Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Invalid Sockpupperty Decision

User:Jpgordon has declared that user:sundaram7 has many sockpuppet and I am one of them. This is not a legitimate decision. Based on this declaration,user:Aksi_great has blocked my id indefinitely.

Reasons for my arguments:

1. Based on the check user, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn,the User:Jpgordon found sockpuppetry for user in different countries!! check the IP addresses in the argument and my IP address. He didn't put any reasons for it. Instead he put a odd statement[1] on the IP address.
2. user:Aksi_great is biased on this case. When User:Jpgordon first declined the case, he forced him to block the ids:[2].
3. user:Aksi_great is taking this in a very unprofessional way. see his odd comments [3] and [4].He has started putting unrelated users [5] under user:sundaram7.
4. Check the talk pages User_talk:Jpgordon, User_talk:Fear_the_Fire, [6].

I request you to remove all the sockpuppetry items from the user user:sundaram7 and unlock the users. Also I suggest you to check the nutrality of the admins who made the decisions.

If user:aksi_great was truthful and trying to resolve the issue[7], he might have taken a neutral descision checking all the users involved in vandalism and 3RR, instead he has taken a biased decision which is narrated in the user page [8]. Similarly, the administrator was not patiant to read all the arguments and counter arguments in the page. He put a odd statement[9] instead of a neutral descision. __ 213.165.53.209 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And you are claiming to be who, Fear the Fire (talk · contribs)? --kingboyk 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

my user id is user:truehindu. I have noticed that the IP address change when i connect the net again, because of service provider IP range ___ 213.165.52.248 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this case is not taken care of. The issue that user:truehindu has rasied is still pending. We deserve a reply from kingboyk and the administrators. Sundaram7 06:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to requset some administrator to take care of this case -- Sundaram7 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have requested the administrators Jpgordon :[10],Aksi_great[11] to review the situation. There is no explaination of thier action. I have posted a message in Kingboyk:[12]'s talk page, but he is now withdrowing from this case:[13]. -- Sundaram7 08:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see why I got the message now. I thought it was a bit random. My original question was just to help the discussion along, it doesn't mean I've undertaken to sort it out nor do I have the competence to do it as I don't have checkuser access. --kingboyk 10:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why no administrators are taking care of only this issue. user:truehindu from 213.165.53.171 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Administrators, nobody has taken over this case. -- Sundaram7 04:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules on April Fool jokes

(moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/AprilFools2007)

Does WP:BLP apply to professional wrestlers?

Some advice is requested here, I have noticed that a vast number of our articles about pro wrestlers (ex. Category:American professional wrestlers) are written in a kayfabe style and contain nothing in the way of references. I am contacting the administrators noticeboard for suggestions on how to deal with these articles in situations where on-line research turns up nothing in the way of reliable sources to corroborate article content. Burntsauce 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's perilously close to WP:FICT; part of the wrestling world is indeed a fictional universe, and no we should not perpetuate that. Every article must have multiple non-trivial sources. I'd say that at least one or two in each case should be independent of the wrestling world, precisely because of the kayfabe issue. And WP:BLP unquestionably applies to the individuals, whether it applies to their wrestling persona is a different matter. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason I ask is that we treat biographies of living people much more rigorously than, say, an article about a superhero. Professional wrestlers fall somewhere in the middle, and the bulk of Wikipedia articles about them are plagued with unsupported, and in many cases unsupportable, material. Should these article be treated as any other "real life" biography, or are special considerations given to their largely fictitious personas? Burntsauce 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The sourcing of the articles is very problematic. I went through just the 'A' and 'B' entries of the above category earlier this week and there were over 50 articles I added an unreferenced (or equivalent) template to, and not many of the rest were adequately sourced either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think what's needed is a lead which is strictly factual, an in-universe warning on the body, and fact tags for anything not decently sourced, plus unreferenced tags for those which have no credible sourcing. Anything not fixed in a couple of weeks, we can start to purge. Hopefully people will get the hint. Source it or lose it... Guy (Help!) 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• My understanding of the matter is that the persona, along with the name, is generally owned by the specific company. The solution seems to be to say that |Wrestler Stage Name| is the stage persona of |Wrestler Actual Name|.KV(Talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I went through the Cs, and 47 out of 50 articles need sources/verifying. From what I've seen, there's a popular misconception among people editing the wrestling articles that if you've just seen something on TV you can just add it to an article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• My findings are exactly the same as One Night in Hackney's. In virtually every single case, they're either entirely without sources, or have had the {{unreferenced}} template requesting sources for many months with zero progress. I expect that if I begin the purge process I am going to be met with an onslaught of resistance from the pro wrestling fans. Burntsauce 20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on past experience they will !vote with "Strong keep" en masse, then the same people will make no effort to source the articles in the months that follow the AfDs. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Example: "when a section dosen't have referances you tag it not delete it" — Natl1 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC) -- This directly contradicts WP:BLP, please correct me if I am wrong. Burntsauce 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Everything that needs verification is verified or comes straight from the shows which are a primary source. DXRAW 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's take Rob Conway for example, which you removed the unreferenced tag claiming "everything that needs verification is verified or comes straight from the shows which are a primary source". There are currently two external links, one confirms that a "Conway Jr., Robert Thomas" attended a particular school in a particular year, the other a fansite. So not much seems verified to me. Even ignoring that interpretation of primary sources by editors is original research, it's impossible to verify. WWE TV shows from the last 7 years aren't repeated, there's no online archive of them, so how can anyone verify the article? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need an online archive. Take some old random book for example is it online? why would you need an achieve to be online. Most achieves are not online. DXRAW 00:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but books can be read in libraries or purchased. Please tell us where there is an offline archive for WWE TV shows? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1241 East Main Street Stamford, Connecticut DXRAW 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Tag, don't delete" works once per article, and not at all if the article has been tagged for some time without being sourced. Naturally if people then source the article and it is kept, there is no further problem. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An archive that's not open to the general public. Thanks for clarifying that the TV shows are not sources that can be verified. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I answered your question. Next time you might want to phrase it differently next time. Why do you need to a primary source to be verified sounds like a bit of overkill to me. DXRAW 00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the whole project of trying to collect verifiable material into a neutral encyclopedia is overkill. If we don't require information to be verifiable by actual readers, then Wikipedia is no different from the rest of the internet. The reason Wikipedia is different is that we bother to filter out the unverifiable stuff. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the ultimate problem here is that the articles at issue here are a matter of one article on two subjects - one a fictional character, one a person. WP:BLP clearly applies to one and not the other. What needs to happen is the separation of the two personae within the article, with information about the person subject to BLP, information about the character subject to the usual level of ATT, and information not identifiably about either of the two rewritten or removed. Chris cheese whine 00:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that they are separate enough at the moment. DXRAW 00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(0utdent) Be aware that JB196, one of the site's long term vandals and most prolific sockpuppeteers, concentrates on frivolous drives to delete articles in professional wrestling. Durova^Charge! 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

JB196 is also still engaged in self-advertising, see for example the history of this (and there's several similar ones) article, he's quite persistent. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is going to maintain these articles except people who are interested in professional wrestling? It is unlikely that they will ever be brought to and held to encyclopedic standards. I think we need to acknowledge that if we have these articles, then these articles in their current form is exactly what we are going to have. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not something we can acknowledge, since that would make the articles deletable under "no potential". Some of the cleanup tags suggest "This article needs a little work", whereas some effectively say "This article is not in a fit state for Wikipedia". It has long been my opinion that in the latter case, anyone who wants such an article kept at AfD is duty-bound to contribute to the improvement. Chris cheese whine 01:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make certain the other sysops are aware of possible background at this topic: JB196's modus operandi is to breed a large sockfarm, go on a notability/verifiability tagging spree of non-North American professional wrestling topics (often targeting older biographies from the pre-internet period), then initiate mass deletion nominations. Meanwhile he uses other socks to vandalize the non-North American professional wrestling articles that do have citations, deleting the references and then tag teaming with his other socks to pin (previously) verified but vandalized pages onto the deletion mat if the vandalism doesn't get reverted fast enough. He does this faster than a team of people could possibly add citations from vintage magazines and he's been at this game for a year. He just happens to think the only pro wrestling that matters happens in the United States and Canada, and he wants to manipulate the world's most popular reference site to reflect his bias. He got away with that for a long time too because (heck let's face it) professional wrestling doesn't get a whole lot of respect, but the more one thinks about it the more pernicious and exploitable that whole methodology looks. So to summarize, it's a wise idea to view all tagged articles on this subject as very possibly tagged in bad faith by a banned user (checkuser requests have confirmed well over 100 sockpuppets). Durova^Charge! 02:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He has a long term abuse report. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not an excuse to say that articles that can only ever make it a short way up the quality scale are acceptable. Every now and then the vandals do something right. Chris cheese whine 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is taking the thread in an unhelpful direction, one does not need to possess a doctorate in rocket science to determine whether or not something is appropriately tagged as {{unreferenced}}. Either it has references and meets WP:BLP or it doesn't. Burntsauce 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this interesting? If we are making unsourced, or poorly sourced claims about living people, it needs to be cleaned up. It can be cleaned up through careful editing, which is going to have the effect of removing any verifiability tags, or it can be removed by deletion, if the article doesn't fit our inclusion criteria, or if we cannot find enough reliable sources to write a proper one. Frankly, we should be a lot more concerned about unsourced claims about living people than we should about someone frivolously using {{verify}}. What terrible thing happens if someone puts {{verify}} on a scrupulously-sourced, neutral, encylopedic article? Jkelly 02:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the sort of thinking this vandal exploits. I had the same incredulous reaction at first until I looked into the matter in depth. Here's a rather clever vandal who's found a chink in our wikiarmor. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the above discussion, but instead answer the question posed in the title: yes, WP:BLP does definitely apply to proffesional wrestlers. --Iamunknown 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing in particular, half of what JB196 did/does needs doing, as many of the wrestler articles are garbage, and deleting them - particularly those of minor backyard wrestlers - loses nothing particularly useful (and it often helps). Neil (not Proto ►)

This was archived over the weekend, but I feel this should be discussed further. First, I take issue with someone above claiming the removal of WP:BLP violations to be vandalism or an "exploit" of sorts, while Jimmy Wales has made it explicitly clear on numerous occassions that he does not want unsourced material about living people in articles. Period. Secondly, should we be waiting any length of time before removing said unsourced statements? Should there be a polite grace period where articles are marked as being wholly unreferenced, and if so, for how long. Please note that there are literally hundreds of these articles lying out there, entirely without sources. Burntsauce 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, WP:BLP issues were not the problem. This thread segued into discussion of one very persistent sneaky vandal who makes frivolous use of WP:V and WP:RS and non-notability to degrade the site's database. Please review the long term vandalism report linked above and take this to my user talk page if you're still confused. This matter was investigated thoroughly and settled months ago. Durova^Charge! 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not interested in what some troll was doing, I'm asking for advice on how to best resolve the existing WP:BLP issue at hand. Burntsauce 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

American wrestlers are among the few pro wrestling subtopics this vandal doesn't target, so by all means apply WP:BLP ruthlessly. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been a huge fan of pro-wrestling all my life but have largely avoided wrestling articles here for a couple of reasons... First, most wrestling articles are high traffic articles frequently targeted by vandals and trolls. Most good faith edits are piss-poorly formatted and written, and in most cases are just hit-and-run IPs contributing their own fannish garbage with no intent of helping the Project. The pro-wrestling articles here provide excellent evidence of how a free-for-all wiki system can fail so miserably. The bad contributions are so god-awful in quality and so high in volume that anyone willing to maintain the pro-wrestling articles would spend all their time reverting crap, the 300 against the Persian hordes. And every time, the 300 loose.

