Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:18, 10 February 2007

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Alternative proposal

[moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Salted pages]

Kinetoscope and blacklist

An anon IP has vandalized Kinetoscope, a featured article, by deleting an entire section of content. Unfortunately, I cannot revert this because the original text contains a citation link which is apparently now part of the blacklist. This link is a legitimate citation, present when the FAC was approved, yet its presence allows this article's vandalism to stand. Can someone please rectify the blacklist or at least exception this case so that the article can be properly reverted without the citation being removed? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 11:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was not necessary; it was of the form of "at least one website has picked this up", within a paragraph that had a proper published reference. The site in question includes much unacknowledged scraped content and was spammed by its owner across four language Wikipedias. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonadministrator's query: The reference to the site essentially served as a warning to readers about its unreliability. The intent and effect clearly serve the spirit of the blacklist. Not permissible?—DCGeist 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why include a site if we know it's unreliable? The reasons for blacklisting were credible enough, the reasons for including were, to my eyes, weak. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shared/group accounts

The normal Wikipedia jargon for this has slipped my mind; I'm referring to accounts used by a group of people. My understanding was that these weren't allowed, but the policy (which I can't find) might be weaker than that, and it might just be deprecated. Could someone advise me? I've come across a self-declared example at User:Sikh-history, and was wondering what I should do, if anything. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Role accounts? Anyway, they are definitely not allowed. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to User talk:Sikh-history this account is now used by only one person. He needs to update his user page. --Ideogram 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that page twice and still didn't see that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here. --Ideogram 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see he replied to my question and I asked him to rewrite. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK. Approved role accounts are exceedingly rare. Durova^Charge! 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all (of course it's "role account"; why couldn't I remember that?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because one account shared by two or more people is far less common than the opposite (i.e. sockpuppets or meatpuppets). For the record, I'll share that I can remember only one role account approved in the last six months; if you'd like to know more, & have lots of time on your hands, I think it was discussed here on WP:AN/I. Happy huntnig! -- llywrch 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time-limited protection

As far as I'm aware the ability for administrators to protect pages for a specified amount of time is a relatively new thing, but it seems to be getting used quite a lot. I've just noticed a problem with it, though, which doesn't really seem to have been addressed.

Administrator protects a page for, say, a week because of vandalism
Administrator applies {{sprotected}} to the page
Protection expires a week later and nobody notices, {{sprotected}} remains in place
Potentially useful edits are not made because anonymous users think they can't edit the page. Alternatively, anonymous users vandalise the page and confuse everyone who doesn't understand time-limited protection.

If this has been discussed before, then forgive me – Qxz 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I was wondering the same thing after going back to remove {{tprotected}} on several articles, only finding that someone else had already removed them in each case. Maybe an option that can enable some kind of automatic (i.e. built into MediaWiki) template on time protected protections? In other words, a new MediaWiki:Timeprotectnotice page, or something to the effect, would be created, and the message would be displayed on time protected articles when it is still protected. A checkbox would enable admins to turn off the notification template, when necessary. This seems like the best solution here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there already is one, but it only comes up when you edit. I think it's a bit big to be displayed when you're viewing an article, though – Qxz 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible solution would be to ask the devs to e.g. automatically display MediaWiki:PageIsProtected at the top of every protected page. >Radiant< 13:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something in the interim that might help is simply using a different template for timed protection. Even if visually identical, it would allow people to scan through to remove them as needed. Bitnine 14:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another solution would be for some bot to automatically remove the template once the page is unprotected (it would also help when some users add protection templates thinking adding a template is enough to protect the page). --cesarb 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's easy. Have a bot remove all protection templates, daily. Since the bot doesn't have admin rights, it will fail to remove the template from pages that actually are protected. >Radiant< 14:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be able to remove templates from semi-protected pages, correct? And move protected pages. I suggested this type of bot awhile ago, but it didn't seem like there were any takers. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I'm not sure that the tag is that dangerous, I usually go for "Edit this page" and if it's not there THEN I look for the template, or if it's tagged, I'll check to see that it says "View source". I suspect I'm not alone. As to removing the template, is there a magic word like "PAGEPROTECTION" that could be read? If so, if the template could have a condition where if it was on an unprotected page it would change to something like "This page was protected [for whatever reason], but is no longer. Please edit this page to remove the "{{protectBU}}" template. If that information wasn't easily obtainable, it could just say "If this page is unprotected and it has been at least 5 minutes since it was added, please speedily remove it and notify the poster". Etc... 68.39.174.238 01:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Farivar

Reposted from WP:DRV:

A notification, rather than a request, but I'm not sure where else to put it. I am undeleting Cyrus Farivar as per Jimbo's previous endorsement of exactly this act: "Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored." [1]. User:Jaranda expressed concern that this was not brought to DRV, so I figured I should leave notice here (and also on WP:AN before restoring it again. I will not continue to restore at this point, but I will bring the issue through proper dispute resolution channels should it continue to be an issue.

I am not asking for or opening a full review because, well, it's unnecessary and beside the point. DRV is a process through which we review deletions, but it is not the sole way in which they are reviewed. This is something that there is a definitive ruling on - journalists with the publication record of Cyrus Farivar are notable. Small segments of the community may create pages that proport to establish other criteria for notability, and AfDs can fail to attract the attention of anything but the mindset that currently dominates the page, but none of this changes the basic fact that a notability guideline of that extremity has been actively rejected from the very top, and the act of unilaterally restoring this article has explicitly been sanctioned.

This ought not only terminate the debate, but also serve as a rather sobering warning about the sad state of so-called policy on Wikipedia, whereby it clearly does not provide useful guidance on our actual best practice. Phil Sandifer 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I converted this to a full deletion review. I see adequate reason to doubt that Jimbo would stand by that statement today. The reason: WP:BLP and the incidents that led to its creation. GRBerry 02:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was then. This is now. It's been more than a year and half since Jimbo said that. Times have changed, and his answer to that same question may have changed. Nishkid 64 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all deference to Jimbo, this article was deleted properly and should not be recreated simply because one rouge admin has a thing for this dude. If Jimbo personally wants to come undelete this article that's one thing, but if you're going to keep defying consensus, at least take personal responsibility. It's also not clear in what context Jimbo said that because the signpost article doesn't provide a link to the mailing list or a diff. Savidan 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent actions of my own

In trying to deal with the backlog at CAT:CSD last night, I came upon several I3 deletions. After these deletions, I was confronted by Krome007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had uploaded a picture of Harry Colquhoun. In the process of making sure there wasn't a red link on the article, I rolled back the edits, removing very little, yet Krome007 felt I was wrong and I said that anyone can edit on Wikipedia. This was met with the response, "OK so anyone can edit but I thought the idea was to edit with factual information you monkey nut" (emphasis mine). I responded saying that the image did not have the correct tag or copyrights, suggested that if the image were in the public domain that Mr. Colquhoun email permissions, and that he not be incivil with me. He responded and finished his statement by calling me a "self righteous fool." I blocked him indef, after which he sent me an abusive e-mail about my block.

