Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive136

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Do they mean us?

Do they mean us? They surely do. Made me think, anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

... Never - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he's referring to Internet arguments in general. Isn't the author of xkcd a supporter/fan of Wikipedia, anyway? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Go on, be honest - how often have you felt that you 'must correct someone on the Terrible Wrong Thing they just edited in? Guy (Help!) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In case anybody else likes such things, Mark Liberman from Language Log analysed the word order here. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I do, yes, but I also tend to get the feeling "they're wrong!' when arguing with someone over the Internet on message boards, chat rooms and the like - it's not just limited to Wikipedia editing. I think that general feeling is what Mr. Munroe is referring to, it's not targeting any web site in particular. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

At least he seems to know Wikipedia fairly well. In case somebody still doesn't know it: Citation needed. Be sure to move your mouse over the image: The best thing is the tooltip. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I love that one. JoshuaZ and I were hammering away at each other over the Daniel Brandt DRV till all hours one day and I don't think I stopped till he linked that strip in his edit summary. Relata refero (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this phenomenon is definitely one of the engines that powers Wikipedia. The "somebody is wrong" cartoon definitely helped me kick my mailing list habit. :-) And yes, Randall Munroe is definitely a Wikipedia fan. [1] [2] [3] William Pietri (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget [4] and [5]. — Edokter • Talk • 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at WP:SSP

Can anyone assist in clearing it? Cheers, Enigma ^message 06:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking to get through a few within the next hour, after lunch. Regards, Anthøny 14:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Still a severe backlog. Enigma ^message 00:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just helped clear a bunch, but 33 cases are still listed as open. That's after closing something like a dozen. :) Enigma ^message 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon IP got my religion wrong

... among other interesting issues: [6] But this is probably not actionable, since it is a Dynamic IP using multiple IP addresses. Cannot be prevented. Network Engineer.. /endsarcasm Antelan^talk 08:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Slapped it with one-week block. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was getting a bit tired of reverting him after the first 2 dozen times. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. As promised by the original offending IP, this continues under a new IP. Antelan^talk 08:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Max blocked that one. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Should this be tagged as resolved, or are there outstanding issues? Anthøny 14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the frothing "YOO IS JEW" ips have returned! For context, please see this archived discussion. SoLando (Talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You should note that earlier edits from this IP include "it (Kristallnicht) was a great day in history", "die you fucking kike", "NIGGER JEW NIGGER JEW NIGGER JEW", "FUCKING KIKE GET OFF WIKIPEDIA WE DON'T WANT JEWS HERE" and much other racist abuse. IP has already been blocked twice previously this month, and I don't think that a one week ban is remotely long ennough. Can we not block any anonymous edits from this IP, and insist that anyone editing from there establish an ID? RolandR (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have upped it to three months. They may come back on another IP, but the message needs to be loud and clear that this is intolerable.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy backlog

CAT:CSD is backing up rather - over 110 pages and 60 images. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. At least at some. --Tone 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIV comment templates now available

There is now a set of useful templates when reviewing AIV reports, per the link in the header, following this discussion at Talk:AIV. As ever, comments and improvements welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I cannot tell many of the symbols apart, though due to similar colour-scheme/pattern; perhaps emphasize differences between a few. El_C 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I should note that this is a forked discussion from WP:AN/I, but I think that requires yet another "comment template" which I can't be bothered to find right now. — CharlotteWebb 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of own talk page

• 76.195.67.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Already blocked, but continues to revert talk page: [7], [8]. While still blocked for vandalism, can a user continually remove these notices (in their words, 'fucking garbage') from their talk page? JNW (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "garbage" statement. The page could be locked until the block expires, but this seems likely to inflame the IP more. The IP has obviously read the messages. Any admin would check the block log and probably the talk page history if anything happens down the road. Gimmetrow 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Points well taken. Thank you, JNW (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He reverted again. Page should be locked, inflamed or not, as this is clearly abuse. JuJube (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

This category is severely backlogged - any admins without anything to do, please take a few minutes to check and delete some of the images in the backlogged categories. Make sure to check against the criteria listed at WP:CSD#I8; the most common problem is that the Commons image isn't in a category anywhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free image outside main space

Could someone look into the use of this Image on the discussion page here, which has been readded twice after being I had changed iit to a link [9] [10], thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see what the other editor thinks s/he means here: the tags on the image say it's a screenshot of Wikipedia, and we allow ourselves to use screenshots of Wikipedia (almost) anywhere on Wikipedia. However, virtually no Wikipedia is visible, so in fact I'd say this is actually a screenshot of Internet Explorer 6 and thus only for use in the mainspace and only where relevant under the NFC policy. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud... Fasach is back and continuing what he does best; stalking me, and only me. Too bad. After a period of rest I was this close to closing this RFC. I will change the image, but one more incident like this will result in a ban request. — Edokter • Talk • 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem with this image. It bears no Wikipedia logo, and the IE6 interface is not visible either. I'd say this is protected by GFDL and therefore free. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like a perfectly reasonable GFDL tag. It's a screen shot of a bit of Wikipedia body text, along with a couple of scrollbars at the edge of the window. (The title bar and the remainder of the window are not visible.) At best, I would say that this is an overzealous interpretation of the fair use policy; at worst – if Edoktor's reference to a past dispute is accurate – it is an example of a timewasting and vexatious complaint that may warrant censure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see—the original image included the whole IE window. Still, a bloody wrongheaded attempt to manipulate the fair-use policy in such a way as to annoy and harrass another editor. The screenshot was being used as part of a reasonable effort to troubleshoot a problem with the way that Wikipedia pages rendered in IE. Deciding that it needed to be immediately removed from the talk page because it contained portions of the IE interface demonstrated either abominably bad judgement or bad faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• cough* Not on my part, I hasten to point out. I assumed good faith on behalf of the original poster (and Edoktor, for that matter) and had no reason to know there was any history between them. I am many things, but omnipotent isn't one of them. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You meant omnivorous whoops omniscient, right? — Athaenara ✉ 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is very little history between myself and Edokter, just because he is paranoid doent mean I am out to get him, if you look through the RFC where he has given evidence I am targetting him only 3 of the 19 examples have anything to with him, and you only have to scroll a few threads up this page to see an identical issue raised with anothher non-free image. Just because Edokter has a vendetta against me doent mean I take undue interest in him. Paranoia should not give this user carte blance to run roughshod over fair use policy, and raising a breach of policy for independent review should not be grounds for censure Fasach Nua (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And since when is the way to contest a usage of a potentially non-free image to make a report here? If you can't resolve it on the user's talk page (did you even try that first?), WP:PUI would be the place to go. Mr.Z-man 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The image was clearly unfree, the user had tagged it as such, but used it on a talk page, and there seemed little point raising the issue at WP:PUI. There is a useful little tool Special:Contributions/Edokter which allows you to see what edits any user has made, but to save you looking it up, the only attempt Edokter made to resove this (prior to me raising the issue here) was this edit comment [here] Fasach Nua (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzling editor will not use Talk or edit summaries

I'd like some suggestions on how to reach an apparently "clueless" editor. That's not a personal attack, but perhaps a concise way of describing his behaviour. Specifically, David Krysakowski (talk · contribs) likes to work on a set of articles that intersect my watchlist, namely the set of lists in category:lists of Olympic medalists. Some of his edits are useful, updating links from disambiguation pages, for example, but many of his edits are destructive, requiring reversion or repair. All efforts to appeal to him to improve his editing behaviour seem to fall on deaf ears. He responds to messages (from anybody, not just me) by blanking his user talk page, he never uses edit summaries, he marks all edits as minor, and he habitually makes multiple edits in a row to a single page instead of using the preview button. All the while, he continues to edit the same set of articles over and over and over again — a quick look at his wannabe_kate edit count shows many of these lists have hundreds of his edits. What do we do? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth considering a 'conditional indef block'? The idea would be to explain the rationale on his Talk page when issuing the block, and require him to actually participate in a discussion there before the block would be lifted. The block could be lifted immediately if he were willing to make some undertakings about his future editing, including the use of edit summaries. A short block seems unlikely to change his approach, since two have already been tried, one for 3 hours and the other for 12. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd try a 31 hour block first (that'll make sure that he notices) in case he doesn't think people are really serious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides the two blocks, this editor has received dozens of warnings on his Talk page over the last 10 weeks, and he has removed all of them. After I notified him of this discussion, I saw that he had removed a previous message about the same AN thread. I think we'll have to talk very loud to get his attention. The puzzling Olympic edits plus the lack of communication go as far back as August 2006. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After logging on today, his first (and third) edits were to blank his user talk page again, so he is reading these messages, yet declining to respond to them. About three hours later he started to work on List of Olympic medalists in rowing (men)‎, making eighty consecutive edits to that list! It's good work, adding the names to the teams that were missing that information, but the method of editing is certainly annoying. He absolutely refuses to use show preview, apparently, so the page history is clogged. But here's the question — is that disruptive? Enough to warrant a block? I'm inclined to wait until he does something that requires repair before issuing the "conditional indef block", which I think is a good idea as it forces him to start communicating via his talk page. But are his actions of today sufficient to justify that...? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(btw, thanks EdJohnston for renaming this thread. It was the right thing to do.)

I've blocked him until he chooses to address these troubling concerns. John Reaves 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After you blocked him, he seems to have been replaced by a new "contributor" Kryskwsk. A coincidental similarity in the names? David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• David Krysakowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Kryskwsk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Clearly the same editor. — Athaenara ✉ 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It appears as though after logging in for the first time after his indef block, he blanked his talk page and created the sock to continue. I have indef blocked Kryskwsk, and also put a three month block on the static IP 71.58.191.7 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) as this seems to be the same guy too. It would be so easy for him to simply respond positively on is talk page, and yet he chose this route. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gooddays, part 2

Continuing from the earlier thread about Tone, Shoessss, Seraphim Whipp, et al, I think we need to have a look at his behaviour. Basically, these are the concerns:

• Lack of civility and prone to accusations of admin abuse, and:
• The editors contribs appear suspect. Antandarus alerted me to this problem. Looking at the mainspace contributions, they are solely to Slovenian topics, and adding an ambox template on his fifth contribution looks a bit suspect. I agree with Antandarus that this is part of a "nationalist pissing war", and I've got a feeling that it's an incarnation of a banned user. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but I've just found out (I've only interacted with Seraphim before, I don't know Tone or Shoesss) that Tone is Slovenian, which pretty much confirms this is ethnic based. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the motivation may turn out, the routine way of increasing length blocks will deal with this particular account. Since after my 2 hr block the same pattern resumed, I've blocked for 24 hours, and will increase as necessary. The pattern is distinctive enough that if it occurs on another account, the duck test will deal with it. DGG (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above and also find some things suspect. One example was the fact that s/he moved their talk page to a misleading title and then requested to have it deleted, as if they knew it wouldn't have been done otherwise. A real newbie would have slapped a db-userreq tag on their talk page; that's if they even know what a db-userreq was or where to find it. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As expected... have a look at User:Star Rising. An obvious sockpuppet of Goddays. I request a block. --Tone 08:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is not a new user. Goodays knowledge of Wikipedia policy concerning WP:Civility, WP:ANI and WP:Blocking is to far advanced for anyone with only a few days with the project. However, what concerned me the most about Gooddays behavior was not necessarily the tagging of the articles. If you followed his tagging program, though it was all Slovenian issues, it was alphabetical and once he tagged an article they just followed the blue links within the article to the next piece. But, rather their response to other users when their behavior was pointed out. It almost seemed that the tagging was done to generate a response from other users. Gooddays was than able to respond and coached his remarks in such a way with WP:Civility though Lawyering , to inflame the issue rather than help. To me, personally, it seemed that their objective was to see how they could force the blocking issue and the tagging was just a means to the end. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Like DGG said, the duck test would take care of any sock puppets and Tone has pointed out an obvious sock puppet account, which I have blocked indef. I hope my action was correct. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 11:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the procedure when a blocked user uses a sockpuppet to edit? Leave the edits or revert them all? About incarnations of a previously banned user as pointed out before in this discussion, I don't remember any user doing anything similar before on such scale. And I would surely notice since I monitor several Slovenia-related articles. I remember an anon tagged some articles once but those were small cases, not 100+ edits per day. In fact, the reason I got involved in this is that User:Andrejj asked me to have a look at curious edits. I'll ask him, maybe he's encountered anyone before. --Tone 12:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Found the guy. It's here. But you can see how this discussion was civilized and a multi-party talk that eventually led to a well-referenced article. And not limited only to Slovenia. --Tone 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just found and indef blocked another sockpuppet, User:Yellowlax. I would kindly ask someone to second check my action and eventually revert all the disruptive edits, I don't have time at the moment. --Tone 07:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already entered a report about User:Yellowlax here Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Gooddays_(2nd). -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking?

Resolved. Not mmm-mm-mmm-mmming, apparently. Hard to disagree. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently created a personal sandbox 1 to work on a refactoring of an existing page 2 that I was having difficulty updating because of another user whom get reverting my edit. The sandbox page isn't linked to from anywhere and isn't in any categories. I also didn't mention it to anybody on Wiki. However a couple of hours after I put it up the editor who kept reverting the original page listed my sandbox for MFD on inaccurate grounds. I believe that this user has been watching my edit history in order to act on my edits as I didn't even link to this page from my own Userpage let alone from a page that the user would have browsed to in the normal course of editing.

I twice gave gave testemony this User in arbcoms 1 2 on because of what I believed to be poor conduct and now believe that they may be wikistalking my edits. Could an administrator please investigate this matter if only to put my mind at rest. - perfectblue (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist seems to be blocked, currently (see also #Saying "Put up or shut up" is a blockable offense? above). This seems a bit odd, but one odd incident does not equal a pattern of stalking all by itself. Has this sort of thing happened, before? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been several incidents that could be put down to coincidence under W:AFG. This one is less easy to do so. - perfectblue (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

SA was unblocked at 20:12 according to his block log. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, since contributions of every user are available with just a click to everyone, I would not neccessarily call this stalking. About arbitrations, have you changed your username since I don't see your edits in any of the two cases? I think you two have a misunderstanding. An easy suggestion is to ask SA to wait until you finish your sandbox article (maybe just move it to /sanbox to avoid confusion) and then you both can have a look at what to correct and how. This is a faster way to get to an article you both agree on. I let a note on MFD as well. --Tone 22:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my contributions were under the evidence section See 1 and 2 - perfectblue (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know Perfectblue of old. He is another advocate of fringe views. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A polite request, please stop calling me he. I'd also ask you to note that on the sandbox in question I'm clearly supporting the mainstream view that the topic is modern myth/folklore. - perfectblue (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone remember the episode of All in the Family where Edith was telling a story, and Archie got so tired of hearing her saying "cling peaches" that he put a ban on her using the words for the rest of the story, and so wherever "cling peaches" figured into the story she'd just mumble "mmmm MM-mmms"? That's how I'm beginning to feel about seeing the word "wikistalking" in print. For freakin' serious, people. Someone editing the same articles: NOT mmm-mm-mmm-mmming. Someone reverting your edits in >1 article within a day? NOT mmm-mm-mmm-mmming. Someone looking (horrors!) at your contributions list--NOT mmm-mm-mmm-mmming. There are very clear examples of TRUE mmm-mm-mmm-mmming--but these are totally, abjectly, utterly NOT IT. (/borderline incivility-temperfit.) Jeez. Gladys J Cortez 22:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Perfectblue97/shadow1 as a speedy keep. Sandbox page was created at 14:03, 29 March 2008 and nominated deletion roughly 5 hours later at 18:46, 29 March 2008. -- Cat ^chi? 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian World Congress

I'm very confused. Serbian World Congress is a new page, which looked to me as if it might be copied from somewhere else. A Google search led me to http://www.swc.eurowiki.net/, which, as a Wiki, I wanted to see what their license was, so I went to the home page at http://www.swc.eurowiki.net/MainPage, which says, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". But the history of the Serbian World Congress article doesn't show any such article as having existed before. Any ideas? Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would first ask the editor who created the article. Second, from looking at the history there, the entire thing was created in one edit by a editor Vize there. It looks like the editor dumped the text here, and then copied it there (including the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" line on all our articles). Let me ask him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSD backlog

Yet again, would appreciate some help to clear it up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious violence in India

The below is copy paste comment by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus in my talk page. This is regarding edit warring and disruptions by two editors in the article Religious violence in India.
The edits by the other users do not follow various guidelines and WP:CRUFT. The article in its present version has several problems. The "Background" section, if stays, it should include the causes and analysis on religious violence, there is no need to make two separate section "Background" and "Root causes". The root causes should be dealt in the background section. The section "Christian Militancy in North-East India" also has some problems i.e. it documents facts like "The South Asia Terrorism Portal reports that up to 90% of the NLFT cadres are Christian" which is not directly associated with violence. The "Ancient India" section should be rewritten. I named the section "History", but it was renamed to "Ancient India". The section does not deal with ancient India only, but also medieval and post-Independence history. The other users are now engaged in edit-warring and blind reverting. My involvement will not improve the situation. If I get involved in the article, they will revert my edits also. It is very much tough to deal with a pack of disruptive users. I will propose that you bring the matter in administrators noticeboard and a consensus is needed to solve the problems with the article. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

These two users (User:Desione & User:Anupamsr) are spoiling the enhancement and tone of the article because of a prior AfD nominated by me. Today, User: Desione was only involved in edit warring and blind reverting of this particular article. Pl see his contribs and another editor AnupamSR’s contribs. I request you to take immediate action to save the article. Please see the talk page of the article also that clearly shows that these users are editing against consensus & voting. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins, please wait & watch the activities going on in the article. Coz, I hope it should be alright since User:Relata refero has also supported my fight against CRUFT-pov-pushing. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The article came out of protection and the edit-war started up again. I've tried to make it clear that discussion should take place in as civil a manner as possible, and that further warring is unacceptable. If a standard discussion doesn't solve the problem, I'll put out an RfC. Ah, the plague of mystical nationalists. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gooddays, part 3

Resolved. Blocked for 48 hours. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed my concerns about these administrators before, but they have unfortunately ended up being ignored. [11]

To sum it up, these two administrators constantly revert other editors doing good work (one of which was me, until recently), accusing them of being trolls and sockpuppets with no supporting evidence except for wild assumptions [12], and blocking them. At first, Seraphim Whipp used another administrator as a proxy to block me [13], and later on, Tone and Seraphim blocked other two editors directly [14] [15].

