Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive139

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Is this 3RR? 2 Action by Ledenierhomme removing sections of "Hundred Years' War (1369-1389) 3 NPWatcher Approval 4 Misspelled category 5 Review requested 6 BoxingWear/Projects/Vesa 7 AutoWikiBrowser 8 forwarding you a message from a self claimed "government associate" i just received. 9 From the "oh no, not again" department 10 Linking to old versions of redirected articles 11 Need assistance: coachella 12 Owning the 9/11 attacks talkpage 13 User:Wohho 14 LesTout.com 15 Grawp sockpuppet 16 Edit warring, removal of sourced info, personal attacks 17 LesTout.com 18 Grawp sockpuppet 19 Proposing unblock for RS1900 20 Edit warring, removal of sourced info, personal attacks 21 A (personal?) note on today's featured article 22 Threat of violence at George Bernard Shaw 23 Usernames 24 User who posts nothing but hoaxes/self-promotion 25 Proposed unblock of Live and Die 4 Hip Hop 26 User:Kathleen21503 27 MovieZen "borrowing" our content 28 Proposed blocking of an IP user (62.64.200.158) 29 Block review please? 30 Metaphysics 31 Giovanni33 blocked for sock puppetry 32 Tankred 33 DRV backlog 34 "Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function proposal 35 User:Poochiedontsurf 36 Impartial closure of a poll requested 37 A bot or not a bot, that is the questions. 38 Denshaw 39 Odd "images" 40 Community ban of self proclaimed "Asia Fan Club President" 41 user Jagra 42 Backlog at WP:UAA 43 Cafe Nervosa 44 Peter Robinson (disambiguous) 45 Jackmantas 46 Transcluding CSD 47 Boldness 48 Politically-motivated systematic edits 49 Something strange on the Main Page Talk Board 50 User:Kiezuko 51 The Unblocking of User:ElisaEXPLOSiON 52 Mirrors and talk pages 53 Is anyone else having this problem? 54 Image:Lord john russell.jpg 55 Unactionable consensus for change on ITN 56 Maxim has retired 57 Community ban of Setanta747 58 User:Alzuun 59 Blocking of IP:168.10.156.5 60 Vandalism at Demographics of Lebanon 61 RfC close 62 User:Panel 2008 3RR 63 Did You Know? is 11 hours overdue. 64 IPs blanking their respective talk pages 65 Old unclosed AfD 66 What in God's name? 67 Editor review 68 Article copied from within WP to a mispelled title 69 Teyana taylor 70 Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide outdated 71 Persistent vandalism at Mustafa Kemal Ataturk 72 Wikipedia:Long term abuse 73 User pages deletions 74 New pages 75 Adminship poll 76 Block review and contributor discussion: Pixelface 77 BAG Membership 77.1 Back in the BAG 78 A user is violating the Good Faith Policy and blocking My Edits on the Obama Girl Which Are Accurate 79 Wikiprojects 80 Do you think that Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is notable enough to have imitators? 81 Multiple identity syndrome

Is this 3RR?

[1] --Cream (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information: NL.wiki arbom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder because of his ongoing self promotion and his ongoing abuse of procedures to support that self promotion. At the moment he is even blocked at NL.wiki. GijsvdL (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is something of an aside, as nl-wiki doesn't have much direct bearing here, but according to the NL-Arb verdict, that block was lifted. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not currently 3RR (currently at 3) and if it was taken to 3RR I wouldn't block anyway, because it is clearly removing self-promotion. Those aren't references, they're just adverts for the books. Black Kite 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[2] says it all. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If these were actually references which linked to article text in order to improve the reader's knowledge, then they'd be looked on more kindly, but that addition is really just "this book exists", which given the obvious COI, is not good. I have reverted. Black Kite 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

These are the official tournamnet books. Please acquaint yourself with the guidelines. It does not matter who wrote them. If the other books are relevant, then so are these. But really, this is not the place to discuss this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not generally list every book about a subject unless it is a direct reference. If text in the article can be referenced from the text of the books, then I see no problem. I am however naturally uneasy about the insertion of lists of books by their author. Black Kite 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Uneasy is recommendable, but does not imply a need to act. It implies a need to investigate. And never discriminate: if some of these books are relevant, then all of them are. Now, obviously, the results can be referenced from the books (it's the official source, as mentioned). We only didn't place ref tags to keep the table neat; it is clear enough from the book titles which book goes where. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Action by Ledenierhomme removing sections of "Hundred Years' War (1369-1389)

I need some consensus on this article Hundred Years' War (1369-1389) as this editor keeps removing sections of the article, saying "thought it was self-explanatory, that section is so amateur and obviously unreliable". He/she goes on to say "that it would be better if it didn't exist at all" and apologizes. Whereupon I told him that it wasn't self-explanatory at all and that he should improve it rather than blank it. I reverted it for the second time but L. just removed it again.
I should say, however, that I was against creating these several period articles of the War (1369-1389), etc. in first place, but now it's done, it shouldn't just be dealt with so high-handedly as this person is doing. Perhaps I am seeing it the way other people don't? Dieter Simon (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so please seek dispute resolution. That said, the sections in dispute read as an individual's commentary, which is possibly disturbing considering that they are unsourced. So actually, I'd suggest you find citations for these sections, and then seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NPWatcher Approval

Not urgent, but if there's a sysop with a spare 30 secs at some point would you mind purging the approvals here. Thanks :) AL_LOCKE|^talk 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Tiptoety ^talk 02:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Misspelled category

Would someone please delete Category:Cancelled aircraft projects, I've transfered all the meaningful content to a new category Category:Canceled aircraft projects. Anynobody 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any reason to {{Category redirect}} this or that we need situate anything else at the category page, such that deletion would probably be fine, but it should be observed that "canceled" need not (and should not) be preferred to "cancelled"; the latter is the usual British English spelling, and we don't (usually) substitute one variety of English for another in situations like this. Joe 04:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, we now have two categories where there should be one, with articles in both. What a mess. --RFBailey (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you asked for the wrong one to be deleted. Which one do you really want? You can empty out the bad named one with AWB. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Err... I've put everything back in the original category, but then just noticed the "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Given the consensus here and here I won't undo unless anyone is particularly upset. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Review requested

Per this instruction, I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to perform this review. While the original responding admin has taken notice of abusive behavior by a disruptive editor, two respected users and one administrator have requested that this page be fully protected. See the original request for details. Thanks in advance! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

BoxingWear/Projects/Vesa

Once again the persistent vandal BoxingWear/Projects/User:Vesa (aka, the George Reeves Person[3]) is doing his usual tricks of making nonsense edits [4], engaging in edit wars[5], and calling names[6]. He is going under the IP address of 64.107.0.76. Instead of getting into a further edit war with him, I bring this situation before you.MKil (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

64.107.0.76 blocked for 31 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto 64.107.3.66 - small rangeblock coming if this continues. Black Kite 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

66.99.0.0/22 and 64.107.0.0/22 both blocked for 24 hours. Black Kite 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Now he's up to his usual tactics -- threatening me, saying I'm a member of the mafia, etc.[7].MKil (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

Um, I think we need to have a Block on Site ban on any ip this user logs on - unless the legal threat and threat of violence is removed. This may have to be passed to the Foundation re the legal side, and perhaps to ANI to get consensus for a ban of the editor per the physical threat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He's already banned. ([8]). Black Kite 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can never call somebody vandal if he she does something good and out of her/his good will to correct articles, as mkil removes all in name of commentary, that is wrong, i improved it but you guys do not care about accuracy, great, that's why nobody is using wikipedia in colleges, just type on search wikipedia not allowed in schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.107.0.76#More_information_on_my_original_reply_is_here_on_administrative_board_as_evil_people_will_take_it_down Read well and certainly I am not grp on vesa or projects. Only on wikipedia there are one sided judges. The real vandal here is mkil who can not cooperate, never did.

AutoWikiBrowser

Hi, there are a few applications that are over 24 hours old and as suggested on the page, i've mentioned it here. Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I've just added a request for my trial approved bot. Can an administrator go ahead and approve it? Thanks! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, never mind - another user just approved it, and my new messages bar popped up right as I posted this. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

forwarding you a message from a self claimed "government associate" i just received.

exact quote: "My project - www.pixaerial.com (also .co.uk) is a government-sponsored project that has the built-in expectation that the information will be made available to as many people as possible. With this in mind, I entered a few links in completely relevant articles on wikipedia, but this has been flagged as 'spam'. I understand the reasons for genuine spam to be flagged, but this is a clear case of automation getting it completley wrong, and defaming us in the process!

Can someone please advise as to how the defamatory page about our organisations's name may be removed, as my attempts to remove it have been perversely identified as 'vandalisation'!

Policies are fine, but we musn't tar everyone with the same brush... John Rowlands Welsh Assembly Government Sponsored Pixaerial Project."

as i'm no admin, i'll forward this directly to you guys. AnubisGodfather^T_© 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not and admin either but I am going to contact some one on it. Rgoodermote  16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He has been indefblocked and the links removed, just ignore him. Jackaranga (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/pixaerial.co.uk? Aecis^Brievenbus 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a clue, but I sent a message to webmaster@wales.gsi.gov.uk I am assuming that that is a government email. Rgoodermote  16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok yeah it probably would have something to with that. Rgoodermote  16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He added only one link after the level one warning for spam, and that just one minute after the warning - so he may not even have seen it if he was already editing. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From the "oh no, not again" department

I would like to see some discussion, please on ways of de-escalating conflicts instead of escalating them. On BongBoing, they have the concept of "disemvowelling", which neutralises rants without drama. I don't think that would work here because edits / posts can be re-edited or reverted, but we need a credible way of calmly reining in "rhetorical exuberance" without over-reacting to it.

At the moment we have a very blunt instrument - blocking - and a very poor way of controlling it which means that "oh sod off, we already debated that five hundred times" is seen as more of a problem than bringing up the same rejected POV for the five hundred and first time. WP:CIVIL is all well and good, but there is a world of difference between being reasonably respectful of fellow editors, and cuddling up to a never-ending parade of zealots. There is also a tendency to focus on one diff that says "sod off" and go straight into Chicken Little mode, ignoring the dozens of exchanges that led up to it, the vexatiousness of those who work their way through every guideline in the book until they find one that suggest some slight ambiguity where none, in fact, exists, in some cases legions of sock and meatpuppets, and so on. In fact, Wikipedia's format lends itself well to a bait and report technique which looks to me to be the MO of some of the more clueful zealots on the project these days.

And above all we appear to be requiring long-standing editors and defenders of policy to become superhuman in order to be allowed to continue contributing.

Wikipedia is currently almost certainly the number one most important place to get your point of view promoted. I don't think anyone disputes that. It's also the case that some promoters of fringe theories, conspiracies and the like are vicious and unscrupulous, leading many people to give them a very wide berth, and some are just plain tiresome, repeating the same false assertions time and again in the hope that one day they will become true, or endlessly trying to draw a new "consensus" between the current state of the article and their preferred POV. This is not necessarily done with evil intent; many people sincerely believe that telekinesis exists, vaccines are killing and disabling children, the World Trade Center was blown up by the Government in order to justify a new oil war and so on.

That leaves a few people (e.g. User:MONGO, User:ScienceApologist) working hard to resist long-term egregious POV-pushing, with the result that tempers get frayed. Tempers get frayed anyway, in controversial topics such as the never-ending ethnic feuds. I really don't think that blocking people for tetchiness in the face of POV-pushing is a great idea. I don't think that many people here will be unaware of my view on this, of course, but in the end we are allowed to call a spade a spade sometimes, and we are actually allowed to be human. We are also allowed to become frustrated. And there should be a way of calmly refactoring or toning down such frustration that allows people to calm down, because blocking for sarcasm or snappish remarks is about as effective as "cool-down" blocks. Blocking is supposed to be preventive, but virtually every block of a long-standing contributor for civility infringements - even (perhaps especially) including Giano - ends up looking punitive. If the block were preventive, simply posting "OK, I am calm now" on the talk page should result in an immediate and uncontroversial unblock.

But I don't think blocking is a good way of handling people whose commitment to the project and its core values is never, at any point, in doubt.

I don't have a good idea for how to handle this. I'd be really interested to hear if anyone does have one. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably an idea which is widely endorsed by members of the community, but just not conveyed in the actions that eventually happen. You're right about the blocking of long-standing editors though, cool-down blocks aren't permitted per se but are often implemented (at least from what I can see). Maybe a re-write in policy is needed here. Rudget (review) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree there is a problem. I also agree, Guy, that the solution, if one in fact even exists, will be messy and contentious. In other words, great essay. And also, sorry I dont' have a solution. A meaningless post by Keeper......Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I despise disemvowling. It basically says "This is not worthwhile content, but we don't care enough to remove and/or really do anything about it." ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid view, and it would not work here. So what would? I mean, we need to run something up the flagpole and see who salutes. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, that's one of the best posts I've seen on the topic in a long time. I believe you're absolutely right.

Personally I believe we should never block established contributors except in extreme circumstances, e.g. the person has become berserk and won't stop reverting, or something. Blocking pisses people off. Good people. People we don't want to lose. Our core contributors are the project's most important asset, and a lot of administrators don't have the wisdom to see that a block which is strictly within policy can be hurtful to the project. It's something I've learned as a corporate manager: you have to give exceptional people a little extra slack sometimes. Admins here need enough wisdom to see what consequences to the project their within-policy block will cause; it's like look-ahead in chess, and only comes with life experience.

Every time a long-term contributor to the project gets blocked, there's a horrific drama scene on AN/I, and even worse, we have a high risk of losing one of our core contributors. We all make mistakes, and we all lose our tempers sometimes. Fringe POV pushers have learned to game our system, bait good users, and right now I feel like we're on the defensive, and losing ground fast. I don't have a proposal on how to fix it, ... yet. Antandrus (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just our of curiosity, how many articles must I write before I am exempt from the civility policy? I'll be sure to get writing...No user, regardless of what they contribute, is exempt from our policies. Being an asshole is not excusable because an editor deals with POV pushers. It make "look punitive" but editors who routinely engage in incivility and attacks degrade the community, even if they aren't doing direct damage to the actual content of our articles. I am opposed to the greatest extent that I can be, to any rule that will exempt certain editors from treating other editors in a respectful manner. If a certain behavior would earn a new-ish user a block, that behavior should earn a block for a "longstanding contributor" as well; double standards should not be applied. - auburnpilot talk 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To an extent, I agree with the above. Another way to phrase this situation might be what would we do if a certain editor who has been a polite and civil editor for a long period of time, and has not been subject to blocking for conduct, suddenly, on a given article, for whatever reason, loses it? In a case like this, that person might just, for whatever reason be having a very bad day. I had one of those yesterday, throwing up I think five times. I don't think I said anything out of line though, as I was basically logged off most of the day. If we were dealing with an established editor who has had repeated, almost regular warnings for misconduct, but had never previously been blocked or otherwise reprimanded, I could agree to that if the situation warranted it. But if Kirill Lokshin or one of the other most respected, tolerant, and polite editors we have were to suddenly become far less than polite, I can and would try to find out what happened before placing a block, as there would be some reason to think that something really extraordinary, maybe something we didn't know about, like a death threat or similar e-mail, happened. But, yes, established users with histories of less than stellar conduct who've basically lucked out to date in not getting sanctioned I can't really see any objections to blocking or banning as the situation required. And, yeah, I'd include me in that number. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's exempt an I'm not suggesting they should be. I am suggesting that people who work at high-stress points of the project should not be blocked for outbreaks of rhetorical exuberance. We should have a gentler but no less firm way to push back against that. When people are provoked, they react in different ways, and make no mistake: there is some serious provocation going on here. So I am suggesting we find a way to encourage people to be better, not punish them for not being better. This is, I think, basic psychology, in as much as parenting a teenager teaches you such things. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion; a posting time limitation - where an editor is restricted to posting an edit after the expiry of x minutes from the last. This would stop reflex responses to baiting comments, allow the editor to "refine" their response (or to cancel it), or require them to chose what venue they wish to contribute in their permited editing allowance. In short, it requires an editor to think about what they are posting before hitting the save button. Such a restriction will allow considered discourse (or good article space contributions) rather than escalating a heated argument. Again, this would be applied to accounts only after violation of policy followed by warnings.