He posted an {{unblock}} request in which he personally attacked me. I was discussing the block with Shreshth91 privately, and he came to the conclusion that the block was too harsh, and I had a change of heart. Shreshth91 unblocked and then reblocked for 4 days, and I unblocked and stated that I was putting him on probation for 96 hours. During this whole time, I had put Harry Colquhoun up for AFD. He contacted me (and others) about his comments at the AFD discussion, and when I saw it, I viewed this response. I blocked for five days due to the probation I had placed on him, notified him, and left. Checking on my contribs, again, I saw he had editted the page, and continued to personally attack me. I privately sought advice on what to do, and it was a general agreement that his incivility was uncalled for. After more attacks on me, I rolled back his edits and protected his talk page for the duration for the block. I know that this will not be the end of his interactions, but I am here requesting that these actions be reviewed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just received another e-mail from this individual

User:JPG-GR
Right I am reporting you for getting a friend of yours to suggest the page gets deleted for your own personnal reason. This guy is your mate who runs a power rangers site. I am going to suggest that you be stripped of your admin status. http://www.grnrngr.com/
Laters

I can assure anyone who is contacted by this individual that I did not contact JPG-GR about anything concerning the AFD, other than this very e-mail.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely related, but someone mentioned relishxxx.com yesterday in one of the spam channels. I can't recall whether it was someone spamming links or whether it was spammy articles, but there's something dodgy going on with Krome007. I've no problems with your block. Oh, if a meta admin spots this post, chuck relishxxx.com on the meta blacklist, ta. -- Heligo land 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have received another e-mail. The text can be seen here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time anything like this happens, get another admin involved the moment the personal attacks against you start. That always makes it cleaner. (When someone's attacking me, it's hard to think objectively and fairly. I imagine you're similar.) No comment about the actual blocks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that now. I have also unprotected his talk page so he can stop venting at me in e-mails. There's no use in him e-mailing me, as I do not need to supply him with my e-mail address.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, this sort of thing happens all the time, and most of the time when admins get yelled at it's because they've done the right thing. Just a question for everyone in general - why are admins required (well, not required, but encouraged) to release their email addresses? It just encourages this thing to happen; unblock requests can surely go to the unblock mailing list instead, and private conversation can be done via IRC. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The e-mail address thing is as follows: If I reply to his e-mails, he can see my e-mail address. I don't like using the E-mail function, only in emergencies. And frankly, I've already dealt with someone who had knowledge of my e-mail address after I blocked her and suffered for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Make a yahoo or hotmail account. Use it as a throwaway account for correspondance with people you don't want to give your real email to. --BigDT 05:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I use g-mail. I just don't need someone to know it (cause I might accidentally use my personal e-mail due to how I have Outlook set up)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. This is why I have Thunderbird set up to handle seperate email logins...that's frightening. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I use M2. Actually, just kidding, I never got the hang of mail clients. I just check it on the web. I have Yahoo Mail Plus, so I used its AddressGuard function to set up a throwaway account for use on Wikipedia. Alternatively one can check out spamgourmet.com, I've never tried it but it looks good. Hbdragon88 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just never reply to Wikipedia emails if I don't know/trust the sender, instead responding via the emailer's talk page. Proto::► 11:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked (a month) in the Spanish Wikipedia for a page I maintain in the English Wikipedia

User got blocked on es:, is complaining here. This is not our jurisdiction, and we can't take any admin action there.

We don't accept other wikis coming here disputing our blocks, we can't meddle on other wikis. Since this is not admin related, since no admin action can follow, I'm moving the huge thread to User talk:Drini/randroide Those interested in the debate can continue there.

I repeat, this is about an affair on other wiki, no action from this wiki's admin is being requested, therefore I'm moving it to a proper place.

The page User:Drini/randroide is a commentary on the page that got him blocked on es:, so people that can't read spanish can know what's it about. -- Drini 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOving content out again

Regarding [2]

This is not the place to discuss es: admin actions. I did not DELETE content as you FALSELY claim. I moved it, and provided links to it. Stop lying. -- Drini 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You requested comments on my actoins. I did them. Above. ANd now again:

The link is incorrect, Drini. Please paste the correct link. Randroide 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Please be aware that these pages are not the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we're not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.

So I moved the discussion that's not related to administrative tasks out of here. I gave my talk page as a starting point, but feel free to continue it otherwise. I gave comments and reasons on why I did. I repeat I did not delete content, I moved it and provided links. Thank you. -- Drini 21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide begs your pardon

I beg your pardon, Drini, I missed that you pasted the discussion in the linked page.

Nonetheless, I ask you to please assume good faith: I never called you "Liar". Errare humanum est.

And I repeat: I asked for comment, not action, from en:Wikipedia administrators. My one month blocking at the Spanish Wikipedia was cause by this page at en:Wikipedia. I was asking for comment about the page, not about the blocking.

Randroide 12:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want comments I suggest you either use Requests for comments or Village pump admins here are not special leaders who decide what is good and bad. -- Drini 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, Drini.

By the way, your translation of the contentious page you presented ,protected by you, is incorrect in several key points. Curiously, your mistranslations always present Spanish Admistrators -you are also an admin there- under a better light

Please check your translation.

Any input from Spanish Speaking users is also welcome.

Randroide 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling

Is there any way that someone could give an early close to this afd? With 15 users or so commenting, only 2 have voted to keep the article, and the rest want to merge relevant info into other articles then delete, so consensus has been reached. It's just a mess with too much arguing. Booshakla 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus looks to me to be drifting away from delete, with the keep and merge votes. I'm hesitant to WP:SNOW it. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd let it run course... an early close will pretty much guarentee someone is going to complain it was deleted/kept out of process.--Isotope23 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time

I'm an admin in school with nothing to do next period, so 90 minutes to do absolutely nothing. What are some administrative tasks few people do that I can occupy my time with once I run out of movies? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets has been badly backlogged for a month. Not an easy or pleasant task, but it can consume as much time as you can give it today. GRBerry 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement calls aren't really my thing, but I can head off and do some obvious ones. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that CAT:CSD has an ass-trocious backlog. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to change a user name

I am an administrator on the Zazaki Wikipedia. I need to change a user name, but I don't really know how to do it? Can anybody help me do it, or do I have the ability to change a user name as an administrator? Best, --Daraheni 16:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change your username on the English Wikipedia, you'll need to go to Wikipedia:Changing username and make a request. Administrators do not have the power to change usernames here; that is up to the Bureaucrats. It will not, however, affect your username at the Zazaki Wikipedia. -- Natalya 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do this at Meta-wiki. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP#User_rename_requests Thatcher131 16:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This account

This account was recently created by an editor in order to edit a rather embarassing page. Is this all right or are communal accounts prohibited? I took several special measures in order to prevent someone just stealing this account and running with it.