I don't care for my account anymore, as I have since given up contributing to Wikipedia because of all these events, which I personally consider rather hilarious. But I don't want to see other new editors going through the same piss of immature administrators as I have, and being blocked indefinitely just because these administrators have a hard life. Gooddays (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the relation between the SSP case and SW or Tone? Rudget. 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns weren't ignored, they were discussed at great length, and the arising consensus was that you were trolling. The last message on your talk page (placed after your second block) read "If you resume, expect increasing blocks until you finally decide to stop playing games with us" - and yet you're back with the same trolling less than 48 hours after coming off that block. Usually blanking of a talk page is prima facie evidence that a user has read and understood the notices and warnings being blanked - in this instance it would appear that they have been read, understood and resoundingly ignored.

You claim to have given up contributing to Wikipedia - clearly this is in all respects other than trolling. May I suggest you give that up too, before you find yourself on a substantially longer, and probably indefinite, block? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 12:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The relation between the SSP case and SW or Tone is here [16]. The interesting part here is seeing other administrators following their silly rumors. Regards. Gooddays (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• 48 hours in the cooler seems appropriate here. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

endorse the block; but suggest not using the term "cooler" since we dont block to cool off; myself, I would have blocked cosndierably longer to prevent continued abuse of the system. I reassure Gooddays that I block of my accord--I am nobody's proxy. DGG (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a first! An unduly lenient block from me! :-) Guy (Help!) 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Had to happen sometime. ;-) _GB^T/C 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Got nothing to do?

There are lots of articles that reference MySpace, random clicking suggests that lots of them need to be cleaned up or deleted. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My random clicking suggests most of them link to "Band X's MySpace page", and not as references, either but external links. Are such ELs considered inappropriate? I've always treated them on par with "Band X's official website". --Relata refero (disp.) 14:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is no official site, such links are appropriate. But there are lots of pages like 104.7 (Canberra) where official site is mentioned, and followed by myspace profile intended only for advertising among this site's visitors. Also, there are articles where myspace is the only "reference" - they need to be either referenced (or at least tagged with {{unreferenced}}), or deleted. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always seen the band's official MySpace as an excellent external link. Obviously though, it's a poor source. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is an official MySpace link bad? External links are there to serve as key jumping-off points for readers; material that we can't add to the article for various reasons (NPOV, copyright, etc). If a MySpace page serves that purpose, why remove the link? The main reason I'm asking is because a lot of people knee-jerk whenever "MySpace" gets mentioned. Content trumps the URL. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind MySpace as an external link if it's an official site for the band, and as a reference an official band MySpace page is a self-published source. The problem arises when it's a fansite. Durova^Charge! 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For an external link and a self-published source, MySpace is fine, but self-published sources have very limited circumstances. To source a brief comment, it could be done. For an entire article, MySpace shouldn't be its only source, otherwise its notability can certainly be questioned. But as Durova pointed out unofficial or fan sites are the problem, those just need to be removed as unreliable. — Κaiba 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just agreeing here, but my take on it is that MySpace links are fine as external links for further information, but not as secondary sources. I don't see any problem with letting bands and comedians plug their MySpace sites as long as it's all external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrocket (talk • contribs) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Tindal (2nd nomination)

Resolved.

Can someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Tindal (2nd nomination)? It's been overlooked because it was originally "incomplete". Reggie Perrin (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I was about to close it when JzG tagged it with {{closing}}. Bah. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Community sanction or ban for Jack Merridew

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs)

I'm looking for either some sanctions against Jack Merridew, or perhaps a community ban/topic ban. My main concerns are that checkuser indicates a fairly strong correlation between Jack and a banned user, Davebelle, but can give no confirmation that they are the same person. There is, however, serious behavioural concerns between Jack and White Cat (talk · contribs), a long time contributor to the project, and looking at various toolserver tools to compare editing patterns, there is a strong correlation between the editing patterns of Jack Merridew and White Cat, and it looks like there may be some element of harassment and on-wiki stalking going on, with Jack reverting White Cat on a number of occasions, and making unusually large numbers of edits that seem to be directly opposite to those of White Cat. I'm firstly looking for some confirmation that I'm not seriously mistaken, and if not, I'd like to propose some type of a topic ban on Jack Merridew editing Oh My Goddess articles and related topics, or perhaps a more general topic ban which prevents Jack Merridew from reverting White Cat, or making edits that whilst not reverting White Cat directly, have the effect of effectively reverting the edits made by White Cat. I also notice an alarming tendency for Jack Merridew to edit war, and I'd like to place Jack on some form of revert parole of 1 revert per article per day.

If Jack continues to edit against White Cat, then I propose blocks slowly escalating towards a final block of 1 year, with any user found to be baiting Jack also liable for the same punishment. I would appreciate thoughts on the issue.

Also of interest to this case are This tool which shows overlap of edits, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle.

Thanks for your time folks. Nick (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I need to check some diffs, but if it is true that Jack's first edits to each new article he joins are in opposition to White Cat--that is to say, he decides what to edit by looking at White Cat's contribs and taking the opposite view, then indef ban as a sock of Davenbelle. Too much coincidence, and White Cat has been through too much with this user. We should treat our good faith contributors better than to give their stalkers second, third and sixth chances. Thatcher 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• If this user ends up being indef banned as a sock, could someone please make a note of it on the ANI where Jack accused me of being disruptive yesterday? If this is the case, the anime and television episode people are going to have some serious work ahead of them cleaning up his previous edits. Thanks though! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• In my experience Jack has a very uncivil and aggressive approach that he uses to advance his controversial interpretations of policy. I didn't realize he was also suspected of being a sockpuppet of a banned user. It looks like a ban, or at least some sort of editing restriction, is in order here. Everyking (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I would support a revert parole; and also a revert ban for Merridew on White Cat's edits but only if the reverse applies as well - otherwise it leaves carte blanche for White Cat to go round reverting "good" Merridew edits, knowing that there can be no response. Black Kite 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• When this first came up, a similar editing pattern didn't seem to be that big of a deal - it could happen. Then, Jack just happens to share the same metropolitan area and that starts to look a bit odd. Now, from what I can see, Jack has followed WhiteCat around a number of places and is exhibiting behavior similar to the original stalking -- I'm sorry, but three strikes and you're out. There are far too many odd little coincidences piling up here and there is absolutely no reason WhiteCat needs to go through this yet again. If Jack cannot voluntarily avoid WhiteCat like the plague, I would support banning this account as a reincarnation. Shell ^babelfish 10:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• The overlap in their edits are in tv episode/character articles. Perhaps I assume the good in people too much, but going on the editor alone, I can't believe that this is someone abusive. I see the disagreement between them as being more about one being inclusionist minded and the another more deletionist. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 12:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have worked with Jack a considerable amount through WikiProject D&D where we have both worked to remove/redirect/merge/whatever many of the articles on minor elements of the D&D universe- this has met opposition, as you would expect, but Jack has always acted inside policy. I have also found him to be civil, even in the face of opposition, sometime opposition based on nothing. I have no opinion on him being a sock of a banned user or of stalking White Cat, I have not looked into the evidence. All I can say is that I would be very sad to see Jack banned from the project, and I know he would be missed at WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't really speak to the other items being discussed here, but I would tend to disagree that he would be missed much at WikiProject D&D. I would also disagree regarding his civility towards RPG editors who challenge him as well. See Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance) for the latest of many examples of such. BOZ (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I also have to chime in here and say that Jack wouldn't be missed much at WikiProject D&D. He hasn't been the most constructive editor (mostly just adding tags and voting for AFDs, and I've never once seen him vote anything other than delete, with many of them being the same cut'n'paste reason for deletion given on multiple AFDs). A lot of people on the project have had friction with him on an ongoing basis, especially the more productive editors who have added sources, cleaned up and added content, etc, and he's been rather uncivil at times towards those with a different editing perspective than him.Shemeska (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Jack and I worked together nicely here, for which I applaud his friendliness and efforts, but to be balanced, I cannot think of any reasonable or valid "delete" arguments made in AfDs or elsewhere that benefit the project. On the contrary, I have see many unproductive delete "votes" that do not help reference articles, welcome new users, etc., i.e. things that help the project accomplish its objectives of being a comprehensive encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So, maybe an AfD ban would be acceptable, because there is where his weakness lies, and then we could use him as an article expander, where he could develop his strengths, which would allow him to contribute to the project more constructively. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That comes off a lot like you don't agree with him being more deletionist minded and want to ban him because you personally don't agree with him. Just because you can't see the value in his afd comments, doesn't mean they aren't valuable. In fact, I've just been through his most recent afds and the vote he cast was the result the debate ended with; this would indicate that his vote has consensus. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. Just because a half dozen or so out of thousands of editors in one week (when say any given article may have been worked on by far more editors and over months or years) felt an article should be deleted does not necessarily reflect true consensus. Much of his controversy seems to be about just wanting to delete stuff. In the example I link to above, I found him friendly to work with in regards to trying to help him expand an article he created. Thus, if he channeled his energy to the kind of work that brought about cooperation and zero controvsery as in his and my work on that article, I think it would be a compromise of sorts. AfDs will go on fine without any one other editor and if they really are consensus deletes, then another delete voice is not necessary. This way he would definitely be contributing the project and would greatly reduce the likelihood of running into the same problems. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] input and insights

I suppose I should not be surprised to see this accusation again. If someone repeats something enough times, people start to believe. This is the underlying principle of advertising.

Firstly, I am not a sockpuppet, as White Cat has repeatedly alleged. He has asserted this many, many times and, quite frankly, I'm now viewing it as harassment. This current thread appears to have been initiated by this plea; Sanity please and its removal from ani four minutes later by User:Nick, whom I don't believe I've ever encountered before. This thread also would appear to be related to Kyaa's attempt to resurrect three redirected articles yesterday; see here.

Secondly, the editing of common articles is primarily centered on the Oh My Goddess episode and character articles; most of the other pages are user talk pages and the two sets of arbcom case pages. The episodes were redirected, by me, after discussions initiated by User:TTN - which is how I became aware of them and where I first encountered White Cat. I documented this all in the first TV E&C case. After that unpleasant experience, it was suggested, by User:Tone, that there were too many character articles and I proposed merging the character articles into a list of characters, which, amazingly, didn't exist at the time; I created said list and proposed the merge, which after several discussion threads, TTN performed.

All of these 'articles' failed to in any way establish notability. White Cat is a fan of this show and and hates me for my part in their being redirected. So, yes, I've edited some common pages. I have not 'targeted' pages because of White Cat's interest in them. I look for articles that are non-notable and have found many TV episode and character 'articles' that don't measure up, but have also found many D&D articles, and recently 'Honorverse' articles. I'm sure, if I were to look into other domains, I would find more. It is amazing what people view as appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I have not taken any position on any issues merely in order to oppose White Cat. Indeed there are issues we have agreed on and I have pointed this out a few times. We agreed on some proposals in the E&C 2 workshop and about it being inappropriate to promote Wikia. At heart, however, we hold different views on the include/delete question, so we are bound to disagree often. I have reverted White Cat on a number of occasions; the ones that most stand out in my mind are the time he reverted all my merge suggestions to OMG chars and the time I reverted his redirection of the OMG List of episodes. He was out of line in both cases.

I do not consider myself to be an uncivil editor. I may express myself strongly, but I don't attack people. You will be hard-pressed to find a diff where I cross the line.

As to edit warring, I have probably undone better than a thousand edits of other users. However, the vast majority of these are the likes of User:Grawp. I have been frequently supported in these efforts by a wide variety of other editors, and I don't believe I have even received any cautions about it.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

struck a key word. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I've got one small question, can you give us a few details on how you noticed the thread at WP:ANI that I removed - the thread was only there for 4 minutes. Cheers. Nick (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You left a note on my talk page directing me here and I wondered who? So I looked at your user page, talk page, and contribs and there it was not far down; immediately before the creation of this thread. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems a rather fair explanation, actually. Anthøny 13:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't unusual to check someones userpage to have a sense on who this user is. However it is certainly unusual (at least for me) for someone to go through individual edits of the said user - particularly those edits to notice boards. But of course the rational explanation presented is one possibility. What that fails to explain is...

• How Jack Merridew would explain edits like this. How did Jack noticed my edit to an image page? Mind that the difference in time stamps is 30-34 minutes. I was removing a fair-use image from a gallery at Depiction of Jesus which is not related to fiction. There probably are millions of free alternatives to "Depiction of Jesus" so I still do not see why we need a fair use image in that gallery.
• How Jack Merridew noticed this edit to Jimbo's talk page. The time stamp of my edit is 14:39, 15 March 2008. Jacks edit is 09:49, 16 March 2008. Jack loaded every diff presented on the diff I presented to Jimbo. There is a 19 hour gap between the two edits which is more than enough to make such an analysis. What's more interesting is on 09:36, 16 March 2008 Jack posted a comment at User talk:Pixelface. Between his edit to User talk:Pixelface and arbitration case is 13 minutes. In other words he analyzed a really long thread from 2005 which he discovered from my post to arbcom in just 13 minutes.
• How Jack Merridew noticed this edit which links to my edit/discussion with Tony Sidaway between 15:15-19:34, 21 March 2008. Given Tony removed/archived my edit on 18:36, 22 March 2008, I wonder how Jack Merridew noticed a removed edit that is only available in user history as his edit came on 12:12, 23 March 2008. By the time he linked to the discussion the page in question was blanked/archived by Tony. While compiling this evidence I had to review a few diffs even though I knew exactly what I was looking for.
• Why was Jack Merridew involved with this thread on ANI? Is his behaviour there consistent with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Moby Dick banned from certain articles? Alas that remedy there does not sanction someone from editing talk pages. But I feel Jack Merridew's contribution to the discussion was less than constructive.

Another interesting question is weather or not Jack Merridew really is a new user. The question about weather or not he is the sockpuppet of Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir trio aside his first few edits to Wikipedia were quite professional.

• First edit of Jack Merridew (back then 'User:Senang Hati' meaning happy hearts in Indonesian or so Jack Merridew claims) was rather professional with wiki-linking, bolding of the first sentence, sectioning external links, categorization ([17])... He even picked the right stub template. He made other 3 professional edits to the same page. All this happened between 8-9 UTC on 11 April 2007. Page was nominated for speedy deletion at 12:45 UTC. It was speedy deleted at 14:39 same day. Jack complained (complaint itself is professional, he knew about the {{hangon}} template and etc without actually seeing it (see his complaint)) and got the article restored. Jack placed a {{hangon}} template the same day after it was restored. He requested a username change 2 days after his first edit (his 17th edit) over COI concerns ([18]).
• All this happened in the same week as the Moby Dick block discussion that got Moby Dick and his sockpuppet Diyarbakir blocked indefinitely. Original IP of Moby Dick/Diyarbakir is still blocked.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose any kind of anti-stalking sanction. Such sanctions had proved to be ineffective such as in the case of Davenbelle and in Moby Dick and I would dislike to go through the same nonsense again. While the "goodness" of his other edits maybe disputed (%26.77 of edits by Jack Merridew are to pages that TTN also edited in a "tag team revert war" manner), presence of other "good edits" cannot be used an excuse to continue "bad behaviour" elsewhere. -- Cat ^chi? 15:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But we haven't established if this is Davenbelle. If you take into consideration that this is a different editor, this technique might work fine. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Moby Dick was never a confirmed sockpuppet of Davenbelle. He was treated like a new user. I do not see how it will be different for this "third" person from Bali, Indonesia. All I am saying is that the suggestion in question had proved to be ineffective against two "seperate" people from Bali, Indonesia. Fun thing is I had this kind of a discussion roughly 1 year ago. Talk about dejavu. -- Cat ^chi? 15:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very complex issue, and one that has been long-running: White Cat has been filing complaints against Jack for some time now, and Nick's raising of this issue is going to finally allow us to get to the bottom of it. I'd like to address the problem of the root of the issue, and what that root is. With regards to that, we have two options: whether the problem is about Jack's status as a sock puppet, or whether the problem is his conduct as an editor and a contributor to this project.

