it. The guideline here states that there must be only one person who uses to account as to make sure no one is improperly blamed. Rgoodermote  02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It is a multi-county educational agency, chartered by the NYS Ed Department. I am the only one who has access to the account. If it would eliminate any concern, I'll agree that should I leave NERIC, the account would go with me and not the position.

The only addresses that I will ask to have blocked, or unblocked, are associated with our class B address 163.153.0.0/16. This link to ARIN will show you the netblock information, and my business contact information (the e-mail listed is one that attracts spam and is not checked regularly, but if you want to use it to verify my info, let me know and I'd be happy to log into that server).

--NERIC-Security (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am stepping out of conversation as the matter seems to be settled, I have not verified information but I believe the user is telling the truth. Rgoodermote  02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So long as the account is not shared, I don't see any real issue with you continuing the work you've been doing so far. If you leave the position, rather than passing the account onto the next person, allow them to create their own account and note it on your user page. Your efforts are obviously beneficial to our project, as a great deal of IP vandalism is traced back to school addresses, so hopefully a few others will chime in. - auburnpilot talk 02:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the "occasional exception" in regards to a multi-user account. A SPA with fighting vandalism from a shared range? That sounds fantastic to me. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mirror site with dyslexia?!

What gives - anyone seen this?

Here is a weird mirror

of my userpage. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange, my eyes didn't even see the problem until I read it twice. My eyes are warped now. Checking my version my userpage says "I am a rokllabcer." Quite a funny read in the mode, but is it worth the mention on WP:AN? Maybe someplace else would be more appropriate. — Save_Us † 11:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is actually kind of funny, guess its the result of a bug when translating the material, I do have to wonder if they have a "arsimintdator's" noticeboards :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I know...just begs the question why...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but its certainly not reading the detailed template that I use on my user page, [14] so it seems that is the more plausible explanation, as to why, the world may never know... but maybe somebody can contact the webmaster about it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps its an experiment with keeping the first and last letters in place but jumbling the middle of the word (people can still read it). Why they would upload userpages I don't know although perhaps they just got a bot to do it? James086^{Talk | Email} 11:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the links stay on his site and are current but others will send you back here. Click on the please leave a new message bar. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's being instantly updated, which probably means that it fetches the current version from Wikipedia and then jumbles the letters. User:Dorftrottel 18:12, January 12, 2008

It is related to this I believe, an Edinburgh study(although most of them mention it as a Cambridge study, I believe the Edinburgh study was the genesis.) Languagehat has some info on it, as well as the Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at Cambridge University. Dureo (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recombinant text

I feel this requires admin attention. The article Recombinant text has been nominated for deletion today, following what in my opinion is a canvassing spree[15]. I would like to know whether this is indeed canvassing and how this could or should affect the AfD, if at all. User:Dorftrottel 14:48, January 12, 2008

It doesn't seem to be target toward gaining a particular outcome...--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. User:Dorftrottel 18:06, January 12, 2008

[edit] Disputed the balance in articles Albania , Greece ,Epirus ,Pelasgians, Illyrinas,Macedonians