Your input would be appreciated.

Thanks, Squeamish Editor 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine if someone went out of the way to create their own account for this, not to have one massive collection (after all this would be equivalent of having an IP address but with benefits of an account). This is a potential fork for banned users to edit. I'm going to block it for now until we figure something out. Yanksox 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An account with a posted password is just a very, very bad idea all around. Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Segregation and security, you can make a separate account for editing embarassing pages, but don't encourage other people to use it. They can make their own. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Yanksox's block of the role account was anon-only, Flameviper (talk · contribs) is claiming on his talkpage that he is incurring collateral damage from the block. Make of this what you will. Newyorkbrad 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that anon-only and ACB only apply to IP blocks and are ignored in username blocks. So this is probably a garden variety autoblock. Thatcher131 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock lifted. It's a mindspring IP, so may be dynamic. Thatcher131 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Role accounts are not allowed on the English Wikipedia. A role account is one that more than a single person is editing with. They are forbidden because they do not allow us to know who is contributing when the account makes an edit, so it breaks the terms of the GFDL which all text is licensed under on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Role account. Thanks, Gwernol 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the role account blocked. "This is a communal accont. This means that anyone who wants to use it can." No-brainer. Whoever created it (a) probably knows better, and (b) needs to stop messing around; Wikipedia isn't a role-playing game. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It also had a public password. I logged in, removed the email address and scrambled the password. Thatcher131 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool. Not the kind of thing we should have running around Wikipedia. Far too likely to be abused - BEANS. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was wise to block the account. I just came across it in the automatically generated list of new users. This account would have only been used for vandalism had it not been blocked. Acalamari 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ...

WTF? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, it's User:BoxingWear again. BoxingWear loves "personal agendas". PT O 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Lewis article - Wikimedia Foundation donation

Couldn't think where to put this, so I came here. Can someone have a look at meta:Wikimedia thanks all contributors - which lists a Bennett Lewis as a donor, and at Bennett Lewis, where this edit claims that the donation was posthumous (maybe from a trust fund or something). I suspect these are two different people called Bennett Lewis, but if someone could just double-check, or ask in the right place, and then tidy up Bennett Lewis, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed all mention of the donation in the article. Even if this were the same person, which I highly doubt, a donation of this sort does not belong in the article, having no merits for inclusion. The article, however, could use some improvement. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced image

This is possibly commons problem. Anyway, I discovered that image of Ben Stein has been replaced with image of stones, see Image:Stein.jpg. I couldn't find the original file to revert. May be someone moved images in some clever way:( Anyway I'm absolutely positive that the file was on that address on Jan 27 because one user replaced image of Stein with Henry Kissinger and vice versa. Please try to investigate what happend since I couldn't find it. I would be very happy if you could reply here or on my talk page then. Thank you.--Pethr 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous image appears to have been deleted at 14:40, 7 February 2007 by User:Ed g2s for the reason of "replaceable fair use, 7 days". Apparently on 27 January it was tagged as such, and was deleted after, which would explain why the original file doesn't show up. -- Natalya 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears to have been deleted due to being in breach of our fair use policy, and an image with the same name from Commons has is now showing. It's quite difficult to describe why, but it's not vandalism or anything naughty. It's just how Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons work. -- Heligo land 03:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ben Stein was vandalized a few times so I thought this was somehow part of it. Someone should have removed the image from articles when deleting because picture of stone in the water was appering in infobox of living person... It is indeed funny, but not very nice. Once more thank you!--Pethr 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious RFCN, need outside view

The debate in question is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Malakaville_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

There is a rather contentious debate at WP:RFCN. I would like a neutral party to look at it. I closed a 2 day old(which is long for an RFCN) debate as No consensus, after receiving a complaint, I inviting a user to re-open it. I have seen no new arguments provided since, and it is becoming less productive as time passes.

I would like someone uninvolved to decide when it needs closing, and how to close it. I have not given an opinion on the username, nor do I have one. Thank you. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat disheartening that RFCN has started to resemble AFD, with people !voting "strong disallow" and such. In general our username policy should be pretty clear-cut, no? >Radiant< 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our username policy is probably the most ambiguous policy we have. That is why WP:RFCN is always so full of colorful arguments, we have intentionally left the line a little blurry, and asked users not to try to find that line. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see

Moved to /Kat Walsh's statement to prevent the discussion from overwhelming this page.