I would tentatively suggest that the problem here is the latter: his conduct as an editor. Indeed, there is evidence supporting the accusations that Jack's account is a sock puppet. Conversely, however, there is also evidence on the counter: the checkuser conclusion was not particularly strong (I recall it being a "possible, erring on likely"—such a finding is not conclusive by anybody's standards); the editing habits are worrying, but then again, a lot of accounts have taken a worrying interest in White Cat's contributions, and by no means have all been sock puppets; and the creation of each account could very easily be circumstantial. Forgive me for acting as a devil's advocate here, but I am simply making the point that the possibility of the root issue being that of Jack's status as a sock puppet is somewhat moot.

That leaves the issue of Jack's conduct. I think it is pretty clear that it is somewhat unacceptable—I will leave the justification of that, to the above comments (e.g., Nick's comment), which somewhat sums my thoughts up. Rather than rambling, I'm going to cut straight to the point: something needs to be done. Nick's suggestion of a ban is one possibility; probation or a restriction (remember, it's not only the AC that can install editing restrictions!) I do, however, support some disruption-limiting remedy in this matter, and I would like to hear suggestions as to what can be done. Regards, Anthøny 14:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can give you stalking WhiteCat and similar article interests with that explanation, but when you add that they live in the same area? At some point, you have to look and go "gee, isn't that odd" -- for the third time. Possible erring towards likely is actually a rather strong statement when you consider the labyrinth that is interpreting checkuser. Maybe we should first ask if Jack would be willing to stop any and all contact with WhiteCat? Shell ^babelfish 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• First user from Bali, Indonesia (Davenbelle) was asked to stop after the arbitration case. He for the most part had stopped stalking me to excess. Instead he started nominating templates on my user space for deletion, putting my wiki-stress meter on his userpage, posting a "Cool Cat" image on his userpage, nagging my mentors and so on...
• Second user from Bali, Indonesia (Moby Dick/Diyarbakir) he completely stopped editing before the arbcom case was closed in August (he did stalk and run). He did not edit for months only to return with this edit. Then he continued harassing me on Wikimedia Commons for a little while. He then continued the harassment with his account Diyarbakir with lots of edit gaps preventing any kind of ANI action. After all he could always argue he learned his lesson at any of the gaps.
• So I am not so hot with such a possible sanction to this third user from Bali, Indonesia. Maybe I have a thing for people in Bali, Indonesia... ^ ^;

-- Cat ^chi? 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• It would actually be very difficult for Merridew to stalk White Cat at the moment. That's because White Cat has only made 53 mainspace contributions this year; practically all of his other 1,200 edits have been pursuing his attempts to get Merridew blocked. You have to ask - who is making more contribution to the encyclopedia at this point? Black Kite 16:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes. You see I am not allowed to edit wikipedia. If I were to edit article namespace someone (generally from Bali, Indonesia) contradicts whatever I am doing. I used to edit Turkey related real world topics. Because Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir stalked me on such topics I started editing Anime related articles. See where we are now? Had I had peace and quiet in a colaborative enviorment and not have to deal with these three "different" users from Bali, Indonesia for the past 3 years, I am sure I would have more time on the article namespace. I also want to point out that I edit over 300 wikis in various degrees - mostly ones where people from Bali, Indonesia do not interfere with my work. My bot User:Computer has made over 9,000 edits alone in English Wikipedia just this month. Not that I care too much about the "number of edits" but thats more than Jack Merridew's entire contribution since he registered. People are so quick to disregard my hard work. I know no good deed goes unpunished but this is ridiculous. -- Cat ^chi? 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  Also despite having so few edits in the article namespace I was still stalked to a degree. I do not edit Wikipedia for the sake of getting stalked. -- Cat ^chi? 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  In all fairness, BlackKite, I don't think it is White Cat that is the root of the problem here. Anthøny 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit point alpha

• Full disclosure: Jack asked me for input here; before editors get bent out of shape & bandy around the empty rodomontade of canvassing, he did so because he & I have crossed paths for a long time now and I can attest, as I have done so before, that his actions have always struck me as in good faith and positive for the project. It is possible that I am prejudiced by the fact White Cat has proven to be such a highly disagreeable editor over his long history here. Frankly, in this instance the credibility of the messenger counts, and the source of these accusations, high-pitched, insistent and repeated as they have now become, is near zero. I don't know who Nick is, but I am disappointed that he has chosen to sanction these scabrous insinuations; I would naturally oppose any course of action that even approximates those called for above as completely inappropriate, bordering on hysterical overreaction. Jack's contributions have been consistently solid and this seems sadly to be another battle in the episode war fought by other means. Eusebeus (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm siding with Merridew myself. What contact I did have with him on Dungeons & Dragons articles has been good (I won't say exemplary because he has a tendency to report sockpuppets of *someone* to me). However, I will disclose that I have only really had contact with Merridew, and the little contact I had with White Cat was at the declined RfArb (where I pointed out that her ArbCom request looked to be on the wrong side of spiteful), ergo I will not comment on that. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I too am against sanctions against Merridew at this point. First, I'll be blunt: From what I've seen, Merridew is a better contributor than White Cat. Even if he is a Davenbelle reincarnation, and even if he has been stalking, if I have to choose between Merridew and Cat, I'll choose Merridew. The Arbcom ruling back from 2005 was never a very good ruling in the first place. – Apart from that, White Cat in this section above gives four examples of evidence of alleged stalking by Merridew. Three of them are from the last few days. Now, this is plainly absurd and shows to what lengths Cat's obsession with this issue has gone. Cat has made it his full-time business for the last several week to get Merridew banned. So now Merridew is stalking Cat? Well, of course he is, now. Who wouldn't? If I knew another user was manically out to get me like this, of course I would check every step of theirs on a daily basis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  I was asked to provide recent examples. Old ones are available in the linked pages. I did not file either one of the E&C cases. I filed the RFAR because an arbitrator recommended me to do so because it wasn't entirely in the scope of E&C2 arbitration case. I filed to RFCU and SSP because arbitrators declined to look into the arbitration case citing a lack of prior steps (RFCU & SSP).

  Unlike people who are the source of disruption by constant revert waring, I stopped editing completely. Regardless of the validity of the reverts, I believe consensus should be reached prior to such edits. I made a very serious effort to reach a consensus on the E&C matter. I do not believe anyone can deny this. Perhaps you simply unhappy because I do not share your opinions on Episode and Character related articles?

  I did a quick check and I am quite unimpressed. Coincidences... :) This is why I hate what Moby Dick was doing. If you are stalked non-stop you start developing a level of paranoia. It becomes harder and harder to assume good faith. Which is why stalking (harassment) is a prohibited behaviour.

  -- Cat ^chi? 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  Outside comment by passing editor. Quality of edits do not excuse or lessen violations of policy (if that is what has happened here - like I said, I was just passing by). Rather an honest drudge contributing than a stylish miscreant. I think policy is with me on this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, one of the problems with this debate is it resurrects old battlelines from the trench warfare at AfD, with those of a like mind on much popular culture material having a similar view on Jack's edits as either a net positive or negative on the 'pedia, hence the opinion of Black Kite, Eusebeus, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Kww among others on one side, and some others (me included) on the other. Having had some more positive interactions with Jack recently, my view is one of an expatriate living in Bali who has an issue with systemic bias on wikipedia who became very unhappy after some early Indonesian material they input into the project was deleted, the Senang Hati Foundation being one which was saved, while Allison Sudradjat was not. It is feasible to me that he then has attempted to address systemic bias by setting about to remove material he deems unencyclopedic rather than focus improving some non-western articles. I suppose I am saying I can see a ready explanation for his behaviour as a massive POINT for these early reversions rather than necessarily a sock. However, I have not reviewed the old material so can offer no comment but I did note the timing of all accounts as intriguing.

There are times he has pushed the limits of definitions to push for deletion, and the rate of mowing though RPG material was rapid, and I will not forgive him for making me rummage around in my garage finding dusty old magazines at 35C and 80% humidity in a sticky Sydney summer to find references. I'd be happy if the behaviour could be diverted into more positive endeavours, at least some of the time. Jack is very good at layout and formatting articles properly and there's a heckuva lot which need wikifying. I have found that once away from AfDs (as with some other folks, probably me included), interactions become alot more positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I won't deny that I, personally, have little sympathy for those editors who wish to infect what is an encyclopedic project with the mindless, fan-driven, obsessive in-universe detail of so many of the fiction, RPG & vidgame articles that we have here. But White Cat's behaviour goes well beyond whatever trivial animus I might have on that particular issue; to suggest I would rise to Jack's defense because of the blinders I wear over that issue is simply incorrect. In one of White Cat's many failed RfAs, I can recall an editor stating to the effect when White Cat gets adminship is when he leaves the project: I basically concur with that sentiment. This is a highly, highly problematic editor whose has created enormous trouble for a very long time. This is simply the latest example of the obsessive disruption that he has made his specialty. Frankly, Wikipedia would probably be better off without him. It would certainly be worse off without Jack. Eusebeus (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thankyou for your measured, thoughtful and sober response. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you always this hostile Eusebeus? And I am already an admin btw. -- Cat ^chi? 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't show that you are an admin... your rights sir. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh not here on en.wikipedia but on wikimedia.commons. Commons by far is the most sensitive of all wikimedia projects. A deletion of a single image there can easily affect every wiki. I am happy to say the fears of people threatening to leave on my adminship are unwarranted. -- Cat ^chi? 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked further into this. Here's one thing I wonder about: timing. Jack Merridew began getting involved in episode notability conflicts first with an edit at WP:ANI [19] on 6 June 2007, and then with a series of reverts in support of User:TTN a month later [20]. Throughout July and August, he was heavily involved with episode issues, apparently taking his cues mainly from TTN. This seems to have been at a time well before White Cat became involved with this field. All through June and July of 2007, White Cat was busy with other conflicts (Turkish/Kurdish ones and personal issues). The first instance that I can find where Cat got involved with episode notability conflicts during that period was 20 August 2007, when TTN chanced to hit upon the List of Oh My Goddess episodes [21] (to which White Cat had previously contributed [22]).

If Jack had chosen that field of controversy in a premeditated plan to stalk White Cat, he must have been a genius of strategic thinking ahead. Am I missing something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Jack Merridew originaly edited articles related to non-profit organizations in Bali, Indonesia. He only started editing against fiction related topics as a reaction to people deleting his non-fiction related article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Sudradjat ([23]). Giant WP:POINT if you ask me. He was a very inactive user till the end of June [24], and only started editing fiction related articles as of 7 July 2007. I do not think it was planned at all. Had a bunch of deletionists did not pursue his article to deletion, Jack Merridew would probably be still writing about Bali, Indonesia. He tag teamed with TTN there on. His first contact with me was on 27 July 2007 (20 days after he started editing fiction related topics) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek) which is a part of the Starfleet ranks and insignia series at which I have 456 edits on that specific article alone. An interesting thing to note is the time stamp of my first edit to the afd was 06:21, 26 July 2007 and Jack Merridews was 11:28, 27 July 2007 which puts a 29 hour 7 minute time gap between each other [25]. Davenbelle also was quick to suggest deletion of Star Trek ranks Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek [26]. After that I started encountering this person more and more. I am sure it is possible to argue that these earlier contacts were mere coincidences and it is not like someone will be sanctioned for his or her edits from January over 6 months later. The key problem is the dosage of the salking has been increasing since. If Jack Merridew is Davenbelle, he is merely returning to his old edit pattern in such a way that he can game around WP:HA. Oh and I personally would not call Jack Merridew a genius. -- Cat ^chi? 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Any disagreements in any of this? -- Cat ^chi? 13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I don't know if anyone else caught this, but it looks important. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of a banned user. There really isn't much else to say now... Ryan Postlethwaite 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ryan, just as a note: he also admitted in that edit to being Davenbelle and Note to Cool Cat, which remain unblocked. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they're all blocked and tagged now. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Kudos to Whit Cat for his persistence in this matter. As seen here, White Cat endured a good deal of guff from editors for posting what turned out to be correct information and what did indeed result in a block as proposed by White Cat in that case. In fact, I was one of the few to have taken White Cat seriously then. I encourage those who ridiculed White Cat for his accurate suspicions to at least consider apologizing to him. My concern now, though, relates to some of the below discussion. As it has been indeed established that the account was indeed the sock of a banned editor, how many illegitimate AfDs did the account start or participate in that marred the outcome or tainted those processes, in addition to policy discussions and as seen below ANI threads on good faith editors? I.e. is there damage that needs to be undone? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"is there damage that needs to be undone?" There is plenty. Ranging from real word topics (Mass "Kurdistan" categorization of various cities by this user) to fiction related topics (mass blanking/redirectification of various series of articles particularly Oh My Goddess! related ones)... While I acknowledge there is a problem, I also discourage any mass action... We certainly have time to discuss individual contribution by this user from any of the 5 accounts he used. -- Cat ^chi? 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on Megalithic geometry

→ See also: Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry and Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry (2nd nomination).

History. It is up to 5RR if the IP counts as a sock. Seems to be yet another fringe theory article in need of some admin attention. - Neparis (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 29#Megalithic geometry. It's a one-man kook theory with no mainstream support, and the article is almost entirely written from primary sources by someone who thinks we should have an article because "the numbers all add up" - ie WP:TRUTH rather than WP:V. I cannot find a single mainstream source that even dignifies this with a debunking. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. There's a lot of pseudoscience about the megaliths of Great Britain. Some is interesting, some worth including because it was proposed or discussed by someone notable (say a 17th century antiquarian, or a literary figure like Robert Graves), but most of it neither interesting or notable, even as examples of mare's nests. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SCV backlog

Resolved. Thanks to copyvio-busting hatchets from Kateshortforbob and CIreland

shoy 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations has a major backlog, and I could really use some help clearing it out. Thanks all! GlassCobra 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it, but there's still entries going back a week... =/ shoy 14:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LisaTierny

Resolved. All socks and their master blocked by me and someone else. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:LisaTierney has apparently conducted her own RFA, passed it, and is now putting protect and semi-protect tags on pages. After being blocked, she has apparently created a sockpuppet, User:BarbaraPoeTierny and uses the sockpuppet to vandalize, while Lisa goes back and cleans up the mess. This user needs to be investigated. Also seems to have found a way to make her user page invisible.

There seems to be a pattern that I have not noticed before. A number of past vandals to the article Ed, Edd n Eddy and related articles, have also edited Mormon Tabernacle Choir. All of them have eventually been banned. This needs investigation. -- Elaich ^talk 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Her userpage isn't invisible, you just spelled the name wrong (BarbaraPoeTierney (talk · contribs)). That, and she hasn't created a userpage yet. JuJube (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA deleted as unneeded. Viridae^Talk 06:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the reason you came to this conclusion been because of the use of Tierney in both usernames? It might be an impersonator, something that has happened to many users, which is why doppleganger accounts are created. It is also worth noting that I can only find one edit by BarbaraPoeTierney that LisaTierny has reverted. Lradrama 08:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mind you though, this edit might be worth looking at. What do others think? Lradrama 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We should be clear on something - LisaTierney is not an admin, never was. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not if you look at her very small set of contribs. But, regarding this particular case, if BarbaraPoeTierney is a sockpuppet, the sock and the creator would both need blocking, and all other account creation prevented too. Which means we would have to make a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets That is the conclusion we need to arrive at. Lradrama 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser Confirmed; create and list a case at WP:RFCU as there are a lot more socks. Thatcher 11:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  Here we go. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Any chance they're User:GoldEmerald‎ and User:Flippityflop? Corvus cornix_talk 16:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Too old. Thatcher 16:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • CheckUser can tell an editors age? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • No, but IP records aren't kept very long; August 2007 is way too old to do a checkuser on. --Golbez (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A range of IPs...

A range of IP addresses has been adding the same extreme point-of-view passage to the beginning of Sea Shepherd for a few days. The IP addresses are 60.254.234.31, 60.254.235.65, 60.254.251.21, 60.254.252.151, 60.254.235.200, 60.254.237.88, 60.254.236.122, and 60.254.250.59. They all source to Japan, according to a Whois on the APNIC. I'm not really sure how to approach this. Here are some diffs of the change: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Note that the provided reference does not substantiate the claim that's introduced, and even if it did, it should be introduced in the body first, not in the lead, and not in the language used. Thanks. Djk3 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have sprotected the article for a week, since nearly all ip edits are from the range complained of. In the meantime, I suggest that those more knowledgeable regarding rangeblocks have a look at the smallest possible range that might be targeted against potential collateral damage. If a rangeblock is not feasible, then sprotecting when there is a higher than normal amount of vandalism may be the only recourse (understanding, of course that the version protected will be wrong...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at WP:RM.

We've developed quite the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves lately. We've got one item that's over a month old, and many from the early part of March. Any help in clearing this backlog is greatly appreciated. JPG-GR (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptions to policy allowing removal of user page notices

There is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:User page#Exception to WP:BLANKING about whether we should allow certain exemptions to WP:BLANKING (version prior to recent edits). Specifically the proposal calls for prohibiting users from removing sockpuppet notices (suspected and/or confirmed) or unblock notices (while blocked). As the blanking policy is an old and often contentious issue, additional input would be useful. Dragons flight (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table sorting problem (with possible fix)

These tables don't sort properly...