Could you please, I very much call your attention because all related articles concerning Albania, Greece ,Pelasgians ,Illyrians, Epirus have their balance very much disputed by a group of editors, understandably from where, that mistreat every Albanian editor and express only their view of interest. I would like to ensure you that I am not the only one described with such terms as “weird “ , “confused” “fringe ideas””abominable” while you also tangentially want to influence other administrators by expressing his view for “ skeptical future “ and extensively ban them and their computer including main communication phone service as AlbteleCOM ,so no anyone from Albania itself phone network can not contribute in Albanian related pages. For so long period I am testimonial of Albanian user and Albania offended by some of members of this group and they have become really paranoid with me deleting and my apologias . They communicate with each other and coordinate their movements, of course they are smart and academic persons but they change or modulate facts, post new maps ,delete section and even talk pages. They deleted the section Albanians as Pelasgians although enormous secondary sources and references that mention the argument. I agree to be in control as any other editors but this situation got to change, I am sure that my work will go ashtray you will delete any post of mine. I expressed my apologies to them, on my part, to show good will and to collaborate but no one of them cared to apologias back and trust me they are not angels here, they express a strong bias, old mentality and extreme and unreasonable nationalistic ideas, they all know Arvanitika a form of Albanian and are all ethnically let us say Greek-Albanians. I would propose that the mention articles to be watched by equilibrate independent administrators and the balanced to be strongly guarded.Dodona--Burra (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: this is about the case mentioned in this posting above. I'd be extremely glad if some other admin could look into this and give some advice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If the above post is exemplary of that user's encyclopedic contributions, then they need to "go ashtray" indeed. Why should he not just be indefinitely blocked as an admitted sock of banned user "Dodona", lately editing as PIRRO BURRI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? If the user wishes to appeal the ban, he should do it from his original account. Sandstein (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, this is the appealing of his ban. And he can't do it from his original account because he never had one before he was banned. (Used to edit from IPs only.) Please let's hear it here, or on his current talk page; it doesn't matter which account he's using. But the point about the quality of the contributions is valid of course. I was just glad he was showing some willingness to at least try and come to a constructive arrangement. So, I'd like to give him a second chance in recognition of that, although I'm skeptical myself. But either way, I don't want to be the one to decide this, because if I tell him he can't edit, he'll just accuse me of being part of the Greek cabal again, and resume his daily sockpuppet show (which was a nuisance.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, German guys thanks for being so reasonable and also so judging, of course I was not born in UK and I have not experience editing in encyclopedia and more I am not a historian but I have the willing to contribute .Why you do not go ashtray yourself if you do not see the meaning and the essence of my post. Anyway if you decide to ban me go head I do not care but I will not stay and watch when the history of my country and my people is maltreated. The best Albanologs were German but probably you are not the same generation. But in case that you want s.th constructive I have chosen already my Mentor and it is Greek, an honest one, can i ask you again to watch the balance in Albanian related articles. Dodona --Burra (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple issues

I have multiple issues that I need dealt with, so this may be a complex admin.

• Issue 1.
  

On the 3rd of January I requested from the Military History Project coordinator (reposted to the article discussion page by Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)) that the article named Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive either be renamed (previously requested by - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)), or moved to the existing English titled article from which it was redirected, Iassy-Kishinev Offensive. The name this event is known by in the works of David Glantz is Yassy-Kishinev, so that was also suggested.

When the discussion went on into a polemic and Google hits counting, I consulted the Wikipedia standard for Cyrillic transliteration, and based on the ISO 9 standard moved the article to the Yassy'-Kishinev Offensive since this confirmed to both Wikipedia Style Guide, closely confirmed to most widely used source (David Glantz), and above all was a productive move towards continuing work on the article without continuing polemic which has continued due to a bias POV based on, I think, national feelings of Rumanian editors for over six months. It was my reasoning that editors who were intransigent on the issue of the article name for six months were unlikely to be productive on the content of the article either.

Unable to shift the decision-making process one way or another, I then created a new article called Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation, and tagged the Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive for deletion. In part this is due to the one sided content of the article, and the very much incomplete description of the historical event, and persistent POV, or lack of NPOV in the editorialship. The newly created Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation article was immediately tagged for speedy deletion as a forked article, where as in fact it is not a forked article, but merely one with an English name that conforms to both the best known source and to accepted Wikipedia ISO 9 standard, and above all seeks to actually productively complete the article.

Reguest for Issue 1.
I request that the original Rumanian-titled article Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive be speedily deleted along with the redirect from the Iassy-Kishinev Operation since it does not conform to Wikipedia standards, and actually prevents active completion of the article. I also request that the new article Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation be protected from malicious editorialship that seeks to impose a POV of a particular national perspective without appropriate references. I also note that the contemporary name for Romania for the purpose of the Second World War history appears to be Rumania as used by the US Army War College by its former educator, and the most prominent source on the operation, the above mentioned David Glantz. I can not very well change the source quotes I intend to insert into the article because they do not conform with the current official Romanian spelling!

Issue 2.
In attempting to understand the rationale for renaming the article above into Rumanian, I visited the Romania article. What I found there was that inconvenient truths about the origin of the name Rumania (as I see them within the time period of the above article), were removed from the Etymology section, and shunted off into a separate, equally fact-bereft article that uses predominantly Rumanian or Italian (sympathetic POV) references that have not been translated into English, or in some cases even dated. The primary source for assertions are from a source unknown in English and originates from Rumanian sources. When I tried to point this out in the Romanian discussion, and then to offer suggestions, discuss and show sources, I was abused, rediculed, and my comments were interspersed with nonsense comments by another registered user Nergaal. I was further issued a warning by a suspected sock puppet:

"To user mrg3105mrg3105: your interventions are but semieducated spinning. It is of no interest, if you are doing so out of ignorance or you are deliberately trolling. Your behaviour is disruptive. If you continue, you'll be blocked.--84.153.17.16 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)"

I note that not one of my statemes has been repudiated or alternatives offered in the discussion page.