Boris Stomakhin article and inciting of ethinic hatred

Following the edit warring between me and User:Biophys, Boris Stomakhinarticle was protected by administrator User:Cbrown1023 who told that he would unprotect that page till I reach an agreement with User:Biophys. The underlying problem for edit warring is that Biophys holds strognly Russophobic views and maintains that criminal Boris Stomakhin, who got 5 years of prison in Russia for public calls to extremism and terrorism against Russians including me, is actually innocent dissident. Biophys took his text material inserted into the article Boris Stomakhin from blog [La Russophobe]. As you could see phrases in the current article Boris Stomakhin match those in Blog La Russophobe. It is evident that this Blog La Russophobe is inciting ethnic hatred at least. The page of that blog http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-is-lr-russophobe-why-arent-you.html says that you should hate russians. User:Biophys insists that we should agree on exclusion from the article of citations taken from Russian respectable newspapers which hints that Stomakhin is not really innocent peaceful dissident, but actually almost a fascist. My question for Wikipedia administrators: If Wikipedia is a proper place for publishing Russophobic statements (anti-semitic statements), inciting ethnic hatred against Russians? I understand the position of User:Cbrown1023 who doesn't want to verifiy reliability of Russian texts, but a simple search in Google on Boris Stomakhin would lead to all Russophobe sources which are published by User:Biophys in current protected version of the article on Boris Stomakhin. I am astonished that Wikipedia administrators allow to paint people like Osama bin Laden like peaceful dissidents.Vlad fedorov 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every version is the wrong version. Solve content disputes on the talk page and thereafter other channels of dispute resolution, no matter how disagreeable or biased the current content. If you two weren't edit-warring in the first place, you won't have reached this point, right? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every, but if you publish citations from Mein Kampf in Wikipedia I think that you are wrong. If an individual takes his text to Wikipedia from the Blog inciting ethnic hatred, then you are wrong. I again repeat my point for your irrelevant answer - material taken from site inciting ethnic hatred couldn't be published in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 07:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What could I solve with man who wants to exclude reliable sources by labeling them unreliable? Are you sane person? If you would look at the history of the article you would see that it is not me who deletes portions of sourced text without any reasons. I have been complaining on 3RR board they have banned me because when I was reverting to my version and my text contained some passages left from edits by Alex Bakharev and Mikka which were unsourced (and they were undisputed, by the way). Vlad fedorov 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Did you just call me insane? I'm only trying to help you here, and I get a personal attack in return? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have been complaining for a month, but no one actually listened to me and tried to get into the matter. Please review the Talk Page on Boris Stomakhin article. There you will see everything with your eyes. One man (Biophys) forces his opinion despite that me, Ellol, Grafikn, Alex Bakharev and Mikka consider him to be wrong. He has published his version which was protected and no one cares that a man who called to kill all Russians and me also, is painted in Wikipedia as a dissident abused by the government, although investigation into his case was opened by complaint of private persons - retired pensioners. How could you help me? Vlad fedorov 08:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will forgive you for the personal attacks. Looking at the talk page, I see that both of you have been uncivil, and many a personal attack has been thrown. I'm going to have to ask both to step back from the article and from each other and try editing something else (as full protection is now making you do). Both of you seem to have reached a point where alternative solutions are not being contemplated as plausible and acceptable to all. Ellol has offered a compromise, but does not seem to be acted upon. This is essentially a bilateral content dispute. I'm not inclined to wield my block powers yet, due to the fact that if I block one (on any pretense), I will have to block the other on the same pretense. Unless another admin thinks otherwise, I'm going to have to refer you to WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, or WP:MEDCOM. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 08:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Physicq210, thank you. I agree to follow your advice (this is good advice!) but disagree that I ever was uncivil. Biophys 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC) My arguments about violation of LP policy by Vlad Fedorov can be found here Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy. So, I reported this to LP noticeboard and tried to enforce LP policy.Biophys 16:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for your guidance. At last some light in the end of tunnel. But what could be done with administrator William Connolley who blocked me and haven't blocked Biophys too, although Biophys has done the same things. How could I complain on administrator?Vlad fedorov 08:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you need to take it up to him, on his talk page. Try asking him mildly, without insults, incivility, or threats of reporting him onto this board. However, chances are that you might have to swallow that block, no matter how unjust, to let this dispute pass and die off. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 08:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once more. Your answers are really helpful to me. It is unjust that administrators could abuse someone without any consequences.Vlad fedorov 09:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys refuses to negotiate, he wants to scrap all sources which may prove that Stomakhin is a fascist.Vlad fedorov 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Here is his message:[reply]

Sorry, but I insist to exclude this paragraph for the reasons
explained above. This is my last word. There is nothing to 
discuss here. Biophys 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just won't get it

Can someone explain on Talk:Jacob_P_Secrest just why he can't have an article for his micronation? He's not listening to me. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already explained why. Just ignore him. Proto::► 14:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped him a line, we'll see what happens. It seems better to try and take the time to explain it to someone so that they are content with what happend, and will continue editing constructively. -- Natalya 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:I Can't Believe It's Not Blight, since the article is deleted and likely to stay that way. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"noautoblock"

Special:Log/block is indicating the lack of an autoblock as "noautoblock", all one word (Example). Might it be better to say "autoblock disabled" or something similar? (Compare with how it was until a few days ago, when it said "autoblock enabled" or nothing). Presumably there's a "MediaWiki" page somewhere where this text is set, but I can't seem to find it (and can't change it myself anyway) – Qxz 14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, who changed that?? Now I have to go fix my bot. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it has changed in the Mediawiki texts. (Special:Allmessages enter block-log-flags in the box to limit to just these flag) --pgk 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it doing that? I went through the last 20 or so svn diffs, nothing obvious there... Prodego ^talk 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you went further than me, I looked at the module in question saw which messages it pulled out and saw it didn't appear to have changed recently and stopped there. --pgk 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it's not meant to be doing this, and you can't change it? Um. Oh. Well, good luck sorting it out... – Qxz 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know, but whatever developer (which it seems it must have been) changed it does. Other developers should be able to find it as well. I did notice Mediawiki:Noautoblockblock, but I don't see how that could do this... Did there use to be a BlockLog.php in SVN? Prodego ^talk 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe someone far more knowledgeable than I also needs to edit/undate WP:AUTOBLOCK, which as of now still says that a blocking admin has no control over turning the autoblock on or off. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably changed this. I'll look into it at some stage. — Werdna talk 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reference

I had a quick look down DumbBot's protected article list and picked up a few self-references, which I collected at Wikipedia:Protected titles/Self-reference. I was wondering if we should also add things like edit conflict and edit war and the like. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected titles is for protecting non-existent pages against (repeated) creation, not for protecting pages that do exist. Uncle G 12:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk personnel needed

This is a good thing for new admins and aspiring admins to help on. Or old admins who are bored with chasing vandals. We desperately need experienced and sane editors to deal with things like the Microsoft-Wikipedia kerfuffle without it becoming a media circus ([3], [4], [5]). So WikiBlue (the Foundation's communications and PR person, Sandra Ordonez) has drafted a simple page at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from enterprise).

What we need now is (1) OTRS volunteers (these are always needed ... they deal with a firehose of crap and can burn out quickly) and (2) Wikipedia:Help desk. The Help Desk NEEDS sensible people, and admins are picked for their judgement.

So please dive in and help :-) - David Gerard 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help out some with OTRS... Last time I checked I didn't qualify tho... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

m:OTRS/volunteering is the link for volunteering for OTRS. I don't fancy that, I do enough of it in work dealing with the wonderful Freedom of Information Act, but will lend a hand at the Help Desk whenever I can. Proto::► 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An IP address is requesting that they be blocked

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

I warned an IP after someone using it vandalized Leon Trotsky. Later, this message was posted on my talk [6]. Then Hagermanbot came along and added the "unsigned by" bit [7]. Someone from this IP is requesting it be blocked permanently. I can't do anything about that but figured I should pass it along. TheQuandry 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recomend that this only be done if we at some point are able to speek to an official at the school. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of good edits from that IP. I wouldn't block unless whoever is making those constructive edits signs up for an account. Thanks/wangi 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No users own their IP, so we should only block if an admin thinks it should be blocked. It is not the same as a user asking to be blocked. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, if some organisation such as a school wants IPs assigned to them to be blocked from editing, ask a representative from the school to contact the info team at info-en@wikimedia.org. --bainer (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Article

I have added factual information to the Japan article and yet it is constantly being reverted without any reason being given and they are not discussing it in the Talk:Japan page either. I have asked in the talk page why the information is being reverted and yet no reply is given. Considering that the information which is constantly being reverted is just well known facts I can't see any reason why it would be reverted other than for anti-Japanese sentiments, which I have concluded for myself is probably the reason after looking at the users talk pages and past contributions. Can someone please stop this 'vandalism' of the Japan article as it's being done to hinder the article in as much of a way as they think they can get away with, not to mention that this anti-Japanese sentiment has no place on Wikipedia. Somethingoranother 21:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution, which deals with content disputes (Which appears to be the issue at hand) is a little bit farther down the hall... Sorry to not be of help. Also, I'd recommend a bit of good faith, it's not always racism. Logical2u_Talk 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it helps to provide a citation when you add factual information. Burden of proof rests with the editor who wants information to remain. Durova^Charge! 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks from Ross.Hedvicek

Ross.Hedvicek has vulgarly attacked many people from Czech and English Wikipedia. He's obsessive - it's there once again - he is banned at cswiki, so that he insults people there and in his nasty blog. Please, do something, probably a longer block would be fine. He's one of the people, who really spoil reputation of the Wikipedia. Thank you. Petr K 21:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered him about a year ago and I found him distasteful, but you'd need to make a better case than that to have him blocked or community sitebanned. Considering the duration of the problem you might request arbitration. Durova^Charge! 14:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BoxingWear ... again ...