When you press the sort button on the table, it orders the numbers: 1L, 1.4L, 19L, 2L. It may be new math, but it should be: 1L, 1.4L, 2L, 19L. (I used the sm=n flag, BTW)

Possible fix:

It seems the sort function are in this file: http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/wikibits.js

The part that is missing should be in here:

<code><nowiki>
function ts_resortTable(lnk) {
        // get the span
        var span = lnk.getElementsByTagName('span')[0];
 
        var td = lnk.parentNode;
        var tr = td.parentNode;
        var column = td.cellIndex;
 
        var table = tr.parentNode;
        while (table && !(table.tagName && table.tagName.toLowerCase() == 'table'))
                table = table.parentNode;
        if (!table) return;
 
        // Work out a type for the column
        if (table.rows.length <= 1) return;
 
        // Skip the first row if that's where the headings are
        var rowStart = (table.tHead && table.tHead.rows.length > 0 ? 0 : 1);
 
        var itm = "";
        for (var i = rowStart; i < table.rows.length; i++) {
                if (table.rows[i].cells.length > column) {
                        itm = ts_getInnerText(table.rows[i].cells[column]);
                        itm = itm.replace(/^[\s\xa0]+/, "").replace(/[\s\xa0]+$/, "");
                        if (itm != "") break;
                }
        }
 
        sortfn = ts_sort_caseinsensitive;
        if (itm.match(/^\d\d[\/. -][a-zA-Z]{3}[\/. -]\d\d\d\d$/))
                sortfn = ts_sort_date;
        if (itm.match(/^\d\d[\/.-]\d\d[\/.-]\d\d\d\d$/))
                sortfn = ts_sort_date;
        if (itm.match(/^\d\d[\/.-]\d\d[\/.-]\d\d$/))
                sortfn = ts_sort_date;
        if (itm.match(/^[\u00a3$\u20ac]/)) // pound dollar euro
                sortfn = ts_sort_currency;
        if (itm.match(/^[\d.,]+\%?$/))
                sortfn = ts_sort_numeric;
// INSERT HERE
 
        var reverse = (span.getAttribute("sortdir") == 'down');
 
        var newRows = new Array();
        for (var j = rowStart; j < table.rows.length; j++) {
                var row = table.rows[j];
                var keyText = ts_getInnerText(row.cells[column]);
                var oldIndex = (reverse ? -j : j);
 
                newRows[newRows.length] = new Array(row, keyText, oldIndex);
        }
 
        newRows.sort(sortfn);
 
        var arrowHTML;
        if (reverse) {
                        arrowHTML = '<img src="'+ ts_image_path + ts_image_down + '" alt="&darr;"/>';
                        newRows.reverse();
                        span.setAttribute('sortdir','up');
        } else {
                        arrowHTML = '<img src="'+ ts_image_path + ts_image_up + '" alt="&uarr;"/>';
                        span.setAttribute('sortdir','down');
        }
 
        // We appendChild rows that already exist to the tbody, so it moves them rather than creating new ones
        // don't do sortbottom rows
        for (var i = 0; i < newRows.length; i++) {
                if ((" "+newRows[i][0].className+" ").indexOf(" sortbottom ") == -1)
                        table.tBodies[0].appendChild(newRows[i][0]);
        }
        // do sortbottom rows only
        for (var i = 0; i < newRows.length; i++) {
                if ((" "+newRows[i][0].className+" ").indexOf(" sortbottom ") != -1)
                        table.tBodies[0].appendChild(newRows[i][0]);
        }
 
        // Delete any other arrows there may be showing
        var spans = getElementsByClassName(tr, "span", "sortarrow");
        for (var i = 0; i < spans.length; i++) {
                spans[i].innerHTML = '<img src="'+ ts_image_path + ts_image_none + '" alt="&darr;"/>';
        }
        span.innerHTML = arrowHTML;
 
        ts_alternate(table);          
}
</nowiki></code>
---------------
 
A line like:
        if (itm.match(/^.*sm=n.*$/))
                sortfn = ts_sort_numeric;

Needs to be inserted at "// INSERT HERE". Tested it and it works. Don't know if it breaks anything else (shouldn't). How do I fix it? I think the other "sm=" switches need to be included too.

I've submitted this on the bugsilla side, but they seemed to think it was on this side? Ephdot (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some notes:

• sm=n comes from meta:Help:Sorting, which describes already "improved" sorting, implemented only on Meta.

• Maybe the docs need adjusting? I found it under Help:Sorting Ephdot (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• You're proposing to make a change in MediaWiki software, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia admins. This should definitely be discussed at bugzilla. (However, you did not include a link to submitted bug.)

* Bug#: 13535 Ephdot (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you want to make this change on English Wikipedia only, then → Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and/or MediaWiki talk:Common.js

• Thought it was already part of wikipedia and other tables in wikipedia seem to be using it. Ephdot (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't think we need this change. In the examples above the "L" part can either be omitted or moved into a separate unsortable column.

• Bug#: 8028 makes the table look funny. Ephdot (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

—AlexSm 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's also the hidden sortkey trick which requires no backend changes. --MASEM 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's pretty clunky to use though. Ephdot (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP's - New Things!

I've been working on BLPs in the background, the last while. A major concern is that biographical articles can do immense harm with ease, and therefore when we do have them, we need to provide better resources and quality control to handle the issues that can arise. Hopefully in future we'll have better ways, but for now, some items that may be of communal interest:

[edit] The problem

Historically, a number of BLP subjects find out they have a wiki-bio in a bad way - it turns up when they or others search for it. On a number of occasions (relatively very rare but very high profile) it is in a horribly savaged form when this has happened. Extreme cases have included members of the public discovering their biographies have allegations of assassination and espionage (Seigenthaler incident), terrorism (Taner Akçam) and sexual/pornographic slurs (Don Murphy).

Despite knowing we probably catch 'most' vandalism, and these are extreme cases that happen rarely, to those affected nothing less than 100% is going to be enough. That basically defines Wikipedia's needed standard as a community.

Whilst we wait for the devs to create new ways to manage such biographies, or until we as a community handle them better (or not be so willing to be prolific), there are two steps we can at least take for now: -

• Better information on the spot, to people who have concerns about their biographies (including what they can/should do)
• Better monitoring of biographies against repeat vandalism/manipulation.

[edit] 1. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help

I've drafted a project page aimed at providing help and guidance for non-Wikipedian BLP subjects if they have a problem.

It's a very important topic, and can probably be made smoother. A bit of concerted editing by experienced editors might help get it really polished. I wouldn't normally ask but BLP management has been my "target area of the moment" and this is a long needed page.

Especially, if visitors don't know various policies and norms exist, 1/ Wikipedia will seem perplexing and frustrating and they may end up marginalized or blocked, and 2/ they won't know the protection that these policies should offer to them, they will not be able to effectively request either article changes, or our help in remedying any issues.

Bear in mind that this is also a page needing special care by experienced editors/admins, since it's got to address the needs of non-wikipedians in a balanced professional manner, and possibly may also have to address angry/upset non-wikipedians or biased/unreasonable non-wikipedians too... care is needed on both accounts.

[edit] 2. WP:BLPWATCH BLP monitoring system

There is a common problem in BLPs and for OTRS, whereby a BLP (or page with BLP material) gets fixed and then might get degraded again a while later. We have no way to protect against that short of full protection, and consensus has not approved this as a routine thing. Typically once fixed BLP pages are watchlisted by OTRS or other users. But if the damage is quietly reinstated a few weeks later and not caught by anti-vandalism patrols, it is quite likely nobody would notice for a while. Realistically, editors can't really sit on every last BLP article for everyone, endlessly.

A common side effect is that BLP subjects themselves must often watch their own biographies - even if they did not request or create them, and don't know a thing about Wikipedia. A vandal may be online when they are asleep or away. One imagines a member of public saying "you create a bio on me and now you say you can't always notice if it's being vandalized?!" Realistically, the vast majority at any given time, are stable and clean, and vandalism is fixed very quickly. But at any time, a proportion of BLPs will be "at risk", in the sense that they were recently targeted, or have known detractors, and hence are more likely to be hit again in hours, days or a few weeks. I feel it's completely unacceptable really, that there has been no way to more thoroughly watch such pages for problematic editing happening again once it's happened once. To say "we fixed the page and now you have to watch it in case it gets defamation reinserted in a month or so's time" is not a view I can concur with.

Solution:

I approached ST47 for a bot (additional to the current OTRS bot). What we have now is the following proposed system:

• Any user at all (including BLP article subjects) can tag any "at risk" page as {{Blpwatch|date=(TODAY'S DATE: MM/YYYY)|reason=REASON}}. The bot then provides a live recent changes feed specifically for these BLP articles deemed to be "at elevated risk", for a fixed period of several months thereafter.

• During that period, full information on all edits to the article is posted immediately to an IRC feed, for editors to review. If damage recurs a simple !redate command restarts the clock on watching for another few months. A number of other commands exist as well, allowing "one touch revert" of obvious vandalism (subject to approval), quick tagging, and protection against improper detagging.

• The aim is that a user or editor with a genuine bio-issue on a less well watched page, can fix it, then tag it for monitoring, and then not have to worry about it for a long time, or perhaps at all. If the vandalism or damage recurs the clock is reset by editors; if a number of months go by without problems it is automatically delisted as "not a current problem".

This handles (eg) cases believed solved by editors but they want an eye on it "just to be safe", or where the matter never got escalated to need great attention in the first place (noticed in passing or from RC patrol), which arent really covered at present. It is also very simple to use, in that all that's needed is a tag which anyone can apply.

[edit] 3. BLP INFO template

See Template:Blpinfo -

This article is about a living person. Wikipedia aims for an exceptionally high standard on such articles. If you are the subject of this article or affected by it, or this article causes you concern, you may wish to read the BLP help page, which indicates how substandard biographical articles and material may be raised for quick editorial attention.

Posted for consideration. It may not be a bad idea to have a template like this for use at the base of BLP's. They are not just encyclopedia articles; they also form a significant result in any google search on on how the web will perceive a person. That needs acknowledging, however it is done.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the template go on the article or the talk page? Majorly (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Article (page actually affected). It's a hidden category; it won't show up on the article page when added. (Added to WP:BLPWATCH - thanks). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not a hidden comment instead? If someone wanted to correct the article, they'd be just as likely to see that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools' Day

Folks, heads up for what should be an extraordinary day of vandalism. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, fools have a tendency to make fools of themselves. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

...and of others as occasion permits. —Kurykh 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be an amusing day. What about saving some highlights on an archive page? I see there is not going to be a humorous main page as two years ago, though. --Tone 21:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, fools have a tendency to make fools of themselves. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the above, ... John Carter (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote Gurch, "In other news, water is wet..." Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not always... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh, the fools are already appearing and it isn't even April 1, on this side of the globe. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, no nominations of of Jimbo Wales for admin yet, so that's a good sign. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. (I'm not an admin)Well, it is in UTC time. I tend to start AprilFoolsDay at 8 pm local time March 31, because of nonexistant Wikiholism. BTW, have you seen my My user page? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is almost as evil as the fake "my messages" template that was briefly placed on ANI, are people still fooled by these? - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ve haff a problem

Resolved. I think I understand the below to say that this is a non-issue, though it did make my head hurt. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

One of our most kind, loving, generous, and not even remotely violent admins (hint, hint), User:Bishzilla, was in the past week unfortunately accused of perhaps engaging in some unauthorized urban renewal. Regretably, the witnesses are not, well, what you you'd call "sane", which is probably reasonable under the circumstances. I did however manage to e-mail them at the Happy Harbor Home for the Helplessly Hopeless and did receive some at least slightly coherent responses. Evidently, she engaged in these activities, while, ahem, "skyclad", which probably is used more approproiately regarding her than most of us, given her height. Granted, I don't think any of the pictures which may have been taken have likely survived the accompanying radiation, and there actually don't seem to be that many witnesses who can speak even remotely coherently regarding the subject. However, I was wondering whether their might be sufficient grounds for at least an investigation of the matter, and possibly, if worst comes to worst, considering recalling that most kind and excellent personage as an admin. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which in slightly more comprehensible terms means.....? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Recall? ['Zilla reduces little user to burned crisp. ] OK, resolved. Somebody know good template to put on? bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

Paging Ahhhnold? FCYTravis (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Whether Bishzilla destroys cities while high in her spare time is not related to her Wikipedia adminship capabilities. --erachima formerly tjstrf 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but April Fools Day is tomorrow. ;) Valtoras (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your timezone. --Carnildo (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. Never thought of it that way. :) Valtoras (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Erect_Penis.JPG

Resolved. Image deleted--Urban Rose 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This image should be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list as it is explicit and was used to vandalize Jimbo Wales' userpage. I personally think it should just be deleted as it isn't used in any articles. The only page that it's used on is User:Ryan Postlethwaite's userpage as a "big schlong" barnstar which was "awarded" by a blocked user.--Urban Rose 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Was it a Biological image of a Living Penis? :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, small (the image dimensions) and low-resolution. Much better-quality and directly equivalent images are on commons. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice of you to specify. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Big schlong barnstar? I think I'll stick to my Pedia-I Smiley Award for awards by banned users. :) bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So only big penises are allowed on Wikipedia? Seems size does matter after all. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh*...men.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

resolution and photo quality more than size (it's what you do with it etc etc).Geni 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Only people with good cameras and small penises say that ;) You! - Crank dat Soulja 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Persian poet girl, here is the xkcd view of the topic of penis size ;) I think it agrees with your view of the topic :P —— nixeagle 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New policy proposal

Resolved.

You all suck. Maxim_(talk) 00:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've formed a proposal that should help alleviate backlogs, reduce admin-burnout, and curb our increasing reliance on process, I would appreciate any comments on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you established a consensus to post here about this policy proposal? We all saw what a nightmare the straw poll for WP:RFR turned into without a poll on the poll itself. east.718 at 00:05, April 1, 2008

Yea, where was the poll on this new policy? I mean that has it has always worked right? Tiptoety ^talk 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To make certain nobody else misses the point, I've added a proposal for proposals for this proposal here. — Coren ^(talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't RfB stand for "Requests for Bureaucracy"? Darn, and I always thought it did. Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I object to the closing of this thread, Maxim did not get approval for the closure by five admins in good standing. Corvus cornix_talk 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with credibility of Wikipedia at a map on universal health insurance

I psoted this at Village Pump but am raising it here so some admins can keep an eye on things in case incivility breaks out...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A colleague, Tony, whose opinions I trust has raised an issue with a map here at

Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png

map in question

. There is discussion on the talk page over how to proceed, however, after some discussion it has been listed for deletion here Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_March_30#Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png. It is obviously a loaded and emotional topic so please be thoughtful about whether such a map as it exists can be NPOV or not and how to proceed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{foolicon}}

On a somewhat serious note, I copied some stuff from april fool's 2006 and created {{foolicon}} to more easily identify actual april fool's jokes– kind of as a compromise between people who don't like the jokes and those that do. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

He, how do I add this to a page I deleted? Tiptoety ^talk 02:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Very carefully. --slakr^\ talk / 02:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme ownership issues; editor claims GFDL revoked and demands article deletion

Ldemery (talk · contribs) appears to have some severe ownership issues about a set of articles he originated and maintains, such as All pages beginning with List of town tramway systems. He has some very strange style conventions for his lists, such as the insistence of using local language/alphabet place names (e.g. Cyrillic on List of town tramway systems in Ukraine, Kanji on List of town tramway systems in Japan), using self-referential language (such as "The original list has been divided because of size. Subsequent divisions have been made to improve user-friendliness and to reduce article size." in the main list), and avoiding proper reference citations in favor of a wikilink to one of the pages. When DAJF (talk · contribs) noticed this on the Japan list, edit warring ensued. Tags added by DAJF were removed by Ldemery and so on. The culmination of this dispute is the statement at Talk:List of town tramway systems in Japan#GNU Free Documentation License revoked; this article must be purged. Some help here from legal-minded admins would be appreciated. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Left him messages on the talk page and his talk page. Hope he understands now. SirFozzie (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also saw the pointer to WP:NOREVOKE on the article talk page; I knew I had read something like that before, but couldn't remember the alphabet soup for the link... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidently not - he just nominated the article for deletion on the grounds that the GFDL was revoked. (I've closed it as speedy keep) Hut 8.5 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive User

Resolved. blocked for 79hrs for being abusive, by User:East718 ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an administrator look into what, if anything should be done about the user Smackboy69.

As you see from his TalkPage, he has quite a few warnings, and after I reverted and warned him about vandalism on Manga Entertainment, he left a rude comment on my Talk Page.

Taking a look at his Contribs, I see that he has quite a few vandalism reverts. The General Logs do not show the edits (which confuses me a little bit.)

Just thought I'd bring it up, thanks! Matthew Glennon (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More vandalism to my Talk Page. I'm monitoring the article in question, in case the user decides to retaliate there. Matthew Glennon (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes in References

I could use some clarification on quotes and refs. In the article Bhagawan Nityananda, Footnote no.6 contains a quote of 119 words from someone's book. I think a quote like this should be in the article, not a footnote, which seems to be the drift ofWP:REF. However, when I cleaned it up, someone immediately reverted it. Am I right that such a quote should be in the article, not a footnote?