The second huge issue, as pointed out above, is that of kayfabe and biographies. I have long felt that The Undertaker is not the same as Mark Callaway. One is a character, one is a performer. Dude Love/Mankind/Cactus Jack are characters, Mick Foley is a performer, and noted bestselling author. Mr. McMahon is a character, Vince McMahon is the executive of a multi-billion dollar, multi-national, multi-media and sports entertainment company.

The biggest step we can take as a project in the war to build a quality encyclopedia is to split every single wrestling bio into characters and people. Ric Fliehr the man and Ric Flair the character. Lillian Ellison the woman, and The Fabulous Moolah the character.

Professional wrestling is a genuine performing art with a rich and prestigious history and a global audience of scores of millions of people. Wikipedia has long proven that it can have a zillion articles, but the jury is till out on the quality and reliability issue, and always will be for pro-wrestling articles unless some drastic steps are taken. Due to the nature of kayfabe and the notoriously unreliable nature of pro-wrestling "news" reporting, the only way to satisfy BLP while still describing story lines is for a massive split. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro wrestlers are the bane of our life over on Wikiquote where we have been spammed with multiple articles containing unsourced and untraceable inane quotes (along the lines of "I'm going to get you" in millions of variations). Wikiquote's rules on speedy deletion being greatly restricted, they are all being brought before Votes for deletion and I think I'm right in saying that none, nada, nil, zilch have survived. What should Wikipedia do? I think hold to exactly the same standards as other articles, apply WP:BLP rigorously, and watch as the majority of the articles dwindle away to nothingness. No, pro wrestlers do not get excepted from other policies. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the general theme of this discussion. Of course, policies and guidelines such as [WP:BLP]], WP:BIO, and what's now WP:ATT apply fully to wrestling articles. Sandstein 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree - it is essential to separate fictional characters from the real people that play them, and the difficulty it seems some wrestling fans have in keeping the two separate only emphasizes the need for Wikipedia to do a better job of it. I believe that keeping an article on the character and an article on the wrestler/actor playing the part is near essential in keeping that division. After all, we certainly don't put the biography of a screen actor into the article of one of the characters we've played (although we certainly do make references between screen character and real-life person as necessary). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to note that there are also articles related to wrestlers where there is nothing verifiable known about the real life actor, and as such the only topic that can be reliably written about is the character they play. Also, if the only notable thing an actor has done is to appear as a particular wrestling character, then in most cases I would say the actor doesn't have enough independent notablity to justify an article. Dragons flight 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to any article!

Or, now that I've got your attention, I should rather say BLP applies to all articles. Its applicability, that is, does not in any way shape or form depend on which article. There is absolutely no rule that says "If the (a?) subject of the article is a living person, stricter rules about verifiability, no 3RR, etc, apply" (and if it's not, they don't apply?) Controversial unsourced claims about a living person in any article must be removed, and unsourced claims not about a living person in any article may be tagged instead. --Random832 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with removing original research by wrestling fans based on interpretation of primary sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about applying a different standard to statements about wrestling characters than about, say, movie characters, because they happen to share an article with their actor, so we can hide behind supposed "BLP concerns" (therefore 3RR doesn't apply, etc) - this is a principle which would have far-reaching consequences - you're basically saying that BLP is applicable by article rather than by topic, so it's not a BLP violation if i slander someone on my userpage, or in some other article that doesn't have their name on the title. --Random832 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I fully agree, as in fact it was me that suggested this change was made to {{Uw-biog1}}. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So taking the general approach that seems to be in favor here and apply it to say the article on Tom Hanks right?I would be fully justified in removing the following sections from that article

• The ”Early Life” section except for the first couple of paragraphs with sources on his kids
• The first section of ”Career” will TOTALLY have to go, unsourced and it’s all about his TV apperances without sources so that’s up for deletion.
• ”Period of hits and misses”?? Totally original research, I mean where are the sources that says what’s a hit and what isn’t
• ”Progression into dramatic roles” it has a quote by Tom Hanks that’s not sourced, if there isn’t a verifiable source he did not say it.
• "Forrst Gump" section, unattributed quote – just says ”Vanity Fair”, that’s a bit general. And it claims that Hanks won an Academy Award. Where is the source? The Award show you say? Sorry didn’t see it, it’s not available in stores and not on repeat so clearly by the strict rules that seem to be applauded here it’s got to go along with all other Oscar comments, not a single source in the bunch.
• Trivia Section? Blanked for lack of sources

I also see no sources on how much money the movies make, they’re mentioned all over in the text but they fail to include a reference every time a figure is mentioned except for one time at the very end.

If you think I’m being overly dramatic then I haven’t applied any logic or reasoning other than what’s been presented here and I’d say I’m in accordance with WP:BLP in blanking out major parts of the Tom Hanks article. MPJ-DK 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that the WP:BLP people seem so fond of quoting as an excuse to blank articles state that "contentious" material should be removed if it's unsourced. WP:BLP doesn't just say "Go on blank the whole page if it's not sourced", there is the word "contentious" to remember here, it makes a hell of a difference. Contentious as in "tending to argument or strife" or "characterized by argument or controversy", which in no way could be said to cover what finishing moves a certain wrestler uses, what titles he's won and whatever else seems to be deleted by invoking WP:BLP. It is a policy with a specific content, not a machete someone should indiscriminantly hack and slash with when there are little to no sources. MPJ-DK 14:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

IDGR

Would you please be kind enogh to have a look onto the lemma IDGR? An account with the handle Jesusfreund (friend of jesus) seems to be eager to delete prooven and well sourced informations, for sample see [14]. Please allow me to point out clearly in contrast to jesusfreunds edit summary that of course Margret Bezold-Chatwins name is still the same and never has changed as easyly can be proven [15], [16], [17] ... and so forth. (I can't tell exactly, if he's an inexperienced newbie or a vandal, momentarily I tend to assume good faith, but I might be wrong. Byzanz

New system for WP:RFCN

Just to let everyone know, there's a new procedure for WP:RFCN new RFCN procedure, it basically means that it's going to be run like AfD, where each username has it's own page, and all that is listed on the main page is a list of templates directing to the specific discussion page, new archival templates are then used to properly close the discussion. this will hopefully allow the closing admin to better justify themselve, and give a firm policy reason for their action, hopefully this will stop many of the currect current bureaucratic actions there. I'd suggest having a quick look at the RFCN page just to check on the new way it work. For clarification, here are the new templates

• {{RFCNdiscussion}} - this template is automatically added onto the specific discussion page when someone starts a new RFCN. Please be aware of the hidden comments.
• {{Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME}} - this template is to be used to put the specific RFCN page onto the main page, replace USERNAME with the username that is being discussed. This should be removed by the closer on archiving thediscussion.
• {{RFCNtop}} - this is the archive template which is put on the top of the relavent discussion page by the closer. The format should be {{subst:RFCNtop}} '''result''' (optional statement on reasons for closing) ~~~~. Please note, that only admins who have not commented on the username should close the discussion.
• {{RFCNbottom}} - this is the archive template which is put on the bottom of the relavent discussion page by the closer. The format should be {{subst:RFCNbottom}}.
• I've also changed the main template for the page to instruct on thenew system; {{RFCUsername}}. Please check the diffs to see whats changed.
• {{RFCNblocked|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME}}. This template can be used on the blocked users talk page to explain the block and give a direct link to the discussion. USERNAME should be replaced with the name of the blocked user.

If there's any problems you can see with it, let me know, or leave a note on WT:RFCN Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly object to running WP:RFCN like WP:AFD. All those !votes of "allow and deny" are really inappropriate. The page used to be a warning board for dodgy usernames, and at any rate the username policy is pretty clear cut on that. >Radiant< 09:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... the problem is unnecessary process. What is so bad about the current way these are handled? If a discussion gets too long to fit on a page, or too unruly to handle (even with refactoring), then it can get moved (as in the recent Fenian Swine situation). Why introduce all kinds of formal templates/tranclusions/subpages... etc.? This seems like a tremendously bad idea to give us more work. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree it seems to be taking on a life of it's own, really have people nothing better to do than read through the new user creation log looking for names which can be lawyered over? --pgk 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN should go back to what it was a year ago, not to even mention the latest. El_C 13:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, especially with pgk's point; unfortunately there's a small group of editors who haunt the page, trying to see how user names can be shown to conflict with policy, often offering bizarre arguments (a recent one: "TortureIsWrong" shouldn't be allowed because it's potentially offensive to BDSM-devotees(!); a current case is User:Fact verification — the claim is that newbies might be fooled into thinking he's an official...). given that RFCN has reached this stage, though, Ryanpostlethwaite's aproach helps to keep things tidy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel, your TortureIsWrong example was a dumb April Fool's comment that was quickly struck out - not really a typical example. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly struck out, but there was no sign at the time that it hasd been meant as an April Fool. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel, the primary argument against User:TortureIsWrong is the policy WP:U#Violence that says "Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions" are not allowed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That argument will do nicely to illustrate my point, I suppose; less extreme, but still a desparate stretch to apply policy to a name that is clearly unobjectionable. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

• I've changed the page to a much simpler version. Please take a look at it. Bureaucratic subcultures are not always a pretty sight. >Radiant< 13:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