In other places this system is known as a flood barrier. I don't know if this is practical in this Wiki, and it is likely to increase rather than decrease the sysop workload, but that would be my answer to cool down the rhetoric. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what incident Guy is referring to, but I would oppose creating a double standard for people who edit a lot. (Never mind for the moment that, in practice, there is one.) A newbie who can't keep his temper in check eventually gets blocked; sometimes (and much less often), the same happens to an established user who can't keep his temper in check. What bothers me more is the flip side of the issue; as mentioned above, when an established user runs afoul of a rule or guideline in some not-very-harmful way and gets blocked for it, there is a huge outcry, but when a good-faith newbie does the same and gets blocked, few people notice or say anything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a double standard. I'm pointing out that we have no decent way of handling people who hit the civility margins in one out of every thousand posts as distinct from those who do it every other comment, and we seem to be in outright denial of human nature, as set out in Godwin's Law for example. The problem is not people losing their tempers, the problem is vexatious attempts to push a POV and endless slanging matches between entrenched positions. Blocking people does not fix the actual problem. I don't know what would fix the actual problem, but blocking an editor with over 40,000 edits for saying "get lost" on his own talk page (to cite one recent example) does not even begin to address it. In fact, it rather tends to make it worse. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I wonder if it takes a certain personality type to consistently stand up to the fringers and loonies. (Oooh, was that uncivil?) Mongo, SA and if I may say so Guy and myself would not likely get voted into the Victorian Ladies' Tea Club and Encyclopedia Writing Society. Conversely I don't recall finding many of those who demand unwavering, unconditional civility hanging out in the darker corners of WP. Sorry for the amateur psychoanalysis but though I'd throw it out there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy has stated something that has been repeatedly noted and complained about by many experienced editors who deal with controversial topics. I have been collecting egregious examples of what I view as Abuse of CIVIL here where we seem to be applying CIVIL a bit too aggressively in my opinion, or at least approaching such a limit. The list of words and phrases which are judged to be unCIVIL seems to be getting longer and longer (I have collected some examples here). This phenomenon has been repeatedly noted and discussed at Raymond arritt's Expert Withdrawal pages. As for what to do with persistent disruption that drives people to this behavior, I wrote a draft of an essay for some measures which we find work at the pages related to creationism, the creation-evolution controversy and intelligent design. I have also developed a set of exercises, the first batch of which appear at User:Filll/AGF Challenge which describe some difficult situations which drive some people to these supposedly unCIVIL outbursts. I have found that many who lecture others about how awful it is to be unCIVIL and how mean many experienced editors and admins are to those who promote WP:FRINGE views and how they WP:BITE newbies have little to no experience dealing with controversial topics on Wikipedia. The AGF Challenge gives all a relatively painless chance to experience some of these difficult editing situations without reading a lot of material and without getting involved with a lot of drama. Interestingly, I have noticed that some who constantly gripe and complain about how unCIVIL others are and how we are too harsh with disruptive editors and how we BITE newbies are far far more aggressive when answering the AGF Challenge than is standard practice in controversial areas. The only reason they complain is that they are not familiar with these difficult editing situations and controversial topics. I suspect similar things are true of those who frequent places like Wikipedia Review, and complain at length about decisions made at Wikipedia; they have their own hot button issues, but when confronting a problem that is outside their area of sensitivity, they exhibit tendencies as harsh as, if not harsher than those exhibited by experienced admins and editors on Wikipedia. So I invite everyone; come take the AGF Challenge.--Filll (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting thoughts, but basically codification of our existing double standard for "experienced" users. I'm not sure I like it, but some change needs to happen. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What about more a more granular blocking policy, if it could be programmed? I'm thinking along the lines of ACLs, which has been in numerous revision control systems for awhile now, including CVS. This way, a block could be placed on a specific set of articles for the user, while leaving the rest of the Wiki editable. Think of it as per-user page protection. This would be beneficial not only for these instances, but also in cases where Arbcom has put someone on restricted editing. Right now there seems to be a rudimentary infrastructure for such a system (article protection, which seems to operate at the group level (Anon, Editor, Admin, etc). If it could be refined to the user level, then you could just add a "Deny Write" to all articles, cats, temps, etc. related to the trouble the editor was causing. So if, for example, an Irish editor lost his cool over at one of the Irish articles enough to need a block, you would just flip the Deny bit on where he is causing trouble. We already have pretty good categories and wikiproject organizations that it should be rather simple to get all the related namespace instances which require this bit be flipped. Just a thought, since it would probably would be less punitive and much more direct in targeting the source of the problem. Meanwhile, the editor could either cool off somewhere else or work on articles which aren't a problem. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to old versions of redirected articles

I know I should wait for an answer over there, but WP:VPT is not always that visible, so I was wondering if anyone reading this noticeboard had answers to this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Need assistance: coachella

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask why your signature is so illformatted? Additionally, what exactly do you require assistance at that article about? What is the nature of your problem? Anthøny 12:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The links at the top here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The redirect looks fine. I've pointed out why on its Talk page, but this editor is known to me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Owning the 9/11 attacks talkpage

Forum for voices seeking improvement of 9/11 article(s) is closed for general public. I'm certain there are better ways to deal with malicious editors and I'm certain that administrators as well as arbitrators know better.

Please resolve this issue as soon as possible. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is just semi-protected, so registered editors with accounts older than four days are free to post messages there at will. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just semi-protected you say? Yes, but editors (such as myself) unwilling (or way too busy) to create account have no means to participate in the discussion. Needless to say I'm in no way related to the persona which caused the protection. Do say, what is the use of our public service if it is not open to public? People should be encouraged to share their opinions and suggestions there, not forced to wait in front of the gate, or into this whole registration.., which even comes with the trial… eh? Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's official policy on Protection indicates that "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are ... subject to heavy and persistent vandalism." Since the 9/11 pages are some of the most heavily vandalized articles on Wikipedia, and as the talk page in question has only been semi-protected for a month, I am not sure what the issue is. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy, is it? Eh, I'd say don't use taser on folks until absolutely necessary, but all bright then, have it locked for general public… if you must. You know when you say how 9/11 pages are some of the most heavily vandalized articles on Wikipedia, you are absolutely right. And in more than one way that is… Thank you for response, till later. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To correct, the talk page in question has been semi-protected for around 24 hours, under the terms of the arbitration agreement, in response to trolling and disruption from an anonymous editor. --Haemo (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, MONGO leaves due to a bad block, and look at what happens... Just sayin'. Corvus cornix_talk 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Wohho

Possible conflict of interest here. Not really vandalizing, but all his edits to date have involved the inclusion of a website called Jalopnik. Been quiet for a long time and now he's adding bios on the entire staff. I've left polite word on his talk page re. COI, but he doesn't answer. He has, however, found the "hangon" template. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

LesTout.com

LesTout.com was salted by user Jossi‎ due to my initial lack of experience adding/editing article in Wikipedia. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to add a separate page for the artice at User:Shivaji Mitra/LesTout.com for him to preview the final article and approve it. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to put it into WP:RUP. I listed my message twice, but I did'nt get any response. So now, Admin עוד מישהו requested me to bringing it up on the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your request and to the best of my knowledge the title should be unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Soon after granting permission for the article LesTout.com it is being speedily deleted by (AndrewHowse). I was working with the Audio version of the article and now the article seems gone. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Grawp sockpuppet

Please help. See the contribs. Page move-vandalism. Enigma ^message Review 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it and blocked him immediately to prevent any more damage, but could definitely use some help fixing what was done. faithless (^speak) 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was using WP:HUG when all those edits started popping up on my screen. Unfortunately, I could not fix them through the program, because Huggle can't deal with page moves to my knowledge. It searches back through the history of the page, and since this guy is the "creator" after moving it, Huggle can't revert to a previous version. Enigma ^message Review 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed as Grawp - also the following accounts. I checked as there are always more when Grawp is involved:

1. Unferð (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
2. Wealhþeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
3. Weohstan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
4. Wæls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
5. Wondred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
6. Brosinga mene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
7. Gavin the Loser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

and IP blocked - Alison ^❤ 07:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

All accounts blocked. RBI now? Keegan^talk 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have the talk pages been salted? Whenever a Grawp account gets blocked, he locks it with an ungodly-large table that replicates a certain pic. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have at is, Jéské! Collaboration, after all :) Keegan^talk 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid to ask; what pic? - Alison ^❤ 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, let me guess .... - Alison ^❤ 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done the honors and salted all the talk pages, removing those avenues of attack. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like there's a Grawp attack every few days. Enigma ^message Review 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been noticing a pattern recently. Grawp gets exposed and blocked, and shortly thereafter, several users are harass-crapflooded from a certain site (Not ED), which leads to (now-)3-month IP blocks on all participants and constant deletions. I swear, nowadays more than half my IP blocks and almost all my deletions involve such attacks. All the same, I'm preparing. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 07:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing we can't take care of (and thanks to Bencherlite, who tagged the userpages). Keegan^talk 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you'd better be prepared to delete and restore pages. Keep an eye for a user talk page being blanked except for a short sentence or two, and delete the revision immediately. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can handle that. Keegan^talk 08:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to all: if you're blocking Grawp socks, it is worth semi-ing your user and talk pages for a while. Black Kite 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I stopped caring long ago what vandals do to my userspace. It's a Wiki! after all ;) Keegan^talk 07:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here. My userpage is semi'd and I have popups. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, removal of sourced info, personal attacks

User:Noah30 keeps removing sourced info added by me in several occasions: here, here (including a personal attack), here is another example of an offending personal attack. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

one more personal --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

LesTout.com

LesTout.com was salted by user Jossi‎ due to my initial lack of experience adding/editing article in Wikipedia. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to add a separate page for the artice at User:Shivaji Mitra/LesTout.com for him to preview the final article and approve it. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to put it into WP:RUP. I listed my message twice, but I did'nt get any response. So now, Admin עוד מישהו requested me to bringing it up on the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your request and to the best of my knowledge the title should be unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Soon after granting permission for the article LesTout.com it is being speedily deleted by (AndrewHowse). I was working with the Audio version of the article and now the article seems gone. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Grawp sockpuppet

Please help. See the contribs. Page move-vandalism. Enigma ^message Review 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it and blocked him immediately to prevent any more damage, but could definitely use some help fixing what was done. faithless (^speak) 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was using WP:HUG when all those edits started popping up on my screen. Unfortunately, I could not fix them through the program, because Huggle can't deal with page moves to my knowledge. It searches back through the history of the page, and since this guy is the "creator" after moving it, Huggle can't revert to a previous version. Enigma ^message Review 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed as Grawp - also the following accounts. I checked as there are always more when Grawp is involved:

1. Unferð (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
2. Wealhþeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
3. Weohstan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
4. Wæls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
5. Wondred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
6. Brosinga mene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
7. Gavin the Loser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

and IP blocked - Alison ^❤ 07:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

All accounts blocked. RBI now? Keegan^talk 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have the talk pages been salted? Whenever a Grawp account gets blocked, he locks it with an ungodly-large table that replicates a certain pic. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have at is, Jéské! Collaboration, after all :) Keegan^talk 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid to ask; what pic? - Alison ^❤ 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, let me guess .... - Alison ^❤ 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done the honors and salted all the talk pages, removing those avenues of attack. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like there's a Grawp attack every few days. Enigma ^message Review 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been noticing a pattern recently. Grawp gets exposed and blocked, and shortly thereafter, several users are harass-crapflooded from a certain site (Not ED), which leads to (now-)3-month IP blocks on all participants and constant deletions. I swear, nowadays more than half my IP blocks and almost all my deletions involve such attacks. All the same, I'm preparing. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 07:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing we can't take care of (and thanks to Bencherlite, who tagged the userpages). Keegan^talk 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you'd better be prepared to delete and restore pages. Keep an eye for a user talk page being blanked except for a short sentence or two, and delete the revision immediately. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can handle that. Keegan^talk 08:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to all: if you're blocking Grawp socks, it is worth semi-ing your user and talk pages for a while. Black Kite 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I stopped caring long ago what vandals do to my userspace. It's a Wiki! after all ;) Keegan^talk 07:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here. My userpage is semi'd and I have popups. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposing unblock for RS1900

RS1900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked in October for personal attacks and sockpuppetry. [9] [10]. The threats were against user Nick Graves who has subsequently forgiven him and who sought to have the block rescinded in Decemeber [11] but the consensus was that the user needed to sit the block out for a longer period. The user has now sought unblocking [12] and has apologised for their behaviour and promissed to behave in future. They also understand that their behaviour is under scrutiny and that further misbehaviour will result in an instant and unappealable permanent block. I am personally prepared to unblock this user but am seeking a consensus that this is an acceptable thing to do. The user does not have a record of disruption or poor bahaviour. The sockpuppetry was inept and predated the block and the threats were completely out of character. Examination of previous contributions suggests this user is generally veru polite and careful of other's feelings. With the threat of an instant block/ban hanging over them I would say that there is no risk of long term disruption from the unblock and much to be gained from having a productive user back contributing to the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I take a very dim view of this kind of thing (admin only). The harassed user accepted the apology and asked for the indefinite block to be removed, so I wouldn't stand in your way if you want to remove the block, but it wouldn't be my first choice. --B (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What B said. Any evidence that the guy is no longer going to behave in this creepy and despicable manner? Guy (Help!) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the user who was harassed by him doesn't mind if RS1900 gets unblocked, I don't mind too. But only if someone explains me what the sock tag on his userpage means. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He used a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RS1900. I favor unblocking; the user has promised to behave and has already been blocked for about 5 months, and has a history of productive edits before the incident that got him blocked. I think another chance is in order. Mangojuice^talk 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a fan of second chances and since even the target of the harassment has forgiven him, so do I. Besides, if he put another toe out of line it will lead to a pretty indisputable indefblock, so there's not much risk here. faithless (^speak) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz asked for my views on unbanning. I still support unbanning, and I think the terms of his return (permablock for any further violations) are reasonable. I believe RS will prove to be a productive editor again. In his unblock request, RS expressed concern about my exposing some personal information in the sock report I filed (note that this was information he had previously shared on his user page and elsewhere, though he later requested a wipe of the history). Out of respect for his wishes to remove that personal information from the "public record," and to erase any lingering ill will, I suggest that that sock report be made an admin-eyes-only page.