Sardaka (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

{{citebook}} allows for pull quotes as a method of clarifying or directing attention to the point at hand, which is useful when the quote in question is illustrative rather than directly about the subject. There's no problem with doing this. If you can write the quote up and make it fit in the article seemlessly, then do so, but if it's just a block of barely-related text stuck into the article, I'd leave it in the footnote. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Diamonddannyboy

User keeps giving himself a barnstar from his IP address, in an attempt to make it look legit.

Its been removed twice.

Here is one diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Diamonddannyboy&diff=next&oldid=202399383

here is another: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Diamonddannyboy&diff=prev&oldid=202117172

He also continually archives his talk page every time someone warns him about something, making it difficult for people to know what he has been warned of.

RogueNinja_talk 10:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a level 3 warning about it, which suggests that he may be blocked if he continues. If he does it again, either give a level 4 warning, or block him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars don't stand for anything; people are allowed to give barnstars. Also, there's no rule against removing warnings from your talk page; indeed, removal acknowledges that you have read it. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 11:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

About a user awarding himself a barnstar - you are correct that it's not against any rule. However, for a user to log out, award his account a barnstar, and log in again - that seems to me like sockpuppetry, in the sense of masquerading as someone else when awarding the barnstar. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mishehu- there is nothing wrong with not revealing that you are someone, (perhaps if you would want to edit controversial topics more anonymously) but actively pretending to be someone different is crossing the line. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry isn't forbidden... Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Quoted from WP:SOCK. "he general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block" RogueNinja_talk 16:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I am saying- I am not opposed to people having multiple accounts, but I am opposed to people actively pretending to be someone else. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree - socks may not seem like a great idea, but they're acceptable. Using socks to impersonate a second party isn't. However, I've been watching User:Diamonddannyboy since I became involved in the Darren M Jackson AfD, and, with a couple of others, have been working with him to improve his edits. In general the path seems to be one of steady (if at times slow) improvement. He makes a lot of mistakes, but he's also trying more to work with other editors (even those who he runs into conflict with), he's working hard to find reliable sources, and he's asking for advice more often. Whether or not he's learning fast enough is a different issue, but personally I'm inclined to wait and see if he repeats this mistake. - Bilby (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war and constant tag-deleting at Central Europe

Would someone please look into the long edit war going on over Central Europe. I would like to add right away that just locking the page for a few days isn't a solution, that has already been tried without any results. The problem is that the article is very vague, uses a lot of weasel words and very general claims with no sources. At the bottom of it all lies a Romanian campaign to have the country included in the article. As Romania often is not included in Central Europe (cf United Nation definition, CIA Factbook, Encyclopedia Britannica etc.) the Romanian users have made sure that very few sources are to be found. Instead, we get sentences like "Central Europe is usually considered to exist of the following states" or " In most of the English-speaking, western world, the countries included in the Central Europe region are" or then a map of "Central Europe" including Romania but with no source given to show what the map is based upon. These are just three examples, and as no sources are given, these claims have been fact tagged by many users. The Romanian users, quite many in number, happily delete the tags at sight and are numerous enough to do so. Especially as new accounts appear as soon as old ones are blocked. Repeted calls for the tags to be left in or for the sentences to be sources are casually ignored. The situation is beginning to get out of hand in this very long edit war. JdeJ (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want the page protected, what do you want? Perhaps you should refer to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 11:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'd want is to hear some administrators' view on the practice of deleting tags. The way I've understood it, tags should usually not be deleted untill sources have been provided. Editors liking the current version of a page and deleting tags about facts or original research just because they don't like their view to be questionned are, in my opinion, making themselves guilty of vandalism. However, many adminstrators like to hide (sorry if this is an inconvenient word) behind the two words, "content dispute" so as to not having to act. I disagree, and would argue that these administrators have misunderstood what a content dispute is. Editors arguing about the meaning of a source are having a content dispute. Editors with conflicting sources arguing for which one is the most credible are having a content dispute. Editors who repeatedly delete tags just because they want "their" article to be unquestionned are not in a content dispute. JdeJ (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate tags should be left in place. Inappropriate tags should be deleted. Neither restoring a tag nor deleting it are objectionable behaviors per se; they depend on the context. Editors who disagree with each other about whether a tag is appropriate or not are having a content dispute, regardless of how much you may dislike that phrase. What sort of administrative action are you trying to request? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is April Fools DYK overdue?

The DYK clock appears to be off, as it shows a 11:48, and I have a XX:35. Is it right, or has the clock committed suicide? If it's busted, I think the next batch of DYK is overdue. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want the DYK to be on April Fools Day? Just had to ask. Rgoodermote  14:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block log

In the interest of promoting further precision in block logs, all blocks of a duration of less than one fortnight shall be specified in seconds. See Special:Log/block. —Random832 (contribs) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a fortnight though? Is that kinda like indef? Wizardman 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortnight is 2 weeks. I also propose to place a counter on the poor blocked user's page so that she/he/it can count down until his block expires. --Tone 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, fourteen nights. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe the software accepted that as a valid range. What next, yarn's? MBisanz ^talk 20:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably "until pigs fly". - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, whose the dev who thought it was funny to code fortnight, but not yarn or until pigs fly. Heads will roll! MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The docs claim that we use a GNU library to do the date parsing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Crap, I think they found me. Now they've created this thing called GNU to justify their actions. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Where I am (Cumbria, England) 'fortnight' is in common usage. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

Some of the backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests would seem easy to clean out. There isn't much backlog to begin with. I posted a request at Template_talk:Reqphoto#More that probably needs only some cut and past edits rather than a knowledge about programming. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting for Some Help at WP:AIV

This day seems to be living up to its potential. If you are free at the moment, see if you can come in and give a hand at this page :). Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A frustrating experience for me. Everyone is already blocked by the time I get through reviewing their edits. Bovlb (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sundowner

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundowner.

Sundowner is a mess, might need to be speedy deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregManninLB (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 April 2008

That's the craziest disambiguation page I've seen. - auburnpilot talk 22:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2

Resolved. All deleted. Thank you, Tiptoety. —Travis^talk 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that April Fools' Day is technically over, at least by the server's clock, and this page has been userified as User:Kmweber/Adminship, I propose that the redirects Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2 be deleted. I’ll go ahead and push the button if nobody objects (or beats me to it). Discuss amongst yourselves. —Travis^talk 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tiptoety ^talk 00:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It was fun while it lasted, though. :) —Travis^talk 00:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was. :) Tiptoety ^talk 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still got three hours left here though, so I'll think of something ;). Wizardman 00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, be warned my friend. Tiptoety ^talk 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just realized, I actually already did an April Fool's joke, so you guys are safe. Wizardman 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean when you reported Bearian and Scarian as sockpuppets at WP:SSP? :o Quick plug: SSP is still backlogged! All help appreciated! They call me X Really 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Max Mosley BLP

Please help keep an eye on possible WP:BLP violations in the article Max Mosley. Mosley is the subject of a sensationalist tabloid article, making the article a vandal magnet. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I hope nobody includes the comment "most powerful person in F1" without it being referenced - I don't think Bernie Ecclestone would appreciate it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm engaging in a coverup. Anyone else think that tabloids are not reliable sources? This could be a serious BLP issue, and now it's evidently been linked from 4chan. Not so good. Antandrus (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it mostly from a single user (User:Logicaldisaster), but he does point out there is now a video clip on YouTube repeating the allegation. Is that now worth a mention or should it be kept off? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading BLP too literally, but I don't think YouTube is a reliable source either, and a "Nazi sex orgies" section on the biography of a living person really needs to be sourced to something reliable and mainstream. The way I understand it, this is exactly the kind of case for which BLP was written. Thanks for your help, Antandrus (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

They have evidence of the Loch Ness Monster on YouTube, too... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• F1 is huge, if it's real then it will be in the Telegraph by next Saturday (motoring section) if not before. We can wait for a better source than the news of the Screws. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It was covered in The Times today. online link. I think it has moved on from being tabloid speculation now, yet I don't know how we could integrate it into the article without considering the BLP implications. Woody (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I wonder about some people. I mean, he's a smart man, he knows what the world thinks of Oswald Mosley ad his friends, so what does he do? Has a nazi-themed orgy. That could never backfire, could it? D'oh! Guy (Help!) 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Names we won't see here any time soon: Mosley Spitzer [Surname]. — Athaenara ✉ 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need help fixing my mistake

Hi all, technical question for you (sorry if this isn't the right place, but I think I need an admin to sort it out... I tried over at AN/I a few days back, but it got archived without anyone ever responding). A while back, when I was still (even more) inexperienced and all, I found that someone had changed information in the article Adam Russell from its current form of a redirect to Story of the Year, to information on a baseball player. Not wanting to just cut-and-paste move that information (especially assuming that those editors interested in the baseball player would be looking for it again), I did a page move to Adam W. Russell (which has since been moved to Adam Russell (baseball)). Anyway, long story short - I didn't realize that ALL of the page history went with the move. Since there used to be a fair amount of information on the original Adam Russell before his page was changed to a redirect to the band he's in, and I assume that someone *might* eventually want to put it back, I was wondering if there's any way to copy the page history (either all, or up to and including November 13, 2007) (or split it) back to Adam Russell from Adam Russell (baseball). If not, okay, but I just wanted to check. (My current "remedy" was to leave a note on the Talk page for the original Adam Russell mentioning where the history was, but...) Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Mostly involves deleting the article, restoring the edits you want, moving the page and restoring the rest. I'd offer to help but I admittedly have no clue what to do either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I looked at that... the problem is, what we have is pretty much the exact *opposite* of a cut-and-paste move - I did a straight-up move to begin with to avoid the cut-and-paste situation, and to avoid possible edit-warring with those looking to work on the baseball player's page... and now I'm wondering if we can do a history *split* instead of a history merge. Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an update, this can be marked "resolved" thanks to Ckatz! --Umrguy42 (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's that time of year again

I'm going to try to keep a list of the various April Fool's Pranks... if you come across one, and think it's funny, report it here or on my Talk Page. This will hopefully keep nine million threads from spawning in the next 24 hours (it's already April 1st UTC, so be prepared) SirFozzie (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, ypur talk page redirects to the article on "Never Gonna Give You Up". Is this a prank on your part, or on someone else's? -- Korax1214 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sir. Jehochman ^❤ 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With Ima Hogg on the main page, someone I think the vandals might be a bir more in force than usual today as well. I'm sure she's happy she's not herself alive to see this day, though. John Carter (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the WP:TFA is really neat - both the choice of article selected and the blurb writeup itself. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman (talk · contribs) requesting a CheckUser on Bearian (talk · contribs). Aecis^Brievenbus 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think April fools pranks are shameful and even signature jokes should be a blockable offence. You! - Crank dat Soulja

EEK! Tiptoety ^talk 01:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this discussion has not yet received consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for process. Please seek consensus there, first, before discussing process. --slakr^\ talk / 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry....Actually who gave you the authority to say that? Have you asked permission to do so at Wikipedia:Requests for process? Tiptoety ^talk 01:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no no, you have it wrong. You decide the process to judge consensus.. of course you need concensus on the process, so you need a consensus on the process of the consensus... *head explodes* SirFozzie (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I daresay it's YOU who have flagrantly ignored our existing Requests for process-requesting processes system. I have therefore blocked you for 1 femtosecond. FCYTravis (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that block was out of process FCYTravis, there for you are blocked! Tiptoety ^talk 01:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, who put the new message bar on ANI? :) Tiptoety ^talk 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflictx3, guys stop editconflicting me or I'll miss my bedtime!!!; 3.1415926535897932384626) Um...^^ ~AH1^(TCU) 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New message bars abounding...just reverted the one on ANI... --Smashville^BONK! 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oooo...but i kept falling for it over and over. Tiptoety ^talk 01:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Priapism_Acceptance_Movement Bearian (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Genius. John Reaves 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like an April Fools' Day wheel war... WODUP 02:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have blocked User:James086 indef for violation of WP:SIGNATURE. Tiptoety ^talk 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems people cannot resist the temptation to fool around with the almighty powers of Jimbo either either: Jimbo's User Rights Log.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not 'crats; they're admins. *sticks pin in Persian Poet Gal's dignity balloon* —Kurykh 02:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its already been popped repeatedly today...I blocked an admin sockpuppeting his own userpage and I believe EVula retired when that was also (surprise, surprise)...a prank.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And I blocked User:Keilana indef for it as well. Feel free to review my actions.. :) Tiptoety ^talk 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Any non-involved admin care to decline Keilana's unblock request? :) Tiptoety ^talk 02:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I decline it! :P (Wow, 4RR and blatant admin impersonating. Shame on me.) -WarthogDemon 02:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I shall now declare my intent to type a comment on user talk page, and revert it. I shall then revert the reversion and then revert that reversion. You see, I intend to be the first editor ever to break 3RR with himself! :P -WarthogDemon 02:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

BEHOLD!. -WarthogDemon 02:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whom ever just changed the blocked text, that was a good one. I just (not purposefully) just blocked and IP per m:IRC, when I thought I was blocking for vandalism. Oh well... Tiptoety ^talk 03:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I had my fun [32] for a good eleven minutes. Spoilsport User:David Levy got in a bit of a huff [33] though. I swear, no sense of humor! Oh well, same time next year. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted, right? Tiptoety ^talk 03:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

nah this year was a disappointment 68.237.239.228 (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your "fun" as I would to any vandalism. If anything, administrators should be held to a higher standard.

I don't appreciate being denigrated because I didn't give you preferential treatment, and your repeated removal of my polite warning (first via administrative rollback, and then via a manual edit that you falsely labeled "minor") leads me to believe that you either have no respect for our rules of conduct or think that you're above them. —David Levy 04:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, man, it was a harmless joke...chill out. --Smashville^BONK! 04:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Stick+mud never has good results. John Reaves 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we all need to take a short break from all this fun, and get back to doing some real admin work. I know my contribs has nothing by arpil fools edits right now. Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a real admin...I just think the "noticeboard" is a place to get "noticed" (hey ladies...I have hot water!)...so I'm gonna go knock on each of the neighbors' doors and tell them I am their son...it's also a good way to meet them... --Smashville^BONK! 04:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor does sysop bit + vandalism. —David Levy 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding the word "poopy" to an article also could be regarded as a "harmless joke," but it typically results in the same type of polite warning that I left for Ryan. The key difference is that an administrator should know better, not that he/she is exempt from our rules. —David Levy 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, April Fools. I made my user page befit the season, since I don't plan to vandalize Wikipedia for fun... JuJube (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

<music>It's the most wonderful tiiiiiiiiiiiime of the yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..."</music>

Well I believe this holiday can be educational which is why I have changed my userpage for a lesson in internet safety. Always remember that people on the internet are not always who they appear to be. I'm afraid the changes I have made reveal quite a bit about who I have really been this whole time.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now may be a good time to point at Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". --Iamunknown 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page unprotected :X [34] :) SQL^{Query me!} 05:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, not really, I *am* that lame... SQL^{Query me!} 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you saw Kurt's RfA? 68.237.239.228 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

and then the attempt to have it deleted. 68.237.239.228 (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Okay, that's amusing. The talk page of the RFA is worth a perusal as well... Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

number of RfA's opposed: all. :D 68.237.239.228 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

RfB in userspace, which somehow also got listed at WP:RfA. 68.237.239.228 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It got moved after it was pointed out that jokes should be transcluded from userspace. I've done the same with my request for oversightship. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FUN, is now a policy. I can think of a few people to start blocking for violating it. Tiptoety ^talk 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You should be quick, because Wikipedia:Blocking policy is about to be deleted. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a minority of one here, but I think all these admins abusing their powers to play pranks should be desysopped and anyone playing pranks on the main page or in articles should be blocked for a week. Every year we endure this foolishness. An absolutely hardline reaction is needed to keep it from happening again. Everyking (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

TBH I don't think the broom should be used for next year's pranks, either to perpetrate them or cover them up. It is more in the spirit of the season to use ordinary editing tools. (By the way, Calling someone a vandal for an entertaining edit of a Wikipedia: namespace page, that did not even change the meaning, is bad karma.) That's one person's opinion, fwiw. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)y

[edit] ANI is locked

Resolved.

Can someone please check on User:AkhtaBot. When adding interwiki links to templates, it is adding them outside the noinclude tags and causing the interwiki links to show up in places they shouldn't be. Please help/block(?) the bot until the code is updated. kthxbai. --198.185.18.207 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Useful link for reversions: [35] --198.185.18.207 (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We're talking 1,500 reverts. I'm gonna need a script! MBisanz ^talk 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better than reverting would be moving the <noinclude>, by the way :) Gracenotes^T § 17:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do tell, does this use some AWB append thing? MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but rollback is easy enough... Soxred93 | talk bot 19:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant if the edits were good content, but poorly formatted, then AWB-fixing themwould be better than reverting them out of existence. MBisanz ^talk 20:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked some edits and it seems that the problem only occurs when adding interwiki links to a page without any interwiki links. So not all edits are bad. It's a known problem though. Bots shouldn't autonomously interwiki templates. --Erwin85 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry for this, i checked it, and i found it known problem, here and here , i will not run python bot on templates until fixing this bug. is there any way to update template interwiki without problems? --Bassem JARKAS (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

may i suggest you unblock and let him run without touching templates? Санта Клаус (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked; the owner has agreed not to process any templates in the future unless the bug noted above in interwiki.py is fixed. It appears that other editors have already reverted the bot's template changes. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools' Day proposal

Please see Wikipedia:April Fools' Day. (No this is not a joke, this is very real). Majorly (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. We should not have to tell administrators not to vandalise the tasgline. "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia administer by people with a stick up their lavender passageway" is sophomoric and entirely unacceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&action=history is a disgrace - admins edit warring over nonsense in mediawiki space. Guy (Help!) 07:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help is desperately need on AE wiki!