Reguest for Issue 2.
I would also request that this be taken as unwarranted abuse from the user, and the user be advised to desist from spamming my contributions and my user page with comments that include "hey commie, you should stop using the archaic term rumunian (i.e. that term was in use in soviet russia/ussr) and use the one that is currently in official use (i.e. Romanian). Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)" since I am free to use the name for Rumania outside to the published articles, and where the use is a direct quote from a source, since the term was a historical term used during the period under discussion (source provided in the discussion page).--mrg3105mrg3105 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin response, re. content forking and enforced deletions: no way. If you can't get consensus for a move, the article will stay where it is, and forks mustn't be done. Sorry, that's just how we do things here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the POV fork Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation to the original article Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive. If you try to undo that redirection I'll protect it. This is for as long as there is no consensus to move the Iaşi- article somewhere else; no prejudice from my side, I don't care either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not forking. The issue is that the editors of Iaşi- article refuse to comply with the need to have English titled articles. Did you read the above? Is this Rumanian Wiki or an English one?--mrg3105mrg3105 22:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't care which which title would be better. The only point here is that the article history must be kept together in one place. If you want it moved, the only way to do so is to achieve consensus and then move it, not fork it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is not possible due to lack of NPOV, so what are you going to do about that?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request from Jimbo to monitor page from User_talk:Jimbo Wales

Jimbo has blanked his user and talk pages and replaced them with a message that he would like protected from vandalism. Both pages are protected, but the talk page links to a third page for statements from editors in support of his talk page message. Since it is by nature unprotected, his talk page asks that admins monitor it for vandalism and semi-protect or protect it as needed. Just FYI. ^Avruchtalk 03:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jew york

I've just blanked this redirect to New York. Please delete and salt. Other gems from the editor who created this include Hey! Unprotect this page so I can redirect it to obesity. --Chinese3126 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC) at Talk:Fat ass[16] and Talk:Fatass.[17] Please address the behavior problem appropriately. Durova^Charge! 04:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of the page above, let me go hunting down the rest of his.. contributions. SirFozzie (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to believe this is Liist (talk · contribs)

Old warning.

- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him 24 hours, I've come across at least one article I think is hoaxy, and lots of unlikely New York redirects. If someone wants to make it indef, go ahead. SirFozzie (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeraeph

Zeraeph, who exercised her right to vanish when the arbcom against her was not going so well, is nw disrupting the proceedings by postingz attacks against one editor as an anon Ip, though she is signing it as Zeraeph. One page of the arbcom has been protected, could somebody please semi-protect the rest as well as blocking the IPs she is using? Thanks. And I won't say I told you so. Jeffpw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No more fires, please; I think ArbCom members are probably working on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandy's right, as Fred Bauder is involved he's in a position to resolve this better than administrators will. east.718 at 20:04, January 13, 2008

[edit] Image on Adolf Eichmann

In the past couple of days three different images have appeared on the entry for Adolf Eichmann. I'm simply not well versed enough on the fair use rules to tell which, if any, of the three should actually be used. One has a fair use tag on it, another is a scan of a book cover, and the third is a free image but of inferior quality. Can an admin with some knowledge of how fair use should be applied here help sort this out? AniMate 08:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

yes,can an admin see which one of these is best qualified to exist on wikipedia??thanks Grandia01 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The third image, Image:Eichmann.jpg, is probably best, for two reasons. First, it's a free image, released into the public domain as a document of the US Federal Government. Second, it shows the subject in his military uniform, which is related to almost everything in the article (given that the subject appears to be a Nazi war criminal of some note). Free images are almost always preferred over similar fair use images, and the book cover refers to a work that is mentioned only briefly in the article. The casual image is a better resolution - but, again, the free image should be preferred in most cases. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the second image, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images #8. We can't use copyrighted book covers for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the cover. We can only use book covers to illustrate the book cover in the context of critical commentary about the item.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it has to be three - three is currently used in the article and the other two are deletion nom'd as unused fair use images. Situation seems to be resolved for the moment. WilyD 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - number three it is! :-) delldot talk 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