While the most recent change in system was discussed and agreed upon, your rather major change was not Radiant, I have reverted it in the spirit of WP:BRD. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no effect on how we will discuss with the new method. It will make more concrete archives, and allow for better closers statements. As for how difficult it is now, well the people who actually participate in RFCN think it is a great idea. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The new system is the same way that other Rfc's are run as well, as HighInBC said, it gives concrete archives of discussions instead of just deleting it and archiving a diff. But unlike as you seam to suggest Radiant, the username policy isn't set in stone, and it is open to interpretation, if it wasn't, be could software block all usernames Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If it was an archival problem, then why not just fix the archival system, rather than drastically increase the amount of work required to seek other opinions on a person's username??? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense? --Ali'i 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not just an archival problem, there is a real need for a page that the closer can leave an explanation on, and a dedicated talk page to discuss the name/closing. What is more, it is not that hard, the people who actually participate in RFCN thought it was a great idea, check out WT:RFCN. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How often does a discussion need an explanation of why it was closed whichever way it was closed, and how often do people dispute the closing (as they would on these new "dedicated talk pages")? As I said above... certain long discussions can get a subpage, not all need them. As to the fact that "people who actually participate in RFCN thought it was a great idea", that just seems to discourage casual users who stumble across a name as I recently did. It is more work. Yesterday, I simply went to the RFCN page, and clicked the tab to create a new section, and asked for other opinions, dropped a note on the user's page, and was done. If I had stumbled across the name today, I would look at the process involved of creating new pages/transcluding them, etc. and said "fuck it", and ignored the problem. (On a side note, if a new request takes starting a new page, aren't we disallowing anons to ask for comments?) --Ali'i 14:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the new page hasn't resulted in any change to the process, but simply makes it more tidy and easily accessable. The process is no more diffciult than before, and probably should be easier. Coemgenus 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this is not an admin issue, so the correct place to discuss this would be at WT:RFCN where there is already a near unanimous consensus that this change is a good change. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I confess that I'm disturbed by this proliferation of bureaucracy and find it counterproductive. Is this great clanking mass effective? Have a flood of marginally-possibly-think-of-the-children offensive usernames been blocked? Mackensen (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if there's a negative trend lately, it's probably promotional business/trademark usernames. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and also several have gone through that should not have. Read through the archives or the WT:RFCN for details. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A good example is Pothead, a username that could potentially refer to drugs but also to a zillion other things. It would seem that many users get a first impression of Wikipedia along the lines of "Hey! your username is invalid! You must change it now!", and that RFCN does a lot of WP:BITEing. >Radiant< 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a certain amount of discussion about admins blocking names which is considered biting and leter RFCN later "overturns". To me an admin blocking (although undersiable if being overzealous), deals with the issue quickly and lets the user move on. If I were a new user I'd probably be far more put off by being dragged into some bureaucractic process immediately whilst people argue the letter of the law. --pgk 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the current process, a new user isn't "dragged into the process" without a discussion concerning their username first (via the 'UsernameConcern' template on their talk page, or equivalent.). RJASE1 ^Talk 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In the past that frequently hasn't been used (not sure about the current status I'll admit), I can't see it as much different in effect though, within a short time of creation names clearly are being taken through that process. --pgk 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, some folks new to the process sometimes don't give the user enough time to change their name (or explain the reasons for it) - or sometimes we just screw up. I haven't been perfect about this in the past, either - it's been a learning process. Usernames should only come to RFCN quickly if there's reasonably clear policy violation (but maybe not quite clear enough for WP:AIV). Of course people's opinions on "clear policy violation" will vary, as recent discussions have shown. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"HighInBC" sounds like another stonerism but I will agree with Radiant here. This is no point in wasting time arguing about the validity of usernames which have not made any edits, such as this case, where we have no way of knowing whether the user is a troll or whether he registered that name so he could disrupt marijuana related articles. It could be that that was User:Pothead12345's original plan and he forgot the password (for whatever... reason). At the very least I suggest limiting WP:RFCN to discussions of users which have actually made useful edits. — CharlotteWebb 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what stonerism has to do with username policy. Also, discussing a name then allowing it is not biting. The suggestion that usernames in violation of policy should be allowed if they have not made edits should go at WT:U. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I never made that suggestion. However, I did say that lengthy discussion of the usernames of unused accounts is a complete waste of time. If it's offensive, block it. If they are actually interested in helping the project, they'll be back under a more suitable username, and nobody will know who they were previously. This would be the least painful solution for everyone involved. — CharlotteWebb 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant's change of RFCN was made out of a misunderstanding of present procedure regarding username discussion. The usernames that Radiant is thinking of, that are clearly inappropriate, should be handled by WP:AIV, which is the equivalent of Radiant's change. RFCN is designed to be expressly for usernames that are borderline and require discussion to determine whether or not they comply with our username policies. Is RFCN sometimes inappropriately used? Of course it is, just like every other noticeboard or process on Wikipedia. That's not a good reason to oppose it entirely or engage in reckless bold editing without any sort of discussion on the relevant talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am >< close to mfd'ing the whole thing. Not only a waste of time, but users seem to get the idea that it's a democratic process (let alone the fact that common sense went out the window a long time ago). Patstuart^talk·edits 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was actually kind of thinking the same thing. If it's an obvious violation, any admin should be able to take care of it. It is much like Wikipedia:Quickpolls as I have heard of it. Kind of the same way the "Community sanction board" or whatever its name is. However, there are legitimate times when further comments (NOT straight votes) would be required, which is why I haven't MfD'd it. --Ali'i 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindented) The new policy is already being implemented, and is very successful, no need to debate about its merit. Wooyi 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Debate is fine. And processes can change (as evidenced over the past 2 days at RFCN), so nothing is final. --Ali'i 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

These subpages are a waste of time and effort. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now Mfd's this page, please raise all concerns their Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, I was considering doing it myself. Viridae^Talk 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Running with all those subpages seems like a waste. I wouldn't mind seeing it run with logpages though, ala tfd. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Enquiry re user's indefinite blocking as a sockpuppet

I've been contacted by a user who's found themselves indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. The checkuser report is here. None of the three third-party responses made there seems to support a ban; instead, there is a query, a decline and an inconclusive. I'd appreciate any advice as to whether or not this indefinite block is unwarranted. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've not looked at the edits, but if someone familiar with the contributions notices similarities with the edits, the checkuser evidence shows they're all coming from the same IP address, so even an inconclusive CU report can make a suspected case stronger as it can show whether the accounts are editing from the same location at the same time etc. -- Nick ^t 00:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Nick. I think the crucial distinction in this case might be the "at the same time" requirement. The user looks to've had their first account blocked for three months at the end of September last year, at which point they began editing under a second account and did not return to their first account once its three-month block had expired (at the end of December). So I'm not sure whether their current (second) account warrants the indefinite block it's just received...?  Regards, David (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not really a sockpuppet case. Indrancroos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 3 months for disruptive editing. He started editing as Wiki Raja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) almost immediately, so he was using the Wiki Raja account to evade the block on Indancroos. Whatever name he edits from, he needs to serve that 3 month block, which is why Aski great reblocked Indancroos and indef-banned Wiki Raja. If this editor wants to use the Wiki Raja account that's fine, just reset the block on Indancroos to indef and WIki Raja to 3 months; but he still has to serve the 3 month block that he evaded. Thatcher131 15:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Does he? That seems diametrically opposed to the concept of blocks being preventative, not punitive. I'm operating under the assumption that he has not maintained whatever activity got his first account blocked in the first place, since no one has made the assertion that he has. If that's the case, I see no reason to instate a block... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK#Evasion_of_blocks. Part of making blocks preventative rather than punative is enforcing them so that we don't suddenly have a rash of block-evading sockpuppets making the same argument. Thatcher131 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher131 and Bbatsell, for your input. I'm wondering, however, if it's unduly harsh to (re-)enforce a three-month block that originally expired at the end of December on an account that hasn't been used since then (User:Indrancroos); i.e. that anything amounting to evasion/sockpuppetry/etc needed to be found before then, otherwise the user involved has succeded in editing acceptably (whether under a new account or anon IP)...?  The user has told me that, block or no block, they no longer intended (or intend) to edit as User:Indrancroos, but at present it's their newer account, User:Wiki Raja, that's indefinitely blocked, not User:Indrancroos. Would it be unreasonable to block User:Indrancroos indefinitely and reinstate User:Wiki Raja on the above grounds...?  Advice appreciated, David (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Challenges of upholding WP:BLP policy

okay, this guy has blanked loads and loads of pages without consensus, there is loads of damage he has done I have noticed, this guy is upto no good, and is doing more damage probably as we speak. I have looked at the history he has done. Can we get an admin to revert every blanking of documents he has done because I see it as a serious problem. Regards Govvy 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion further up the page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What concerns me most is the reaction this is receiving. Take this comment for example from Govvy: "At any time you shouldn't remove large amounts of information from bio's even if it is wrong." After reading WP:BLP, how could someone possibly come to this conclusion? Burntsauce 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You require consensus to remove information, you have blanked over what? 50 wrestlers? information pages in your history, +500 have a look people. He is covering up his tracks by adding a load on the other end by reverts of real vandalism to cover his tracks!! Govvy 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Govvy has reported Burntsauce to WP:AIV over this matter. I turned down the request. - Alison^☺ 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Without Diffs provided it's hard to say which exact edits Govvy is referring to, but looking at Burntsauce's contributions on Wrestling related articles, I see removal of uncited or extremely poorly cited quotations, unsupported opinions the subjects supposedly have, and the like. That's not damaging the article; that's enforcing policy. What I see as a serious problem is letting unsourced material sit in articles and consensus to support unsourced text in biographical articles isn't consensus that in any way furthers the aims of the 'pedia.--Isotope23 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've spent the last week or so going through Category:American professional wrestlers and I'm up to 'H' to date. Well over 90% of the articles are unsourced, poorly sourced, or have a series of "references" that are external links but are not being used as footnotes. The referencing on wrestling related articles is largely non-existent, and the articles are full of original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my sources for his vandalism of blanking pages without consensus., Kenny Benkowski, Shelton Benjamin, Stephanie Bellars, Carlene Begnaud, Christopher Bauman, Bart Batten, Nicole Bass, Jeanne Basone, Doug Basham, Josh Barnett, J.C. Bailey, Buff Bagwell, Bob Backlund, Eric Angle, Gene Anderson, Gary Albright, Mike Awesome, Tony Atlas, Melissa Anderson, Skandor Akbar, David L. Abbott. Those are all the articles in question, you need to view history, see his action and work around what I might be seeing. Thank you. Govvy 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney does BurntSource belong to you? Govvy 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to file a checkuser, and be proved wrong. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