I appreciate the swift and vigilant response of admins and other editors to the original offense, and commend them for their latter willingness to give a promising editor one more chance. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked him, on conditions of good behaviour. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, removal of sourced info, personal attacks

User:Noah30 keeps removing sourced info added by me in several occasions: here, here (including a personal attack), here is another example of an offending personal attack. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

one more personal --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A (personal?) note on today's featured article

OK, everybody knows that TFAs are very heavily vandalized, and just as rarely protected. I would, however, like to request that available (i.e. awake :) admins keep an eye on today's featured article and WP:RFPP and please be more lenient in their application of WP:NOPRO and (I can't believe I'm saying this) less lenient in their application of WP:IAR. Although I'm just one guy, I don't think anyone would want to see disrespectful, childish vandalism on this of all articles, on this of all days. I myself am only in favor of protecting TFAs under exceptional circumstances. To me, this qualifies. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for as long as I'm here. I know others will do the same. If it gets out of hand, I (for one) am willing to invoke IAR out of respect for the dead and protect the article. I don't pass judgment on others, but that's the moral thing for me to do. If I'm found to be out of step with the community, I'll recuse myself. - Philippe 03:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the most heavily debated issues on wiki. TFA is so heavily vandalized that I think it's embarrassing to call it "some of wiki's best" and have it be one of the first things newbies see, ie an article that's vandalized practically every minute. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All TFAs should be protected on their day, but in this case especially so. It isn't even semi-protected. Everyking (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was semi-protected originally but the protection was removed just before midnight.[13] DrKiernan (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be my action. I've been move protecting the TFAs since late Nov '07, and usually do so as soon as Raul schedules them. For this article, I intentionally waited as close to midnight UTC as I could, due to the subject matter (and knowing that I might be away from the computer after that point). I haven't done any statistics or hard analysis, but a quick look gave me the impression this article has actually seen less vandalism than usual. I also noted several constructive edits from IP editors. Of course, the school day in the US is just starting, and vandalism will likely pick up. - auburnpilot talk 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your experience indicates that the article should remain unprotected for now - which is different than my initial view. Ronnotel (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat of violence at George Bernard Shaw

An anonymous user made a threat of violence at the George Bernard Shaw article in which they stated "fuck cypress creek high school i hate everbody that school is going to blow up at 10:26 wednesday 04/16/08". Although I believe it's just a case of vandalism, especially since they had previously vandalized the article, WP:VIOLENCE suggests that such outbursts be reported here, so here 'tis. María (habla conmigo) 12:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for now, schoolIP. I can't call Florida from here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll send them an email...hopefully it gets there on time..though this most likely is a prank. Rgoodermote  14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Email sent waiting on reply. Rgoodermote  14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is way past 10:26 and no-reply has come and I do not think this is serious so I am going to call this resolved. Feel free to go against me.Rgoodermote  14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Usernames

Hello

As you can see User:Police, Mod, Jock is obviously trying to tarnish my accont by using this name in the hope that the two will get confused, quite a few months ago I made another report on this exact thing where someone had copied my username for trouble not so long ago. Please see to this that the account is blocked like the last persons, thank you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (The genuine one)

Blocked Rgoodermote  14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Agreed, this account was created to impersonate you (edited the same article immediately after you). I have{{usernamehardblocked}} it. --barneca (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, appreciated. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User who posts nothing but hoaxes/self-promotion

I just recently put up two articles, Akira Tetsugake‎ and Soul Blade (manga)‎, up for deletion. The author of both articles is Kira99er (talk · contribs), who I have noticed has done almost nothing but create articles about made-up anime and manga series and characters for as long as he's been registered here. His various articles have been deleted (see here, here and here for examples), and he has been repeatedly warned about creating hoaxes and self-promoting articles on his talk page, but he refuses to respond to any messages on his user page, removes deletion tags from his articles and just keeps on creating more hoaxes. Of his contributions that haven't been (or will be) deleted, they were spent adding original research to various anime articles ([14], [15])! This user has absolutely no constructive edits to the site and he has not shown any evidence that this will change. Can someone, please, take some sort of admin action on this hoaxer? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired and my mind is gone, so maybe I'm wrong, but I second the motion. Per this link, http://comixpedia.com/manga_artist_looking_wrighter#comment-30723, User:Kira99er appears to be using Wikipedia to promote his work. Cheers, and good night. Dlohcierekim 05:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the account, currently set at indefinite since the user doesn't seem willing to comunicate. The talk page, contributions, and deleted contributions speak for themselves. Misuse of the project, adequately warned over the past year. I advised an email to unblock-en if they wish a review. Keegan^talk 06:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. GlassCobra 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of Live and Die 4 Hip Hop

I’d like to propose an abbreviation the block of Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk · contribs), who I blocked as as a block-evading sock of Payne2thamax (talk · contribs). Payne2thamax was originally blocked for gross incivility and personal attacks, culminating in this edit. After being blocked, he used a number of socks to evade this block:

• Payne2thamaxx (talk · contribs)
• Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs)
• ComixFlix (talk · contribs)
• XMarxThaSpot (talk · contribs)
• TheNextOne (talk · contribs)
• Wicked Wayz (talk · contribs)

Some of these socks also had civility issues; in fact, he has admitted to me that Payne2thamaxx was basically a bad hand account of Same As It Ever Was.
The user also had a long-running content dispute, the details of which are frankly to arcane for me to fathom, with Tasc0 (talk · contribs). Tasc0 himself was once blocked indefinitely, for incivility and personal attacks culminating in this edit. The indefinite block was shortened to a month by Fred Bauder after Tasc0 e-mailed arb comm; Tasc0 has since returned to Wikipedia at the conclusion of this block and is editing, from what I can tell, productively and within all policy and guidelines.
Tasc0 and Live and Die 4 Hip Hop have a great deal in common in that both are productive content editors with extraordinary incivility in their pasts. Both have been blocked indefinitely, but Tasc0 has won a reprieve. LAD4HH has e-mailed me, taking responsibility for everything and seeking a similar reprieve. Working in his favour is the Tasc0 precedent and the fact that his most recent account, LAD4HH, seems to have edited productively and within policy. Working against him is that fact, while Tasc0 responded to his indefinite block by following proper appeal channels, LAD4HH responded by engaging in block-evading sockpuppetry and occasional continued incivility. Nevertheless, I’d like to reset his block to expire May 1 (one month since he was blocked, during which time he appears to have refrained from sockpuppetry), with the understanding that upon his return he is limited to one account and on come form of civility probation. Are there objections? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that LAD4HH's socks, in addition to being block-evading, were also used to vote-stack (see, for example, here). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A user with that sort of sock history needs to do a lot more to convince me they've mended their ways. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-rhetorical question: what else could the user do to convince you? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kathleen21503

We seem to have a well-meaning user a bit unclear on the concept of this site who is insisting on writing, expanding and defending a seriously POV and OR essay. I'm trying to help keep her from wasting her time, but she just keeps on. Would someone else step in and have a gentle word with her? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide links? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: See User talk:Kathleen21503. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a speedy deletion, try prod (likely to fail) or AfD if you think it should be deleted (probably). Try not to use your teeth too much. WilyD 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is potential for it becoming a legitimate article, it even has some references already. However, we should tell the user that articles are not to be self-referential, and if she has things not ready for publication to keep it in her userspace. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

MovieZen "borrowing" our content

A website, moviezen.com, seems to be using our content for all their articles on celebrities. For example, here and here. Their copyright notice makes no mention that their content is available under the GFDL, nor does their terms of service. It appears to me (but I make no direct accusation) that the content is or was automatically pulled from Wikipedia in bulk rather than submitted by individuals, given that every single celebrity article I went to was taking content from Wikipedia. As such, I believe they are violating Wikipedia's copyright and/or the copyright of Wikipedia contributors. I'm reporting this here because I can't personally be bothered to take any action against them myself, but someone may want to draft up a polite letter informing them of their legal obligations under the GFDL. --Yamla (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia itself owns no copyright, it's just the contributers that do. There's a noticeboard around here somewhere ... Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks maybe? WilyD 16:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MIRROR goes into the details of handling such situations. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed blocking of an IP user (62.64.200.158)

• 62.64.200.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Would any member of the community disapprove of a block on the name IP for edits like this? I'd suggest a 24 hour block for disruption, but I am open for disapproval. Rudget 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See also: 62.64.201.155 (talk · contribs) and 62.64.213.157 (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. seicer | talk | contribs 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an anon upset about an admin making a ruling on a debate in which they are involved. That seems like a legitimate concern, what am I missing here? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a follow-up from here and all these IPs are rather obvious sockpuppets of Smurfmeister (talk · contribs) --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block review please?

Hey there admins, I don't do a lot of blocking, but I stumbled into one just now that I'd like a review on. I recently blocked Fieldgoalunit (talk · contribs) for attempting to out another editor, namely User:JamesJJames. (Check fieldgoalunit's contribs to JJJ's talkpage, as well as this diff and immediate withdrawal. Those two diffs piqued my interest, and once I saw Fieldgoal's contribs to Usertalk:JamesJJames, I blocked indef. Please review for me? Permission to reduce/remove block if warranted. Consider this prior discussion, no need to discuss further with me before unblocking. Thanks! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the example you linked, the user just said he knew the other user in real life, he didn't post a phone number or anything. An indef block seems like overkill. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I read a couple of diffs (In Fieldgoalunit's contrib history, I hesitate to link here) with Fieldgoalunit taunting JJJ and calling him by a different first name, attempting to out him. I have no problem with a reduced block, hence my post here. I'd just like to see a few more eyes on this, as it may very well be I'm overreacting based on my own strong need for privacy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Would agree that an indef is overkill. Would recommend downgrading to 48 hours or so with a strong warning. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block reduced to 48h, additional warning left on usertalk. Thanks for the input AN Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Metaphysics

If a vandal updates a vandalism counter, does it count as vandalism? :-) Classic paradox territory. BTW, if someone wants to deal with the IP vandal? The IP was blocked for a week, but started vandalising again once unblocked. It also has some notice on the user page about reporting abuse to the ISP. Is that only for severe abuse? Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the only paradox. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 blocked for sock puppetry

Could an uninvolved administrator please review the unblock request at User talk:Giovanni33 after viewing the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a valid block. The history of sockpuppetry and extensive block log shows that he has clearly been using socks before. Nakon 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have provided Giovanni33 the names of three Checkusers and suggested emailing one of them to discuss the matter confidentially.[16] Perhaps Giovanni33 can provide some sort of explanation. Further opinions are welcome here. Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've edited with Giovanni in the past on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (there's 10 versions of that title) where I was generally in agreement with him. I can see why Jehochman decided to block in this case, but I'm not at all convinced by the evidence presented. It would very much surprise me if Giovanni started using socks again. The other accounts, from a quick scan of some of their posts, tend to post very short notes that don't sound like Giovanni at all (I'm familiar with his writing style). Giovanni is extremely loquacious as most who've seen him around the wiki would know, whereas User:Rafaelsfingers starts out with this and this on an article talk page. Sure, Giovanni could have adjusted his writing style, but if he was smart enough to do that, why would he not have made some dumby edits using those accounts instead of jumping right into the conflict? He sockpuppeted before, and I doubt he would do it so sloppily if he did it again. But I really don't think he would start up on this again, and would ask others to note that his past sock activity is well in the past and that his block log is misleading (many of the entries there are wheel warring over blocks, or blocks followed by unblocks - though he still has been blocked a lot obviously).

The main evidence here seems to be that these accounts are interested in the same topic as Giovanni and they edit from Northern California. Honestly, if I had to pick one geographic region in the United States where it was likely to find a lot of folks who agree with Giovanni's views on the article in question, it would be the Bay Area. Thus I don't think the geographic closeness tells us much of anything. I can't help but think that the evidence here is about ten times less convincing than the evidence in the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case, and that an analogy between the two is appropriate in that in both case we are dealing with established users who have socked in the past (though Giovanni's block log is much worse than Mantan's, and that is an important difference). I'd like to see a more careful review of this situation, perhaps by comparing contributions, and an openness to the possibility that these other accounts are really run by different people.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry for this petite drama. I have too many doubts to let this stand, so I have unblocked Giovanni33. Jehochman ^Talk 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I think we would get along with so much less drama if we saw more of this sort of willingness to review from people. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred

Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Multiple personal attacks on his userpage against various users, currently edit warring on at least 30 pages (see edits). When runs out of reverts, goes IP[17]. Blocked multiple times for edit warring (see block log). Also warned multiple times for edit warring as well as refraining from false edit summaries (latest warning:[18]), wich he freqwently uses to delete things he personally dislike. Last such edit (false edit summary to remove content he dislikes):[19] - the "forum":[20] is a leading national newspaper in Hungary). Does anything else needed? --87.97.111.140 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tankred. --Onorem♠Dil 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And WP:AIV. --Elonka 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DRV backlog

There is a backlog at DRV. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function proposal

Many search engines and websites have something called a "Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function. Wikipedia does not have such a thing. This causes many parental controls and corporate content filters to block Wikipedia. That sucks. Is there any way we could create such a feature so that Wikipedia would not get blocked? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll start by throwing out the obligatory WP:NOTCENSORED, and follow up with a comment that such an idea isn't really for administrators to decide, and would probably do best somewhere on the Village pump. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be better brought up at the Village Pump, there is really no admin intervention needed here. Tiptoety ^talk 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't for any of us to decide, in the absence of an objective way to determine which articles should not be read by children (other people's children in fact!). As for "corporate content filters", there are easy ways for readers to circumvent (less so for editors). Server-side censorship is something we don't do, but we do have pages offering advice to those affected by client-side censorship. — CharlotteWebb 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Poochiedontsurf

On Poochiedontsurf's user page, he makes a truly libelous attack on another editor: "After a long break from Wikipedia I decided to use my intelligence and resources ridding this Wiki of pedophiles."

Pedophiles links to User:Freechild, a longtime editor and proponent for youth rights, which has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. I don't want to start an edit war on someone's talk page, but this has to go. What should be done? (edit: sorry, forgot to sign)J0lt C0la (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I unlinked the personal attack. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I really should have been bold, but I've never been one to edit userpages except for vandalism reverts, as people are very touchy about that. J0lt C0la (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

These edits suggest serious WP:POINT and WP:SOAP. Shame it went unchecked for so long. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the offending diffs on the user page and on Youth rights. Black Kite 10:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Impartial closure of a poll requested

I wonder if any uninvolved admins wish to review the poll here (the discussion is quite long though, with a long history too), Template_talk:Infobox_Football_club#Opinion_poll_for_the_clubname_infobox_parameter, and wrap it up in the way they see fit under the 'Conclusion' section. I set the poll up, as a way to end a mass article edits from early this year. I suggested a week long run and it appears to have reached the starting to go round in circles stage, but I would rather see someone uninvolved judge it, I don't want the result becoming 'my view' as it were. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A bot or not a bot, that is the questions.

Okay, I need some help here. I know zip, nada, nothing about bots, and only a tiny bit about hoe the whole approval process works. I ran across this “bot” while working over at WP:UAA. I was unable to locate the approval request so I asked the user who stated they ran the bot, they pointed me here which clearly does not look approved. After looking over the bots contribs it appears that it was already live, and when I tried to ask the operator I got no response, so I went ahead and blocked the bot account for the time being. Then I started looking over the bot operators contribs to find edit summaries that looked like in fact his account was also a bot. There is nothing on the users userpage to indicate that his account is a bot, nor can I find an approval request. Will someone with more bot knowledge help me out. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

user and bot need blocked. that is not approval. β^_command 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When the user was asked by Tiptoety, he first created the "Requests for approval" then directed Tiptoety to it.

14:53, 17 April 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:VictorAnyakin‎ (→Unauthorised bot)

08:52, 17 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MrVanBot‎ (←Created page with '3}} ==User:{{subst:#titleparts:Administrators' noticeboard== ...') (top)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VictorAnyakin

Great job Tiptoety. MatthewYeager 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably easier just to remind the guy to (1) get bot approval and (2) use the bot account for bot edits. Unless he's causing harm, I would give him a couple weeks to remedy the situation before blocking. Remember that the bot policy differs from wiki to wiki, so the interwiki people may not realize what is required here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that there are lots of interwiki bots (at least, I think they are bots) that edit using IP addresses and don't even have accounts. In general, unless they cause actual harm or edit on a large scale, I just ignore them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the user did not appear to not understand the bot approval process here, they clearly tired to cover up their tracks by creating the bot approval request after I asked, and made it out to be no big deal, like they had made the request a while ago. Either way having a live bot with out approval is not a good thing, and that is why I blocked the bot account. There is nothing saying it can not be unblocked once the approval request has been excepted. Tiptoety ^talk 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Denshaw

A semi-protection for Denshaw wouldn't go amiss. It's been in the national news today for having a silly Wikipedia entry and is recieving high ip-vandalism. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd "images"

I've created a list of "images" where the MIME type doesn't match the file extension. The list isn't perfectly filtered, but it's close enough. The "number" column is just arbitrary to give an idea of how many mismatches there are. Some of the them are simple mistakes -- having .jpe instead of .jpg. Others are more nefarious (.txt files being called .ogg, etc.). Any help would be appreciated in either deleting these or fixing the file extension and re-uploading them.