One user is continually re-inserting the unfree image - given the circumstances, it'd probably be best if someone else could take him aside and explain how things work. WilyD 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Some admin intervention is definitely needed. Wily and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) have both violated 3rr over the image, and I am still unsure the image that has been reinserted is valid under fair use. AniMate 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm dealing with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bunch of CSDs needing more experienced admin

Could an admin with more experience than I look at CAT:CSD, specifically the numerous articles up for speedy regarding motorcycle races? They all seem like legitimate redirects, and I can't for the life of me figger out what is going on there, or what should be done? Perhaps there are pages that need moving back? I am inclined to deny them all, as they are all valid redirects, and there is no need to delete, but maybe the motorbike racing wikiproject is doing some general cleanup and needs some help? It would be cool if someone else could check this out... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the history of one, they have fixed the capitalization from "Round" to "round". However, there is no need for deleting, you can categorize the redirects with {{R from other capitalisation}}. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted a second opinion. I will go that route...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independent admin please Image:1982-sapporo-turbo.jpg & Image:1976_Sapporo_2000_GSR.jpg

I'm asking for an non-involved admin to look at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 December 17 regarding these two images. There has been more than adequate time for the uploader to request the OTRS for this, which clearly hasn't been done as of yet. As there's no proof of the OTRS, I'm going to ask for their deletion. However, for transparency and not to appear vindictive (I have deleted prior versions of these), I'm asking for a non-involved opinion on these. SkierRMH (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this is an unfortunate case. The uploader clearly does not understand copyright (believing that, since the images don't say clearly "(C) Colt" on them, they're not copyright) and clearly has had some form of communication with the copyright holder, who (AGF that it's a cut-and-paste of a real email) is happy for them to be used non-commercially, but less sure about the other uses they can be put to. The uploader might actually have a very good FU case for these images. But, no, as it stands, these images are copyrightable and are copyrighted, permission has not been received to Wikipedia standards, and what permission is asserted is for non-commercial use which is incompatible with the GFDL and the licence declared for the images themselves. So deleted away. No evidence of vindictiveness (in fact, quite the reverse) from having previously deleted similar/the same images. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to call up or email the press officer whose details are found on the image page. Has anyone tried that? - hahnchen 23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cculber007

Grrr. Okay. Above user made a personal attack against User:Tenebrae.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tenebrae&diff=prev&oldid=183499998 User:Tenebrae posted about this comment a couple of places which led to a couple of us chasing after this one. See WP:ANI#Long-term WP:AGF and WP:NPA abuse. Now I've got a message from User:Cculber007 on my talk page telling, me I'm not allowed to post to his talk page and calling me unwise and accusing me of making threats. I really want to block this user now, but obviously I can't. Someone else please look into this user and sort out something. I'm going back to putting my head in the sand. Or to start that discussion about deprecating WP:CIV and WP:AGF I keep threatening. Hiding T 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A small backlog at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion

There's a few discussions need closing out at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, but most of the admins regular to the page have been involved in the discussion, and the regular closer is on wiki break. If a few admins not involved in the debates feel like closing them, it would be appreciated. Guidance on closing is offered at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User. Ta. Hiding T 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet IP

Coming from here, those IPs maybe related, or the editor may have access to each. Check history of the page in question, vandalism is immediately after another. Remember, I'm coming here on a recommendation from RPP. Thank you for your time, Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I more or less referred the user to AN or ANI. The userpage User:WesleyDodds is currently under attack. Two IPs have been blocked for vandalising the userpage, one for 24 hours and one for 31 hours. They may come back to Wesley's userpage when the block expires, or the vandal(s) may return from another IP address. Semi-protection was requested for the userpage, but since this involves probably one vandal, admin action against the vandalising IP addresses might me more appropriate. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible edit war/content dispute over Panimalar Engineering College

I came across this at the help desk. Rather than simply say "you don't 'own' the page", I took a look at the article's edit history. It looks like a little edit war is going on between User:Shatheeshl and User:Naren87 with a few IPs getting in on the action. For both editors, their major/only contributions have been to the Panimalar Engineering College article. Shatheeshl prefers that the article contained the college's "vision statement", fawning biographies of leading staff members and a list glowing achievements. On the other hand, Naren87 prefers that the article contained a POV demolition piece detailing how the college allegedly breaches Indian law, defrauds the students, and so on. Neither editor cites any references to support their version.