None of that is vandalism. Burntsauce removed content that was not sourced and didn't meet one of our policies. On at least one of those articles an admin came along and protected the version that Burntsauce had edited to. We don't leave unsourced material in an article sitting around and waiting for a source. We find sources, then add material to articles. There is nothing here that requires admin intervention.--Isotope23 17:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it all looks different to me, to me I see vandalism. Govvy 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read WP:BLP? Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I want to echo Mackensen, Please take some time to read WP:BLP and WP:ATT, they do not support your position that this is vandalism.--Isotope23 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read it, the sourcing of information in wrestling is from the source itself and can be transferred direct to context of biographies. The information provided is normally truthful and fact based. Removal of large amounts of information even know it may be unsourced without or citing to request source is against consensus. There hasn't been added any period, there for his action as a result are classed as vandalism because he didn't include source request or tag/refer or ask for source information and allow the standard period for which is required to gather the resource links. Govvy 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, the information being added is primarily from TV shows which are not repeated, otherwise known as original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And does "TV shows" include pay-per-views, which when held by either WWE or TNA are released on DVDs and sold through nation-wide stores (i.e. Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy)? Nenog 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest another reading of WP:ATT here... You are absolutely free to gather the resource links to cite the text, which is all in the article history, but we don't leave uncited text in biographies waiting for someone to come along and source it. The onus is on the person adding the text to source their additions.--Isotope23 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hackney. After reading above, yes I agree with some of it, no I feel you shouldn't be able to erase massive amounts of information without cause. As for wrestlers, I can see that you would call it a different reality, but if you're just looking at the sport side, you should understand that these people worked hard to get where they are, they won belts and pushed their body to the limit. You can say unsourced but for WWE wrestlers, all the information has a backup with wwe.com and other top wrestling sites. There are starting to have books about it, but sourcing such information, have links for all the information will be hard to do considering that news agencies don't really source wrestling. I am really starting to see the limitations of wrestling articles on wikipedia. Now I am starting to feel that I should stay away from it altogether!! Govvy 18:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not impossible to source things. Regarding recent events at least, information gets added to articles on a regular basis after some editors have seen it on TV or a DVD. If the same information was added with a cite from a website which has the necessary information on, problem solved. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the news agencies shouldn't matter a bit. If there are books or portions of wwe.com (other than forums of course), that source info in these articles than you have sources right there. The next step is to cite these sources.--Isotope23 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, BLP says controversial material should be removed. What in the Bryan Danielson article was controversial enough for almost the entire article to be blanked? TJ Spyke 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution policy says: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Have you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-02/Errors and publicity? If we cannot provide a solid reference for the material, we shouldn't be printing it. Burntsauce 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't say you should just blank entire articles, that can (and should be) considered vandalism. Maybe I should consider giving vandalism warnings for these blankings, or I can go to articles on people like Tom Cruise and remove every single statement that isn't sourced. Maybe you should try improving WP rather than hurting it Burntsauce. TJ Spyke 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say removing the vast amount of original research and cruft added by wrestling fans is an improvement personally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How can any sane person call blanking everything except for the infobox an IMPROVEMENT? I think I will start handing out vandalism warnings like {{subst:test2a}}. TJ Spyke 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Handing out spurious warnings isn't going to do anybody any good. Removal of unsourced information is an improvement when it comes to real people who may be affected by our actions. If you wish to "save" the material, find a source for it. Frise 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information that isn't verified is of no use to the reader, therefore the removal of it is an improvement. It should also be noted that simply adding a couple of external links to a long article is not referencing, especially when the links in question do not source the majority of the article. Stubbing the articles and them being re-written from sources is improving the articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I stated this above but it's fitting here as well since this discussion seems to really go off kilter with regards to WP:BLP and everything.

"Let me add that the WP:BLP people seem so fond of quoting as an excuse to blank articles state that "contentious" material should be removed if it's unsourced. WP:BLP doesn't just say "Go on blank the whole page if it's not sourced", there is the word "contentious" to remember here, it makes a hell of a difference. Contentious as in "tending to argument or strife" or "characterized by argument or controversy", which in no way could be said to cover what finishing moves a certain wrestler uses, what titles he's won and whatever else seems to be deleted by invoking WP:BLP. It is a policy with a specific content, not a machete someone should indiscriminantly hack and slash with when there are little to no sources. "MPJ-DK 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:A, the burden of evidence is on those wishing to retain the material. I would suggest under the circumstances a more productive use of your time would be sourcing the offending articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah so now it's WP:A and not WP:BLP that's used? Consider this - if it's NOT contentions material, then maybe we're all better off sourcing articles instead of having to recreate it first it after its' been blanked out by someone. But I'm glad to see that you admit that WP:BLP isn't actually an argument for rampant blanking, good that we can agree on that :-)

I would love to find a "detal level" for what needs to be sourced because it seems to be arbitrary how much needs to be sourced MPJ-DK 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition quoting WP:A that is a favorite, "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." So once again NOT an excute to just blank out articles. quotations and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, so like WP:BLP it's "Contentious" material. MPJ-DK 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I am in TOTALL agrrement that ANY unsourced material in biographies is open to deletion. This project has grown like wild fire in the last 12 months. Maybe its time to clean up, provide sources and improve the quality since the quantity part has exploded. Just my 2 cents, cheers!--Tom 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Something that Jimbo said on the mailing list sums this up nicely. What is needed here is more effort put into finding sources and adding them to the articles and less time trying to justify why we should turn a blind eye to unsourced material because it is difficult to find sources.--Isotope23 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for finding sources, I'm not saying "turn the blind eye" - I'm saying "don't just summarily blank pages for lack of sources" neither WP:A nor WP:BLP support that practices. I could be finding sources instead of trying to stop people vandalizing pages by blanking them without good reason MPJ-DK 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Every single email written by Jimmy Wales that I have ever read supports the practice of aggressively removing material which is not attributed to reliable sources. I'm not sure how many more times it needs to be said. Burntsauce 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay this has got ridiculous - you quote WP:BLP as a reason to blank articles. I point out that's not what it says. Then you quote WP:A as a reason, again I point out that's not what it says - so now flying in the face of OFFICIAL policy you go on about e-mails instead? wikilawyer much you think? it's amazing that BOTH policies you used to as an excuse are now ignored - what happened to you "Defending the standards and policies of Wikipedia"?? I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous, stop wasting people's time so we can actually do so real work and not just bow to your whims. MPJ-DK 06:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And since you used it as a source here is the words of Jimmy Wales as your excuse to blank out pages "I hope the horse I am beating is still alive: we have to be absolutely ruthless about removing "I think I heard it somewhere" pseudo-information from Wikipedia, and especially from biographies." - as he said "I heard it somewhere" information, not "I saw it on Wrestling show X" information, rumors - not something that's been shown on TV etc. and not ALL information on a page, just the "I think I heard it somewhere" type of stuff. Your own source for blanking Gary Albright doesn't even back up your actions so could you PLEASE stop doing a general blanking of articles? MPJ-DK 07:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Key words - "been on TV". Not repeated, therefore can't be verified. Perhaps if you stopped adding original research based on your first hand viewing of primary sources it would be best? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering when WP:BLP and WP:A and "Jimmy's Mail" was going to be replaced by the "Original research" argument, your fallback position to everything. The point here is about NOT BLANKING PAGES when no policy supports it - by all means tag it as unsourced like you have been doing, by all means prod articles that haven't been sourced after giving people reasonable time to provide sources. But don't just blank out a page and use "No Original Research" as an excuse (or WP:BLP or WP:A or "Jimmy's Mail) because there is no grounds for that. And that's what we're discussing here, not whether Wrestling biographies are considered "original research" but if the practice of blanking uncontroversial, unsourced material is allowed or if it's vandalism. MPJ-DK 08:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And show me the part on "No Original Research" that says recapping events on TV is considered "Original Research", it's a "recap" not "research". MPJ-DK 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, what do you mean not to be repeated? Normally anything that has been on TV is prone to be repeated!! Govvy 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban trend

File:Ban trend.PNG

Ban trend up to March 2007

After a few hours of work and referencing, I have come up with some data on banning trends.

A tool used against persistently disruptive editors and egregious violators alike since June 10 2002, it was sporadically used for the first 3 years and 3 months of its existence before picking up momentum beginning around November 2005. The establishment of a near-dedicated area of discussion for bans, the community sanction noticeboard, only further fed this trend, reaching an unprecedented 11 indefinite bans imposed in March 2007 alone, or about 1 ban every 2.819 days. A chart showing the trend of indefinite bans imposed by Jimbo Wales, ArbCom, and the community is shown at the right.

Whether this trend is considered a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I venture to guess that over time the community has realized the increasing value of weeding out the problematic elements (editors) towards overall project cohesion and has gotten better and better at spotting when such elements make themselves evident. 11 vs. ~ 1000 active editors = 0.1 % over a month strikes me as low. (→Netscott) 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How does this trend compare to the increase in editing, as measured in terms of number of active editors, number of edits, or any other way of measuring you can come up with? --Carnildo 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the absolute number of bans per month is of little interest since we now have far more active editors per month than we did in 2002. It may well be that editors are now less likely than ever to be banned despite the fact that there are more bans than there were. The really useful number is the percentage of active editors banned per month. This would show whether the chances of an editor being banned had risen or fallen since 2002. Time for a recalculation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Higher profile + more editors + vastly more articles = more bans. Not a surprise. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Ban vs editing.png

Same as above with comparison to editing trend.