Hope you all like this lovely email conversation with BoxingWear and associates. (Copy and pasting since I'm not used to GMail.) Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth did you waste all this time on these people. --Ideogram 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. One learns. Sometime. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually more worried with this reply:

   i have found out some info on real identities of some users, will
send tax editors to review their income taxes, all will be legal, but
everybody will get their dues. One way or the other proper way.

(No problems with me, I've never released my real identity on the Internet), but what should we be doing here? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything we can do? --Ideogram 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Contact the real-life authorities? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, knowing someone's True Name is not a crime. People make vague threats all the time. --Ideogram 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let's just forget about the whole thing. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can get someone's taxes reviewed just because you ask. The IRS is really understaffed these days. Natalie 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, BoxingWear just doesn't give up, does he? Lets see what happens when the IRS tries to check my income taxes... Anyway, BoxingWear is making empty threats in his typical style. I would ignore him unless you get audited or get your income tax checked by the IRS (which I highly doubt will happen). Administrators should read the deleted history at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/George Reeves Person for a little background. PT O 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This page has been deleted by Jimbo Wales, and should not be recreated." Moderately helpful, but I'm not getting the background I was promised. ^_^ JuJube 04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is a "tax editor" anyway? Herostratus 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuser, what he told you is exactly the same thing he tells everyone. He has absolutely no way to find out anyone's identity, it's just one of his typical threats. Don't bother returning his e-mails. Chick Bowen 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... it's him. I will say from personal experience (not mine, since obviously I protect my identity) that he has seriously harassed people in real life, so be aware of that. Herostratus 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He will harass you in any way he can. And he will leave you charming messages like this one [8] (and hey, BoxingWear, if you are reading this, I'm in need of a good tax person this year, so go right ahead). Several of us have tangled with this irritating person for more than a year now (oh, by the way, he is also probably the notorious "Squidward" vandal -- see the March 14 edit in the deleted history of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Squidward for a telltale bit). Note to all who are following him: normally he turns up at IPs in the 66.99.small number.xxx and 64.107.small number.xxx ranges, but for the last two days he has used only open proxies. I've started blocking them whenever he reappears. Antandrus (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pretty sure it's a canard that he is Squidward, he only claimed falsely to be Squidward, I think. Yes, the best policy is revert, do not engage, and endure. At the uttermost end of need, Jimbo knows his real identity (courtesy of yours truly) and he knows this, unless he has forgotten it. This kept him quiet for quite some time, but no longer it appears. Herostratus 07:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. I got one too.

I asked you few questions, don't have manners to reply FUCK YOU THEN!Do know, we know identities of most of you and that will be used against you.

See my archives around 23 or 24 for the rant he posted, and my reply to said rant. Daniel.Bryant 08:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got ~~one~~ 3, too, but that may be due to my blocking of the three ranges he primarily uses after his latest attack.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He left quite a rant on my talk page, too. [9] PT O 14:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

compromised account

Would this be the place to report a possibly compromised account? Natalie 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:AN/I might be slightly better, but that's just such a minor detail. Which account do you suspect isn't being used by its creator? Picaroon 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may be a moot point now, since the account has been blocked, but almost immediately after User: 134.148.5.104 was blocked, User: Perdy80 began making the exact same vandalism edits. But if you look at Perdy80's contribs, he or she was a perfectly fine contributor up through 1 February. There is then a 1 week gap of no edits, and then the vandalism edits start. It just seems odd to me that an editor of primarily football related subjects would suddenly start repeatedly vandalizing politics articles. Natalie 03:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very odd. I'll keep an eye out, I suspect a relative and a cookie. Teke^(talk) 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Polarbit

I've been trying to deal with above user over the page My life as jacob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Polarbit (talk · contribs) seems to be the creator of the page about a non-notable album and recreated it after it was speedy deleted once before. I tagged it again as a speedy delete, but the user kept removing the speedy deletion tags, even after a repeated final warning. Despite claims he will "add sources" to the page, all he's done is just add templates to the page. A quick bit of research shows no coverage in reliable sources for the album, and Polarbit has tried to remove the speedy tags from the article through anonymous IP addresses. Can someone please deal with this user and the article? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting it, but he recreated the article again. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's business card on user page

User:JPatrickBedell has an image of his business card — Image:Cannabis-bcard-2007-01-10 000001.png — on his userpage. I find that this is contrary to policy and the general principles of Wikipedia.

Though not an article, it violates the spirit of Propaganda or advocacy/self-promotion/advertising.
His cards advertise his business — selling cannabis — which I believe falls under WP:NOT Personal web pages as this is the sort of item that one would post on their own website.
And, finally, I find that it does not advance Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (WP:User page).

There was a recent incident, discussed here (or it might have been on AN/I), in which an editor removed what they considered to be inappropriate content from another editor's userpage without first talking to the editor. The gist of the discussion pointed to an overall agreement that concerns should have first been made known to the editor to give him a chance to remove the image on his own. I've done this on the user page. I've been politely ignored. (JPatrickBedell has posted on my talk page in response to another editor's posted concern that JPatrickBedell might be using a sockpuppet for editing, so he's clearly aware of talk pages and has been reading his and others.)