In my opinion, although the college itself may be notable, neither version of the article is suitable for Wikipedia. Could someone take a look and decide if one or both editors should be warned/blocked, and if the article should be protected, reverted to a much earlier version or just deleted. Astronaut (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is one huge NPOV-violating, unsourced beast. I might suggest undoing the whole thing, making it a stub and having a new article be developed. Bstone (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've stubbed it to a neutral version, but won't mind if it gets deleted. As I'm a bit involved in the content now I would be grateful if other admins could watchlist it to hand out the blocks. There are editors on that article who have a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User requests second block review

See User talk:Shojaijekhi. It was his third block, and this time it was indefinite. I denied his request for an unblock, and he asked that it be re-reviewed, and asked for a shorter term block. Could someone check it over and respond to his request. Since I made my decision, I feel like it would be inappropriate for me to do this again... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep him blocked, and forever block any obvious re-creations. I would never support an indefinite block for the third occasion of breaking the 3RR rule, say, but for the sake of the project we must not tolerate the harassment of users like this. Cool Hand Luke 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joeydq

I have emailed this user because he is a minor and has put personal information on his user page. I leave it to someone more experienced to decide whether this needs immediate attention. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

the info has been removed, and the user asked if he wants the page deleted entirely. DGG (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Jehochman by Archtransit

[edit] norco

I made Norco_(medication) today hoping to have it linked from Norco, but I think I broke it. Sorry. I've given up. Bstone (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel's comments about me