Added comparison to editing trend (I have incomplete statistics on editing, but this is only for a generalization). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How are you identifying bans? Obviously it is not identical to an indef block (which are far more common), but I didn't think there was an centralized record keeping of bans. Dragons flight 01:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There actually is. Please see WP:BANNED. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is anyone being banned who should not be? If not, then I'm not concerned about the number. — coelacan — 04:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I went and read through the BANNED category, and they are all legit IMO. What is interesting is just how de jure the process is, but de facto the banned users just engage in a sock chase. Food for thought. Teke 04:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Banning only serves as the "green light" to revert all edits made by a user under any disguise. It's not a stop sign towards the banned user (well, it's supposed to be, but experience tells us this practically isn't the case). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Quite right. But the ban isn't so much a technical matter as a way of demonstrating there is community consensus to green-light certain defensive behavior that would not otherwise be allowed: reverting the person's edits outright (banned users cannot edit, but nicely behaved socks of indef blocked users sometimes are given this leeway), taking their socks to checkuser if necessary (checkusers ask to see proof of a ban), blocking their socks even if they're "behaving" (users are permitted to return from indef blocks if they completely cease the behavior that got them blocked, but we use bans when they've demonstrated they have no intent to cease). So yeah, they still sock, but the ban green-lights some things we wouldn't otherwise do. It's a formalized way of saying AGF has been reasonably exhausted. — coelacan — 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not only just reasonably, but oftentimes completely in most cases. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, certainly. If it comes down to a bannation I doubt it would ever resolve peacefully, with no quells or troubles. Personally I think more users could be technically, by policy, easily banned. I agree that it's a general "We're fed up" and it does allow for unilateral action. As previous opinions by Arbitrators says, these blocks for disruption are expected of administrators, as well as the blocking policy. In other words, the banning policy is its own force, but if we're just doing our job than there are many users that are effectively banned/indef blocked. It's a vague idea in my mind that I'm trying to express, so I hope everyone understands. Teke 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The consensus that drove the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline was that a significant proportion of editors who deserved banning weren't getting banned and were instead driving good editors out of the project. Although the arbitration process has a valuable place in Wikipedia, sometimes arbitration devolved into a huge waste of everybody's time. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors is a prime example especially in its page histories. One of the reasons I cowrote that guideline and proposed WP:CN is because, as a practical matter, ArbCom already operates pretty much at capacity. Jimbo used to do all the banning himself. By early 2004 that was too much for one person and ArbCom got started, but the site has grown tremendously in the three years since then. Not only is Wikipedia larger in absolute terms, but its emergence as a dominant site on the Internet now makes it a target for commercial exploitation as well as good ol' ideological exploitation. Unfortunately, many PR consultants these days are advising their clients to violate site policies. Journalists are setting and recommending the wrong examples. In my opinion it's absolutely necessary for the community to shoulder a good deal of the banning responsibilities and to do so in a venue where cases get archived for easy reference. Of course many banned editors want to tiptoe back on sockpuppets, but we've set things up so that it's a lot more work for them to do that than for us play whack-a-mole: indef block the sock, revert the sock's edits, and protect a few pages. Eventually they get tired of the game. Durova^Charge! 14:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy re. use of Wikipedia shortcuts?

Hi all. Just a quick question.

I've just observed an editor make their own [[WP:xxx]] shortcut to redirect to a sort of personal WikiProject in their own userspace. They then referred to the shortcut in a comment to another editor to justify their editing of some of that editor's userspace stuff; "per WP:nnn ..., thus I ...". This seems a little misleading to me, and I'm concerned. Looking at WP:CUTS, I don't see anything specific which should disallow that, although it is highly unorthodox. What do you think? - Alison^☺ 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOKU used to redirect to my userspace when the WikiProject was still in its developmental stages. I don't see anything wrong with it, so long as it does get moved into the Wikipedia space.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes has compiled a list of WP: shortcuts to userspace here. Like Ryulong, I don't see a problem with it as long as it's not something that shouldn't be associated with the Wikipedia namespace (however subjective that is). If that's the case, a quick RfD would probably take care of it, methinks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Now here's the second question. What if the target page is using a title override, to remove the "User:XXX/subpage/" bit, leaving only "WikiProject:YYY"? — coelacan — 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• That would be misleading, having a page imply greater officiality than it does, and should be changed. >Radiant< 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Looks like the practise is one of those grey areas but is allowable. Note that the issue has now been referred to by someone else on WP:ANI [18]. Thanks again - Alison^☺ 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• When in doubt, you can put the redirect on WP:RFD. I think that in general WP: should redirect to Wikipedia: namespace, but it's not that big a deal. I suppose it could be abused, hence the RFD option. >Radiant< 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though I would not have a problem with a WP: shortcut redirecting to a meta or mediawiki.org page. User space seems kind of slimy. —ptk✰fgs 13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance needed to fix move issue

Resolved

On March 7 user User:Lasreeram moved EFD (eFunds Corporation) to EFD (EFunds Corporation), then likely felt this was a mistake so copied the contents of the second page back to the first and continued editing the first. In other words, this effectively moved the edit history of the first article to the newly created article. The second article hasn't had a substantial edit since then. I believe that the first article has the correct title, so I would propose that the edit history prior to March 7 be moved back to "eFunds" and "EFunds" be made a redirect or be deleted. Ciotog 06:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste move repaired. Viridae^Talk 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

I'm concerned about what I believe to be biased editing by at least one editor in articles and stubs related to the disputed region of Transnistria. References and category listings relating to one or other side in the dispute are being deleted with refs and cats supporting the other inserted in their place. Spellings of place names are changed, sometimes with the resultant loss of links. Text is being added elaborating aspects of the dispute that are probably best served under the main Transnistria article, the motivation appearing to be support to one side in the dispute.

I've made a few attempts to make the articles more balanced/NPOV but if I continue I fear it could just turn into an editing war. Also, on looking further into this there would seem to be a fairly large number of articles and edits affected and I simply don't have sufficient time to deal with them all (particularly currently as I'm on a dial-up and without use of my own computer). I suppose I could slap disputed-neutrality templates over all the affected articles and leave them but that would only be a limited solution and I don't like the idea of leaving these articles in a questionable state. Can someone with more experience give some advice? Mutt Lunker 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should have a bot report this one every couple of weeks, on principle. That article is a constant source of partisan conflict, and the people who know most about the subject tend all to be deeply involved one way or the other. I'd suggest finding a couple of admins or long-standing editors on each side, to hack out a compromise, but I have a horrible suspicion they are all there already. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy to have a look at it after Easter. I've had a lot of experience in hacking out compromises on Yugoslavia-related articles, so I'm sure I could probably do something similar for this one. -- ChrisO 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nice to know that you'll take a look. I had no idea what a can of worms I was opening with this topic as there is a known puppeteer involved and I'm now being accused of being a sockpuppet. Even less motivation for me to take any further part I'm afraid... Mutt Lunker 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Page move while protected?

Wikipedia:Polling was moved to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion by User:JzG while it was in a protected state. This after being summoned to the content dispute by one of the disputing parties. Wikipedia:Protection policy is clear about not doing that. (→Netscott) 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Or to put it another way, Netscott moved the page without prior discussion, got it protected through edit warring, and is now complaining that the undiscussed move has been reverted by an uninvolved party. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• (via edit conflict) Guy's move seems entirely correct, as the page was moved - by you - with only a "WP:BRD" as rationale and protected six minutes later in response to your request on WP:RPP made at the old title. If anyone's actions here are indefensible, it is your own. —Cryptic 14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• When you are summoned by one of the disputing parties you are no long "uninvolved" JzG you should know better. The RFPP was done at 8:15 (four hours before the page was protected) I did not coordinate it's protection. (→Netscott) 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• The move was done unilaterally, with minimal discussion and no agreement. The previous page name was a compromise reached after much discussion by many editors. Since the page move borders on WP:POINT it seems perfectly appropriate for an admin to reverse, protected or not. --Minderbinder 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What I see is that the page was called "Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion" for quite a while, then Netscott requested protection, moved this to Wikipedia:Polling with the reasoning of WP:BRD, and the article was protected (and I'm not suggesting this was coordinated). Radiant contacted JzG and JzG moved it back to the original name with this reasoning. So, what I see as someone completely uninvolved here is one wrong version vs another wrong version. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see this as a big deal. Besides, the move was done per WP:BRD and since the protection circimvented the continuation of that, Guy used his mop to move on to the revert stage and now it looks like there is discussion. I'd say the process worked.--Isotope23 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As an essay WP:BRD is never going to trump protection policy. Other than that Isotope your analysis is not too bad. Again, JzG misused the mop here. (→Netscott) 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Isotope was saying that your move was based on WP:BRD, not Guy's. Isotope can correct me if I erred in my reading of this. --Ali'i 14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you (Netscott) were directly quoting m:The wrong version in the talk page discussion, I'm somewhat surprised at this reaction. I agree with Mindbender above, except that I "might" consider the move that led to this one a WP:BOLD action (rather than a WP:POINT action), one which Radiant! often does, as well : ) - jc37 14:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It was entirely a bold action as there is now talk about merging Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion with Wikipedia:Straw polls. Much like the current version of WP:ATT guidelines for polling and PNSD would occupy the same page and have shortcuts to their corresponding sections. All of this is no doubt stemming from Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. (→Netscott) 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any mis-action on Guy's part. I disagree that being called in by an involved party makes you involved. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Ali'i, yes that is exactly what I was saying (I sort of forgot the word "initial" in there). From where I stand, Guy was just seeing the initial WP:BRD reasoning to it's logical conclusion here. That is just my outside interpretation and it's not about an essay "trumping" policy. If Guy's actions were somehow destructive to the endeavor of creating an encyclopedia, this would be an issue... but really, in the grand scheme of things, if this sits at Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion or Wikipedia:Polling for the next several days/weeks while this discussion happens this isn't going to make or break the 'pedia. We don't have to blindly follow policy just because it is written.--Isotope23 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion seems to be a waste of time that could be more profitably spent discussing the actual guideline. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Darwinek's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means (RfA) or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Darwinek is placed on standard civility parole for one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The future of WP:RFCN proposals

There have been proposals put forward at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names#Possible restructure as to how RFCN should be used in the future. I have also created User:Ryanpostlethwaite/AIV/U which would take over from RFCN and create a new alert board, soley for usernames, which would run the same way as AIV and be assissted by the AIV helperbot, users could post their concerns, admins could take a look, block if required or remove if it was not against policy, all other debates on usernames could take place at WP:AN. Please take a close look at all proposals, and feel free to make suggestions on how username problems can be addressed in the future Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cub Wikipedians

In the past two days, I have seen some strange activity regarding Category:Cub Wikipedians at WP:CFD:

• The category was nominated for deletion on 4 Apr 2007 by User:PatPeter (see the discussion here).
• Several people accused User:PatPeter of emtying the category himself.
• The discussion was closed by User:WJBscribe on 5 Apr 2007.
• User:PatPeter nominated the category for deletion a second time on 5 Apr 2007 (see the discussion here).