The list is located here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why bmp isn't one of the extensions supported by the site? Many of these images were merely attempts to get around that problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bitmap images are highly inefficient - where lossless compression is needed, PNG can provide that, and where it isn't, JPEG does even better. There's no reason to use them, and some very good reasons not to (they take significantly more bandwidth to serve to users, even as thumbnails). Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki actually has code to verify mime types during upload. Since your list only has 600 items, that may mean that it works pretty well, but doesn't catch certain types of cases. Dragons flight (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started going through and converting some of the bitmap-masquerading-as-JPEG images to actual JPEGs at a decently high quality (95%), as well as tagging a couple of the unused ones for deletion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it legal to change a fair-use .bmp into an other format, or is it considered a modification to the image? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mu. Yes it is legal, and yes it is a (minor) modification of the image. Modifications, even very major ones, are not incompatible with fair use. Dragons flight (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is also a perfect opportunity to move the free images on this list to Commons. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't .xls actually the correct suffix for "application/vnd.ms-excel"? (Of course, the issue of whether we should be having Excel spreadsheets on Wikipedia at all is a different matter.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of self proclaimed "Asia Fan Club President"

This is a disturbing tale of abuse. Many, many months of extensivly relentless abuse of wikipedia in order to promote asiafanclub.com and use Wikipedia as a "vehicle for advertising"

Extensive abuse of wikipedia

• User_talk:70.188.184.84
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mondrago
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366
• Talk:Asia (band)
  • Talk:Asia (band)#External links dispute
  • Talk:Asia (band)#Semi-protection removed
  • Talk:Asia (band)#Arbitrary break
  • Talk:Asia_(band)#Fan_club_link_blacklisting
  • Talk:Asia_(band)#Accounts.2FIPsocks_used_by_Mondrago
  • Talk:Asia_(band)#Site_Blacklisting_status
  • Talk:Asia_(band)##Evaluate_ASIA_Fan_Club_Situation
• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008#More_asiafanclub_spam
• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008#asiafanclub.com
• User talk:Nakon#Spam blacklist
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/asiafanclub.com (incomplete)
• More asiafanclub spam
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page
  • "I have 20000 fans in my newsletter that will come here to edit this. If we meet any resistance we will file a lawsuit for emotional stress and discrimination and deformation (as it was reported that we loaded SPAM by loading the Authorized ASIA Fan Club to Wikipedia) and sue personally those who edited out this important authorized site and this will go to the Arbitration Committee"[21][22]
• User_talk:A._B.#Talk:Asia_.28band.29.
• Spamed offsite forums including email abuse
• User_talk:Hu12/Archive6#Asia__spam_being_re-added_again
• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_asiafanclub_dot_com_to_be_removed_from_blacklist
• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_for_additional_administrator_input_on_blacklist_status_of_asiafanclub_dot_com
• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_unbias_opinion_for_removal_of_asia_fan_club_from_blacklist
• ".... you think it's over... if you think I'm going anywhere think again, real good."

Clear evidence violating WP:DISRUPT, WP:POINT, WP:SOCK, WP:SPAM, WP:CANVASS, WP:NOT and WP:CIV. Multiple spam attacks, edit warring, sneaky attempts to subvert wikipedia policy, creating False consensus through use of mutiple IP's, attempting to circumvent blacklisting by creating asiafanclub.4t.com and worst of all the legal threats made by "Asia Fan Club President". This is a clear case where wikipedia is being terrorized by an individual in an attempt to advance a site owners agenda.--Hu12 (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse such a ban. I initially became involved with the whole Asia Fan Club link issue when the editor in question and individuals recruited from the Asia fan community first started trying to strong-arm the link into the article, in response to which I protected the page. When I attempted to extend the assumption of good faith to this user and (foolishly and naively) removed the URL from the spam blacklist it only served to increase the fervour and determination with which this user assaulted the article. I have stepped back and had no further involvment since my error of judgment but have silently watched the article talk page descend into a succession of threats (some of which he has shown that he is willing to pursue) from the editor in question and it is quite apparent that the individual will never accept the decision based in both wider policy and local consensus and will not cease in using whatever means he can contrive to disrupt Wikipedia. I am under no illusion that a ban will cease the disruption, but at least it will allow his dispution in the Talk namespace to be reverted on sight. CIreland (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrorized is probably extreme but this user is obviously pushing an agenda, after all of this disruption I see no reason for not banning him. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban proposal. Enigma ^message Review 04:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse This is a whole lot of disruption, I see no other way of really dealing with it. Tiptoety ^talk 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse: The site's been blacklisted, and the user's request for a "second unbiased opinion" has been declined. seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per the above, and for many, many, many other reasons. Although I am worried that a ban might not work and he'll continue to "recycle" his IPs. BoL (Talk) 04:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) One question: didn't checkuser find that Mondrago (talk · contribs) wasn't the same as those IPs? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of those IPs are AFCP (he has a somewhat "distinctive" writing style), most are meatpuppets, probably recruited by appeals to his site's users (he sporadically threatens to use the Asia fan community for just such a puprpose and has followed through with on occasion). CIreland (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

...and blocked 70.188.184.84 for continued spamming. Notably for this recent edit that included a bit for "exclusive material"... The site must be getting pretty desperate. seicer | talk | contribs 04:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

66.19.204.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was just blocked for the same crap. seicer | talk | contribs 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

These ranges should take care of the other IP used by AP.

32.138.216.0/24 [23]

32.140.14.0/24 [24]

4.238.124.24/31 [25]

4.238.124.0/24 [[26]]

70.167.100.0/24 [27]

Blocked--Hu12 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<--- Exit stage left. We aught to be protecting the article and (possibly) the talk page for some lengthy period of time so they don't return. MER-C 06:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Exit stage left"...actually, that was Rush, not Asia. ;) Banninate with extreme prejudice. We don't need this.Gladys J Cortez 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Would someone mind using one of those nice collapsible boxes to inclose those IPs? I don't know the template and that could use some tidying up. Keegan^talk 07:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So done. If Hu (or, for that matter, anyone else) finds the boxing to be problematic, he should, of course, revert me. Joe 08:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a page protection is needed, as the site is blacklisted. They are now aware of how to attempt to get it removed, which of course, will be denied every time (or deleted). seicer | talk | contribs 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think we can safely call this one banned, I don't see any likelihood of unblocking and the game of whack-a-mole is also showing no signs of abating. Site is blacklisted on enWP, and I'm now checking for cross-wiki spam. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Link info follows. MER-C 09:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• asiafanclub.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com
• asiafanclub.4t.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

Endorse ban. Indef any non-indef'd accounts, tag the pages, list at WP:BANNED. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect sockpuppet allegation -- in response to Sarcasticidealist's question above: I blocked one of this user's accounts as a Mondrago sockpuppet after another editor tagged him as such. A subsequent checkuser indicated no connection to Mondrago, so I goofed in using that reason for blocking him. However, by that time, there were a zillion other reasons to block him starting with incivility and legal threats. Besides open proxies, I don' t block many editors but I'd block this guy again in a heartbeat, just with a different reason.

Endorse ban. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

66.19.205.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Another IP, another block? These guys are relentless to get their web-site spammed. seicer | talk | contribs 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

66.19.201.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) yet another..--Hu12 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone feel like chiming in on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Time_for_discussion, I've had to close 4 threads by these meatpuppets, yet they continue to tendentiously repost in an obvious pursuit of a certain point, despite months of discussion and opposition from multiple administrators, including those here.--Hu12 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I closed that one also along with a list of vio's. Further posts campaigning for Asiafanclub will be removed immediately, with little or no warning. --Hu12 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse community ban. Looks like a case for which WP:MEAT was written for. I've semi-protected the article for 2 months as well. Blueboy96 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also semi-protected the talk page to prevent their "fan club" from ranting about. If they continue to abuse the blacklist-spam forum, I'll just wipe their comments. seicer | talk | contribs 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

66.19.204.206 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Another--Hu12 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep an eye on these two accounts

• Shubopshadangalang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Bondegezou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

They both have been "campaigning" for "AFCP" tendentiously since january and both appear to be editing on behalf of "AFCP" and have acted as proxies for asiafanclub's interests in the past.--Hu12 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP addresses at least are becoming more predictable. seicer | talk | contribs 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued WP:MEAT by Shubopshadangalang (talk · contribs) on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

• reinserting banned users "AFCP" request
• reposting request for "AFCP"
• reposting request for "AFCP"
• reposting a request

Seems to be a case of this user's Refusal to 'get the point' and is repeatidly editing on behalf of a banned user and acting as a proxy for "AFCP" interests--Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice allegations have been made about my behaviour in this case. May I comment? I think some of Hu12's initial allegations against AFCP are mistaken, but, by and large, I think the admin action against AFCP is appropriate and welcome. S/he has been a most difficult and disruptive character. Interacting with AFCP is an exasperating experience, so I quite sympathise with Hu12 if s/he is frustrated with the case! However, I am taken aback by Hu12's comments as to my own behaviour. I have in the past sought to treat AFCP civilly under WP:AGF and to encourage him/her to behave better, but I strongly disagree that I am editing on behalf of AFCP. I have never had any communication with AFCP outside of Wikipedia Talk pages. If I may blow my own horn, I have a good record of behaviour on Wikipedia and only the other day was being thanked by an administrator for my patience and restraint.[28] What I do believe is that there is a valid case under WP:EL for including the Asia Fan Club website as an external link on the grounds that the Fan Club is officially authorised (as attested by reliable sources) and thus, arguably, it constitutes an official site (from WP:EL, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."). As I understand it, Shubopshadangalang and some further editors believe similarly. My concern is that consideration of the website's merits has been entirely overshadowed by AFCP's behaviour as an editor. I implore you all here to recognise that discussion of the merits of linking to the Asia Fan Club site may be valid and is separable from the issue of AFCP's behaviour, and that one can support such a link as an individual editor without acting as a proxy for AFCP's interests. That said, if the community is tired of the issue, with no consensus apparent, I will not seek to add or unblacklist the site in question. Bondegezou (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• It becomes rather apparent when the same editors continue "campaigning" for "AFCP's" site despite the evidence of abuse and clear statements of policy. This has passed the point of reasonableness, and it has become obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point'. Wikipedia is not a platform for pushing adjendas...
• Self proclamed "Asia Fan Club President's" banning is a direct result of his 3 months of relentless spamming, promoting and disruption under 61 doccumented IP's and accounts for the single purpose of using Wikipedia to advertise Asiafanclub. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".
• Wikipedia is not the only victim of this persons spam attacks, he has also spammed the yesfans.com forum and email spamming its members
• Asiafanclub.com is simply a privatly run site which obtains its 'official' content from the Official Asia Fan Club site originalasia.com. It is neither owned by or qualifies as ASIA's official site. While some external links may be permitted by the External links Guideline, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy to be included.
• As stated above and as a multitude of other other administrators repeated Ad nauseam to you and Shubopshadangalang on the asia talk page, it does not meet inclusion criteria nor is it welcome on Wikipedia. Links to this site were repeatedly added despite the obvious community disapproval. Rationale for placing the link becomes quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage.--Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

user Jagra

User Jagra has removed POV tag unilaterally, without even entering into a discussion with other user over what caused the tag to be placed in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.102.112 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome would suggest that there's been no real reason to affix the POV tag put forward. I'd suggest explaining the reasoning, with references, there. Otherwise, you want dispute resolution; there's no real admin action required here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If the tagging isn't justified, of course it should be removed. So... where's the justification for the tag? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

It's pretty heavy over there. Could a few more admins head over? Malinaccier (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was actually pretty bad. Either way it looks like it has been pretty much cleared. Thanks guys! Tiptoety ^talk 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cafe Nervosa

This page was just created and would appear to be on the same subject as the prodded article Café Nervosa. Would it be possible for the old article to be restored behind the new one so that all possible information is available to those who may wish to improve or evaluate the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have restoired the page with the accents which was PRODded above, and redirected the new page and added the one line of information in the new one which was not in the old one. I guess an AfD is in order as this page has been recreated numerous times. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Amusing, it appears to have been the subject of a cookbook:

Cafe Nervosa: The Connoisseur's Cookbook Oxmoor House ISBN 0-8487-1550-0

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Robinson (disambiguous)

Please move Peter Robinson (disambiguous) over the existing page Peter Robinson (disambiguation). Almost all content is mine and the one pair of edits that aren't are duly noted on Talk:Peter Robinson (disambiguous). Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done and the histories are merged. WODUP 00:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jackmantas

This Single-purpose account appears to have been created with the simple aim of blanking the article Eric Greif. After failed attempts at blanking the article, the user then began a dozen slashing edits in bad faith, without checking references or using the talk page for discussion with other editors. As soon as the account was created, the first move was a blanking attempt. Thanks. A Sniper ==(talk) 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks he decided to move to Chuck Schuldiner, basically to revert and argue your edits there. Notifying him of this thread. Also, doesn't look like anything at Greif is sourced at all. Given that it's a WP:BLP concern, I think that it needs to slashed and rebuilt. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides trolling around other articles I've edited, the edits have now slid into innuendo, attacks, inferences and general bad faith. No longer is it about editing - pleasee see [29]. This is extremely frustrating. A Sniper (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know too much about it, but it would seem there is a huge problem with the user. Needs to be warned or something. They are going on some sor tof crusade trying to mess up certain pages. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a {{npa}} message. -- Agathoclea (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very important here to keep separate the issues of conduct and content: Jackmantas's breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are unacceptable, but that doesn't invalidate the content issues raised, which others can take up in a more neutral manner. Other context:

1) see WP:COIN#Eric Greif: it appears A Sniper has a strong conflict of interest, so this can hardly be viewed as a disinterested report.

2) While the civility is a problem (on both sides), the actual edits to articlespace by Jackmantas have mostly been endorsed by uninvolved editors. The material on Eric Greif had a long-standing absence of sourcing that needed dealing with. Removing unsourced material is not "messing up pages". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps since this thread is active, but I was petitioned to do something about Jackmantas about 10 hours ago, citing a lack of admin involvement. It is possible that this was done by Sniper, considering this modification. Since I have never been involved with this issue, I wonder if other admins were contacted in this manner. Given the location of my user name within the alphabet, I am prone to the occasional blanket plea for help by those who start from the very beginning of the admin list. 52 Pickup (deal) 15:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue with Jackmantas no longer is specifically linked to the Greif page, which culminated in a consensus of editors endorsing a complete re-build from scratch, with citations used (and was done by an admin). What it has come down to is the inflammatory personal attacks that continue to be posted at my talk page, on the user's talk page, and on article talk pages. It is the single-purpose account, trolling and personal attack aspects that leave me feeling that this continues to be an OTT problem. Making valid edits is one thing - writing attacks over & over again is another. A quick peak at the user's contributions demonstrates more than just good faith article editing. If these attacks stopped, I would easily and certainly withdraw the item from the Noticeboard. BTW: I have ceased all direct responses to the user as well as they only made the situation worse. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