User:Daniel has been hurting my feelings by calling my comments ridiculous [24] and saying that I have a 'torrid' history of ridiculous comments, and I don't like it one bit. And I also remember last December when he boldfaced the word "warning" [25] during a discussion at WT:RFA which pressed buttons on me. Do you have any advice? NHRHS2010 talk 01:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/NHRHS2010/Questions for the candidate#Questions from Daniel shows a pattern of this user being "hurt" frequently because I call a spade a spade. This discussion is frivolous and pointless, except for maybe consensus telling NHRHS2010 to grow a thicker skin when making argumentative comments. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the full scope of this, the bolded warning in the comment at WT:RFA seems pretty tame to me. He just seems to be emphasizing his point which someone appear to miss. I don't know how you find any "pressing of buttons" through that. Metros (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over your (NHRHS2010) interactions with Daniel, and think you should grow thicker skin and stop taking things too personally. This particular user (Daniel) has been more than fair with you, and "hurt feelings" is too subjective an accusation, IMO. Do you have any other specific diffs that show that Daniel has been abnormally abusive towards you (or any other user for that matter)? I can't find any but if you have any diffs I'd look at them. You've been a good all around contributor since March of 2007, and personally, I'm glad you're here. I recommend you continue to add good information to articles that interest you and drop the "Daniel" stuff. Surely you've seen worse comments than those directed at you by Daniel? Surely you can contribute peacefully to Wikipedia and make a better encyclopedia? Just one man's opinion. Cheers, Keeper | 76 01:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to be civil and kind. You attract more bees with honey. Bstone (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is unneeded to be mollycoddling. —Kurykh 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally find that the bolding was used appropriately in the situation that it was used in, however, I don't find that some of your other comments, NHRHS, have used boldface appropriately either. Take a look at your replies to some comments at your "Questions for the candidate" page at the recent ArbCom elections, for example: "No, but the YouTube video of me reading my userpage history of vandalism was meant to be dedicated to User:Wimt for being very kind to revert vandalism on my userpage", and "I know that. I was talking about assigning checkuser and oversight access to certain users." (emphasis not mine, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/NHRHS2010/Questions for the candidate for context). If you are going to make argumentative comments of any kind, you have to know that someone may disagree and criticise for it, and that it may not always be in such a way that will not "hurt your feelings". If you're not ready to deal with criticism or such scrutiny, well, then I'm afraid you will find it hard to comment on many things here. Spebi 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Keeper76. I know that Daniel is not trying to harm me but he have left comments that have hurt my feelings. Also, take a look at my My 3rd RfA. NHRHS2010 talk 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, NHRHS2010, I've seen your RfA (s) and I know that you want to be a good Wikipedian. What I'm saying to you is you need to get thicker skin. Don't be so senstive! Wikipedia has literally thousands of editors. Over a thousand administrators. Surely some of them will disagree with you? Why isn't that OK? You are dredging up issues that are drawing attention to yourself. I'm saying get thicker skin. That means that you should not take things so personally. You should help build an encyclopedia that is the best in the world. If you find yourself getting caught up in the underbelly of this place, please - take it in stride. You are a good contributor to the mainspace. Don't have hurt feelings over this, or anything else, just keep adding what you know to what you know. Goopd luck to you, whatever happens, and as always, happy editing. Keeper | 76 02:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By putting yourself up at RfA you are asking for people to make a judgement of you. If you can't handle negative judgements, then don't put yourself up at RfA for a fourth time. Daniel (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't have time for an RfA anyways; I am now all over the place (YouTube, Wikimedia Commons, etc.), not just Wikipedia. NHRHS2010 talk 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think time should be your main concern when it comes to RfA - there's another large reason. Daniel (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the proper and improper use of bolding on AN? Really? ^Avruchtalk 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we were talking about when User:Daniel boldfaced the word 'warning' during a discussion at WT:RfA. See above comments. NHRHS2010 talk 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What you're doing right now is drawing a bunch of attention to yourself. People are again making a certain judgement of you. And whether Daniel boldfaced this or italicized that, or even underlined the moon, it doesn't matter much. Well, at least it's supposed to be no big deal. You're working up a storm in a teacup, I'm afraid. Maxim_(talk) 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I must profess my love of bolded italicised underlined blinking text (oldid). Daniel (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection to the way Daniel used bold in that comment on WT:RFA? Metros (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to close this {{resolved|1=Trolling, move along...}} ~~~~. Mønobi 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Trolling is a little harsh...--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider this trolling. NHRHS2010 is clearly upset - that you disagree or think that he should not be upset/have a thicker skin does not make his comments here "trolling". --Iamunknown 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What about {{resolved|1=Whining, move along...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what an utterly unhelpful comment to make - seriously? ~ Riana ⁂ 03:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not speak to Daniel directly instead of getting everyone in an upheaval about a few comments? If he can't resolve it by speaking to Daniel directly, then I see a reason for posting something here. Mønobi 04:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I would prefer that many discussions on these noticeboard's stay in the user talk or other talk namespaces. Labeling NHRHS2010's comments as "trolling" or "whining", however, is a separate issue; if one looks into NHRHS2010's history, one will see that he does occasionally become frustrated and make daft (yet genuine) comments. It is unhelpful and inaccurate to dismiss his comments as "trolling", for he is not deliberately or intentionally attempting to disrupt Wikipedia; it is unhelpful, though not necessarily inaccurate, to dismiss them as "whining", for doing so most probably alienates and further frustrates, exacerbating the problem. At any rate, I agree that this thread should be considered "closed", but we as a community could have handled it in a much more dignified manner, sparing NHRHS2010 some grief for posting what he probably considered to be legitimate concerns. And I think it is to our shame that we did not. --Iamunknown 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said and could not have been said better. It is a shame that people's concerns are responded with in an almost bullyish manner. I am shamed by it. Bstone (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for my comments above. They were inexcusable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this rather upsetting if I'm being honest. I've spoken to Daniel about this privately, he knows my thoughts about the overall situation so there's no need to bring them up here, but dismissing NHRHS2010's concern as trolling is really out of order. He came here with a legitimate concern, he felt upset, and do people really believe that the best way to treat an editor that comes here in good faith because they are unhappy is to show them even more hostility? This is how we lose contributors, and it's not a good thing. I actually see no constructive advice here, "grow a thick skin" isn't really sound advice - some people just naturally have a lower tolerance level, and in this case, there was some comments which IMHO were far from required. He made a joke, he wasn't attacking anyone, but as I see far too often here at the minute, people turn that around and make it as though he's going out to attack people. Yeah, we're here to write a serious encyclopedia, but it's also supposed to be fun. There's times we can have a laugh, and people shouldn't turn the first sign of someone making a sarcastic comment into a personal attack. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've unarchived this because I feel it is prudent to respond.