I myself have no viewpoints regarding this category. However, given these series of events, this looks like an uncivil (and possibly disruptive) debate, and it looks like it needs administrative intervention. Could a neutral administrator please intervene in this argument before it becomes too disruptive? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this request for an uninvolved administrator to evaluate this. — coelacan — 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ip trolling to harass editors

One person appears to be using open proxies to harass various editors on wikipedia. Seen here, [19], here [20], here[21] and here [22], and every time one particular Ip is blocked a new ip appears and disrupts again, the pages have been protected now but I would like various admin talk pages to be kept an eye on for this particular kind of vandalism. Retiono Virginian 18:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• 81.77.206.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 84.71.146.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 84.67.180.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 84.65.112.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 80.43.122.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (I think this is one of them, seeing as they just replaced my talkpage with 'AKA DA AK 47', probably because I blocked 2 of the IPs. Hilarious stuff. – Riana ^ऋ 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

If these are open proxies, somebody can just indefblock them all. They need to be confirmed, though, and I suck at that kind of stuff. The IPs in question are replacing talk pages with "WANKER!" with five or six <big> tags on them. El C just semi-protected Jimbo's talk page, too. PTO 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)This has necesitated sprotection of User talk:Jimbo Wales, User talk:Doc glasgow, User talk:Wiki alf, User talk:The JPS, and my own talk page. I know less than zero about open proxies or how to identify them, which is why I haven't indef blocked them. If someone with more technological ability could talk a look, that would kick ass. Natalie 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since most of the pages the anon hit have been semiprotected for now, the urgency's reduced, but it would be good if someone could confirm whether they're open. – Riana ^ऋ 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The protections and blocks are all only for 24 hours, I think, so their is still some need of timeliness. Natalie 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A complete whois of the IPs shows that the IP range that these IPs are contained in is probably dynamic, but it is probably not an open proxy or zombie. PTO 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, these are Energis UK DSL allocations. I've never heard of Energis, but I'd suspect that these are dynamic IP's and blocking them for longer than 15 minutes won't do much good. Best bet it to monitor the articles when semi drops off and see if the vandalism continues.--Isotope23 19:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dang. This would be so much easier if it was an open proxy. Natalie 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

They started yesterday going after my talk page. 84.71.112.46 was the first. Then 84.67.58.164, 84.68.9.143, and so on. By the time 84.64.252.250 appeared, he had started harassing Yamla. Apparently, he has spread his campaign even wider. IrishGuy ^talk 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: A new IP has appeared and began attacks on User:Wiki alf's userpage. The same addition of "Wanker" in large text. This must stop. Retiono Virginian 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• User:81.79.160.76

• (ec) Also 81.79.160.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - blocked now - Alison^☺ 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If it starts being a real problem, try an IP Checkuser request. We've rangeblocked ISP's before where the collateral damage is minimal compared to the level of disruption the individual is fostering with this "vandalize, log, vandalize, log, vandalize" tripe.--Isotope23 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• 86.147.68.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just hit this page. Blocked - Alison^☺ 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be no pattern to the IP vandalism (I.E., not a good way to do a range block). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

81.77.108.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)- also involved. Retiono Virginian 20:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

90.240.245.205 just hit my talk page again. I blocked him. IrishGuy ^talk 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that blocking really doesn't help, and protecting pages has just caused them to move on to other pages. Is it time to contact the ISP? Natalie 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. IrishGuy ^talk 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• User: 84.71.47.25 - THe next in line. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This edit by the IP is telling - I'd say that indicates that they are very deliberately trying to get around the various anti-vandalism rules and processes we use. Natalie 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock denied for obvious reasons. He certainly knows what he's doing, though. Contact the ISP, please, anything to get rid of this muppet. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

IP comment reverted: we don't cut deals with trolls and vandals. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Where's that going to stop? - Alison^☺ 20:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you beat me to the revert. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd almost guarantee this is an indef blocked or banned editor who Irishguy et al have run across before.--Isotope23 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most likely. As he seems particularly pissed at me...my bad, guys. IrishGuy ^talk 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Errm, nope! Their bad, actually. It's hardly your fault they're being ... well, a wanker - Alison^☺ 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont see how its yoir bad! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not your bad: see Number 26 of this and Number 12 of this. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've had angry vandals repeatedly target me, but I never expected a vandal to just go on a spree like this one is doing. I'm just saying...if I am responsible for pissing this guy off, I apologize to everyone who is inconvenienced by him. IrishGuy ^talk 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK...if it is time to contact his ISP, which one do we contact? He appears to be using two completely different ISPs. One in Leeds, United Kingdom the other in Muenchen, Germany. IrishGuy ^talk 20:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the bottom of the German one where it says "Energis UK". The German company apparently bought out Energis (the Leeds one) fairly recently... I'd start with reporting it to Engergis UK.--Isotope23 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You may have some meatpuppets involved as well - 80.43.122.183 is registered to Tiscali/as9105.com, for instance. Even if all the IP's belong to various subsidiaries of Cable & Wireless (which bought Energia), that is a surprising range of IPs to be getting from disconnect/reconnect. - Quietvoice 20:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

90.242.17.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) it continues... Natalie 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

81.158.32.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well. Natalie 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. After a brief lull he seems to have started back up again on Yamla's talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So, did anyone actually get in touch with the ISP? I wouldn't want to duplicate effort (or annoy the people at the ISP with too many emails) but if that hasn't happened someone (maybe someone with some experience in that area) should do so. Natalie 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not be bullied out of my right to free speech by threats of complaints--84.66.19.51 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Only problem is, you don't have the right to free speech on this site. Nice try though. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes I do :) --84.66.19.51 22:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No you don't. Read your local copy of the United States Constitution if you wish. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

From the information provided, it seems quite likely that the user concerned is not in the USA, and so the issue of whether the USA constitution applies is not completely certain. Nevertheless, these actions might well fall into the area of relevance of some UK statutes. I do hope the ISP is contacted about the disruption.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

True, the IP above is traced to London. But the Wikipedia servers are in the United States (specifically, Florida), so US laws should apply to the English Wikipedia. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me if necessary. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This thread is completely irrelevant. —Centrx→talk • 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. —Centrx→talk • 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I also report:

• 90.240.37.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.77.77.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.76.109.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.76.29.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.242.52.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.241.40.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.79.83.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

All have been blocked. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. These aren't open proxies, just very dynamic IPs with wide ranges. I believe these four WHOIS links contain one from each range I've seen, so far: 84.64.0.0/13, 80.40.0.0/13, 90.240.0.0/12, and 81.77.128.0/17. Could be multiple people, given the wide spread, but that doesn't seem certain. Let's see if semi holds. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's already been established; these are not open proxies, just an annoyingly configured ISP. —Centrx→talk • 05:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually they were vandalizing my talk page. I deliberately did not protect it to see what IPs the user would use. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Add one more, then, 81.79.0.0/17 (or possibly 81.78.0.0/15, WHOIS mentions both, but I haven't recognized anything outside the narrower set). As far as I know, this has been a problem since at least yesterday? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

M16 rifle original research dispute.

User Rhilliam has produced the following edit four times: [23], [24], [25], and [26]. He has represented it as original research here: [27] and refuses to remove it. I've reverted three times and tried to discuss it civilly with the user, however I've not been successful. Thank you for your time. --Asams10 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've pitched in my comments. Though I think this belongs in WP:AN/I rather than here. x42bn6 Talk 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah WP:AN/I is the right place for this. Regardless, I removed the WP:OR and contacted the editor about WP:3RR and WP:ATT.--Isotope23 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help, but see http://www.google.com/search?q=LSA+Semi-fluid+M-16 for the one claim, and http://www.google.com/search?q=M-16+aluminum+%28jam+%7C+jams+%7C+jamming+%7C+jammed%29 for the other. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Only a problem is the information is challenged. You can go too far, you know ;-) --Kim Bruning 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Except for the rivets discussion, but you can still argue that out without documentation if you have to *sigh*.

Deletion processes backlogged

Stuff proposed for deletion is backlogged three days: March 29, March 30 and March 31. AFD is also backlogged with afds for March 28, March 29, March 30 (12 remaining) and March 31 needing closing. Let's use this Easter weekend to help clean out some of the crap. MER-C 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the backlog, but I'll be back tomorrow with more flammable materials for the forest fire. MER-C 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Request at User talk:75.92.75.126

I left a {{drmafd1}} note at this talk page after the IP removed an AfD template from Items and concepts in FLCL. Not much later, a note appeared from an individual asking for the "Apache httpd logs" for the IP contributions, so that the user on their end could be identified. Setting aside the fact that this was not serious vandalism, and I don't think the employee should be terminated, the user has requested an administrator who knows how the Apache httpd logs can be obtained. I'm not familiar with what he's asking for (and I doubt that an administrator would have access if regular users don't), but could someone who knows what they are please talk to him? If you could, also stress that this was not serious vandalism. Leebo ^T/C 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I very highly doubt that'd fly -- see the privacy policy, that sort of information is only ever released to particular people in particular circumstances, if ever. You'd need to get in touch with the devs, for a request like that, although I anticipate they'll tell you pretty much the same thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured that would be the case. I was doubtful that that kind of information was available to any editor. I'm going to inform him, because I don't see the point in going to such lengths for an edit that wasn't even severe vandalism. Leebo ^T/C 03:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the Apache logs will reveal much. Here is a typical entry:

69.117.101.214 - - [22/Apr/2006:12:37:32 -0400] "GET /test.zip HTTP/1.1" 200 7714232 "http://72.136.70.187" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"

It contains the IP address (obviously 75.92.75.126), date and time, operating system, and browser. Unless the employer had a different operating system and browser combo for each computer, this information will be useless. --Bowlhover 05:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be useful. For example, X-Forwarded-For headers can tell who's accessing Wikipedia through a proxy, and the browser ID string can be revealing. --Carnildo 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we keep apache logs (or at least not for that long due to the size we would generate). Not to mention given the amount of apaches and squids we have it could take a huge amount of time to find. --pgk 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XXL (band)

It was closed with the following, figured i'd pass it along. Just H 08:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The result was keep, despite the best efforts of JzG to get it deleted. John Reaves (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"

Just a joke, light-hearted, a comment on JzG's veracity, more of a compliment if any thing. I would've appreciated a note at my user talk page by the way. John Reaves (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was despite my best efforts to get it sourced or not a directory entry. Wikipedia is not, as far as I'm aware, a directory of Eurovision bands. If this article still has no non-trivial independent sources in a month I will nominate it again, and for precisely the same reason. It's all very well saying "keep and expand" as some did, but when they cannot cite a single source from which it could be expanded, that is a rather pointless !vote. Nor was I the only one arguing for deletion on the grounds of lacking non-trivial independent sources. The only truly reliable independent source is a book which lists all the bands that played Eurovision - that is, a book which establishes the notability of Eurovision, which was never in doubt. WP:N: "A notable topic should be the subject of substantial and non-trivial published source material which is reliable and independent of the subject." This has been the subject of virtually nothing. So it should probably be merged to an article on that year's Eurovision, rather than kept as an unsourced and unsourceable article on a band which has precisely one hit, will never have another, and vanished without trace after they failed to win the competition.