@52 I actually saw the post on your page and assuming you were on wikibreak took a closer look which led me past the COI page to this item, so I don't think there was a shotgun approach in contacting admins. Looking at the issue I found that the COI situtation was dealt with by a number of editors, but the personal attack situation was not. Hence me leaving the template. @Sniper - walking away / ignoring baiting attacks is the best thing you can do and I am glad you saw that. Agathoclea (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm on a semi-break at the moment (or rather, I'm way too busy to do much here right now), so I did not have the time to examine the situation in any detail. I just wanted to make sure that there was no canvassing. 52 Pickup (deal) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just thought since this whole thing is a complaint about me, I should come on here and tell my side of the story. When I originally saw the Greif page, I saw a lot of problems. We all know what they are, so I won't beat a dead horse as far as that goes. So, seeing all those problems, I decided it was time to become a Wikipedia editor and I opened and account and went to work. Not knowing any better as a newcomer, when I saw absolutely no sources, I thought the page should just be blanked and started from scratch. When that got reverted by a bot, I guess I got a little playful and made a joke entry, kind of just to see what happened. I now know that this was not the right thing to do and I apologize to the entire Wikipedia community for my conduct. Well it got reverted too, but it was about this time that I first encountered A Sniper. He immediately began with the rude and condescending comments in the edit box and calling me "singleuser account Jackmantas." I started to really concentrate on doing some responsible editing at this point, but he just would not let up. He also began to accuse me of being a sock puppet acccount of username: Dissolve, which is absolutely untrue. He was basically doing what I now know to be "biting the newcomer." Well I can tell you this only strengthened my resolve and an edit war began. If he had of been polite to me in the beginning, I'm sure things would have been different. Not making excuses, just stating a fact. I'm a newcomer, he has been on here a long time, he should know better. If anything this is a perfect example of why you don't bite a newcomer. Anyway, I soon discovered that A Sniper was in fact Mr. Grief himself and that also irked me somewhat. The more he called me "single-user account" and accused me of vandalism, sockpuppetry, malicious editing, the more I just wanted to focus on his page. Anyway, to make a long story short, I began making edits over on the Chuck Schuldiner page where I also saw a lot of problems and he tried to ridicule me one too many times over an understandable mix up and I basically just let him have it. He bit me and bit me and bit me and I decided to bite back with a personal attack. To wrap this up, I just think it is rather ridiculous for Mr. Greif AKA, A Sniper to come on here and complain about me, when he was just as guilty of the things he is accusing me of as I was. He is also a trusted member of the Anti-Vandalism Squad and I feel like he abused his position to further his agenda and he should know better. I guess at this point I am supposed to create links to illustrate all of this, but I don't know how to do that very well yet and am kind of tired and I have to work early in the morning. Anyone who wants to check the history of either the Greif page or the Chuck Schuldiner page or my talk page or his talk page will see all of this as plain as day. And while you are at it, check his history and you will see how he has been rude and condescending to people again and again. Even people that were totally polite and helpful to him. If he didn't like the way they were trying to edit a page that he had anything to do with, he would bite their head off. I guess I took offense to this and thought I would teach this guy a lesson. I guess I just have a pet-peeve about people who I see as arrogant and condescending. Anyway, I was sent a very polite NPA notice by a gentleman by the user name of Agothoclea. I really appreciated the friendly, welcoming tone of his notice ( Something I never got from Mr. Greif) and I took his words to heart and anyone who would care to look can see that I have made no further personal attacks. As far as I am concerned I will do my best to maintain my conduct in the future in a way that is in full compliance with Wikipedia Policies. Again, I apologize to the entire Wikipedia community for my conduct and look forward to doing whatever I can to be of service to Wikipedia in the future. Thank you for your time. Jackmantas (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As a closing remark about this user, please let me mention that at the same time they were writing the cozy words above, they were sending me harassing, disgusting, horrid emails - including threats - VIA WIKIPEDIA EMAIL SERVICE. I did not respond. Transcripts of all of these messages were sent to the ArbCom, as well as to yahoo.com (since this type of cyberstalking violates their terms of service). Around the last day of April 2008, the user ceased all Wikipedia activity - hopefully for good. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Transcluding CSD

Lots of editors have recently started transcluding User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion to their userpages (see, for example User:Malinaccier, User:Gb, User:Hennessey, Patrick/Desk, User:GlassCobra, etc - just click on any article on CSD and check its "whatlinkshere"). This makes checking Whatlinkshere a nightmare when speedily deleting articles, as every article in C:CSD now has many many links. I am inclined to just remove the transclusions, but is there some kind of cunning way these transclusions would not be included in "Whatlinkshere"? Neıl ☎ 10:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If there was, it would be classic WP:BEANS. You could filter by namespace, or you could ask for the developer who recently changed how "what links here" works to find some way of marking not only transclusions, but links that result from transclusions. Ultimately, that would only work if a page that was both linked, transcluded and "transcluded-linked" appeared three times in the "what links here" list (marked differently each time). If it appeared once, that wouldn't really help. Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I figured as much. I am de-transcluding all the links to Cyde's page and pointing people to this thread in the edit summary. Neıl ☎ 10:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - that's not really a new issue, though - I recall raising it with my nom the day after I got the mop and started cleaning out CAT:CSD. It got to where I recognised the usual suspects (ie. the admins that had the CSD tracker on their "desks" and mentally ignored those when dealing with links to soon-to-be-deleted articles. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle does have an option to "unlink" (remove backlinks) automatically, either generally or when speedy-deleting, if that helps. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How is this a helpful feature anyway? De-linking would only need to be reverted after a successful DRV, or if a higher-quality article is created from scratch. This "feature" should be used very sparingly if at all. — CharlotteWebb 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-program the bot to link like to [[:en:Foobar|Foobar]] rather than just [[Foobar]]. Do it this way and no page using Cyde's list will appear in "Whatlinkshere". — CharlotteWebb 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Let's test ... User:Neil/quack. Neıl ☎ 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't work - ([30]). Neıl ☎ 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[{{fullurl:Foobar}} Foobar], however, does seem to work; see User:Iamunknown/sandbox & Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Neil/quack. Of course, utilising this code would require Cyde to re-program the bot; a MediaWiki software solution (such as filtering namespaces, as mentioned above) would be more desirable. --Iamunknown 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[[w:Foobar|Foobar]] also seems to work (example: User:Ilmari Karonen/sandbox/quack). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The obvious fix to me seems to be to remove all of the transclusions. When I was making the list, I never envisioned that as anything anyone would ever want to do, and I still don't see why one would do it. --Cyde Weys 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, seems much simpler just to bookmark CSD and look every once in a while. DGG (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Boldness

There has been an increasingly acrimonious debate over a list of songs featuring "sexual attraction to children or adults". Most of the entries in the original list were not referenced or were apparently about pedophilia or sexual abuse. No unequivocally referenced items about "sexual attraction to children or adolescents" were in the list as of this morning (and yes, it was me who removed all the unreferenced ones a short while back, per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OMG). I went back through the history and discovered that the original title, which it has had for most of its life, was List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors, and most of the entries were added with this title or something close, which goes a long way towards explaining the sourcing issues - I suspect it would be a great deal easier to source them at the title the list had when they were mostly added (see [31] for example). The article was moved in late March and several times again more recently, which has been disruptive and made sourcing next to impossible as the target keeps moving. So I have boldly moved the list back to List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors and locked moves to prevent further disruptive move warring and see if the list can be adequately sourced at something close to its original title. If we still can't source it, I will take it back to AfD. Since this required use of one admin tool (protecting against further moves) I am noting it here, if anyone feels this is unwarranted they have my full permission to lift that protection and / or implement a better solution to the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the move protection. Agree that AfD should be the next step if no sources can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a very encyclopedic topic. I would support deletion unless there's some referenced things that can be placed on the list. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. It should have been done a long time ago. -- Naerii 10:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Politically-motivated systematic edits

Dale-DCX (talk · contribs) had been making various edits to many articles systematically changing "American" to "from the United States of America", causing the text to become stilted. In the articles that the user had edited, there isn't confusion as to which meaning of "American" is meant, and the word "American" is already wikilinked to the United States article. Efforts to resolve this with the user didn't seem to go anywhere. DHN (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Using "American" to describe people from the United States does seem to be a common practice, but there's no harm in responding to this person's concerns. I've solicited some comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#American and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#American. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please. How many times does this dead horse have to be beaten? Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess this horse keeps getting beaten due to cultural differences, for example in Spanish the term used is Estadounidense wich would be "United State+ sian or tian" for most Latin cultures it makes no sense to call any of the American countries "America" since America is often used to describe the entire "new world" and the term Americano/a is usually used when referering to something belonging to the entire region, Norteamericano (North American) is often erroneously used when referencing something originating from the United States, in Spanish calling someone a "American" is more of a generic term simmilar to European or Asian. Then again this is mostly my own personal experience with both Puerto Rican Spanish and communication with other Latinos, the definition may vary per region as is often the case between dialects. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the MoS, the relevant cultures usage of the term would be preferred - while not strictly accurate (and when considering the rest of the America's, very ambiguous) most citizens of the United States of America refer to themselves as "Americans". This is the English Language Wikipedia, and the other English speaking nations generally mean the United States when referring to Americans. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Something strange on the Main Page Talk Board

Talk:Main_Page#Role_of_Effective_Communication_in_Distributed_Software_Development

(insert question mark here) --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone deleted already. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kiezuko

User:Kiezuko has created an account with a username almost like mine except for switching two letters. He has vandalized my user page twice already by adding insulting and/or controversial content ([[32]], [[33]]). Is there a way this vandal account could be blocked? Thanks. Keizuko (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Unblocking of User:ElisaEXPLOSiON

I think that this user should be unblocked because of the fact that she didn't do anything!!!!The sockpuppets she was accused of were not her and were indeed her brother. She needs to be unblocked so she can start editing on here.Mr. Green^chat 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Given your statement that you don't know this user, why should we believe your claim that the sockpuppets were indeed her brother? --Yamla (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because why would she create a number of seperate accounts for vandalizing and one for editing.If she was going to vandalize he would just do it on her page.Besides just because she doesn't know me doesn't mean I don't know her.By that comment I meant that she doesn't know who the owner of my page is.It could be any of her friends.The point is that I do know her, and I do know that that was her brother and not her. Mr. Green^chat 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacob, is there something more to be said? Anything you wish to reveal about a user you supposedly do not know anything about? But as I am at work, I'll just say that I am endorsing the block for obvious sock abuse. seicer | talk | contribs 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is awfully bizarre when coming from an account that is less than a month old. Jacob have you seen the concept of "Good hand, bad hand" accounts, that summarizes Elisa's pattern. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

what was so obvious about it.Just because it was the same IP address doesn't mean it was her.Anybody can use any IP. As far as you know it could have been me.Mr. Green^chat 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What you think that I'm her? No I'm not.Tell me a way to prove tht I'm not and I'll do it.I'm not her.I just support her case.Somebody has to.Since everybody else is against her.Mr. Green^chat 18:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you her brother? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the above user is a sock. And an awfully bad one at that. The user has now resorted to spamming various talk pages in request for assistance: [34] [35] [36] [37]

Jacob really has no real contributions to speak of, outside of comments on various talk pages. seicer | talk | contribs 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Account created not long after the block was assessed, two inconsequential userspace edits, and a whack of myspace-ish chatter elsewhere. Something smells here, indeed. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my point exactly, usually if you are a univolved party that is asked to help someone you begin the unblock argument with something like: "The user claims that s/he deserves to be unblocked because..." you don't go directly to the relevant noticeboard screaming that "this user should be unblocked because of the fact that she didn't do anything!!!!", the sense of desperation in that message seems to illustrate some kind of involvement. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa hold on a minute. I've been talking to Elisa and Jacob, and it's obvious they are completely different people. Jacob goes to a boarding school. They are two completely different people i would know more than anyone else! Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Do you care to explain, or shall we come to a similar conclusion as with the other socks? seicer | talk | contribs 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser should be able to verify if the IP address Jacob is using is from a boarding school. NOT asking that they reveal the information, just to check to see if the contention is true. Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was also good to see I was informed of this thread. *cough* Daniel (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

They talk in a different way. Even small things like putting a space after the dot such as elisa does, but jacob doesn't. Its these small things that make people the way they are. Jacob gave an accurate description of what he does at the boarding school, or whatever it is. Also why would Elisa choose to immatate a guy...seems kinda strange. I don't know what a checkuser is but try it..Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just stop, you look more ridiculous the harder you try. JuJube (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, i don't really care about what the look like...Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this user can get the point without something as harsh as a two month block. I support making the block shorter. -- Ned Scott 11:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone who stuck up for me.I'll find some way to pay you back.I don't know ho w but I will. Mr. Green^chat 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mirrors and talk pages

What is my talk page doing in a medical library?? :-) Are they really supposed to be doing that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a mirror. — Edokter • Talk • 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:CorenSearchBot#Medlibrary.org for a bizarre encounter with that site. MickMacNee (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"It's a mirror" - didn't I say that in the section header? :-) What I am saying is why are some mirrors so utterly indiscriminate. Silly. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You might as well ask "why is the sky blue", except that someone's likely actually answer the question. Some mirrors are indiscriminate cuz their operators don't care. Others because the ops are clueless. And still others because... well, any number of reasons. :-) - Philippe 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Did they actually copy the content of all these talk pages to their website, or is their website simply showing pages from our site surrounded by their frame? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that's strange, I've seen my name pop up on process pages like TFD or AN (translated into another langauge too). Why they'd want to scrap the inner bowels of the administrative side is beyond me. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See the blue box in my User page. You might want to add something like that to your User page to let people know what's going on when they stumble on the copy in a mirror. Corvus cornix_talk 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Or: {{userpage}} and {{usertalkpage}}. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else having this problem?

Editing this page causes all of the text to be reversed. Is anyone else getting this problem or is it just my browser? Nakon 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone inserted a direction mark into wikitext, I've fixed that. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lord john russell.jpg

This image was poorly transferred to commons, without any description/source/author/date/etc. The local duplicate has been deleted and i can’t access it. Would it be possible to know it’s former content? Thanks in advance. EuTuga^msg 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unactionable consensus for change on ITN

The In the News (ITN) section on the Main Page is a portal for featuring up-to-date encyclopedic content reflecting important international current events. Currently the established criteria almost completely exclude the possibility of including deaths on the template. The deaths of Pavarotti, Arthur C. Clarke, Edmund Hillary, Bobby Fischer, and Charlton Heston were not included on the basis of these criteria despite a consensus that they should have been included anyway. Their deaths fulfilled neither criteria 5 (no "substantial update" beyond acknowledging the date, cause, and possibly responses to the death) nor criteria 6 (no office, not unexpected, no larger impact). There is an on-going debate and general consensus that these deaths and others like them should be included and the criteria should be changed.

We are now debating whether or not to include the deaths of two scientific luminaries, John Archibald Wheeler and Edward Lorenz. There is general support for promoting them to the template, but administrators are placed in the unenviable position of having to be the first to break ranks and precedent by promoting a death for a notable person. Please comment on the specific nominations or the death criteria debate about why these news items should or should not be promoted. This notice is a band-aid solution and we don't anticipate having to resort to WP:AN every time. But how else a community of editors can go about implementing change when the means for enacting that change are reserved to another class of users? Madcoverboy (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxim has retired

Maxim (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has retired, citing User:Togepi 987 as one of the reasons. I can see his point: this guy seems somewhat disruptive. He has vandalised a number of userpages, simply because the associated wikipedian has undertaken an action he did not agree with (for his vandalism of Maxim's page, it was because Maxim had deleted an article he was working on). I have left a final warning on User talk:Togepi 987; I'd also encourage any passing-byers to leave a note on Maxim's talk page, to let him know he doesn't need to worry about this sort of thing. Cheers, Anthøny 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Maxim didn't cite User:Togepi 987, User:Togepi 987 cited himself and added the retired tag. See [38], [39], and [40]. I undid all this (I think) with this and then (when I realised what had happened) this. Not sure if this was after the warning, as I don't have time to check. Can someone else deal? Carcharoth (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Togepi needs a stern warning. I don't think it's suitable to be bragging about driving Wikipedians away (yes, the irony) Sceptre ^(talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed some fair-use images from his user page & a sub-page. My impression is that this user is disruptive, however, let's wait and see. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should talk to him.... A lot of this stuff seems awful disrptive.