I've not deleted the image myself, but instead I'm bringing it here for comment/to get sense of community opinion. — ERcheck (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, and blatant advertising is blatant advertising. I would suggest asking a commons admin to get rid of the image, as he's cunningly uploaded it there. Proto::► 12:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highly inappropriate misuse of Wikipedia. Further, his userpage clearly indicates he is not here to further Wikipedia's neutral aims, but to push his 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm not sure this guy belongs here.--Doc^g 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately separated the business card issue from the conspiracy issue, though is becoming clearer that there are policy violations, including potential libel ([10]). — ERcheck (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a commons admin, I hereby point out this discussion is misplaced. You are welcome to post a discussion in commons:Commons:Deletion requests and argue that it is not in the commons:project scope. I do not believe it qualifies under the criteria of speedy deletion. --Cat out 13:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK the image has been put up for deletion by a commons admin. The user, however, is our problem.--Doc^g 13:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Get rid of it" didn't necessarily mean speedily, and only referred to one problem image. But thanks for the deletion, Cat. The discussion is not misplaced, however - as Doc says, the user is on Wikipedia, not Commons. Proto::► 13:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what I meant was the deletion discussion. :) --Cat out 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to delete it but rama beat me to it. I was initially thinking that this "might" be useful on a business card article. But clearly this thing isn't even useful for that. --Cat out 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This is reposted from User talk:ERcheck.) Thank you very much for expressing your concerns. It appears to me, after carefully considering your request, that the belief that this image is not allowed on a wikipedia user page can only result from an inappropriate misreading of the published guidance on the subject. It communicates contact information as its central purpose, and also encodes two distinct information currency units, which may be decoded by other wikipedia users to learn about both PDF417 and information currency. Thank you again for your help. JPatrickBedell 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working so hard to make wikipedia great! For clinical analysis of wiki-behavior, I could only call this an example of suppresionism (of course, the article will probably be deleted by the time you read this :). Thanks again! JPatrickBedell 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80.192.242.187

There have been some problems with this IP. There are multiple attempts to reason with him here: User talk:80.192.242.187. Despite this, there is persistent and unrepentant addition of inaccuracies, incivility and vandalism including explicit comments. He has already been blocked once for 11 hours and another time for 48 hours. I request something more be done. Here is a summary of his edits in the last 10 days. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 15:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack or Not?

I want to know the reason of User:Jayjg post on a user talk page. He keep calling each reference we (me and many other provide) as false. He abuse me multiple times by calling source I give him as cherry picking sources. Now he is generalizing political and linguistic as non-reliable sources. I want to know the reason of his post that how can someone with such MAJOR post in wikipedia continue to do such things. Hence I post on his talk page which he removed calling personal attack. [11]. If it is personal attack then it simply means he is God and he can say Noam Chomsky as unreliable and we accept it. If we ask him he call it persoanl attack. I wish to have some outside view on this. --- ALM 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayjg who is an admin and as well as on important places like Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee say following. Politicians and linguists are not researchers in the field of terrorism, and therefore are not reliable sources on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC). He decline to accept Noam chomsky as a reference. When ask why he is generalizing all the politician and linguistics in above statement then he saying it personal attack. It is simply not acceptable from someone who is so important in wikipedia.--- ALM 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that you are accusing him of abusing his administrative privileges. Unless you feel he has used rollback or protection or banning inappropriately, this probably isn't the best forum for you to air your complaints. You seem to have a dispute with him about what is and is not a reliable source. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and take content disputes to the article's talk page. If he doesn't want you to comment on his talk page, the appropriate course of action (in my opinion) would be for you to not do so. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can he selects not to answer to anyone or decline to answer to anyone. If he is a simple user then it is OKAY. I do not care and if a simple user do not wish to answer. However, an admin should not be able to decline to answering legal and fair questions. If they can then they should not be admin. Is my logic wrong? --- ALM 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin is a regular user, unless that admin is using his tools. Unless there has been some mis-use of admin tools, this belongs with regular conflict resolution. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have passed the stage with him where I can resolve conflict. I will try to push some people to file RFC because I do not have time to do that myself. He first says that I am using primary source. Hence I provide him secondary source. He says that it is not reliable source. I provide him more reliable source. Then he says it is cherry picking. Hence he never accept any sources at all. If I post a simple question on his talk page he decline to answer that. Why he is admin then? When he do not welcome other people to talk with him and answer questions? (I have references of each of above things). --- ALM 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is a good part of conflict resolution, and might be your best bet. Admins are not required to respond to every message left on their talk pages, and many do not. Best of luck. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the situation, it appears User:Jayjg is challenging Noam chomsky as a reliable source on terrorism-related articles (since Chomsky is a linguist and not a terrorism expert). While this view could be debated, it is a valid view. Jayjg has not engaged in any personal attacks regarding this. That said, ALM has appeared to engage in borderline personal attacks around this issue. ALM should feel free to take this to conflict resolution if he wants but should also know that his actions and statements will also be considered in any conflict resolution. --Alabamaboy 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to lose Alabamaboy. It is not about Noam Chomsky alone. It is a long lasting dispute about him. If they ban me then it is okay because for me standing for what is right matter more then individuals.

Then I try to send email to few editors who have conflicts with him in the past. I will tell them references so that they can file RFC and I can work. Because I cannot do that myself without losing important work time. --- ALM 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When contacting these other editors, you may wish to keep WP:CANVAS in mind. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note: Question was NOT about Noam chomsky alone. Question was that he has generalised all politican and liguistics. The question is that he refuse to explain himself even being an admin and Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee member. His quote "Politicians and linguists are not researchers in the field of terrorism, and therefore are not reliable sources on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)" --- ALM 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not alone me who is confused from his post and had a wish for simple explanation. there are other user also.--- ALM 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still not an admin matter. I suggest mediation or RFC, or gathering more opinions, or conducting a poll. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. --- ALM 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

I don't deal much with images so I'm not much on an expert on licensing... so hopefully someone else here deals with it more and can answer this question. An editor has loaded some images (this being an example) with a GFDL license. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to release something GFDL, you need to be the content creator don't you? There is no image source information and I somehow doubt the uploader actually created this image so it probably is a valid license, but like I said I don't do enough with images that I'm 100% sure that is the case. If any other admins want to take a look or just explain it to me on my talk page, that would be great.--Isotope23 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either the creator must release it under GFDL, or it must be a modified ('derivative') version of a work under a GFDL-compatible licence (such as public domain or CC-by) and released by the modifier under GFDL, for the resulting image to be GFDL. I can just about imagine that image being a derivative of a public-domain image, but it doesn't seem likely and anyway that should be stated to be true on the image if it is, so it looks somewhat suspicious. --ais523 18:50, 9 February 2007 (U T C)

Thanks, that is sort of what I thought. I'm talking to the uploader right now to get this sorted out.--Isotope23 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle POV Pushing in Douglas Feith Article

An anon user at 24.104.47.12 is repeatedly inserting redundant information concerning Douglas Feith's religion and alleged politics into his article. [12] [13] [14] I think an administrator should warn the anon user at 24.104.47.12 about it. Abe Froman 18:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flameviper needs a coach