I really don't think it's an especially controversial view that we should not have articles on bands that have no significant external coverage. We delete dozens of such articles every day. The band is not notable, the competition is, we already have an article on the competition.

Is there any particular reason you felt the need to share this here, by the way? Guy (Help!) 10:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that John should not make such comments in his deletion closings, and that this closing is brought to WP:DRV because the arguments to delete (lack of sources) were stronger than the arguments to keep - or alternatively, we could resolve this by merging/redirecting to Eurovision. >Radiant< 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• I argued to keep, but I agree with Radiant's comment. Nothing personal against John though, I think it was just an honest mistake to say that, I can see how it can be misconstrued. Just H 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not offended in any way, just to be clear. I laughed. I thought he was referring to the fact that I speedied it, it was reposted, and then I AFDd it. But yes, the arguments for keep did not seem to me to be founded on policy. A merge would be fine, the source about Eurovision is a more than adequate source for the fact of this band having performed that year. We just don't have any non-trivial independent sources about the band. Incidentally, a small group of editors are trying to rewrite the central notability criterion to explicitly allow single-sourcing, which I think is a very bad idea. See {{pnc}} and WT:N. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I don't see any problems with a merge, probably would have been the best way to close it anyway. John Reaves (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

This post refers to the recent move request Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Shatt al-Arab or Arvandrud or Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud.

The move request discussion has already been closed.

• First, Tariqabjotu considered that the result is move to Shatt al-Arab, giving as reasons that the discussion was not a vote and that it had been conclusively demostrated that Shatt al-Arab is a far more common name in the English language (the main criteria upon which our naming conventions rely). – (See examples of usage).

• But then, Khoikhoi considered that the result is no consensus (i.e. keep at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab), giving as reason that "there still doesn't appear to be a clear-cut consensus for the page move".

From his short explanation, my personal impression is that Khoikhoi is disregarding the arguments expounded, and effectively treating the move request as a vote with 8 against the move and 7 for the move. Of course, I could have misinterpreted Khoikhoi's reasoning.

In order to get as much imput as possible, and thus archive a better, clear consensus on what the result of the discussion is, I'm posting this notice here in addition to the one I previously posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Let's all be patient, wait to see what other administrators' and users' views on the issue are, and avoid any revert until a clear consensus is formed :-) Best regards, Ev 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no clear-cut consensus to move the page. There were 8 votes to keep the page at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab, 3 votes to move it to a similar title Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud, and only 7 votes to move it to Shatt al-Arab. Therefore, Khoikhoi acted correctly. --Mardavich 11:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But a move request is not a vote, and none of those 7 or 8 opinions against the move were based on our current naming conventions, but rather in the belief that all official names should be included in the title.

All policy and guidelines-based arguments were in favour of the move. - Best regards, Ev 12:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is a guideline, not a policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is a guideline, not a policy. And according to this, "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." Khoikhoi 12:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Wikipedia:Naming conventions is policy (read the top), and the operative phrase in the sentence you quote is, of course "no good reason to change it" - which doesn't apply here, because "use English" is a good reason to change it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say WP:UE, not WP:NC. Khoikhoi 12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but like with all those pages, the "convention" sub-page is only spelling out the details of what is already formulated as policy in the main policy page (Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use_English_words). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but "use English" doesn't apply here, both names are used in English, and neither is English. Khoikhoi 12:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And WP:NC clearly states that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed." --Mardavich 12:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering. For all I can see, this should have been a very straightforward case of applying the normal policies (most common name used in English), without any need for debate. Khoikhoi, after all the similar discussions we two have overseen together, I have no idea why you are taking this rather outlandish view now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(big edit conflict) Khoikhoi, the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Naming conventions ("This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia.") made me believe that it was a policy, and not just a convention. My mistake, I removed "policy" from my previous comment.

Well, it is policy after all :-) I restored "policy" to my previous comment. – I simply assume that Khoikhoi has a much better understanding of such details than I do, to the point of prefering his explanation over the big bold notice on top of the page. - Regards, Ev 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the controversial names section of our naming conventions mentions that "if an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." (emphasis mine)

As I said in the move request discussion, I think that compliance with our naming conventions is a very good reason to change the title. And our naming conventions call, over and over again, to:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "prefer [...] what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize",
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "[u]se the most common name [and] represent common usage",
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "use a widely accepted English name [, which] often will be a local name",
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "if you are talking about a [river], use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."

7 editors shared this view, and argued to move the page in accordance to these guidelines (and common Wikipedia practice). Best regards, Ev 12:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And 11 editors didn't share that view, that's not a consensus. So as the policy clearly states, both names should be used when editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. --Mardavich 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich, again, a move request discussion is not a vote. Consensus is not formed by mere numbers, but by considering agruments and the validity of those arguments for the specific purpose of naming Wikipedia articles. - Regards, Ev 13:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's action was just, these are not English names, two local names, both in use in English media, furthermore as Mardavich points out, 11 users were indeed in favor of keeping the title unbiased --Rayis 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, everybody agree that both names are used in English but Shatt Al-Arab is more common. The naming has some political overtones. 7 Users evaluated this fact as the need to move the article to Shatt Al-Arab, 12 Users preferred the slash name. Nobody wanted Arvandrud alone. We usually require something like 60/40 consensus to change a name. Here we have something like the reverse 40/60 towards the change. Yes, AfD is not a vote: we are ignoring bad faith votes, we are ignoring obviously incorrect reasons, we are ignoring canvassed votes. Honestly I would not be surprised if there was some canvassing in the vote but I see no indications that one side was much better than the other. There was clearly no consensus here to change the name and if anything there as a weak consensus to keep slashes. In this situation if Khoikhoi would made another decision the amount of discontent would be even stronger. I propose to accept Khoikhoi's closing for now and if the name would cause sore feeling in a month time then just rerun the WP:RM. Might be it would be better advertised so that many neutral people could participate. Remember we have only probably twenty active Iranian and Arabic active users but many thousands active users who are uninvolved with either side Alex Bakharev 13:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But, Alex Bakharev, not one single editor opposed the move argueing that the current name better reflected our current naming conventions. Not one. Respecting those arguments as valid would, in effect, transform the move request in a vote, in which policy and guidelines-based arguments can be nullyfied by the sheer force of numbers.

And please, take a look at the examples of usage. I haven't heard yet one single policy or guidelines-based argument not to follow common English usage here. - Best regards, Ev 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if the majority here considers that it would make things easier, let's open a new move request today (and beg all administrators who are native English-speakers to take part in it). - Best regards, Ev 13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The RFM very clearly and obviously ended in "no consensus" for a move, and there are no grounds on which to criticize Khoikhoi for his decision. What you are arguing is that the lack of consensus was not correct, that the people involved in the discussion were partisan and non-native English speakers, that the evidence was clearly in favor of a move anyway regardless of how people voted. That is not a criticism of Khoikhoi, but a criticism of those who spoke against the move. Whether or not you are correct in your own opinion is a matter for a different forum, but you have no grounds for criticizing Khoikhoi for acting on the basis that there was no consensus, because there was clearly no consensus; what you are actually criticizing him for is for not ignoring what people said, and doing what you wanted anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Jayjg, it has nothing to do with Khoikhoi "not doing what I wanted to be done" (i.e. move the page to Shatt al-Arab). It's about my understanding of how Wikipedia works.

I critizised Khoikhoi's decision based on my understanding of what consensus means in move request discussions. I honestly believed (believe?) that only arguments based on our naming conventions were valid ones, and that people's personal opinions which blatantly ignored (and contradicted) the most basic principles of our naming conventions shouldn't be considered.

It appears from the input by Khoikhoi himself, Alex Bakharev and now you that either I misunderstood how consensus is determined, or the paramenters along which our discussions are carried out, or even that I misread our naming conventions.

Either way, my cristicism of Khoikhoi's actions was a result of what appears to be my confusion about the procedures (attributable to my misunderstanding of the guidelines, my incapacity to understand the rules, or my sheer ignorance).

I honestly thought that this was a clear-cut case of "reflecting English usage", and that not a single argument against following that usage was respalded by policy or guidelines (worse, that those arguments ignored and even contradicted the said policies and guidelines). Thus, I was quite surprised to see what I interpreted to be clear consensus overturned on grounds that I understood to be illegitimate.

It appears that it was a mistake, but a bona fide one, I assure you. My issue was with the procedure followed, not the specific decision of moving or not the article to where I wanted it moved.

As I hinted above, I'm no longer sure of the soundness of my interpretation of how Wikipedia works in these cases. I will stay away from any such discussion for a while, using the time to try to understand the procedures better. If my actions on this issue caused any of you unnecessary trouble, I sincerely apologize (especially to Khoikhoi).