• "there was some comments which IMHO were far from required" — I seriously hope that was directed at the people calling his comments "trolling", because consensus is pretty clear that my comments weren't "far from required" and I see nothing truly objectionable in my comments (although I do take on board your suggestion to be less incisive when dealing with young and possible immature editors like this). If you have serious concerns with any of my comments (if you do, that is), please link to them specifically and discuss with me exactly what was wrong in that particular comment. I feel I deserve that courtesy, at least. Of course, as I said at the start, I hope this is just a misunderstanding of your general pronouns.
• "There's times we can have a laugh, and people shouldn't turn the first sign of someone making a sarcastic comment into a personal attack" — which sarcastic comment? If you're talking about the one in the RfA, I'm 99% sure it wasn't sarcastic, and if required can produce a dossier full of diff links showing that, in context, it definitely wasn't a joke or sarcastic. I'd prefer not to, of course :)
• "I've spoken to Daniel about this privately, he knows my thoughts about the overall situation so there's no need to bring them up here" — well, if either of the above refers to my comments or the RfA comment respectively, the last part of that is a little misleading. If not, another misunderstanding.

I eagerly await your response, because I don't want to see a petty attempt at lynching by NHRHS2010 get some traction either due to unresponded accusations or misunderstandings. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you really do want me to say it here rather than in private.... I wasn't specifically refering to your comments - as I said, I discussed them with you in private and hoped it could stay that way. Of course NHRHS2010 was being sarcastic, do you honestly think "if anyone opposes I will get mad" is a serious comment made by him? He was joking, messing around - simple as that, people need to lighten up a bit. He's not the sort of person to go around attacking people, and this was nothing more than a silly joke, I'm surprised people even reacted to it. I believe your comments on the RfA were far from required, and unfortunately, I believe this is part of you holding a grudge against him. You went to town on his RfA - people can read the comments themselves - they weren't the most constructive way of putting your point across and at times you were quite nasty to him. Also, a week later he put himself up for ArbCom, and yet again, you went to town with that and in my opinion you were incivil there as well - I can assure you he was extremely upset by some of the comments there - you need to remember that we are all volunteers here, and no-one has to put up with crap off anyone, but why should people have to receive it for no reason apart from maybe not knowing policy as well as others? Now, we're here again, and you've once again flipped for no real reason, in an attempt to undermind NHRHS2010, get one up on him - I just don't think that's fair Daniel and I personally would have expected a little more. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclovin (talk • contribs)

If someone offers them up for a position of trust, they can have no complaints when they are shot down due to being unsuitable. I made an effort to ensure that my questions on his ArbCom candidacy were as professionally-worded as possible, which was difficult to do after he decided it'd be cool to "get his friends to attempt to attack my opposein his RfA" in a video on YouTube, which showed signs of malicious intent regardless of how much it succeeded. "I can assure you he was extremely upset by some of the comments there" — thank goodness there's a consensus here that he needs to grow a thicker skin. He couldn't even be bothered replying to my questions, so he really shouldn't be upset by something he doesn't have to confront head-on. "You need to remember that we are all volunteers here, and no-one has to put up with crap off anyone, but why should people have to receive it for no reason apart from maybe not knowing policy as well as others" — I appreciate that people don't know policy and good standards as well as others, however what I can't appreciate is people who don't know this deliberately putting themselves into situations where they ask for people to judge them (ie. RfA and ArbCom elections). If I'm going to be censored in my attempts to ensure that the right outcome occurs by presenting my argument, backed up by evidence, then all these processes are broken terribly. I have done very little to undermine NHRHS2010 in this discussion, contrary to what you say, as it's the other dozen editors who have commented in my support without any form of solicitation.