[edit] Heads up at WP:CIVILITY

A couple of editors have made broad changes at WP:CIVILITY in the past few days. Given that this is perhaps our most often-cited policy, it's best if such changes are made only with broad community consensus. Please monitor and participate in the discussion as you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the changes to the policy wording were discussed either beforehand or concurrently on the talk page [36], so it appears to be under control, although I'm sure more participation in the discussion would, of course, be appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad for the heads-up. Civility is an important policy, and I don't want to see it diluted by having a vague essay as its first section. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paper Wikipedia?

Just noticed the following article in The Editor magazine:

Following the recent milestone of 10 million articles, the Wikimedia foundation, owners of Wikipedia have released a long awaited paper version of the online encyclopedia. Priced at just $29.99 per each of the 29 volumes, this long term project has finally seen reality. Starting in January 2001, this 8th wonder of the world has taken over seven years to complete and is now available for anyone. It is an encyclopedia that is like no other - it contains every bit of information that anyone could possibly want to know about, and the best bit is - just like on the online encyclopedia, readers can submit by sending alterations to the San Fransisco office. In the same way, they can submit new entries to be included. Founder Jimmy Wales stated: "After over seven years online, we thought it would be a nice change to move to a more traditional paper encyclopedia. We've had numerous issues, what with biographies of living people and other various issues with reliability, so Wikipedia on paper is the next step forward." Much in the same style as the online version, the new paper encyclopedia has similar style pages, minus the edit button and discussion pages - article discussions have to be done by meeting the users in question, and submitting the change to the office. Some have foreseen possible issues with the new encyclopedia. Larry Sanger, founder of Citizendium has noted that since every single article has been included, there will obviously be problems with articles that have been tagged for additional sources, and false statements. "It would be better kept as an online encyclopedia" he said. Others have praised the idea, saying it would be useful for those without access to the internet. We at The Editor intend to buy this encyclopedia, and so should you: every penny goes to charity, that doesn't go towards paying for expenses made for creating each copy. A review will be out in a week's time, on April 8th, so if you intend to buy it, we suggest you wait for our review.
Paige Turner, Computer & Internet Editor, April 1st 2008

What do people think of this? Majorly (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I already ordered the whole set. - Bobet 16:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blighter needs to learn to spell. It's "San Francisco." John Carter (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You should contact Ms Turner and inform her of this major error. Majorly (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hell, that's cheaper than toilet paper! Count me in. -- Naerii 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the Google Print Edition myself. - Bilby (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They intend to read the entire thing in a week? How many staff members are there?--MrFish^{Go Fish} 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably, they will deliver you a pack of corrections every morning so that you can replace the bad edits in the previous version. --Tone 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm an admin on the paper version. I already used a magic marker to add several {{fact}} tags and ripped out a few pages that looked like nonsense. The problem I have is that sometimes there's useful content in the reverse side of the removed pages, so I ended up applying glue to the nonsense sides and pasting them over other undesirable content, but this has made it difficult to keep everything in alphabetical order. I've suggested they only print on one side of each page in the revised versions. - Bobet 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. This is how Wikipedia was edited in the Middle ages. --Tone 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just ordered three. I mean, really, at just $30 a volume, that's a steal! EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What happens if you get a special variant where an entry in volume "G" includes the notable fact about George Washington that "Frank from Reno sucks dogs off lol" ? Lawrence § t/e 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally something useful from wikipedia. I just spoke to the guys at wikimedia foundation and if you order by midnight today you'll also get one bottle of whiteout, one pencil (with sharpener and eraser), six admins to rip out any pages you add to the book, and one hundred and ninety three unreconstructed nationalists who will work diligently into the night to remove all negative references to their nations from the book. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Editorofthewiki 20:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, surely somebody printed two million articles and organized them into 200,000 pages-long books. ;-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely they can put more than one stub on a page. Stop exaggerating CHQ! It would only be 100,000 pages per volume.  :)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it must be one stub per page, single-sided, or we wouldn't be able to delete things from the book. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course. How silly of me. I'll set up a new template for PfD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For those that are curious, here's what a paper version of Wikipedia would have looked like in August: Image:Size of English Wikipedia in August 2007.svg. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, what about all those 100+ mb fiction articles? surely people will not want to miss what color of underwear Optimus Prime uses in his latest appearance (wich by the way is copper), and those must be priority no matter if they take up to ten pages per article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently there's a special leather-bound edition available exclusively from Gnome. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That chart needs updating, we've cut down on Family Guy references. OTOH, it completely ignores the large parts of Wikipedia dedicated to defaming Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Israelis, Arab Israelis, Kashmiris, East Timorese, Mongolians, Mongols, Franks, the French, the Quebecois, and Celine Dion. Relata refero (disp.) 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a large red block for "ethnic and religious feuding". Guy (Help!) 18:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually made an updated version (but screwed up and forgot to include the nationalistic stuff - can probably be carved out of the infighting section) Note that "actually useful stuff" is slightly larger, showing that we are making some progress, if only by attrition. --Random832 (contribs) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

Someone changed the search box to say "I'm feling lucky" and "wacky search"--Phoenix-wiki 22:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now what MediaWiki page is that this time...sheesh show an epsilon of restraint your silly admins :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Found the culprits and nuked 'em: MediaWiki:Gadget-searchFocus & MediaWiki:Gadget-searchFocus.js.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Those weren't the culprits...its still popping up. These jokers are causing some technical mayhem that's taking awhile to clean up.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now someone fucked with the "edit this page" tab. Will it never end? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is only just beginning. Tiptoety ^talk 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Those pages had nothing to do with the search box - the search box was done by AzaToth which earned him a 24 hour block. The edit this page change was done by Scientizzle and quickly reverted. I think they're all sorted now, but Persian - could you restore those pages please? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Try purging your cache by the way - everything looks to be sorted. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted the pages...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it is time to stop for a while. Mediawiki pages getting mistakenly deleted, users getting blocked for good faith pranks..... Tiptoety ^talk 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything which confuses the reader is not a good faith prank. Corvus cornix_talk 22:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is good faith. --Iamunknown 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How purposefully confusing the readers considered in "good faith?" WP:AGF isn't a blanket statement for every time someone does something wrong, it means if someone makes an honest mistake, you assume they meant the best. Playing with the interface like that isn't an honest mistake, it's a deliberate act. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(I know this is now "archived", but I feel like I should respond.) Indeed, it is a deliberate act. But, at least in my view, it was a deliberate act intended as humour, not as compromising the encyclopedia (even though it can be argued effectively that it did compromise the encyclopedia). Which is, I think, where we agree - that they meant the best. Where we may not agree (unless I am misunderstanding you) is whether or not an honest mistake done as a deliberate act is to be interpreted as an action done in bad faith. I do not think it should be interpreted as such. That is what I was thinking when writing my (admittedly short and unrevealing) statement above. --Iamunknown 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(Unarchiving, because people are still discussing) No, we don't agree that they meant best. I refuse to believe anyone editing the MW namespace as part of a joke means best. Anything as a deliberate act that isn't for the good of the encyclopedia (and making jokes in the interface, especially things as visible as the tagline), isn't "meaning the best." Going back to what I said before, that's the crux on whether it's Good faith or not. If you're not meaning the best, it's can't be good faith. The two are incompatible. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for misinterpreting your comment. I maintain that someone can mean the best even when doing something as spectacularly silly as editing the MediaWiki interface ... although I can certainly understand that others might think differently. Perhaps we should agree to disagree? --Iamunknown 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2008

This really isn't a normal undeletion request, so I don't think DRV would be the place for this request:

I was very saddened to see that people were insisting that April 1st only exists in UTC, and by the time I got home from work (having gotten there at 6am) just about all of the XfDs on related to the day's fun had already been deleted. I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to do one of the following: either temporarily undelete the pages for a day or two, then send them back down the hole, or undelete them just long enough for me to do a page export so that people might look at them off-wiki. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've userfied a load into my userspace - User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Jimmy Wales, User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/George W. Bush, User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human, User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States (2nd nomination). Hut 8.5 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 1#Template:Fact. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user that is clearly a sock doing strange things with user pages

This guy User:Bf2 created on 20 March an user page very similar to one from a banned sock. Compare [37] to [38]. He got later accused by me of sock puppetry on this case Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pinoybandwagon which is obviously related to the Map inc case Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Map_inc, but I found about him not because of this page, but because he was making edits on the same topic covered by the Map inc socks and other suspected sock on the Poneybandwagon (actually, I also found User:Fb2 who added to the Metro Manila template the links to the hoax article that caused the second sock network to be blocked among other reasons).

Now Bf2 has decided to create a "Picture pumper" section on his page with an image of a football team of little philippine girls that he found somewhere on the web [39], changed name to "Picture Craze" [40], then adds another picture of a littel philippine girl [41]. Seriously, wtf? If you look at the Poneybandwagon case, you'll see that this user has made some stupid edits, but what the hell is this? A photo announcement for pedo tourism to Philippine?

The sockpuppet case is stuck because of backlog there and because I must have been doing something wrong. However, this user is clearly Map inc trying to avoid his block (is the block on all those accounts caducated by the way, it does not appear on their block log), that alone should warrant indef block. And he is also doing stuff that I don't know how to qualify. And that's on top of modifying naming conventions with no consensus [42] followed by another accused sock making himself the top authority on a part of naming conventions 2 minutes after being created [43]. All this of course after being warned for not abiding for those policies [44] "oh, look, we got warned for not following that policy. Let's change it and put a sock as supremne authority of the topic we are editing". The level of policy violation is ridiculous. The begging for not getting blocked and claims made at the socket case and several editor pages is silly[45].

Please indef block at least Bf2 for avoiding block and managing to make worse stuff than what got him blocked on the first case.

Also, some admin take a look at the sockpuppet case, please, it's getting stale, and accussed users show no remorse and make silly stuff. Only account that could be saved is Radiosmasher, who has shown a bit of moderation after this message of mine[46], and only under vigilance and temp blocking at first falling back to same behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: this is related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive135#Phillipines_radio_stations_-_bad_names.2C_cut-and-paste.2C_possible_COI. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser Confirmed, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pinoybandwagon. Thatcher 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

cool, thanks. I updated the sock suspect tags on them. Now, who do I have to bribe to get an admin to take a look at it and block the bad guys incumbent users? Oh, and I have *another* open case with a checkuser request Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Aimar120‎, but this one can probably wait for an admin to eat through backlog and check it out. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cabals, part 2

I've created request for comment about this entire issue. Previous discussion is here. Posting so that everyone knows and may participate. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

O_o NonvocalScream (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Resolved. Blocked for 31 hours--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please could somebody who is not me block User:65.31.223.232 for continuous spamming despite several warnings and lying in edit summaries. For details see User_talk:65.31.223.232. The only edits made from this IP (Special:Contributions/65.31.223.232) were made by the same user, and his IP has not changed since since mid-March, so it might be a static IP. Сасусlе 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admins editing fully protected pages

Could someone look into the matter of admins casually making routine changes (wikifying, grammar correction, adding fact tags) to fully-protected pages? Even if these are routine, non-controversial changes (except maybe the fact tag), admins making such changes unwittingly spread a perception that there are two classes of editors: the regular editors (who are stopped by full protection) and the admins (who can't be stopped by even full protection). One such case today was the editing of the Race and Intelligence article by User:The Anome. While I have no problems with the edits per se, I am concerned by the message it may convey. Comment would be appreciated.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• If it's an unambiguously valid change and helps clarify issues to be addressed on talk, I don't see why it would be a big deal, myself. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins can use the {{editprotected}} template to make uncontroversial changes on protected pages. I don't see why admins should be banned from taking a more convenient method for such changes. However, in the case where this is any potential controversy behind the change, I agree that admins should exercise restraint, just as any other editor must. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add that the readers of the encyclopedia, who may or may not stumble onto a "fully protected" page or even know what that means, would expect to find a clean article and would perhaps find it helpful/professional if things were spelled right, etc. Non-admins can make edit requests for routine fixes that are handled by admins rather proficiently and noncontroversially. So, if an admin notices a routine change first, that's just one less step. Nothing more. A model of efficiency! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Um no. You forget that admins are editors. If editors have to go through a certian process to get edits made so do admins. Apart from anything else it reduces the temptation for admins to put barriers in the way of editors.Geni 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agree. I think sometimes we forget that there are readers out there, and if we can improve their experience, we should. But only for gnomish corrections. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do any major rewrites. But if you can fix an obvious grammatical error or make a spelling correction, do it, without a second thought. This is kind of a common sense issue, really: if you can improve the encyclopedia, do it. I expect anyone being challenged for making something simple like a spelling correction would find plenty of backup. I've done it many times and no one has ever complained. Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so. And I'd add to that something like a {{fact}} tag on something that requires citation, or other uncontroversial maintenance-type changes that will actively help debate on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has been in this sitution, a few things need to be borne in mind. First off, if an admin is editing an article they protected, or were involved in the editing of it at the time it was protected, those "minor" changes might very well be what the dispute was over in the first place - particularly {{fact}} tags. There is a reason why pages are locked in the "wrong version" and should stay there until either protection expires or consensus is reached on the talk page. Admins can use the "editprotected" tag too, ensuring that a neutral third party is the one making the correction. At a minimum, any admin making even minor edits to a protected page should indicate on the talk page of the article what they have done and why. I'll point out that in some of our sister projects, including the German Wikipedia, editing a protected page for any reason other than "editprotected" requests will result in an automatic desysopping. I would like to think that is not necessary; having said that, in at least three cases where I was requesting edit protection on pages, admins edited through the protection to make substantive changes. Risker (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Risker. I would hope that more admins and editors can abide by the principle of "avoid even the appearance of impropriety." Remember that there is no deadline and it's much worse to harm trust between admins and editors than allow minor issues to remain in protected articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that it obviously does not apply in this case. The Anome last edited that article months ago, November 2007 I think, and has made only a handful of edits to it at all. Part of what needs to be done with that article is to clarify the areas which are in need of better sourcing, and to ruthlessly prune it of advocacy. I don't see any evidence to suggest that what The Anome did was anything other than precisely that. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has the "authority" to make non-controversial changes to a protected page, admins have the "ability". A user without admin tools can use {{editprotected}}, as can an admin who is too involved to use their tools. If an edit turns out to be controversial then it should be reversed on request, and if it appears that one intentionally made a controversial edit to a protected page then it should be treated as a serious issue. But I see no point in forbidding productive, non-controversial edits by those who have the ability to do so.

I do however agree that adding or removing {{fact}} tags is far to likely to be controversial to do when a page is protected without a check on the talk page first. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, heaven forbid someone fixes the grammar in an article or links a word! What's next, fixing spelling errors? Mr.Z-man 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been reading WP:LAME, have you? Spelling is one of the main themes there. Risker (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for raising this concern. Didn't want to start a lame war; just wanted to know if regular editors and admins were on equal footing in editing articles. I guess I got my answer. --Ramdrake (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why I have long been an advocate of splitting apart the admin tools so they can be distributed more widely. --Haemo (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that would fix anything; people who can edit fully-protected pages will still do so, regardless if they aren't "full admins", for lack of a better phrase. This whole thread is dealing about very particular and isolated incidents in a very broad fashion, which is almost always a Bad Thing.
Personally, I've edited fully-protected pages in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Just because there's a dispute about content doesn't mean I shouldn't fix a typo when i find it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. "Any modification to a fully-protected page should be discussed on its talk page or another appropriate forum". Any. You got that? Remember admin and editing functions are seperate and when you are editing you must act like an editor and that means not useing your admin powers. Want an edit made to a protected page? Use {{edit protected}}. Think that is to much of a burden? Try and get admins to protect fewer pages.Geni 02:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still see that as a horrible amount of bureaucracy. Typos need to be approved by committee? Sorry, no, not a fan of that idea. This whole argument is centered around administrators making controversial edits to fully-protected pages; that is something that we're in agreement about being a bad thing, and isn't what I'm suggesting/mentioning. I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't edit a fully-protected page if there's something mundane to be done, such as my typo example above, or something more pressing, a link going to the wrong page (to use an example I've seen recently, a link to "batman" going to Batman instead of Batman (military)).
Protection should be used only to prevent vandalism or disruptive edits, not to prevent valid, constructive contributions; the fact that only administrators can edit the page is strictly a technical distinction, and there's no valid reason (in my mind) to eschew constructive edits because of an unrelated matter. If an admin is making protected edits inappropriately, take it up with the admin making the edits, don't hold it against everyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reality check: No admin worthy of the mop should make contentious edits to a protected page. That's one of the reasons they were trusted with the tools in the first place. To require permission to correct mis-spellings and barbarous language for trusted members of the community is disingenuous and unworthy. If it gets beyond that, fine. Otherwise... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you find asking for permission to be unacceptable there are about 2.3 million articles you can edit without doing so. When editing same rules must apply to admins as everyone else.Geni 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I find it absolutely astonishing that this is considered controversial, and that so very many admins believe that they have some special privilege when it comes to editing -- controversial changes or not. If 'editprotected' is so convenient, why on earth shouldn't an admin use it the same as anybody else? Frankly, we ought to take the 'mop' cliche more to heart and rename RFAdminship to RFJanitorship. Might serve as a more visceral reminder of what the sysop bit is about. If this special editing privilege is the new consensus, that should be made very clear over at RFA. I've seen plenty of people voted in with essentially zero article writing, and plenty of oppose votes for edits primarily in article-space instead of wiki-space. Unit56 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I've just noticed this discussion: "unwitting" is exactly right, I'm afraid I didn't even notice the page was protected at the time. Although I believe my edits were harmless and uncontroversial in themselves, I agree with the posters above that admins shouldn't in general edit protected pages, on the principle of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety; I've now reverted my edits back to the previous version. -- The Anome (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If the principle holds that when it comes to editing, all editors should have fairly equal rights, would it be worthwhile to suggest to the developpers adding a message that pops up when an admin is about to edit a fully-protected page, something like this page is currently protected; are you sure you want to edit it? so that they have an occasion to consider if the edit is really needed? Just a thought here.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something like an extra click-through step would be a good idea. Even though there is currently a red warning message above the edit box for fully-protected pages, it's too easy to miss it occasionally. -- The Anome (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The current message is MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning. Perhaps its meaning would be more obvious if it were visually similar to Template:pp-protected. Maybe:

Bovlb (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Eww. No. There's nothing wrong with the current message. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could at least add a little lock to make the meaning clear at a glance.