1. March 16, 2008 Vandalises Woohookitty's userpage
2. March 30, 2008 Vandalized maxim's userpage again (deleted)
3. March 31, 2008 Added a protected template to maxim's userpage (deleted)
4. April 3, 2008 Marks FuriousFreddy retired
5. April 11, 2008 Marks Sticky_Light retired
6. April 14, 2008 Marks brokendownhondaaccord retired (admin only -- deleted)
7. April 15, 2008 Marks Circus206 retired
8. April 17, 2008 Marks Maxim retired
9. Others have tried talking to this user about it, without much luck, [41] [42] [43] Most of it seems vengance-based, after a couple deletions. SQL^{Query me!} 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Check his deleted contribs too. I deleted a couple cases where he created userpages for indef blocked users and an IP address. Mr.Z-man 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Amended. SQL^{Query me!} 18:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I just removed a retirement tag he put on User:Cirus206 (which was reverted by another user, who he then reverted) and deleted a blatant copyvio. Did we lose our spines or something? Block him forever and move along; I can't speak for everyone, but I know for a fact that I've got better things to do than hand-hold some kid that thinks its fun to stay just this side of an indefinite block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Wow, I feel like a one-man cabal. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • , When in doubt EVula works it out. teh sh*t. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  I wouldn't object, but of course, we must assume good faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  No we don't. You can, but I will dispense with good faith when it is demonstrably shown to be a faulty assumption. --Golbez (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Personally, I think we cling to AGF far, far too much. Someone who is so obviously disruptive deserves very little in the ways of good faith assumptions. Either be a constructive member of the community (contributing either to the encyclopedia, the framework of the project, or even the community around either/both) or go somewhere else; that would be a much better attitude to take, in my opinion, than constantly hoping for the best despite the evidence at hand. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed. How many times do you AGF on a user before you accept that they are only there to take advantage of it? The only thing assuming good faith out of users with consistent patterns of abusing that good faith accomplishes is the kind of drama we are seeing. This project would be better served by spending less time coddling such users, and more in assisting those that are valuable assets to it. Resolute 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Good block. There are times that talking gets things only so far. Pastordavid (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  For those that are interested, this thread prompted me to write a quick little essay (that I'll expand on when I'm not at work) about AGF, merging my comments here with something I posted over at m:Global blocking. Check it out at User:EVula/opining/on the Assumption of Good Faith, and feel free to make suggestions on the talk page; I'd love to make it a working example for new administrators (gotta make 'em jaded early on!). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Golbez, I've learnt first hand that knowing policies means shit all if you don't dance around the Maypole. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Well determined block. Disruption was the only agenda for this user. Rudget 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One day, we'll get our collective heads out of our collective asses and realize that Assume good faith is named that for a reason: good faith is an assumption, and can be rebutted by evidence. AGF only stretches over behavior that can be reasonably attributed to misunderstanding or lack of knowlegde— someone who persists in improper acts after having been told to stop is demonstrably not acting in good faith anymore. — Coren ^(talk) 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I would have blocked here, for a month or longer, up to indef, but was just leaving the computer at the time, so I left it for others to deal with. The warnings were not working, so a lengthy block was needed. Question: is it acceptable, if you don't quite want to go for indefinite, to block for a month and say in the block log "please extend to indefinite if disruptive activity resumes", or should block log summaries be kept as short and factual as possible, rather than used to talk to future people reviewing the situation? If I ever used such a block log summary, I would repeat it on the talk page. Though I must admit that this case is one where I would have blocked indefinitely and left it to them to negotiate the appeal process. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with a block log like that but I think it would be better to let the next admin decide. Who knows, he could have come back, acted well for months and did a little disruption, and an indefinite might seem extreme. Here, he's blocked, and already listed one pretty silly unblock request. It's obvious what he's here for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Assume good faith means we block him for abject stupidity and if he apologises and undertakes not to do it then we unblock him. And watch every edit. Assume good faith does not mean make like Mary Poppins in the face of blatant vandalism, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of Setanta747

See this case for diffs and evidence:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747

Summary

The user was threatened with ArbCom probation due to disruptive editing related to The Troubles. Several months ago they abandoned their account and continued the disruptive editing by hopping around on different IP addresses. A block for sock puppetry will not be effective in preventing damage to the encyclopedia because the user isn't editing at all via their main account and probably isn't even watching their talk page. Therefore, I am requesting a 30 day community ban applicable to any account they may use. By established process, the ban can be reset by any administrator if there is further socking. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

isn't the traditional defense against an IP-hopping vandal semiprotection? --Alvestrand (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many articles in this case, I think. The Troubles, including side issues like flagcruft-warring, is very wide-ranging. Black Kite 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If I were to base my decision on the SSP case, then I'd endorse a community ban. Rudget 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We want the editors who know this person's habits to be able to revert problems wherever they appear. This will help minimize drama, and encourage the disruptive editor to give up the IP tactic. As soon as they quit, 30 days later they are unbanned and can resume using their account as long as they behave properly. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the probation is imposed on the editor, that way it applies to any account or IP he edits from. He was threatened with probation, used IPs to avoid probation and carry on edit waring, so he should be on probation. --Domer48 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Alzuun

This is a really odd case. What we have here is a user who appears to be well-meaning, but very young. S/he has a long history of deleted articles and has just reposted a deleted POV dicdef under a completely implausible title. I don't think this is a vandal per se, but the user is IMO being very disruptive. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the user does'nt really know what s/he are doing.How long has s/he been a user?Mr. Green^chat 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any recent edits by this user. Could you provide a diff of what you are talking about? (or was it deleted) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No edits since March 30. There was an article created and speedily deleted (I think twice) today, other than that, no other deleted edits since January. Seems to be a non issue/low frequency, and not even vandalism anyway. For what it's worth, I actually found the speedy deleted article rather intriguing in concept). No action is necessary here, other than some talk page civility to help the fellow Wikipedian. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed!Mr. Green^chat 16:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have talked to the user about the issue.Will somone review my comments and correct them if they are wrong?Mr. Green^chat 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the try; the issue wasn't the editor deleting articles, it was creating multiple articles that have been deleted. I've left an expanded note on learning to edit and create good articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of IP:168.10.156.5

Someone on this IP is vandalizing several pages and needs to be blocked. Anyone against it?Mr. Green^chat 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NVM, its been taken care of. Mr. Green^chat 18:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, the proper place to report vandalism is this way. Tiptoety ^talk 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism at Demographics of Lebanon

An anon repeatedly vandalises the article. I tried to warn him/her but there was no discussion or any reaction except more vandal attacks again the article. I think Demographics of Lebanon should be protected for a short time. Zello (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the ip doesn't understand what an emmigrant is, and is attempting to reflect the religious makeup of the countries population. A last attempt at communication may be worthwhile. I would counsel against protection as it may be in the wrong version. As it is only the one ip that appears to be editing against consensus I suggest that blocking that editor may be the most effective manner is stopping the edit war - providing the last warning doesn't work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review I can see no references given for the breakdown by religion of the diaspora. If there is no cites I suggest removing reference to religion. Again, adding it back (by either party!) without a source would be considered vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You can request page protection here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Apis 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC close

An RfC (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština) that I started because I was getting fed up of the contradictory {{editprotected}} requests, has been open for nine days and is time for closure. My interpretation of it is that there is a clear consensus, particularly among the uninvolved editors (you can tell because they just make one comment rather than rehashing the same arguments with each other for 20 screens :D) for Pristina, the second of the three options. But so this can be put firmly to bed, can a completely uninvolved admin or two take a look and check my reading of the discussion? I know we're not arbitors, but reading consensus comes with the job... and hey, it can't be much harder than a nasty AfD, can it :D?? Happy‑melon 20:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It can...

I think it is quite clear that Pristina shuld be the title, as it is currently the widely accepted English name. And I also think that such stands clear from the discussion. I understand the fact that both supporters of Prishtina and of Priština dislike it, just the same way that I - a Portuguese - rather dislike Ferdinand Magellan, which actually is Fernão de Magalhães in Portuguese. Yet I accept the English name, no matter how wildly incorrect it sounds from a Portuguese point of view. - Nabla (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Panel 2008 3RR

Extremely minor, I know, but User:Panel 2008 appears to have broken 3RR at Central Europe and is persistently refusing to recognise consensus, a short block would serve as a great wake-up call - if any admin is not busy. Cheers. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: There've also been allegations of sock-puppetry here, claims Panel 2008 and User:Olahus are the same user. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The repetitive and persistent edit wars in Central Europe, especially by new users, make some form of protection a considerable option. Pundit|utter 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should protect the page and block both of the users pages for 2 days.Mr. Green^chat 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know? is 11 hours overdue.

Template:Did_you_know/Next_update is overdue for a change. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Have we stopped uploading local copies of images from commons when they appear on the main page? Are they now covered by cascading protection? Gimmetrow 05:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, was so busy dealing with Giravegan in Final Fantasy XII that I didn't notice it needed to eb done. It's taken care. Word of warning...I'm a newbie admin, so I may have made a screw up someplace. Then again, there's a first time for everything. *wink* --Bedford 05:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

IPs blanking their respective talk pages

I do not know if this is the correct area to post my concerns, so if I am in the wrong, please redirect me.

Onto the problem, it does not state on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if IPs can or cannot remove warnings from the respective talk page. What I am saying is, well, they shouldn't be allowed to, as they cannot prove they are the only one who uses the IP and therefore the one who the warning was directed to might not see it, so I propose that regarding user talk pages, if the user is an IP, then the do not have the right to blank the page.

I hope I made sense..— Dædαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is this:

• If the IP user is the person the warnings are directed at, then removing the warnings proves they've read them, and the warnings have served their purpose.
• If the IP user is not the person the warnings are directed at, then the warnings do not apply, and there is no reason not to remove them.

In either case, there's nothing wrong with the IP user removing the warnings. --Carnildo (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know if this is a problem for admins when they are considering if they need to block an IP? If not I must agree with Carnildo. It would be tricky to enforced such a rule anyway. There are already other problems with multiple users sharing the same IPs that don't have a good solution now, so I'm guessing it's a problem that is hard to solve. =/ --Apis 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to try and discuss this at the Wikipedia:Village pump. --Apis 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings and Wikipedia talk:User page#Apparently IPs don't count as users, where you'll find links to numerous prior discussions on this. It's come up a number of times, and consensus has repeatedly come out the same: IPs are people, too. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that WP:DRC is also relevant here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Old unclosed AfD

Fixed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyorn was never closed. An AfD top was placed at the bottom of the entry above it on the AfD log page (now fixed [44] [45]) causing it to appear to be closed. Could someone close this. BlueAzure (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I love the easy ones. Good catch Blue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What in God's name?

I just found Talk:Satellite (disambiguation) created as apparent nonsense, and marked it for speedy. The author's user page and talk page, as well as this page and its 'archives', appear to consist entirely of nonsense. What's going on? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a consequence of this user's editing. Apparently he has to use a non-traditional interface for his computer than results in the odd formatting. (I think it's been mentioned on ANI in the past). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to understand how this:"And, I do need to ask this someplace, about last night's Philadelphia debate: My impression: Hillary Clinton speaks, they show us Chelsea Victoria Clinton. Barack Obama speaks, they show us Chelsea Clinton. Repetitively. And, various other persons in the studio, were lit blue. Was the American Broadcast Conglomerate, Disney channel, denial channel, the blue network? Is it a purple city? Is it a blue party?" has anything to do with satellites, to me it looks like a very botched edit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a long one. Someone is going to come in with links and history and whatnot eventually. Last I recall there was some thought that Hopiakuta may have some mental barrier of some sort; his edits don't seem to be aimed to be disruptive most of the time, though they can turn that way. As far as I know, no one has really made out the nature of the situation with any certainty. Also, many odd userspace pages. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This user's bizarre formatting has come up on ANI at least five times in the past; it's caused by a screen reader. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that that's altogether clear; although one ANI thread suggested that the user confirmed that he was using a screen reader, another noted his profession that his primary disability is not visual in nature and that he does not use a screen reader (other relevant AN and ANI threads may be found here, here, here, here, and [at least in part, I gather] here). In any case, it is apparent that there exist issues here that are other-than-technical in nature (as well outlined by L'Aquatique, who is, I imagine it is fair to say, amongst our most dedicated accessibility advocates, in the latter ANI discussion and in an October 2007 extended colloquy undertaken amongst several editors interested in helping Hopiakuta to edit more constructively, in order that his presence here might benefit both him and the project, and in order that disruption should be reduced sufficently that we might adjudge the net effect on the project of Hopiakuta's presence to be positive—to be sure, there is no particular harm in his editing incomprehensibly in his own user and user talk pages [except, perhaps, to the extent that collaboration with other editors is impaired], but some of the style, formatting, and substance that he introduces in userspace would not be well situated in mainspace), and it remains for the community to determine whether there Hopiakuta's presence has a deleterious effect on the project; on that I, having looked into the situation only cursorily, have no opinion, and I mean only to note that a broader community discussion might, at some point, be appropriate. Joe 08:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say five or discussion in the almost 18 months seems like a small issue. Hell, I think I've been complained about on this noticeboard more than that, and I hope nobody has a problem understanding what I'm doing. I just wish someone could help him with his signature; that's the biggest headache to dealing with him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to this, Hopiakuta definitely does have some distinctive communications issues - if you've seen one message by him, you're likely not to forget it. However, the fact is that he has also made valuable contributions to the project - within the past few days, for instance, we had a posting here about the Coachella article, because another editor couldn't make out what he was trying to say on the talk page - but after I took the time to tease out what he was communicating, it happened that he was right, and the page in question is improved by having addressed his concerns. In general, if you understand that he communicates in a way that appears disorganized, and accept that he has that limitation, there are valuable contributions behind it - though it can be a chore to see it. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

q.v. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/User:hopiakuta ~Kylu (u|t) 05:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the problems caused by Hopiakuta's edits are simply due to an unfortunate combination of technical problems and what appears to be either mental illness or the use of a machine translator (to explain his strange and sometimes incomprehensible word choices). I see some of the other discussion threads at AN and ANI and numerous times it has been proposed that another user has a conversation with him on the telephone. I haven't seen any evidence of that happening. —  scetoaux (T|C) 05:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

Hi all. I might be overreacting here, but at my editor review, User:Karanacs has been asumiming bad faith on my part. After she created this signpost article, I added a link to an article I FA'd, Lazare Ponticelli, stating that it was FA'd shortly after the joint FAing of several articles. It was reverted-not by her but by SandyGeorgia-and I didn't really make a big deal about it because I now see it wasn't really relevant. But here is the copy of my conversation at the editor review:

I think you probably need a lot more experience (or at least better judgement) before you are ready to be an admin. I was very displeased to see that you added irrelevant information to a Signpost article.[46] You implied in the article that an article you wrote was the "2001"th FA promoted, which is not true. That edit was blatant self-promotion and was deliberately misleading. The fact that you would do this in such as public area gives me little confidence that you have the judgement to be an admin. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was not blatently misleading, nor blatant self promotion. I simply wanted users to know about an FA (which I rewrote) was one that was promoted in the less than a day after Wikipedi had its 2,000th FA. Whil this could be viewed as self promotion, it is really only reporting on a topic that I did many hours of reasearch upon. Editorofthewiki 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not the only person to spend hours of research and hours of writing to bring an article to FA status. Four or five other articles were promoted between the 2000th and yours. Your edits also had nothing to do with the subject of the article (the five FACs sharing credit for the 2000th article). While you may argue differently, most people will view your actions as self-promotion. Either you didn't see that when making the edit, or you realized that and made the edit anyway (without asking first on the talk page, as you should have done given your conflict of interest). Either scenario implies a lack of the necessary maturity to be an admin. Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The latter comment had the edit summary "either you didn't realize it was self-promotion or you didn't care; either way implies a problem with the thought process" I personally think this is inappropriate and something should happen to prevent this from happening again; however I am open to others opinions. Editorofthewiki 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of editor review to solicit comments from others ? That you are offended that someone offered a comment may be an indication that Karanacs' assessment might be correct. And what admin action do you want here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this ain't the place for this. Admins are not the "good faith" police or something. --Haemo (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And if we were the "good faith police", I don't see any lack of good faith; I see an honest appraisal of an editor seeking comment via editor review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I may highlight this: "either you didn't realize it was self-promotion or you didn't care; either way implies a problem with the thought process" a personal attack beside not being GF. Other than that, there was nothing wrong with the post. Editorofthewiki 20:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the purpose of editor review is to solicit comment, and if you don't recognize how strange that edit was, or how strange it is to bring this issue here to AN, I have to concur with Karanacs that you may not be ready for adminship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What was so strange? I simply notified users that the article was FA'd shortly thereafter. Editorofthewiki 21:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Signpost Dispatch was about the five articles promoted in the batch of 2000. I rest my case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading the editor review, I am amused. Virtually all of the comments are, in essence, answering the unspoken question "what do I need to do to appease the RFA crowd"? WP:ER seems to have metamorphosed into WP:PLEASETELLMEWHATBOXESTOTICKSOICANPASSRFA - if it ever was anything different in the first place. Moreschi2 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor review has changed a bit since I last looked. There were always comments indicating adminship goals, but it was a good place to also receive general feedback. Perhaps in the interest of reducing sprawl, it may be best to fold editor review into requests for comment. *wanders away to the proposals village pump* Vassyana (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ER is still useful for people looking for comment on their recent activity from people that once criticized them. It's a good way of self-checking if one has improved over a certain period of time; whereas, WP:RFC is a scary place :) Gary King (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Article copied from within WP to a mispelled title

Not sure if this is the place...the article Rawings which appears to be a direct cut and paste from the correct article Rawlings (company) I prod'd it because there doesn't seem to be a speedy category "housekeeping" maybe? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Teyana taylor

This page has been recreated a couple of times today - it probably duplicates content that was on the now protected deleted page Teyana Taylor which I guess followed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teyana Taylor. It might be worth keeping an eye on. Guest9999 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Teyana taylor is also salted against recreation: [47]. PeterSymonds | talk 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide outdated

After a quick read-through of Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide, it has come to my attention that the page is a tad outdated, with some blatantly wrong ways of doing things (see Protecting a non-existent page for an example) and there is no mention of granting rollback to users. It would be great if some experienced admins could go through and update the page. (I would do it, but I am too tired :) Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

There is a blocked user who keeps creating sock puppets in order to vandalize the Ataturk page. In the past three days, this user has mainfested as User:Rustypipe, User:Magnetizer88, User:ChocolatePain and User:Murlocs. He (or she) was previously making similar posts to the talk page under the IP address 128.226.160.187. Is it possible to block new accounts coming from this IP? I've reported this user more than once at AIV, but he just creates new accounts.