Conclusion: if you don't want your edits to be analysed and judgement passed on you as a person and a Wikipedian, don't nominate yourself for any positions of trust. Simple. Daniel (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem here is that you wouldn't have done it to anyone else, but for some reasons you've taken this user to the cleaners, in his RfA and in the ArbCom elections. I've said it previously, we shouldn't need to grow a thicker skin, when someone is acting in good faith like NHR.... there shouldn't be any attempts to belittle him, and this is unfortunately what I belive has happened in this case. I suggest that you keep away from him and let him get on with his own thing, if there's problems with conduct, there's plenty of others here to deal with that, I just don't believe you are now in a position to judge his conduct in a neutral manner and I question (in this one particular instance) your ability to act in a civil and propotionate manner when in discussion with NHRHS2010. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclovin (talk • contribs)

I certainly won't go out of my way, but he can expect another detailed "hurtful" comment if/when he puts himself up for a position of trust, or decides to try and undermine me by starting a noticeboard discussion. Daniel (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunuate you feel the need to hold grudges here. I'm not sure why someone would want to go out of their way to upset another person, which seems to be the case here if NHR is to put himself up fro another position of trust. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's fuelled by a "grudge" or a desire to protect Wikipedia from what I feel would be a "net negative decision", I don't know. Probably a combination, because he certainly hasn't won over my friendship with this kind of act. As I say, if he doesn't want to be "upset", which appears to happen very easily whenever someone disagrees with him[26][27] or speaks negatively of him[28][29], then he shouldn't put himself in situations where such will happen. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brine shrimp(

Could somebody fix this, what I will assume, is a good faith move? Corvus cornix_talk 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed page location, deleted resulting redirects. Jerrymai1995 (talk · contribs) has made some odd edits, in the past, and may be worth keeping a loose eye on. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Luna. Corvus cornix_talk 04:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plantgrowreap

Requesting another admin to take a look at this comment, due to the fact I am blinded with rage at being told to 'be a good boy'. I really do not appreciate that. Made by Plantgrowreap on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umayakkal Nachiyar- diff. He or she has been making similar comments directed at the Wikipedia community in general, but this one was directed specifically at me. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I should just walk away. This is very mild, compared to some AfD bunfights I've seen/been on the end of, and perhaps not a surprise from someone facing their (frankly very strange) article being deleted, given that there appears to be a language barrier. Have a cup of tea, remain/regain calm and then do something else. I'd imagine this article will be deleted in the end anyway. I'll consider refactoring the AfD for readability when Plantgrowreap has calmed down themselves. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And there we go. G1, A1 and A7 speedy, AfD closed. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realise it was mild, just (s)he managed to hit a nerve there. Calmed down now, but I was on the verge of doing something silly. J Milburn (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I left the editor a warning. If it happens again, let me know. Thanks for keeping your cool. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Jenochman, Redvers and DrKiernan for their rapid reactions and advice. J Milburn (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone watching Category:Requests_to_undelete_images?

Is any administrator watching Category:Requests_to_undelete_images? There are only three images there now, but I might be adding more soon if I start working more with fair use images. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to undelete the two images you requested (Image:USB Icon.svg and Image:Firewire Icon.svg) because, as SVG images, I believe they fail WP:FUC #3(b). If you have a low resolution raster image (jpg/png) with a proper fair use rationale, I would not be opposed if you re-uploaded the icons.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is my first time noticing request to undelete images. What exactly is the process for admins? I can understand if the request is granted, it's just as easy as undeleted the image and reverting to the previous version. But what would I do if I wanted to deny a request? Re-delete the image page and contact the user who requested? or should I respond on the image page? or something else?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Being an SVG file does not disqualify an image from being claimed as fair use. It simply must be uploaded at a lower detail than the original, and meet all other fair use requirements. There's a template out there somewhere that SVG files can be tagged with; it explains the restrictions on their use (I can't remember its name). I didn't know about Category:Requests to undelete images, but there's no real process as far as I can tell. If somebody wants an image restored so that they can update its information to comply with policy, simply restore the image. If they don't make it comply with policy, delete it. If you want to deny the request (maybe the image doesn't meet fair use criteria [i.e. an image of a living person]), simply explain on the user's talk page and leave the image deleted. - auburnpilot talk 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For such simple logos, I think SVG:s would be fine. I could try to hunt down the same file again and upload with the same same, but this would save some work. For images from the big mass that were speedily deleted for missing fair use rationale, I think they can be restored without much process. The fair use rationale will be reviewed later anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do these logos even meet the threshold of originality for copyright? I know they are trademarked, but that's a different thing. *** Crotalus *** 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have undeleted firewire and USB, I think a deletion discussion should at least take place, for the fair use rationale makes sense. I don't think SVGs violate fair use for such simple logos, as long as we use them at low resolutions. (An alternative would be to force the resolution in the svg file directly). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at IfD. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)