Bovlb (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• It won't help. Protection does not cause an edit conflict, so if it is protected while the admin has the edit window open, they will get no indication that anything happened. (Is there a bug open for this? I can't find it if there is.) --Random832 (contribs) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that could happen, but I don't think it's the common case. The example given above was of an admin simply failing to notice. Bovlb (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request protection of indef blocked User:Firstwind's talkpage, or suggestions of other options

I indef blocked the above editor on 28th March 2008, following a report at WP:AIV on the 27th March which prompted me to initially issue a warning. The discussion between the AIV reporter and me at my talkpage provides further background. When the warned editor blanked their page and resumed the behaviour which had prompted the AIV report and warning I then enacted the block. Following a response by Firstwind, to which I replied by suggesting that they use the unblock request option provided within the block template, the editor has entered into a cycle of blanking their talkpage. As the page includes the indef block template the blanking has been reverted in each case, although not by me. Following a blanking which had a summary suggesting that Firstwind wished to cease editing Wikipedia from this account, I amended the subsequent revert to leave only the block template and my comments regarding requesting WP:RTV to allow the pages to be blanked, per this edit. Regretfully, Firstwind again blanked the page (and was reverted back to the page prior to my amendment - as I had requested in such a circumstance). To avoid an edit war, and in the manner that an editor who abuses the unblock request option can have their talkpage protected to minimise disruption, I request that User talk:Firstwind be protected from further editing by non-Admins - and that my actions in this matter be reviewed as to whether they were appropriate. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

TBH, I'd let him blank the page. It does no harm, he claims to be seeking to vanish and this achieves that as good as anything, and the indef template doesn't have to be the Mark of Cain, it's just a template after all. I have no opinion on the block or its circumstances. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I would reiterate that the blanking is being reverted by other editors, on the basis that the template should remain (there is unresolved questions regarding socking). Protection may still be required, whether the page is blank or not, to stop an edit war. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think everything you did is fine (except for using "they" as a singular ;-)). The page was full-protected for two days by User:Ground Zero earlier today. Whether the user is going to vanish or the page will be protected for a longer period can be determined then. Just as long as we leave some way for the user to request unprotection/unblock (i.e. we don't block e-mail).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock-range template needed?

Problem: As much as they should be avoided, rangeblocks are applied regularly in an effort to stop IP-hopping vandals. Due to their nature, rangeblocks tend to affect a large number of users, often ones that have no idea why they are blocked. When they find they are blocked, they naturally want to be unblocked, but get a tad confused. The software does state that their IP range is blocked, but there's no specific template for them to use. {{unblock}} is for directly blocked users (which isn't the case, and a check of their block log will confirm this), and {{unblock-auto}} only applies when an account using that IP has been blocked. From what I've seen, most will choose to use the unblock-auto template. This leads to further confusion with administrators, who see the template and automatically assume that the blocked editor can't read directions because there's a honking great error message shouting at them. Unless the admin thinks to check the rangeblocks (which admittedly most do, but just try to tell me you haven't slipped up at least once or twice or more), the confusion continues to build with the blocked editor and admin both getting continually more frustrated until somebody figures out what's actually going on. Even when the rangeblock is identified, it often takes some time to get in contact with the blocking admin to figure out specifically which IPs were being used, how, and if the block should be lifted or not.

Solution: Get a new template. I've drafted up an example {{unblock-range}} template here: User:Hersfold/Unblock-range. The parameters for this template would ideally be automatically filled out by MediaWiki:Blockedtext (see requisite code in the example's doc), however even if they weren't, the admin is immediately alerted to the fact that this isn't a normal block and needs a bit more attention and investigation. What I'm looking for here is some sort of consensus on whether this template is in fact needed, and if so, comments on how to improve the current example to get it up to the desired standard and on what changes would need to be made to the MediaWiki page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a new unblock template would do any good, having 2 templates is confusing enough for many blocked users. Both {{unblock-auto}} and {{unblock}} have a way to check whether or not the block is a range block. It is more a problem of admins actually thinking of checking if the block is a range block, if you ask me. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps instructions should be added to the existing templates to guide admins in finding rangeblocks? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "Admins: If no direct or autoblocks are apparent, be sure to check active rangeblocks"? We'd probably need to flush that out a little, but it's a start. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A helpful link to instructions on how to find active rangeblocks would be useful indeed. I've been an admin for years – heck, I've even placed a few rangeblocks – but I'm not confident that I know how to search for them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a link in both unblock templates to search for range blocks. In the template it says " * Unblock (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • creation log • rangeblocks • unblock)" -Rjd0060 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the rangeblock finder and autoblock finder and other links to the tools at tools.wikimedia.de used to be broken. That has been my experience with them, unless they were recently fixed I got fed up with using them and stopped some time ago... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) The rangeblock tools appear to be working for me, however the different templates use different tools, which is mildly confusing at times and somewhat unhelpful. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A userbox

...brought to my attention by a new user - not sure if this is the right forum, feel free to relocate it if not. The userbox is User:UBX/Twinkleadmin, which reads, "This user performs administrator tasks in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!" Many of the users using it are not admins, though (although several definitely are admins). There is two possible situations:

• It's meant for admin use but non-admin users are using it
• It's meant for all users but incorrectly links to WP:ADMIN

I actually think it's the latter situation, but am not sure, and it is transcluded on quite a lot of user pages. What should be done regarding it? Orderinchaos 06:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say link administrator tasks to WP:ROLLBACK. MBisanz ^talk 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not an "administrator task", though. What this userbox refers to is the use of Twinkle to delete, block and protect. Hence, I am going through and removing it from all the non-administrators' userpages. Daniel (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Should only be on admin pages, or re-worded w/link removed.IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. What this userbox refers to is the admin-only features for quicker deletions, blocks and protections. Naturally, the non-admins who had this userbox on their userpage didn't have access to these features. Daniel (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User is removing a picture from Celine Dion

Resolved.

A user has removed a picture from Celine Dion three times in a row, the first two times not giving a clear explanation, the third time citing Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria as the reason (see the diff). I'm not sure what to make of this. P.S. Just for the record, this is my third WP:AN post in a row :)--Urban Rose 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't see a rationale for keeping it in there. It seems to be used only to illustrate the subject, who is a living person. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read the FUR for this image, I respectfully disagree, and direct you to consider also Mickey Rooney, whom I think is still alive. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Article protected. Please refer to fair-use review to discuss inclusion of the image. — Edokter • Talk • 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked the anon for 24h for breaking 3RR. --Tone 21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know, the article isn't protected, though I don't think it matters now since the editor is blocked.--Urban Rose 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do'h... it was only move-protected. Doesn't matter. As you said, the warring editor is blocked. — Edokter • Talk • 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB Approvals

Can one of the administrators look at the AWB acess requests and take necessary action? -Natrajdr (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Walking over to investigate. MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymity and outing

I'm trying to locate the policy that explicitely states that contributors are promised as much anonymity as possible but I'm having trouble locating it. In which policy does it state that Wikipedia editors are promised anonymity? Where does it state that outing is wrong? WP:Anonymity and WP:Outing are essays, not policies or guidelines. WP:BLOCK states that blocks can be given for disclosing personal information, but doesn't state what is considered personal information as opposed to raising allegations of COI. So, which policy is used by admins when warning or blocking someone for outing another editor? Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Privacy Policy? x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not marked as policy, but Wikipedia:Harassment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the MetaPolicy is a policy, as it states : "This version of the Privacy policy was approved in June 2006 by the Board of Trustees." Tiptoety ^talk 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at Meta's Privacy Policy, and don't see where it promises anonymity and prohibits outing. Could someone point it out for me? Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Harassment does appear to cover it somewhat, but states that you can't reveal the legal name of someone to harass them, which appears to indicate that it's ok if you're revealing it to show COI? Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Off hand, the MetaPolicy doen't seem to apply to the question Cla68 (talk · contribs) raises which is the outing of a COI editor. It seems to me that I have seen this happen in checkuser-type disputes but I can't point to any diff. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the question is that there is no such policy, either with the Wikimedia Foundation or en-Wikipedia. I researched this question thoroughly during the first round of BADSITES and, despite some beefing up of the harassment guideline, there is not and cannot be such a policy. The Foundation cannot guarantee anonymity or pseudonymity, and thus neither can Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, why have people been blocked or threatened with blocks for outing someone either on or off wiki, not for the purpose of harassment, but for trying to point out COI? Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do we block for WP:NLT, even when such threats are often wildly spurious? Why do we follow up on suicide notes and threats of violence, even when 99% of them, anywhere on the Web, are likely hoaxes? Because certain actions carry an unacceptable potential for collateral damage and off-wiki consequences. Outing someone can lead to very real, real-life hassle. Type I and type II errors is a nice read when such questions come to mind :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that if someone stands to suffer very real, real-life hassles by being outed, then they probably should consider that before participating in the 8th most-read website on the planet? Anynomity on the Internet cannot be guaranteed and it's ridiculous for us to try and guarantee it. Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymity can't be guaranteed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our utmost to respect it or even enforce it when requested. The possibility of suffering off-wiki harassment or simply getting in trouble shouldn't discourage someone from participating in the 8th most-read website on the planet if they wish to do so, and there should be mechanisms in place, whether written or unwritten, to allow them to do so as safely as possible if they wish. Besides, some folks may consider the possibility and decide to go ahead anyway! If Alice shoots herself in the foot after playing with loaded shotgun, should she be denied medical treatment just because said shotgun was in bright red box marked Dangerous? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

People rarely give a huge amount of thought to editing Wikipedia before they start; they certainly do not think "I'd better be extremely careful in anything I do, because one day I might revert someone with a grudge, who will then contact my employer/local police and attempt to get me fired/arrested, or create a website about me filled with insane conspiracy theories linked to my real name." Wikipedia doesn't come with that kind of warning. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Who decides which it is? Why would they be mutually exclusive? Why would one need to "out" someone to expose a COI? In any event, WP:BLOCK is clear: "A block for protection may be necessary in response to... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)". It's also the primary reason given for Oversighting. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When you ask why somebody would need to out someone to expose a COI, are you asking why exposing a COI is reliant on "outing" someone, or why it's necessary to expose COIs? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

COI is very serious, because it threatens the credibility of this project into which so many volunteers have put so many hours of their free time. Thus, if we need to out someone to establish COI, then we do it. There is no policy that prohibits outing someone to establish COI. The blocking policy only applies to giving personal information that violates another policy, and that is WP:Harassment. But, if someone outs someone to establish COI, then HARASS wasn't violated and no block should be considered. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's your unique interpretation of WP:HARASS, WP:BLOCK, and WP:OVERSIGHT. However, the policies make no such exception for COI, despite your recent attempts to modify them to accommodate your view. Invading the privacy of individuals and exposing them to harassment is equally important as COI, if not moreso, because it undermines the very working environment for our most important resource, our editors. And, quite frankly, for someone who claims that SlimVirgin's edits to the blocking policy were "Bad faith editing, owning of pages, and POV-pushing", it's a pretty bad idea to try to change multiple policies so that you can retroactively claim WordBomb's blocking was inappropriate. I strongly recommend you not make edits, and particularly attempt to change policies, for the purpose of furthering your agendas against other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people use "Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others." from Wikipedia:No personal attacks to justify blocking/banning. People claim real life harrassment is bound to occur, then cite a few cases where someone called a boss or wife. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this a rather obvious thing? If an editor wishes to remain an anon, then we should respect that. If an editor previously posted their real life identity but now wish it to be not public info, then we should respect that. If an outside source identifys one of our editors against their wishes then we should not aide and abet that outside source by posting that info here. I know of one case where an editor was driven off the site after his employer was contacted by trolls...how many do you need? I'd rather not go into details about it, but there are numerous examples of this happening.--MONGO 01:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, we cannot guarantee someone's anonymity anywhere on the Internet, including here. Brandt's HM page, among other pages, proves that. We can, however, guarantee that our project is as credible as possible by enforcing our own COI policy, which appears to allow outing in order to show COI. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a slippery slope to me. If we went around tagging everyone with their real name we would probably find that a great number of our best contributors are semi-famous in their fields...I am inclined to believe that it is best to not reveal personal info if that person wishes to remain anonymous.--MONGO 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not our COI policy that makes our project credible, it's the quality of the articles and the sources used, and those are ensured by strict adherence to the content policies, and a welcoming environment for editors. We cannot guarantee someone's anonymity any more than we can guarantee that articles will be WP:NPOV, but that doesn't mean we abandon either ideal as useless. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, it's being done already, look here [47]. Although SlimVirgin says that she blocked Sparkzilla for BLP concerns[48], she actually supported the COI outing of his real name as the chief editor of a news source in Japan that was reporting on the same story. Thus, if someone outs someone for COI reasons, we need to look at the evidence, make a decision on the evidence in an open forum, like here or at the COI noticeboard, and then we can admin or oversight delete the material if necessary. SlimVirgin and others have already set the precedent, we just need to update the policies to follow the precedents that she and others have set. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where she posted his real life identity. Maybe I missed something.--MONGO 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread on this at the COI noticeboard [49] (which has several current threads that discuss editor's real names, apparently without any censure) also, so please feel free to discuss. I appreciate everyone's input. From what I can see, the COI policy currently allows outing for COI reasons. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<-- I've commented at the CoI noticeboard, which I hope is probably the best place - but I've also suggested this as a topic for a 'real world' conversation at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly - which is a project aiming to help communication through having a chat! - I hope it might be an interesting subject for folk of all views to engage with - take a look if you'd like! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem as far as I can see is ensuring that discussion of COI doesn't become a cover for getting at editors. This is particularly a problem since nobody seems to be totally clear how personal the involvement has to be for WP:COI to apply. In this sense, I think the current statement in WP:COI that "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy" is incorrect (as well as inconsistent with the same paragraph suggesting "direct" discussion), but I wouldn't go as far as to say that outing for COI is generally ok. Probably it's a question that can't directly be answered, other than to say that people should be particularly careful. This allows discussion in extreme cases, but also makes sure that gaming or abuses will stand out enough that they can still be addressed. Mackan79 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I outed an editor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems, since they were using Wikipedia to promote their father's work. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

People claim real life harrassment is bound to occur, then cite a few cases where someone called a boss or wife.