Flameviper (talk · contribs): I'm not going to take the time to provide a bunch of diffs; a quick glance through this user's contribs or talk page archives will give you the gist. Flameviper is highly disruptive and doesn't take constructive criticism or even conduct warnings seriously. I'm not entirely sure that mentoring him won't be a waste of time, but maybe some intrepid admin or experienced editor wants to take Flameviper under their wing. Perhaps if he is treated like a grown-up he will act like one. He's assented to mentorship (more or less) on his talk page. I honestly don't have the time right now, or I'd give it a go myself. A Train ^{take the} 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one else wants to can I take him on? I've seen him around lately and do believe that he means well but just needs someone to tame his temperament RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More power to you. I came across him in his extremely ill-advised RfA and an MfD for his personal wiki's Main Page; I heartily agree that he needs some sort of guidance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he agrees to it, Ryan. You're absolutely right; he's a very good editor when he wants to be, but as it stands right now he's just headed for a long block. A Train ^{take the} 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully someone can get through to him. He's teetering on the edge of a block with one more disruption from about 5 different admins. Metros232 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm actually away tonight, but come tomorrow I will try and get through to him, I just hope he doesn't do anything stupid tonight. I really do believe he has potential to be a useful contributor (possibly not admin though like he seams to think!) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That guy is hilarious! I especially like his user page. I'd give him a userpage barnstar, but I'm too tired right now.--Abs Like Jesus 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have now blocked Flameviper for one monthh. He's had this coming for awhile. This edit was the final straw. It's edit summary "Let's hope (for both our sakes) you don't piss me off" and threatening to be disruptive is totally inappropriate. If anyone disagrees with this, let me know, but too much has gone on in the last couple of weeks from this account to justify allowing him to continue to edit Wikipedia for the time being, Metros232 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse • I would even go so far as to want a strong community ban. Behaviour exhibited on Elaragirl and Jpgordon's talk pages is so clearly unacceptable we may even want to use it as bad examples in WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was reluctant to do a full ban because many people above believe he can be a good editor. However, if the community wants to investigate his actions further towards a full ban, I have no problem with that. Metros232 20:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I've protected the talk page, this is rather agitating and might warrant a possible WP:RfAr. Yanksox 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I think this is a bit much. Flameviper is by no means perfect but he should be given a final chance to become a more productive contributor, possibly through mentorship. As for that post on Elara's talk...I have seen worse. There is a sort of implied threat but the edit summary is certainly honest and - am I allow to say this? - sort of accurate as well. I have faith that Flameviper can improve his conduct here. I agree that 24 hours of enforced wikibreak would do no harm, but a month is a bit much. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have to disagree with you on that one. This was enough for me to see that he really doesn't have anything positive planned for us and is acting a tad bit psychotic and will need to take a long break to just chill out. One day would fuel the fire, a month will let him burn out and start anew. Yanksox 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought a month seemed harsh (not knowing the history here) but the link above basically shows stated intention to troll. Either an indefinite block or the one-month as a last chance seem appropriate to me. Friday (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, a 1 month block coincides nicely with his recently announced 1 month vacation from Wikipedia, so I don't really see a problem here.--Isotope23 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no drum to bang for the guy, but it looks to my eyes that we gave him the provokation he was seeking, then, when he responded, we provoked him again. He responded again, and then we blocked him.

I'm always happy to block on a threat, but we could be accused of using it as a pretext here. This guy isn't the best contributor in the world - by a long chalk - but we've talked ourselves up from some minor disruption to indef blocking being on the cards in a matter of hours. We block disruptive sockfarmers for less time than this guy has got and with more provokation.

Some coolheadedness would not go amiss here. (Not that I'm advocating unblocking him or anything... just a sense of perspective, maybe?) 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in general, but in this one particular case, he came right out and said he wanted to stir up trouble. Trolls come in (at least) 2 flavors: people who sit down at the computer and say "today I will troll Wikipedia", and immature editors who get into conflicts, are unable to let it go, and start trolling by accident, still convinced they're "fighting the good fight". This guy may have been unfortunately and needlessly provoked, I don't know, but we still got to see his reaction to provocation. He reacted by stating his intention to troll. Trolls of any kind are unwelcome here. Friday (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue though is that it's this pattern with the user. Many people were looking for him to be blocked a week+ ago when he was disruptive during his RFA. He was given many, many last chances in the last few weeks. Metros232 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: However maybe reduce the block :/, this stuff needs to stop though. ~ Arjun 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't hold your breath on that, user has had previous accounts such as Son_of_a_Peach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked multiple times until an indefblock in September last year. This is an ongoing problem. --pgk 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user's attitude seems to have seriously worsened since his most recent unsuccessful RfA a couple of weeks ago. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is one of the reasons I went with a month. This isn't Flameviper's first travels into the realm of incivility blocks. He's been blocked on several other accounts indefinitely, see User:Flameviper/socks. Metros232 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Block I think a ban is a little extreme (...for now...). I think a two-week "cool the hell down" period would work just fine before we permanently shuffle him off the wiki coil. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks pgk, I previously didn't know that he had socks and all that jazz. I support EVula's idea. A two-weaker. ~ Arjun 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour ban

I can totally understand everyones concerns, but please could this be reduced to a 24 hour ban? I am more than happy to work with this user and try and point him in the right way. In my opinion, a month will stop him editing completely and as I've already said, flameviper means well and has much to give to wikipedia. I promise that with any further major disruption I will immediatly request that he is blocked. I really would like a chance to turn this user around into a good editor as he has the potential. (I do believe a 24 hour band is in order as a cooling off period) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know, I've emailed Flameviper as his talkpage is protected. I've asked what he actually wants to get out of editing wikipedia and what his interests are, If anyones interested, I'll let them know his responses RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose reducing it to a 24 hour ban. This user's recent behaviour certainly merits a block, and his past record merits making it a long one. I support EVula's idea above to reduce it to two weeks, but not just 1 day - that will get nothing into his head. – Chacor 02:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, but could you give him one last chance? fair enough, a longer ban than 24 hours, how about 4days? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Sabow - Unfounded copyright claims preventing critical image inclusion

Thanks for making wikipedia great! I would like to include the images Image:FIGURE 11 A 4cda533808cecbb8952a1a001392adc86ad9a4f282ee2e97f56e28849b88048f.jpg Image:FIGURE 11 B 1a65945fc077c716da682e8c877fb62c9957ad5ef20afcd497353f7c9f23c4fb.jpg Image:FIGURE 11 C 9de163fa3d855d4d1c5273e0ea16bf984f185f5fdc314b4410e55d6bd6be45cf.jpg in the James E. Sabow article. The images make plain that Col. Sabow suffered a basilar skull fracture before a shotgun was discharged in his mouth. The images (initially on commons at Image:FIGURE 11 A a5cd1064fb7502e6a9e10b1dfe54ea5872c3279f.jpg, Image:FIGURE 11 B f1992ff75a9c82108c08c27e207879b8115fc9bf.jpg, Image:FIGURE 11 C 3ae8ad0330aeba8d5250813b471dc58c7a248e9e.jpg) are autopsy photographs that are not generally copyrighted. The fair use rationale provided with the images at en.wikipedia.org would apparently satisfy wikipedia's copyright policies.