Also, please let me know if here is the right place to report this, or if this post should have been made somewhere else. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of 128.226.160.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (I thought this looked familiar) indicates that little collateral damage would be done if this address was blocked with account creation disabled for a month or so. Any socks not already dealt with will be quickly exhausted. If this proves succesful the ip block with account creation disabled could be applied in a future scenario. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the sock accounts were created before the April 11 block. Hopefully he'll run out of them soon. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the ip for a month, per my suggestion above. I shall watch the ip page, in case a legit prospective editor needs help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps account creation is (or could be) tagged with the original IP address? In a case such as this the entire collection of sock accounts could be pulled up, manually reviewed (to avoid hitting an innocent bystander coming from the same address), and either placed on watch or immediately banned. Alsee (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse

Anyone know what this is all about? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone pissed off. Other than that, RBI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And semi-protected now because I am a very corrupt admin. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See this ANI thread and links therein for some background. The IPs and User:Kannan21 are socks of banned user DWhiskaZ who, by my count, has used over 250 sock accounts. Abecedare (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User pages deletions

Can someone please explain to me the mass deletion of my personal use pages by JzG (talk · contribs)?

• User:Jaakobou/Temp2 <- checked, material was initially edit warred out of Battle of Jenin, requires full discussion when I have the time. For the meantime moved to User:Jaakobou/Other controversies - no objection to deletion of User:Jaakobou/Temp2. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• User talk:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin
• User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin <- checked, see comment.
• User:Jaakobou/Celebrations <- checked.
• User:Jaakobou/WarCriminalCharges
• User:Jaakobou/Arbitration Background
• User:Jaakobou/1929 Hebron Massacre <- checked, number of sources waiting for translation and insertion into 1929 Hebron Massacre - see comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• There might be others that I've missed, I can't see deleted pages in his contributions.

I could also use an explanation to this WP:NPA/WP:AGF comment by User:Sceptre in response to my request that JzG undo his page deletion.

• "Don't; I've dealt with Jaakobou before, and he's got a problem with POV." - Sceptre, 18:29, 18 April 2008.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC) fix user links. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC) another 21:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-08 Saeb Erekat. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• While cleaning up links to an inappropriate copyvio-riddled polemical user-edited source, I found a few userspace pages that seemed to be sandboxes from period of protection on pages which currently exist in mainspace. They had not been edited in a while, any of them, so I nuked them. There's no reason not to work on the content in mainspace, userspace forks only make life more complex in dealing with contentious subjects, and some users had more than one copy of a given page, other pages were in more than one user space. This was just janitorial work. There really is no reason Jaakobou should not edit the articles in mainspace, although looking at the history it does look rather as if the edits he has tried to make, have been rejected. That would, of course, make them WP:POVFORKs instead of just sandboxes, but I assumed good faith. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ongoing discussion currently on #wikipedia-en. Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Summary of IRC discussion: Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} entered #wikipedia-en asking for an admin, over a "small problem he had got" of someone "deleting a large chunk of his userspace articles". After further inspection, I, along with other Wikipedians on channel, asked him when he last updated the articles. One user found the statistic of one article not being edited since October 2007. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} accused generally of users with "uncivil comments". When pushed further, he came up with the example of Sceptre (talk · contribs)'s comment above. When asked, he said that the accusation was not true. Other users said that keeping POV-violating articles in your userspace was POV-pushing. An editor then pushed the conversation back on track, explaining Wikiquette alerts, and pointing to Deletion Review. Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ (non-admin) 22:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This summary is inaccurate for a number of reasons. However, I feel it's germane to the deletion discussion (except for the false insinuation as if multiple editors inspected the deleted pages and found them all POV ridden). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Even were that summary entirely accurate (it may well be; I've taken only a cursory look at the matter), it wouldn't, AFAICT, offer sufficient justification for speedy deletion; that a page replicates non-deleted mainspace content does not make it speediable (except, I guess, per G12, but I don't know that we've ever construed G12 to apply in situations such as this). I am well aware that you (Guy) understand BB and IAR to permit summary/speedy deletions of pages that do not fall under any specific speedy criterion but that nevertheless would almost certainly be deleted at XfD or seem otherwise inappropriate, but DRV has more often than not overturned ultimately contentious deletions on the grounds that deletion is a task relative to which process is not unimportant and that generally ought not to be undertaken on the whim of a single administrator. In any case, I wonder whether it mightn't have been more decorous and in the end less disruptive had you told Jaakobou of your concerns about his subpages and suggested that, should he not offer some justification for their being retained, you might take them to MfD or (suboptimally) speedy them. In fact (and, of course, I offer sincere apologies in advance should I have missed something here), you don't appear even to have informed Jaakobou of your deletions, which, especially in view of his being an established editor ostensibly acting in good faith, is in rather poor form and almost certainly invites a founded complaint and the consumption of more time and energy of the community than would have your proceeding a bit more cautiously. Joe 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied from IRC #Wikipedia-en:

• "(REMOVED - No public logging! Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ [non-admin] 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

I request JzK's deletions reverted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages? Shell ^babelfish 22:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this to DRV, but in general, some of these pages were holding dispute related content, some of them were new copys that i was intending to work on and some were a little older but still contained some changes from the previously copied version, changes which i intended to integrate into articles once i get around to it... I'm currently in the middle of 3 disputes that might require arbcom. one of them is already on MEDCOM. As of now, I want those pages back so I can maybe review them and decide which is necessary and which isn't. The POV charges, only make this deletion situation seem far more about something personal than a sincere attempt to clean up wikipedia from dead pages. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The POV problems means that deletion probably was best here. But don't forget to consider the option of blanking userspace articles. There are articles in my user space I haven't edited for months, but no-one worries about them and they don't turn up on search engines, because I've blanked them. See User:Carcharoth/Gracia Fay Ellwood (search) and User:Carcharoth/Middle-earth in popular culture (search) for examples. I think the latter still appears in searches either because of the title, or because I only blanked it 6 days ago and the Google cache hasn't updated yet - I checked the cached version). Articles or pages that I intend to or am working on, or that are suitable for public consumption (ie. OK to appear in search engines, and they do appear in search engines) are not blanked (examples: [48], [49]). Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a POV problem on these pages. This is why I'm pretty miffed about the whole thing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have checked that myself first instead of taking the word of others. Carcharoth (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I've been working on a few articles (Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and a few problematic situations keep popping up on material you think is neutral and finished with (sample: current 7 month dispute over a previous compromise version which lasted a full year). After work on several articles turned into a "let's revert Jaakobou" battle, I've taken them to my userspace and progressed the material and upon insertion to articles, it usually stayed (Sample: [50]). However, articles like Battle of Jenin needed the creation of side articles (in the works) and also a few corrections to current articles, which on some occasions also turned into long term disputes. In general, I'm not sure I HAVE to have all of these user pages, certainly once I inspect what changes I've made in comparison to current articles, I may be able to get along by just copying the material in or keeping it off-site. However, a speedy deletion of some serious editing dabbled with a bad faith assumption and POV and copy-vio claims (on all of these pages?) seem improper and are certainly a hinder to my contributions to the site.

Certainly, JzG could have noted me about his concerns and we would have worked it out. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC) clarification of topic area. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The pages exist in mainspace and are not protected. They have talk pages. The way we update content is to talk about it on talk pages and then update mainspace. We don't write new articles which better reflect our POV and then move text in wholesale, and none of these was under active development anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As Jaakobou's mentor I'd like to offer a few words. He brought this thread to my attention tonight, and perhaps there's room to reconsider. Yes, it's rare to find worthwhile draft articles in the user space of post-arbitration-ethnic-dispute editors. It's equally rare for such an editor to start contributing his first featured content after arbitration, which is what Jaakobou has done. He's one of the reasons Israel got featured, he restored the featured pictures Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art2.png and Image:Three chiefs Piegan p.39 horizontal.png, and wrote the recent DYK Bli Sodot. Clearly, he's capable of doing solid mainspace work. He tells me he had put a lot of work into those draft articles - finding references etc. - and I'm unable to confirm this because I wasn't aware that these pages existed until after this thread began. Yet his record arguably merits enough good faith for a second look. Would an admin please compare the citations for the deleted draft articles against the current live versions, and if the draft versions are indeed more extensively referenced (which I think they are) then please provide him with copies of the deleted pages, rather than force him without warning to recreate hours of research from scratch. Durova^Charge! 10:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some if not all of those fit that criteria. There was certainly no reason for deletion (see ANI for a thread on the subject) Viridae^Talk 10:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Per consensus here and the authors request, I have restored those pages which are articles. I didn't restore some material from an old arbitration case and a redirect resulting from a move. If the arb stuff is needed that will have to go through DRV. Viridae^Talk 11:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely fail to see any consensus for this action. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Per absolutely self-evident lack of consensus here and it's pre-existing agenda against me, Viridae has indeed wheel-warred and undeleted the user pages. I'd be interested in knowing why Jaakobou needs two separate copies of battle of Jenin in his userspace when the main article is still editable, but he can answer that at MfD where those articles are now listed. I'm also astonished at the level oiof interest he expresses in forks that he had not edited since last year. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's possible to sidestep politics here (both the on-wiki version and the real life sort), my first advice to Jaakobou when I found out about this was that I wished he had kept drafts and research in a text file on his own computer. In such a contentious situation things are prone to misinterpretation. That said--and I have no opinion on the MFD proposals--all I ask is that he get the chance any other editor would have to save a copy of his work on his own system for later reference. That's a reasonable request for an editor who has a good history of sourcing his work. Yes, he's got a strong POV. It's also a notable POV and he provides reliable sources for it. Durova^Charge! 11:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and had he asked me to email the contents I'd have done so there and then. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we're all intending to do the right thing and just haven't done the best job of communication. Tough subject, flawed human beings. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Note:
I've now had the chance to review the material/changes in User:Jaakobou/Celebrations and wouldn't mind the deletion of this page. I am very busy at the moment and it will take me about a week to finish examining all the articles - please refresh them all and avoid a speedy deletion of multiple user-pages of my material in the future without previous notice.
A week would be fine - a 5 page MfD is a tad much without any discussions. I'll probably agree the majority of them being deleted once I get a chance to review them.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s. some of the changes are very wiki-oriented and a review from a text file is a disaster. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you can copy/paste from a text file into a wiki edit window, make your changes and hit Preview to be sure it all works right, then copy the new version back into the text file on your own computer. It's a little more cumbersome, but you don't actually have to save the page on wiki. Franamax (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a nice amount of user pages on wiki. With all the POV POV POV!!! accusations, I can't take this mass deletion and following commentary about my supposed intentions with as much good faith as I would have, had I been approached. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've went over 3 pages and believe 2 of them should stay in some form. Would appreciate comment from the community if they believe it is necessary that I remove the material off my own wiki user-space and into my own 'on computer' text file. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking around the wiki to find comparisons that justify your own actions is really not a good way to go, we're all going to end up with Britney Spears and Pokemon on our user pages, just to be equal ;) I can imagine it's not nice to feel you're being accused of things you aren't actually trying to do, but that's where the simpler solution comes into play - if you keep it all on your own local disk, you can still preview it all on wiki, no search engine will ever find it, and no curious Wikipedian will ever see it and wonder why it's there. It will be yours and yours alone, until you're ready to put it into the mainspace. No-one can accuse you of doing anything wrong with your own property, in your own house, but when you want to store it on the wiki servers, we all get to see it, comment on it, change it, remove it. It's a wiki. If you keep it private, it's all yours. Franamax (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobu has the right to create draft texts in his userspace, unless those pages are clearly extremely disruptive.

Some people prefer to directly edit wiki pages, some prefer talk page discussion, some prefer to draft in userspace first. If everyone were to enforce their personal preference with admin tools, it would be impossible to edit the wiki altogether. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

New pages

Newpagers, when "patrolling" new pages, I often come across a page that someone's had a look at and added a tag about notability etc, but they've not marked it as patrolled. Can we stiffen our resolve on this? Can we make clear that patrolled is patrolled and that if you've added a tag then you've patrolled it...AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC).

Why not address it with the editor's who are doing it? Sometimes they might forget but you could always mark it yourself. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You are aware they don't have to mark them as patrolled aren't you? Viridae^Talk 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Patrolling is not mandatory. And, IMO, worthless. Corvus cornix_talk 05:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not worthless, I had a look and it tells people if the article has been looked at, so others don't waste time checking. Yu don't have to do it though...--Jaeger123 10:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone has tagged a page as possibly non-notable, they may choose not to mark as patrolled so that someone else can take a look and perhaps nominate it for deletion. I am aware that some people use {{notability}} to mean 'probably needs deleting, but I don't want to be the one to get it done'. J Milburn (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen far too many cases of vandalism, nonsense pages and personal attacks "patrolled" without the patroller bothering to do anything about the malicious edits. In my opinion, that makes patrolling worthless. Corvus cornix_talk 20:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's not mandatory is neither here nor there. It's basic courtesy to avoid causing other people un-necessary work, and it's polite, therefore, to mark patrolled pages patrolled. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out (and correct me if I'm wrong) that an editor can only mark a page as patrolled if they arrive at the page via Special:Newpages. If you get there via Special:RecentChanges or new user contribs, as I often do, it can't be marked. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark as patrolled seems to be a rarely-used feature. I think it might make more sense if someone clicked on a new page and edited it, and then the article would be automatically marked as patrolled. That might actually be more effective; false positives might increase, but at least there wouldn't be an insane backlog that deters users from even bothering to mark pages as patrolled. Gary King (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrol marking was a very useful screen for unnoticed new pages in the first few weeks after it was introduced. It is becoming gradually worthless as people aren't continuing to do it. automatic marking does I believe hold for admin edits. The point of not doing it otherwise is that a person might see it add a tag, but still deliberately want someone else to look at it. We remain now, as before, faced with the problem of catching the problems which go off the first screen where most NPPatrollers work. In my opinion, that;s why people are tempted to over-quickly place speedy tags and afds--there is the not unreasonable concern that it it's not caught immediately, it will escape notice entirely. Can't all the programmers around ere think of a way to do it--to keep perhaps a list for a few weeks, of new pages per day. DGG (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminship poll

It's the time of the year again. I've started a survey on adminship and its procedures, to find out the general sentiment on our UserRight procedure or precedent. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated! And yes, this time round it has got less questions on the table (possibly a good sign?). - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Block review and contributor discussion: Pixelface

Pixelface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Pixelface (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks)

I have enacted a 12-hour block on Pixelface, further to a aiv report, for his repeated revert warring on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Latest examples: [51], [52] (today, 19:17, 19:51); [53] (earlier example: 7 April). I would like some feedback regarding this block, and furthermore, the long-term response to Pixelface we need to take. Some formal response regarding the necessity for discussion may be necessary here; I suspect an underlying lack of understanding of the general requirement for consensus-building through discussion, rather than through forcing one's changes via reverting.

I also fear there may be underlying issues here; it may well be that Pixelface is upset, or having some RL problems. She or he may simply be angry at the project. We don't know what's going on behind the computer screen, but regardless, we need to reach out somehow. Iif we don't, further restrictions and/or an indefinite block may be up-and-coming, and we don't want to lose an editor who has made a moderate amount of article contributions. Anthøny 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface is an established user with a couple of recent blocks. Is there a way to reach out to this person? Durova^Charge! 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally and as was said on his talk page I think that Pixelface is dsrupting the project to prove a point, in the past he has strongly defended some fictional articles in AFD and to me it seems like he wants to downgrade WP:PLOT from a policy such as WP:NOT to a guideline in WP:WAF in order to be able to debate how legitimate the guideline is in AFDs, this was a situation that was seen with WP:FICT before. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is instructive to read todays postings on Pixelface's talkpage, in lieu of what Caribbean H.Q. just said - the interpretation of the meaning of consensus and the removal of text is slightly alarming, but not as alarming as the threat of leaving if they don't get their way. I wonder if this is a case of burn out, and that an absence from WP may be of benefit to all concerned? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to strongly suggest that this block was inappropriate. Pixelface was not engaging in as much discussion of the issue as he should have been, but I am confident he was acting in good faith. I saw insufficient attempt to engage Pixelface in discussion (aside from reverts saying "take it to the talk page"), followed by a warning template from a user who had previously butted heads with Pixelface, and a posting by the same user to AIV, reporting Pixelface for vandalism -- which his actions were categorically not, yet resulted in a block.

Pixelface's main point as concerns the dispute -- that the passage in question does not necessarily represent "a broad consensus", as is required for policy pages -- is valid. The "downgrade" of WP:PLOT from policy to guideline status has shown a measure of support. However, Pixelface should have been making this point predominantly on the talk page, not through reverts -- but the same goes for those who reverted him.

Pixelface's choice to "leave Wikipedia" is representative of anger at being blocked for reasons which I must agree were inappropriate. This is of benefit to no one.--Father Goose (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If it had been one or two reverts, I'd have agreed with you, but look at the history of WP:NOT - he'd unilaterally removed that clause SIX times, being reverted by four different users, three of whom were admins. I don't believe that he genuinely doesn't understand the concept that you need actual consensus to alter existing policy (not just "a lack of conensus for it to stay the same") - it's been explained to him multiple times - which only leaves the option that he's being disruptive. Perhaps a good idea would've been a conditional unblock on the condition that he doesn't edit policy pages, but that's moot now as the block has expired. Black Kite 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I count five reverts over the course of three weeks, plus the initial removal, which doesn't count as a revert. That's an edit war, but a slow and low-grade one, and the block strikes me as much more punitive than preventive. I feel it would have been much better if Pixelface had been warned by an uninvolved admin (AGK or anyone else) than blocked abruptly. Sceptre's template-scold toward an established user he was already in conflict with hardly counts. At least some attempt to communicate with Pixelface about the reverts would have been far more appropriate than jumping right to a block.--Father Goose (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The user who "reported" Pixelface to AIV is now exulting over this outcome: [54]. I do hope that I am not the only one who finds this entire incident disquieting.--Father Goose (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Pixelface was being GF; he's been edit warring in this scope for a long long' time. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Pixelface has been generally disruptive in this whole domain of fictioncruft. Endorse block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) here we go again..everyone line up on opposing sides again....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, he's been rather disruptive. His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case. (Specifically, edit warring on Scrubs episode articles). Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just wrong - only he agrees that it should be removed. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case." - this is unfair. it takes more than one person to edit war, and other people engaged in that conflict and helped bring it to the level where arbitration was needed. Sceptre, how would you describe your role in the events that led up to that case? From what I can see, you don't seem entirely objective here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Scrubs articles already had a consensus to merge. Reverting them all and knowingly violating the consensus was the action that spilled to AN, then to ARB. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Block is appropriate. Pixelface has a history of peculiar behaviour in addition to that on display on WP:NOT. I vividly remember him trying to suggest merging all of our articles on Haydn's symphonies into one list in a classic case of WP:POINT - largely because I was the one who rolled back all the merge tags. Moreschi2 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was wrong of Pixelface to edit war. It was wrong to report it to WP:AIV which is for clear-cut unquestionable vandalism, and not edit disputes. It was wrong of Sceptre to gloat over Pixelface's departure with a "Good News" headline. This is not the first case I have seen the term "vandalism" been thrown out liberally, and I seriously think ArbCom ought to consider whether their admonition in the last E&C is being heeded. In my view, people on both sides (perhaps mostly on the pro-fiction side) have been guilty of edit warring, and people have been guilty of stupid vandalism accusations. This has got to stop. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I only said "good news" because I thought TTN would see it that way. Besides, it's appropriate to call the edits vandalism; he'd been warned several times that removing the section would be edit-warring-if-not-vandalism without a clear consensus. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, you, like me, was an admin once, and people who hold or have held that position are expected, if not required to know what vandalism is and especially what it is not. Straight from the vandalism policy, we can see the excessive stubbornness is not vandalism. "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such." Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the "removing content for no reason", not "stubbornness". Sceptre ^(talk) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

He had a reason. You may not agree with that reason, and he may be wrong, but he still had a reason. It wasn't "vandalism", that is a term that should not be thrown around inappropriately, especially at established users. And your gloating over his leaving is absolutely unacceptable. the wub "?!" 11:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A user who puts "is gay" on a BLP and saying "adding a fact" isn't adding a fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, unless the subject is gay and has said they are? You could ask for a reference, but without the reference it should be removed. Does that count as vandalism, though? Surely that depends on whether or not a reference can be found. If not, then it probably was. If yes, then it was adding unreferenced material to a BLP. Is that in the vandalism definition? Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia for you: use a common example of vandalism as an example and you get people asking if it really is. And yes, BLP vios are covered by vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Define BLP vio. Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced/poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. Besides, even were it not a BLP vio, it's silly vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't be contentious on Ian McKellan would it? It would be poorly sourced, but surely not contentious? Unless you view all poorly sourced material as contentious (and there are good arguments for doing that on BLPs). Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. McKellan's homosexuality is quite well known. Besides, second sentence of my last post "if not a BLP vio, it's silly vandalism". Sceptre ^(talk) 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the worst of the problem as the message. Yes, the ed. it was sent to might well have thought it good news, (and apparently did [55]) but WP user pages aren't private--sending a message like that might give reasons to suspect something in the nature of a joint concerted effort at trying to get an opponent to leave WP. Perhaps he needed a short block--he did not need being insulted in such a way as to make him feel the best course was to leave the project. We're not supposed to be enemies here, only opponents over particular issues, & when it does degenerate into personal enmity, we should at least have the decency to keep it private. Following the thread there, though, the subsequent discussion did seem much more appropriate. Sceptre, you might helpfully ask TTN to refactor. DGG (talk)

Whether the block itself was appropriate or not, calling what happened "vandalism" in the edit summary is certainly inaccurate, and that bothers me more so than the block itself. Wizardman 03:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, after reviewing some others' actions post-block, I change my stance to one admonishing the block. Bad move. Wizardman 04:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This should never have been reported to WP:AIV in the first place, as the board is for reporting instances of obvious vandalism. A dispute over policy may be many things, but this was not a case of vandalism. Pixelface should not have been blocked by labeling it as such. R. Baley (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface is a good faith editor and an asset to our project who made both my list of wise Wikipedians and my list of nice Wikipedians. We should encouage him to return. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe. He also wasted prodigious amounts of everyone's time fighting over spoiler warnings. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We might also note that Pixelface engaged in a silly campaign to merge together the Haydn compositions, probably due to the fact the Eusebeus has contributed in that area. That was some time ago though. The main point here is that in this dispute, the vandalism process were used inappropriately on what amounted to an editorial and policy dispute. Pixelface has been argumentative, but he has also contributed to article content, and I believe we should be very patient and tolerant towards those who contribute to articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BAG Membership

In an attempt to prove that we can get extended community input on bag membership with out adding extra bureaucracy I am unholding my request(see WT:BAG#Back_in_the_BAG) and moving it to here. --Chris 08:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Back in the BAG

I was part of the bag under the other system but I didn't reapply when the system was reverted because, I though it would distract me from status bot a task that I had been neglecting for some time. Now that I've got status bot fixed up I would like to rejoin the bag. Also is it still the practice to spam all the notice boards? I know it has been in the past but I'm not to sure at the moment with all the bag changes going on --Chris 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a current change to pot policy which would require an RfA-like application for all BAG applicants, retroactively. If you want to join now, then Support, however you might want to wait until the policy has stabilized and you can do the new vote. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm putting this On Hold until everything is sorted out --Chris 12:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this is presently a legitimate way to do it. Support, if you chose to unhold it, you seem to know your stuff (IIRC we spoke the other day about PHP bots, and you seemed to keep up :) ), and, we could really use more people whom are interesting in participating / closing BRFA's... SQL^{Query me!} 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy from the old thread ends here --Chris 08:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A user is violating the Good Faith Policy and blocking My Edits on the Obama Girl Which Are Accurate

The user Escape Orbit is trying to label my edits as just opinions. The article I submitted-which was content from the New York Times- did give indications that the Obama Girl was lying when she said she was too sick to vote for Obama on Super Tuesday. The article did say she was actively attending the Fembot election results party that evening, and was even healthy enough the previous day to interview voters in New York. She claimed she was sick because of an airplane ride to Arizona on Super Bowl Sunday. I am trying to write in the truth, but it is clear to me the user is not assuming good faith and letting me do so; though I recently typed in more additional information in the article, I still think that the user will continue to change my edits. I'll even be okay if just a warning is issued to the user to assume good faith and not be one-sided.Kevin j (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please post some diffs and it will be easier for someone to help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, but this is not the place for it. I suggest dispute resolution — admins aren't the good faith police and there's no administrative action required here. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin j continues to edit war on the Amber Lee Ettinger article with his own personal opinion as to whether or not she was "sick" the night of the party he refers to. Being seen at a party and being sick at the same time are matters of personal opinion, as there is no doctor's statement that she was or was not sick, and Kevin j cannot say definitively that she was not sick. (Note: I have never edited the article in question, nor even read it till Kevin j brought this here). Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried asking Kevin j to cite properly his edits on Amber Lee Ettinger, but he seems more interested in casting accusations. The basic problem was that he is citing a New York Times blog that simply doesn't say what he's adding to the article. When I've removed it he has justified his edit by saying that the article "indicates" what he's saying, rather than stating it (as he repeats above). What Kevin j says it indicates (and this is his opinion) is that the subject lied, something that the cite certainly doesn't say. What makes Kevin j so sure of this is, apparently, an additional source of information that he doesn't/can't cite. So his edit is clearly a violation of WP:BLP and is original synthesis as well.

What "the truth" is, I don't know. But Kevin j fails to grasp the need for verifiability on BLPs and not to volunteer extrapolation on what cites "indicate" rather than what they actually state. As for violating good faith; I'm unclear how I've supposed to have done this as I've not once raised the question of Kevin j's motivation, while he has done this repeatedly to me and seems to have constructed a quite detailed theory from nothing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I solved the problem for now: the entire para was sourced from a single blog, so I removed it pending better sourcing. Such sourcing will no doubt cover issues of sickness or otherwise. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

I just created this redirect because I could never remember what to type in and observe that perhaps such redirects should be made for all of them.

Shouldn't it be easier to find these, especially for new users? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, that redirect is in the article space, and its redirecting to the project space. The redirect really should be from Wikipedia:Wikiproject physics or WP:Wikiproject physics. MBisanz ^talk 07:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's already WP:Phy! —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah basically nowadays, if you put a "WP:" in front of the topic you want, and put it in all caps, you will get to the Wikiproject you want WP:PHYSICS, WP:BIOLOGY, WP:NFL, WP:ANIMALS, WP:PACKERS to name a few. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted per CSD R2. As TT already mentioned, WP:PHY is your shortcut. — Edokter • Talk • 12:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That CSD mentions only talk, user, and user talk namespaces, not the wikipedia namespace. We have some redirects from mainspace to project space, and I don't see what harm it does, really, given that 'Wikiproject so-and-so' can hardly be the name of anything else. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Merging the project and article space in any way is bad. The only real exception is the main page, but even that is often under dispute. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is notable enough to have imitators?

I recently filed an abuse report on all of the IPs listed as sockpuppets of Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), but according to the user who is handling the report, they cover multiple ranges. Do you think that this means that Grawp has imitators? Grawp doesn't seem like a very notable vandal to me.--Urban Rose 09:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, he does, or at least folks here label some vandals as Grawp who are not, which amounts to the same thing. Thatcher 10:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree he probably does. After seeing one of his attacks live the other day. But is could just be him using proxys e.t.c. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 11:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Proxy, probably. He's notable, but not enough to have that many sheep. Rudget 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to get too far into the beans, but I think that one of Grawp's methods is message board posting with a link asking people to click the link and save the page. That could explain why a great number of ranges would be involved. --Onorem♠Dil 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys,Grawp is proboly a group of people set out to mess with Wikipedia.They are proboly just a group of teens with no lives.I honestly think that we have nothing to worry about.If we don't get so worked up then they won't be having as much fun.People like this only want one thing, and that is reaction.They feed off of us getting angry with them.That is his/her/their sole purpose in this whole thing.Mr. Green^chat 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's possible. 4chan would be one of those places that these meatpuppets might originate from. —  scetoaux (T|C) 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Notable? Seems an odd application of the term. :p Grawp is arguably an imitator of other vandals, depending on how you look at it. Checkuser and similar business aside, it doesn't seem to matter much whether it's one person or several when it comes to on-wiki response: just revert, block, ignore, and deny recognition a bit while we're at it. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the case of Headstrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) of interest, where all sockpuppets that were not blocked a year ago suddenly became active again. Either it is the same person - or a copycat using his old accounts again, or some other beanish explanation which should lead us to think what we do with old socking vandals. Agathoclea (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Last night, I retconned an account believing it was he. Now that you bring that case up, Aga...

In any circumstance, I have an idea. Rather than going up in arms whenever crap like this happens again, how about we simply move-protect all affected pages hit (including talk pages; he's/they've been moving protected pages by moving their associated talk page) and delete all the move targets without any fanfare? I've done so last night with several user pages hit (I will not say which ones, except to say that he's now moved past D&D/Pokémon editors to the general population); it should work. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jéské. We need to move-protect the pages.But we also need to not make such a big deal about it.That's just what they want.They want us to get mad about it. Mr. Green^chat 16:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple identity syndrome

Formerly indef-blocked User:EBDCM apparently was unblocked and reincarnated as User:CorticoSpinal. I have no objection to a good-faith unblock, but the rename makes it difficult or impossible to reconcile the two identities. In particular, there's no association of the block log for User:EBDCM with User:CorticoSpinal. There are some indications that User:CorticoSpinal is beginning to resume the same sort of practices that got him into trouble in the first place so this could be a matter of practical concern fairly soon. But there's a broader issue of what happens when a user takes on a new identity. I'm not familiar with the process of merging histories and so on, so would appreciate comments from someone who knows the ins and outs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This was a standard renaming and the block log migrated as normal.[56] Vassyana (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears the editing history also migrated normally.[57][58] Vassyana (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. I was wondering where everything went for User:EBDCM but it's all been transferred to User:CorticoSpinal. As mentioned I'm not familiar with how these things work so thanks for the clarification. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It was also changed recently - formerly the block log would not move. --Random832 (contribs) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)