It's come up frequently on this page and ArbCom over the last few years, if you'd been paying attention. But if you need one, there's me: I've had a whackjob send a nastygram to my employer, just after I got his ass bounced from here for leaving me vile and racist messages; I've had a perma-banned serial plagiarist telephone me and try to set off a noisemaker in my ear (Caller ID works internationally, something he forgot and identified him immediately), and I've gotten e-mail naming people as my parents and siblings with the veiled threat "this should be fun :)". There have multiple attempts by banned spammers, scientific cranks, and just-plain losers to out me and harass me, so attempts to assist whackjobs with their harassment attempts definitely get my attention and set off my BS detector. This is a spectacularly bad slippery slope to head down, is all I can say. --Calton | Talk 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if tighter control over outing of COI editors would have avoided the unfortunate events that you experienced, but it shows that we need to be careful how we do it. I just don't see how we wouldn't sometimes have to out editors in order to prove COI. We either throw the COI guideline and noticeboard in the wastebasket and no longer pursue COI allegations, or else we add language to our policies to provide clear instructions on how we go about proving COI, so that the COI policy can't be used to harass or for any other bad faith monkey business. I suggest the latter course of action, because if we allow open season on our articles by COI editors, we run great risk to the credibility of our project, as recent press reporting on the Jimbo/Marsden incident illustrates. Cla68 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given your role in the shenanigans wrought by that whackjob from The Register pursuing his nutty conspiracy theories, let's just say I have some severe...doubts...about your sincerity, motives, purpose, and/or hoped-for outcomes in pursuing this solution-in-search-of-a-problem you're flogging here. That's leaving aside your reasoning, which I find weasel-worded in the extreme. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Whackjob from the Register". That's a personal attack, Calton, and a violation of policy. Anyway, I think I've been fairly clear about what I'm doing here. I have found a discrepancy/dichotomy in our policies. We have and continue to allow outing to identify COI. But, our Harassment and Blocking policies appear to prohibit outing. Contradictions in the policies need to be fixed or else we'll have inconsistencies with how the rules are applied to editors. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions in policies should be fixed, but non-contradictions between policies and guidelines do not require fixing. And I think you have been fairly clear in what you're doing here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Jayjg, I appreciate you bringing that up. That wasn't my original intent in bringing this subject up here, but it is a timely example isn't it? On the COI noticeboard there are threads in which editors are outed to show COI, without the "outers" apparently being sanctioned. But, the editor (WordBomb) in the thread you link to was blocked for doing the same thing. See the dichotomy? This needs to be fixed. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Jayjg has been doing some outing himself at User:Jayjg/Alberuni. The last edits to that page are someone telling Jayjg checkuser is not for fishing (why doesn't Jayjg ever respond on "requests for checkuser" for years but only checkusers when he or his friends get an an edit dispute with someone?) and Jayjg just reverts their comments, not even letting them speak. Jayjg's outing via checkuser fishing has caused a number of people (who I won't name as it would be worse for them if I did) to get to get unwanted Encyclopedia Dramatica articles about them, thus his actions have caused off-wiki harassment. 66.90.226.209 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a tension between COI and privacy issues. This is a real tension that we need to deal with on a case by case basis. In general, if someone on has a username which is blatantly connected to an organization or an IP address they use is traced back to the organization that's ok. People should use common sense judgement and not be assses. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting semi-protection of Test templates instead of full protection or vice versa

I noticed that the older set of warning templates (the "test" templates: Template:Test, Template:Test2, Template:Test3, and Template:Test4) are fully protected, while the newer templates (the "uw-" templates) are just semi-protected. Unless there is some reason for this that I'm not aware of, I think it would make more sense if both sets of the warning templates were either fully-protected or semi-protected.

Also, the block template Template:Uw-uhblock (the username hard block template) is the only one of the block templates that is fully protected (the others are all semi-protected) unless there is some special reason for this, I think it would make more sense to either fully protect all or semi protect all.--Urban Rose 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea at the time of WP:UW was to semi protect the new templates to allow non-admin maintenance tasks, I don't think they attracted a lot of vandalism meanwhile so I guess it is safe to simply semi protect everything. I guess the {{uw-uhblock}} full protect is an inheritance of the old {{UsernameHardBlocked}}. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I semi protected the 5 templates you linked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious blacklisting of URL

An editor removing an AfD notice at Common Purpose UK had to remove a number of perfectly appropriate wikilinks due to them having, for some reason, been blacklisted. Admin intervention requested. __meco (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not wikilinks, external links. And they're blacklisted across all Wikimedia sites (see m:Spam blacklist). If you think the site was mistakenly blacklisted, you can take it up at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Its selling an unencyclopedic leadership course, and was BL'd Due to extensive and excessive Cross wiki spamming^[50], placed with no regards for the language of the wiki concerned;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/88.106.207.152
• http://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://bs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://sl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
• http://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250

The listing request is here, but removal was decline once already. --Hu12 (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User making legal threat, please ban for at least a while.

Resolved. this is not a legal threat -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User Tvoz is a POV pusher that is trying to ba anyone that doesn't also POV push at Barack Obama article. Tvoz issued a legal threat below threatening to ban me just because I am NPOV, not POV pro Obama. Acording to Wikipedia laws, Tvoz must be banned without any further discussion. I am sorry, but this is the rules.

Here's what I wrote and what Tvoz wrote.

From Barack Obama talk page.

1. 2 is in the archives. POV pushers refused to listen than banned the person with the sock excuse. This is proof of POV pushing at this article. 122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, the user who insisted on the police union edit was banned because he was abusing Wikipedia with multiple sock puppets. As he has continued to do - but don't worry, he will be stopped again. Tvoz |talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See, Tvoz is falsely accusing me of being a sock and is issuing a legal threat to ban me. I am KVS. I am a citizen of India. Tvoz accused some American, Dirk Benedict, of being a sock. I am not American. I am NPOV and not for or against Obama. Here's proof of my citizenship. 122.164.134.73 (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No legal threat at all. None. If you have a dispute with the user in question, please talk to them about it rather than coming here and telling tails. This page is not dispute resolution. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 11:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

122.164.134.73, how is he legally threatening you? He's not threatening to sue you, so I can't see any threat. It is not a legal threat to ban an IP. BTW, if the IP was banned, it would not be indefinite as that is against Wikipedia policy. D.M.N. (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have edited under my user name. Tvoz is saying that he will ban me because I support a neutrally worded text on Barack Obama, which I discussed on the talk page yesterday, and which didn't receive opposition. See the threat that Tvoz says he will stop me and ban me. This is a legal threat. I agree that Tvoz is not telling tails, Tvoz is threatening me. Why don't administrators try to uphold the highest Wikipedia standard and work things out rather than taking sides? 122.164.134.73 (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a legal threat. I'm really not sure how many times and how loudly I can type it until it sinks in. This is not a legal threat. This is not a legal threat. This is not a legal threat. Drop the subject, or I will block you, never mind anyone else. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 12:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

People have been banned for saying they are going to report "it" to the authorities. So legal threats don't have to be lawsuits. Threatening to harm someone using legalistic methods, like banning, is a legal threat. Besides, a good administrator would try to speak with the person like Tvoz and ask them not to threaten rather than attack the victim like me. Note: nobody is in dispute that I am being threatened. 122.164.134.73 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are being threatened with sanctions on-Wikipedia- the removal of your editing privileges. There is nothing legal about that. I have no opinion on the matter you have been threatened over, I just can see that this is not a legal threat, so does not require administrator intervention on that front. Please stop pushing the idea that it is. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

122.164.134.73, this is a quote from WP:LEGAL of what a legal threat is not.

A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

If you are the owner of copyrighted material which has been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. You may contact the information team, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, or use the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team.

D.M.N. (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No you are simply wrong about this. Please read WP:NLT. A legal threat is when someone threatens to sue you in court. Nothing else is a legal threat. Threatening to block someone on Wikipedia is absolutely not a legal threat - blocking is not a "legalistic method". Please stop making these wild and baseless accusations. Gwernol 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banned users on NTTW

my attempt at beginning some useful discourse....

hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they are banned on Commons. I for one think this is a good idea. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be interesting to hear the view that is usually rushed and cut off mid-sentence (so to speak) on wikipedia. And since the content will be reviewed (I assume) before posting, I don't see the issue. MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

..beginning some useful discourse - strange new meaning of "useful" I was previously unaware of. --Calton | Talk 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just what we need - Bagley and Kohs. No thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• They are banned, leave them be. As Guy said... "No thanks". This is getting a little distracting. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Being banned means they're not welcome here, period/full stop, and giving the banned -- who are almost always banned after exhausting every loophole and many peoples' patience -- yet another way to carry on their obsessions is a remarkably bad idea on numerous levels. --Calton | Talk 14:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea PM. They aren't posting, just taking part in an unofficial skypecast. It's not the same thing at all. Very interesting to hear what they had to say. Majorly (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "distinction without a difference" comes to mind. --Calton | Talk 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will revert or remove any link on the English Wikipedia that links to a skypecast featuring banned accounts. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, but I will only do so once. So here is the MFD Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we are scared of our rightful actions now? If those two specifically are well banned, what hurts to hear them whine to pm for a few minutes. The tone of their comments on every single online news article regarding wikipedia leads to me a certain judgement of thier viewpoints. The fear and mfd are shortsighted in my view. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fearful, just focused on the project I hope. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain. (taken from Frank Herbert's Dune.)

[edit] Asexuality

Resolved.

Why does it say "Rajan takes it up the batty" in the first line of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality? I seem unable to remove that. --Law Lord (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

{{sexual orientation}} was vandalised, but has been fixed. — Edokter • Talk • 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice

I'm hesitant to cross-post this, but in hindsight this one needs a wide audience to be properly gauged: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice. A template has been added to an actual article, Modernista! which brings up major NPOV questions and questions of the actions/authority of a Foundation representative. As the Foundation may not have any authority in regards to actual article content, this is something that needs a wide review rather than just MFD regulars or involved parties. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The nerve. How dare you actually attempt to get community consensus! The nerve. </sarcasm>  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this won't be a bannable offense someday! :) Lawrence § t/e 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From the "not evil" department

There is little doubt that Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not much missed, given the hundreds of sockpuppets he's subsequently used to vandalise various articles, but on the other hand it does seem a tad harsh that of all the numerous sites which document his odd behaviour, Wikipedia is the first hit and the most extensively negative. I made an offer which he chose to rebuff, but I think we should do this anyway: I suggest we attribute the many sockpuppets (and rename the categories) as something like "Peirce vandal", and simply leave a discreet link to it in his user space somewhere. I would propose renaming the account, but I am told that some of his edits were good, and it is pretty obvious that he is most insistent on being credited by name for those edits. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - good idea, Guy, and very classy too. Is this something a bot can do? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly, but I don't know which one would be best.Guy (Help!) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We're talking 620 pages (not counting bot created archives). AWB is usually used for this sort of thing, as there is no bot specifically approved for it. But I'm sure any bot op could code it up quick. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Either he exercises his RTV with a rename, losing both the negative publicity of his activities and his name associated with allegedly good edits or he does not exercise his RTV, keeps his current name, with all the various google results. I think this would set a negative precedent of encouraging future actors to do it and know they can have their cake and eat it. And considering he rebuffed Guy's very generous offer, I'm not inclined to go out of my (our) way to be helpful. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that many of the criticisms of Wikipedia are surrounding its capacity to do damage to the reputation of living people, anything we can do to prevent such damage at no cost to Wikipedia is a good thing. Also, I wasn't around for Awbrey's time here, but I gather that he was primarily a good faith contributor, which means that he put his real name out there with the intend of being recognized for his contributions to the encyclopaedia, not having it dragged through the mud as a disruptive editor (even if he was a disruptive editor, which I'm not disputing). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem renaming and replacing living people named accounts of banned users. I just don't like the idea of only concealing the bad things associated with them. MBisanz ^talk 22:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What's to be gained from leaving their real names associated with the bad stuff? What's the harm in dissociating banned users from the bad stuff? He's permanently banned, so it's not needed for community scrutiny. And we hardly owe it to potential employers to make it easy to dig up skeletons in prospective employees' closets. I'm not sure how much good this will do, since we're not changing the account name and the first Google hit for his name (in quotes) is his WP user page, but, like I said, anything helps. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about future problems. Like if in 3 years this fellow comes back wanting to edit and have the ban lifted. And its not immediate clear because we've obfuscated only the bad things. Even in the Lir instance, a lot of people didn't know the background to why he was blocked for so long, and were probably willing to extend more good faith than was needed. Also, if he were to start socking again, it would make it difficult, especially for non-admins, to compile a proper SSP. I'm really not seeing the harm in a rename to User:RTV101 with AWB edits to eliminate signatures. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can think of two editors who have real-name accounts and a lot of negative material on wiki, Jon Awbrey and Jason Gastrich. Of the two Jon seems the more deserving of at least a little sympathy; he is clearly a very odd fellow and more than a little obsessive (check the other places where he's been in trouble for the kind of argufying that brought him so much unwelcome attention here). Gastrich was a straight-out POV pusher and vanity merchant, but even there I'd support something similar just because of the massively higher profile Wikipedia now has. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd add User:John Gohde to the list of people with real-name accounts and negative on-wiki profiles - I assume that is his real name, and he holds the distinction of being banned thrice by ArbCom. For what it's worth, I think Guy's idea is a good one. Whether or not Guy's initial offer was rebuffed, we can still be the bigger entity and do the right thing. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon created a lot of good content on Wikipedia; but is currently very very angry at Wikipedia. Let's do the right thing. If you are a doctor or a nurse, do you refuse to do the right thing if a patient bleeds all over you? WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll point out that besides the 263 confirmed sockpuppets in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey, there are probably as many others that we just blocked and never bothered wasting the keystrokes to put {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} on their pages. Still, I'd support this with the understanding that if a single sock showed up ever again, we'd reverse the action. Anything to get rid of this utter nuisance. (I only know him as an abusive sockpuppeteer -- I've never looked at the events leading to his original ban.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This all looks like agreement in principle to me; how about if we usurp the unused user:JA and put everything, good and bad, there? Guy (Help!) 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By "put everything", do you mean rename the account? Or just your original proposal? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I'll support a renaming/usurption. MBisanz ^talk 09:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• If Awbrey isn't interested in the offer, don't do it. Perhaps he takes pride in the activities of his socks? If he doesn't want the help, it isn't really help at all. Everyking (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's win-win anyway. If he wants to leave his name as a pride token of what he has done, we ignore the troll even more by renaming the account. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Awbrey has explicitly stated on an external site that he does not want this to be done. —Random832 (contribs) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't care. It would be a very good application of WP:DENY. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Declaring a different name to be the "master account" is one thing, but forcibly renaming his account without his permission while he still has significant edits is a violation of the renaming policy and the GFDL and I will report whatever bureaucrat performs the rename to a steward. —Random832 (contribs) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no GFDL problem - the edits are still attributed to the same user ID. I'm not sure what you hope to gain from reporting this to a steward, they would do precisely nothing as it certainly isn't within their remit. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I've had a couple of emails on this subject, requesting the renaming of accounts associated with real-world identities or activities of individuals who are banned from Wikipedia. Including those and Awbrey (where I am getting conflicting signals), plus the ones above, I propose:

• Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_GK1
• MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) -> W_GK2
• Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_JA1
• John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_JG1
• Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) -> W_JG2

• I don't mind doing AWB edits to support this, if people think it's worth doing. We should also talk to Rachel Marsden. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the other cases, but if Jon Awbrey has specifically stated he does not want to be renamed (cognizent that this will continue his negative google search), I really don't see why we should rename him. If he merely didn't care it might be a nice thing to do, but if he's opposed to it, I don't see why we should. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If Jon's main account is renamed against his will there seems to be a chance that he comes back to do something about it. I don't know if it's worth risking that. But making his user page less obvious sounds like an excellent idea to someone who had to clean up only a tiny part of what he left… I really think his intentions were good. --Hans Adler (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as my information goes, which is at second-hand through a couple of sources, Jon's principal objection was that the same courtesy was not to be extended to others. I think there is self-evident merit in extending such a courtesy to anyone who registers a Wikipedia account which can be tied to RWI, whether they remain, leave or are thrown out. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The only issue with John Gohde is that he's pledged to come back in January 2009 when his latest 1-year ban from ArbCom expires. He probably ought to be formally community-banned, but he's not at present, so I'm not sure we ought to rename his account without his consent if he intends to come back and use it. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this JA character is still causing trouble by proxy (and Guy is just being nice, not knowingly used). We offer to be nice and rename him, and he insists we do it for all real life names. If we're going to do anyone other than him, we really should establish it as policy. I assume that if any of these users did care, and contacted the foundation, their name would be changed in an instance, so I'm not sure why we need to change all these names without a compelling reason. Also, why rename Thekohser and MyWikiBiz, the don't look like names of real life persons, maybe a corporation, but not a real person. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I explicitly object to the inclusion of MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu), given that 1) it's a business name; 2) still the source of the occasional spamming attempt. Obscuring its history doesn't strike me as help for future editors encountering new spam. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I disagree about spamming, but it is traceable to RWI. However, I'm not going to let the idea fall for want of inclusion of one disputed account. As a matter of principle, do we agree that people who have exited Wikipedia at the end of a boot should nonetheless be entitled to this courtesy? Guy (Help!) 13:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I do like the word "entitled". Saying users who are banned retain the right to vanish under a name change, is a good thing. Saying that we can force change names or that one banned user can proxy changes for other, inactive banned users, is another story. In this case, Awbrey has made it crystal clear he does not want to be changed unless the others on that list are changed. I don't see a compelling point for two of them, as I've said already, and I'd expect that we require the other listed users to acquicse through silence (ie we email them askig if they want to be renamed). So yes, good general idea Guy, but one that probably doesn't apply to what Awbrey wants us to do. MBisanz ^talk 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support changing the category of his sockpuppets etc, but I don't think a name change is a good idea. If someone wants their edits to be attributed to their real name, we should let them, banned or no. -- Naerii 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Offering the others the opportunity would appear to satisfy Awbrey's requirements, whether they accept it or not. Agreeing in principle, as you (Guy) said, that any banned user has the right to RTV seems to be just what he's asking for, oddly enough. --Random832 (contribs) 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does Awbrey get special consideration when many other long time contributors have received the scarlet letter based on dubious evidence from seekrit councils? Has he made a major contribution to the Foundation? Is he now dating Jimbo? —The Poison Pen  ^N 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Socking here is a bad idea. Please stop. If you are proud of your remarks, take credit for them. Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The question remains: Guy doesn't explain why Awbrey, if he is such an atrotious person, is being afforded special consideration when so many are not and are perpetually branded as banned abusive individuals on a top rated website. —The Poison Pen  ^N 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI • Searchablebyuser (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)