I really need a short wiki-break. In any case, it's already time to indulge in another session of Easter gluttony (you wouldn't believe the fish schnitzels my brother makes. Happy Easter everyone :-) Best regards, Ev 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This kind of dispute is precisely why I wrote Wikipedia:Naming conflict two years ago - to develop an objective methodology for choosing between two arbitrary names for the same thing. I suggest you all have a look at it and use the same methodology in this case. -- ChrisO 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Khoikhoi decided to oppose another administrator's decision. The closing the decision administrator focused on policy, and his argumentation looks to me convincing. Khoikhoi focused on votes (X versus X). I do not agree with this rationale, and I have doubts if this was the right thing to do. I think that if Khoikhoi wanted to oppose the initial decision should not focus on votes, but on policy, and on the arguments of the discussion: Is there a consensus or not that this or this naming is the most common in English per our WP policies? This should be the main issue leading to his decision.--Yannismarou 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We can always just let the move request continue for another week to gain a clearer consensus (or to cement a "no consensus"). -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'm struggling to find another situation in which this kind of "/" thing occurs. We have Sea of Japan instead of Sea of Japan/East Sea. The same goes for Persian Gulf, instead of Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf. And we keep British Isles as a standalone, despite the naming dispute. -- tariqabjotu 15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already clearly explained on Talk:Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab why your comparison to the Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf is way off base and incorrect. This is a totally different issue of two historical names with modern political overtones (as opposed to "Arabian Gulf" which is a modern invention of the 1960s by Arab nationalists) so please do not make that comparison again. Alex Bakharev's explanation is sound to me, and I see no problem of maintaining Total WP:NPOV on this issue. Wikipedia should strive for Total NPOV whenever possible, and in this case, because of the history, because of the modern politics, because of the WP software which allows double titles, we can gain this Total NPOV. In the end there was literally no consensus for a change. Khorshid 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Tariq is right to point out that we've faced similar issues before. I hope people haven't forgotten the Gdansk/Danzig fiasco already! The problem we have here, as in other cases - like virtually every placename associated with Kosovo, for instance - is that one particular local version of the name predominates in English, but that version of the name is associated with a particular faction. We don't normally use a "/" approach in such situations. We rely instead on identifying common usage. That was the whole point of Wikipedia:Naming conflict - to provide an objective basis on which to decide which version to use. The most important sentence in the whole guideline is that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We can't declare what a name should be - our role is simply to state what's the most used version in English. -- ChrisO 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with keeping it as Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab. It represents both POV names, which is something Wikipedia encourages and by what i've experienced here in Wikipedia, is hard to achieve. Both names seem to be used in English even though none are English... Regarding the earlier comparison, the Persian Gulf is an international body of water, with an internationally-recognized name which has a long history in English and all the other languages. Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab on the other hand is a local body of water, exclusively under the sovereignty of Iran and Iraq with two local names, it differs from Arabian/Persian gulf scenario. I don't think it can be compared. Regarding the voting, I checked it out and I agree that no consensus seems to have been reached voting-wise and argumentation-wise. I suggest a re-nomination in the near future and keep it up longer so a solution is reached. This is my 2 cents. - Fedayee 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Threats from a 'disgruntled' Editor

A disagreement between two editors (myself being one) has attracted the attention of another editor, who seems to have appointed himself as 'judge and jury'. He is, admittedly, very involved in Wikipedia and has done a lot of good work, however, he seems to think that Wikipedia is 'his own' and that he 'shall' have the final word. He and others have banded together to try to prove my edits wrong, which they can't as I have provided verifiable sources to back up my edits (they have not). He has, recently, suggested a 'Formal Mediation' between parties to try and resolve the matter, which is acceptable, but now he has started to issue THREATS and suggestions that are of a SEXUAL NATURE! Evidence here ...

1. "I must also alert you that I am aware of your account on WiganWorld.com"

This is a 'lighthearted' local communication forum enjoyed by the local community.

2. "I will also post links to your WiganWorld.com account. You could incurr considerable restrictions (blocking) upon your account."

This is 'interfering' with non-Wikipedia business and intruding into my private business. If he can trace my whereabouts and my accounts elsewhere the problems he could create are endless!

3. "I will also bring all the source material that the users have brought to the articles, and contact them to co-file their opinions on this matter."

4. "I'm not your friend, a private councillor or a cybersexual."

This was his reply when asked 'why he was following me around and reverting all my edits'.

5. This, on my talk page, came as a result of 'highlighting' important words in a message to him regarding the issue ....... " MR Hanson, I have NEVER said THAT Pemberton IS not AN area IN it's OWN right. STOP saying THE word "YOU", as THIS is UNHELPFUL. I HAVE infact STATED that WE should WORK off SOURCE material, AND that IF we HAVE a CONFLICT of SOURCES, we SHOULD state THIS in THE article. I actually STATED to YOU (though YOU have NOT mentioned THIS in YOUR reply) THAT you ARE not PROVIDING suitable SOURCES, and ARE merely SHOUTING as LOUD as YOU can TO get HEARD. Again, THIS is NOT helpful, AND I WRITE in THIS style TO demonstrate HOW frustrating YOUR text IS to READ. It IS not APPROPRIATE is IT as IT is CLEAR I HAVE the ABILITY to READ normal TEXT. Jhamez84 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyKINDAgettingINPATIENTwithTHISsillySHOUTINGandBLAMINGnonsenseTHATkeepsREOCCURINGeverytimeIlogINaboutAsubjectTHATisREALLYveryTRIVIALandCOULDbeSORTEDifYOUwentTOtheLIBRARYthenTHISwouldALLbeOVERB

This guy has hammered my talk page with authoritative comments and has resorted to threats because I won't back down regarding a disputed issue on the Wigan articles. Could anyone, with the authority to do so, rein him in a bit before he gets too full of himself? ........ User, Jhamez84.

80.193.161.89 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Do you mean this?[28] Provide diffs for your serious allegations. Durova^Charge! 13:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If an administrator does take an interest in this problem, I'd be happy to provide contrary evidence that this contributor has a history of breaching WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, WP:A, WP:MOS, WP:TALK, etc etc.

The message above appears to be in retaliation (after third opinion and request for comment) to my intention to contact the mediation committee about this user. Yes I've lost my patience with this user, I hold my hand up, but I really have nothing to hide here, and would certainly welcome intervention.

Other users have expressed dissatisfaction with this user, I'd be happy to request for their comments also. Jhamez84 13:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No need. I've scanned both your edits for the past week and the IP levels false claims. 48 hour block. Thank you Jhamez84 for being patient and using dispute resolution. Follow up at WP:ANI if necessary. Durova^Charge! 13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's really appreciated. Jhamez84 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is WP:PUI ineffective?

The backlog never seems to go away, and most of the links brought there have no discussion and remain undeleted. I was just about to list Image:DSCN0634.JPG as an unfree image, but what's the point? Someone uploaded this image as a free image, but these websites say that it "is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 License", which I understand is not allowed here. [29], [30] It isn't being used on any article.

I was under the impression that WP was taking steps to drastically remove unsourced/unfree material, but this page just sits a lot of the time. What can we do to make it more active (admins take more of an interest in)? Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I know little about PUI, but for this image, you should just tag it with {{cc-by-nc}} with a link to the page showing the image's actual license, which will add it to CAT:CSD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:PUI is ineffective. A couple active administrators regularly clean out the backlog. I personally tag blatantly copyvio or forbidden-per-policy with the appropriate speedy deletion template or IfD tag; if, however, I come across an image that is not blatantly a copyvio but I have concerns that it still is, I take it to WP:PUI. Pretty simple, really. --Iamunknown 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When signatures go bad...

I'm working right now to fix this problem, but just so many people are aware, Atomic Religione (talk · contribs)'s signature has screwed up the dozens of pages he's left comments on by making the page completely bold from the point he signs to the end. I think I've got most of them fixed by adding </font>. If you see anymore that I miss, please fix them. Metros232 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See what happens when you let amateurs practice HTML coding without a license! I thought MediaWiki used to correct or remove such bad coding before it caused harm? *Dan T.* 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Atomic Religione has realised that something is amiss too. (aeropagitica) 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is all related to today's HTML Tidy update, it's also affecting a large number of templates and even a bot or two. --VectorPotential^Talk 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the opposite, it used to not correct or remove bad coding on signatures; Wikipedia:How to fix your signature was created soon after it started rejecting bad coding on them. --cesarb 21:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunkenud (talk · contribs · count) block review

I blocked Dunkenud (talk · contribs) for continuing to upload images without licenses and sources after warnings. I based the block on Wikipedia:Blocking policy of vandalism (continuing to upload images w/o the needed info). Is this in accordance with the policy? feydey 17:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone look into the issues brought up at User_talk:ESkog#Vandalization

Thund3rl1p5 (talk · contribs) has accused ESkog (talk · contribs) of abusing his administrative tools in the case of blocking an IP (69.241.124.150 (talk · contribs)) at ESkog's talk page. ESkog replied at Thund3rl1p5's talk page explaining the block and inviting him to bring it up here if he still had a problem but instead Thund3rl1p5 chose to continue bothering him about it (including calling him a bully) and vandalised my userpage when I tried to explain. Wondering if someone could look into it and check that there was no abuse of power and if so have a word with Thund3rl1p5 about it to avoid any further problems. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

A case has been filed concerning Wikipedia:Requests for adminship -- Cat ^chi? 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Being speedily rejected as not within the ArbCom's remit. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedians message

The recent threatened suicide of a user has raised an issue I don't think we have yet, thankfully, had the opportunity to address - what do we do with the userpages of deceased Wikipedians? We cannot delete their accounts, but deleting their userpage seems callous. As Wikipedia lives on, it is inevitable, if sad, that some of us will die and our offline relatives will have to inform Wikipedia, especially if the deceased is an established or active editor. To this end, and seeing as we can never delete an account, I have created this notice for if we ever need it:

This Wikipedian is known to be deceased.
Bona fide.

The bona fide ("in good faith") is not only a gentle pun on WP:AGF and an appreciative message of their work they have done for Wikipedia, but also shows that we assume that this person is dead because we have been told so and may not have verified it. I thought it a suitably tasteful way of handling a distressing situation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This unfortunate event need not merit a template. If you want to see a list of dead Wikipedians, try Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Xulin is the perfect candidate for a template such as this. His userpage has nothing but a category in it. It doesn't seem right to have nothing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of protected pages

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia:List of protected pages for the background; the page has gone overly long, probably due to the overenthusiastic bot, and it's now next to useless. Something should probably be done; we could try to go back to not using the link templates, as was done before the bot, or perhaps split the page. Any other ideas? --cesarb 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:STS01 insists that reposting warnings on talk page isn't edit-warring

I attempted to remove a large amount of information that fails WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS from the article Colin Cowherd, and User:STS01 continues to slap warnings on my page. Without commenting on the (in my opinion, dubious) nature of the warnings, I removed them from my page, acknowledging I have read them. However, he is persisting in reposting them and told a third party that he's not reposting, that he's giving me new warnings. (diff [31] (Please note, I have done 1 revert, with a description and a request to discuss it on the talk page of the article, which has been ignored. Can someone sort this out, please? SirFozzie 00:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He has now responded on the article's talk page, so hopefully we can now work towards a consensus version of the article. Striking through my request. SirFozzie 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:R9tgokunks

Could someone look at this editor's unblock request before he blows a gasket? I'm the blocking admin, BTW. Thanks, Gwernol 03:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)