Unfortunately, the edits including the images have been reverted twice, and I am seeking help here. I believe that, despite the graphic nature of the images, it is important that users of wikipedia be able to see the facts of a disputed case for themselves. Thank you for your consideration. JPatrickBedell 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for our policy on publishing images on Wikipedia. In brief: be sure, in the future, to not make up spurious licensing claims, and, at a mimimum, credit the copyright holder of any image you upload. Jkelly 20:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are licensed GFDL and I don't see evidence the uploader actually has the correct permissions to license these as GFDL. I've responded on his talk page so hopefully this can be cleared up.--Isotope23 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three images on commons (Image:FIGURE 11 A a5cd1064fb7502e6a9e10b1dfe54ea5872c3279f.jpg, Image:FIGURE 11 B f1992ff75a9c82108c08c27e207879b8115fc9bf.jpg, Image:FIGURE 11 C 3ae8ad0330aeba8d5250813b471dc58c7a248e9e.jpg) have each been tagged with the copyvio claim. I don't believe that claim is valid, although I may of course be wrong. Copyright issues are, in criminal justice proceedings, a non-issue, and the OC Coroner doesn't assert copyright on the images. They don't sell autopsy images, either. Thanks for your help! JPatrickBedell 20:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A copyright dosn't need to be asserted to be valid. Orange County would own the copyrights by default unless they have a policy of releasing the info into the public domain (for example some places release mug shots, some don't). Fair Use might apply if the article was talking about the photo or it had a section on his head wound. I'm not 100% sure tho. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the images may also constitute original research. It is not wikipedia's job to prove anything with regard to the subject, and this article looks like a textbook case of axe-grinding. Several of the references are self-published by the subject's father in what appears to be a highly contentious investigation. I certainly do not accept the claim that coroner's records are not copyrighted. At a minimum they are medical records protected by HIPPA and may not legally be disclosed without written authorization from the subject's estate or authorized medical proxy. The images are almost certainly copyrighted as well. Thatcher131 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. The images are now referenced in the text in a way that makes the importance of the images clear. This is fair use for a matter of public importance. Also, please note that Dr. David Sabow is the brother of Col. James Sabow. Simply ignoring the references does not demonstrate NPOV. Thank you for your help! JPatrickBedell 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are changing licensing claims on these images. See the upload summary. User asserts public domain claiming they are the work of the Naval Investigative Service. Then, it is changed to the county coroner. In fact, it is likely that the source that the JPatrickBedell took these images from is a copyright protected report from http://meixatech.com/COLSABOWHOMICIDE.pdf . These images, as noted from their file names, are likely scans of figure 11 in the report.

The use of these images are part of JPatrickBedell's self-declared mission ("I am determined to see that justice is served in the death of Colonel James Sabow...", see user page) to use Wikipedia for finding "justice" in the death of Col. Sabow. The editors mission has lead to edits that appear to violate some fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines: WP:NOT — advocacy, WP:OR — Synthesis of published material... (deleted "Evidence" subpage). These images are are only included to advance this mission. — ERcheck (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait five days and the issue probably goes away. At least it's shaping up that way. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

renaming of an article

This is re-request in re Oberon-1. See discussion at talk. There is no Oberon-1 language. There was an Oberon Report by Wirth et al, and there was an Oberon-2 Report. The Oberon-1 article should be renamed Oberon, and all pointers to it converted to Oberon. In keeping iwth the programming language decision re Java and C and so on, perhaps it should be Oberon (programming language). But this impetuous rename should be recovered. WP readers deserve better than this confusion. ww 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complicated case and should go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. The history has to be gone through with some care; last October it seems to have been divided into what are now Oberon-1 and Oberon-2. The previous title was Oberon (programming language), which now redirects to Oberon-2. It should not be at Oberon, which is a disambiguation page, however; it needs some kind of explanatory parenthesis. Chick Bowen 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we initiate a new noticeboard?

A comment here on the increasing number of community ban discussions: although this noticeboard is open to everyone, its title does tend to scare away the unmopified crowd (it certainly had that effect on me before I assumed janitorial responsibilities). So since community bans - and potentially community enforced mediation as well - are in principle for the entire community, perhaps we should initiate a new noticeboard for community-specific action. I'm thinking something parallel to this and listed in the same places rather than the Village Pump (which handles more new user and general questions). Call it Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. Thoughts, anyone? Durova^Charge! 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it for the very reasons you put forth. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the idea of the page. Not sure about the name. 'noticeboard' seems to imply that it is for posting notices, rather for seeking consensus on things. Does Village 'Ting' sound more like what we want? Regards, Ben Aveling 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Village Ðing/ðing? A ecis^Brievenbus 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect so. But I'd prefer something I can type.

Endorse ;), great idea. ~ Arjun 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. It'll make things easier. Acalamari 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on endorse :) A ecis^Brievenbus 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...maybe the introduction should express that this is for community discussion of potential bans and things like that. It isn't a chat room. And some tech whiz could add it to the noticeboard template? Durova^Charge! 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page has been created: Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. I'd rather have seen a discusion of the name first, but whatever. Let's see how it goes. If it does turn into a chat room we can rename it to Village Ting, or Ðing. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit, please feel free to edit/second-guess/slash away. IronDuke 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet Filled Mess

Hi

Where is the best place to report a string of sock/meat puppets these days? I've been editing as anon for years now, and am not familiar with the current meta practices on en.

I noticed some serious disruption in an AfD involving massive sock and meat puppetry, including external incitements to disruption. Somebody with checkuser needs to sort this out. Just as my luck would have it, I happen to get into a passionate AfD right after I leave the IPs behind, and now I can't bring this up in the AfD itself, as it has moved to semiprot (as it should be) to stop the puppetry.

Thanks, NetOracle 00:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 495: / Line 495: @@
 :Just to let everyone know, I've emailed Flameviper as his talkpage is protected. I've asked what he actually wants to get out of editing wikipedia and what his interests are, If anyones interested, I'll let them know his responses [[User:ryanpostlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font><font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/ryanpostlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:ryanpostlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup> 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Oppose''' reducing it to a 24 hour ban. This user's recent behaviour certainly merits a block, and his past record merits making it a long one. I support EVula's idea above to reduce it to two weeks, but not just 1 day - that will get nothing into his head. &ndash; [[User talk:Chacor|Chacor]] 02:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
+::I understand this, but could you give him one last chance? fair enough, a longer ban than 24 hours, how about 4days? [[User:ryanpostlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font><font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/ryanpostlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:ryanpostlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup> 02:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 == [[James Sabow]] - Unfounded copyright claims preventing critical image inclusion  ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards