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. 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

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)

MOving content out again

• Regarding [1]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just a quick question addressed to Drini: Why did you copy that content to your userspace? --Asterion^talk 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

There is another problem. Vlad fedorov started reverting all my recent edits on political topics (completely unrelated to Stomakhin), so he effectively blocked my work in Wikipedia. I warned him but he continues. This is personal vengence. What can be done in this situation? Biophys 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted deletions by Biophys of well-sourced materials published by another author on the article Mitrokhin archive. This deletion could be seen here cur http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitrokhin_Archive&diff=107010834&oldid=106018891 I have reinserted these well-sourced statements, since they are reliable and definitely should be mentioned in the article. I have deleted Biophys's unsourced defamatory statements on Russians as ethnicity which incite ethnic hatred in the article David Satter. Please note that Biophys reinserts unsourced statements inciting ethnic hatred by following edits cur http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Satter&diff=prev&oldid=107021411. I think he should be blocked for violation of LP policies, since these statements describe David Satter as inciting ethnic hatred at least.Vlad fedorov 06:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to notice that Biophys deletes well-sourced materials not for the first time. For example Biophys has deleted good source in the article State sponsored terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&diff=102543018&oldid=102542124 Revision as of 23:23, 22 January 2007 (edit) (undo) Biophys (Talk | contribs) /* United States - reference to blog removed, non-working reference corrected) deleted the working link to [2]. I ask you to read his comments with attention, first Biophys claims that it is a blog, and second he claims the link is broken. But how he could say it is a blog if the link is actually broken? By the way, the source is not a blog and the link always works.Vlad fedorov 06:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is factually wrong. "Terrorism" is an old story. I agreed yesterday with physicq to stay away of you and do not do anything with your edits (see my message on your talk page that you deleted). It was you who attacked today and yesterday my articles and edits on political topics: Izvestia, David Satter, Yulia Latynina, Mitrokhin Archive, Anatoliy Golitsyn, Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation and Active measures, probably to take revenge for Stomakhin article (Sorry, I do not see any other logical explanation).Biophys 19:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are doing original research by saying it is factually wrong. There is nothing wrong here - CIA has sponsored Cuban terrorists to commit terror on Cuba. It is sad that you see my edits as personal attack on you, try to think about it in other way. By the way you have suggested that I am FSB/KGB team working in the internet and called me troll. So you have also committed personal attack on me.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Further_actions and here on my own talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVlad_fedorov&diff=106849885&oldid=106512675 Vlad fedorov 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well the "1 month vacation" is really him unwilling to admit he was blocked and try to make it seem like he's not going to be editing because he doesn't want to (note how he replaced my block notice with that announcement). Metros232 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I know... I always forget that irony doesn't always translate well in written communications.--Isotope23 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

• 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)

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)

• Endorse block given the user's history. However, I would also like to see it shortened to two weeks, perhaps. A month is too long at this point. --Coredesat 02:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But the user's history IS the reason for the longer block. See User:Flameviper/socks. This isn't his first "go around the block" so to speak (no pun intended). He clearly should know what behavior is unacceptable based on the indefinite blocks of his former accounts. If this was a user with no past, sure, a few weeks is okay, but a longer block is necessary to prevent further disruption (because so far this user seems to only cause disruption no matter what account he uses). Metros232 02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose he just began his mentorship, so why is he now being blocked? You missed the edit until after he was picked up by a mentor, so you lost your chances of a ban. Crud3w4re 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • His threats came 20 minutes after he refused mentorship. I don't think we "lost" a chance as you put it. Metros232 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Oppose reducing it to a 24 hour ban block. 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)

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)

• Oppose reduction - brief contact with this user has convinced me that he's essentially a good kid at heart, but doesn't have the maturity to be consistently constructive in his contributions yet. He needs a good long time-out (ideally the original month, certainly longer than 24 hours). I don't think mentorship will be a productive use of anyone's time, because fundamentally what Flameviper needs is time to mature. Opabinia regalis 03:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  For the record, I'm not going to cry if he never returns, given his rather hostile attitude. However, I would like to at least give him the rope to hang himself. How about we reduce the block with the condition that this is the last chance he gets? Worst case scenario is that we have a mild bit of extra work and then he's gone; best case scenario, we get a more mature, productive, and civil editor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose reduction per Opabinia regalis. Much as I would like to assume good faith and believe in second chances, this user has continued to be disruptive over a long period of time, so I don't think a 24 hour block will be a sufficient "cool down" period. I haven't interacted directly with Flameviper, but I did observe his behaviour surrounding another user's RfA and his taunting remarks on the user's talk page, as well as on User talk:Bumm13. It should also be noted that Flameviper has at least one admitted sock (according to User:Flameviper/socks) that hasn't been blocked, namely User:Flameviper in Exile. The sock account may not have done anything wrong, but a block on one account is ineffective if a user can potentially use another account to dodge the block. I do feel bad for him, but this was a result of his own actions. --Kyoko 04:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  That was a concern I had as well (the open sock). The contribs have been quite on that, though; I'm willing to leave it that way to, as I said earlier, give him his own noose.

  I think it's pretty clear that a reduction to 24 hours is just plain out, but what about my suggestion of whittling it down to just two weeks? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  I think that a reduction to a two week block plus the condition that any further violations would lead to an indefinite block would be acceptable. Hopefully Flameviper will take this opportunity to think more about how he might contribute to the encyclopedia rather than dwell on his disputes with others. --Kyoko 07:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Some #wikipedia chanops and I have recently had an unproductive run-in with this user. Maybe give him a couple of years to mature a little bit, then he can start contributing ... Cyde Weys 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this guy is a failed /b/tard. He's spitting out 4chan memes like a total newbie. I don't have an issue with this guy's being a 4channer, but his actual contribution to the encyclopedic aspect of this site has been minimal and barely marginal at best. Most of the time, he's just testing our patience. I'm really leaning towards a permaban. Yanksox 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth in that regard, Flameviper is a proud Uncyclopedian (not that there's anything wrong with that), but his contributions to Wikipedia are uncyclopedic in nature. Teke ^(talk) 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Endorse I saw no good argument for a permanent ban. Why the mob stack? He deserves atleast a second chance. I saw many violations of Assume Good Faith in here. Crud3w4re 01:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's all well and good, but I don't think you're actually acknowledging the pure facts of this incident. He's alreadly been blocked several times, others indef. on other accounts. This is a text book example of trying our patience. Yanksox 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Email conversation with User:Flameviper

I'm not sure if anyone is interested, but I've emailed flameviper and his responses can be found in my userspace here, I'm not sure what to make of it, especially the last few lines so comments would be appreciated RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally not convinced. And he is on a very tight rope. – Chacor 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother spending time trying to reform him. If he wants to edit usefully when his block expires, he will do so. If he does otherwise, he'll find himself running out of chances soon. Not much you can do about it either way. The bit about him enjoying being an attention-seeker does not bode well. The minute he shows signs of putting his desire for attention ahead of the interests of the project, it's time to show him the door. Until then we should ignore him as much as possible- feeding his desire for attention can accomplish nothing useful. Friday (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still on board with my "reduced block/last chance" idea, though the email doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about his reformation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• No way. WP:DENY. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, and I no longer think that a two week block would be sufficient, based upon the revelation of another sock account (User:HUNGY MAN) that was used recently used in an attempt to evade the block. The HUNGY MAN account recently edited User:Flameviper's userpage as shown in this diff, and he implicitly admits that this is a sock of Flameviper here. --Kyoko 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• After seeing that email (the last two lines) I would probably suggest extending it to a permanent ban. This guy's had 2 RFA's, both stating he's a "reformed vandal", and then openly admits in the email that he "loves people talking about him" and has a troll wanting to get out. And all that crap about writing articles is just a little hard to believe. This is a serial unproductive/disruptive editor. -- Renesis (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm...very interesting; I don't know about a permanent ban but then again...Those last two lines are very bothering. ~ Arjun 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think the majority of the email suggest that he is trying his hardest to make good faith edits, just the last 2 lines are very worrying and suggest he is more than likely to blow again at any point. I also don't feel it is good for an editor to have a major interest in other editors disgussing him. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• This has gone too bloody far, we can't afford to bicker about this and wait for him to create enough socks. I've indefinitely blocked him for his actions. The threshold has most certainly been passed here. Yanksox 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • It seems that the user has uploaded the images again. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

You mean the Village Ðing/ðing? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Pile-on endorse :) Aecis^Brievenbus 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Perhaps a better explanation of what this is for would be appropriate. Right now, since it only mentions community bans, it may be viewed by newer users as only for community bans. I must admit, I myself am not entirely clear on what else would go on this board. Natalie 03:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone created the board almost as soon as I suggested the idea. The door's very open to discussion. It would work with the new mediation I've been proposing, to welcome the entire community in community decisions. Things fly along fast here and at ANI - a regular editor who doesn't follow sysop topics would probably miss a lot. It seems to me we should encourage open involvement in community decisions. Admins don't carry extra weight at these discussions over any other editor in good standing. It's the equalizing principle. Durova^Charge! 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's just for Community bans and the like, perhaps a better name for it would be something like "Community enforcement noticeboard". As is, the title seems to suggest it's just another name for the Village Pump. Actually that might be a decent way of dealing with the title as well: make it be Wikipedia:Village Pump (Enforcement). --tjstrf talk 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In theory it would be open to any community decision making. I'm flexible about name and location. What I want to circumvent is this impression and the people who read the thread but are too shy to participate at all. Durova^Charge! 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's for general community discussion/decision making (the two are rather synonymous), then it really is a duplicate of the village pump with one additional subject. The pump already has all the areas it would discuss that aren't community bans/enforcement that I can think of covered, so to avoid duplication we should put it in the same tree as the others. The pump already has problems with duplication here and on various ancillary Wikipedia talk:-space pages (for the proposals and policy sections especially), adding another general discussion area would presumably result in even more duplication. --tjstrf talk 05:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I hope I have not jumped the gun, however, I have made some changes to the proposed community board and transcluded templates of a technical nature. If this is not the consensus, please feel free to discuss or edit, slash, etc. regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• The name should be more specific if it is for the new mediation; community noticeboard sounds too close to community portal, new users will be liekly confused. If it is to be more general, we already have forums for that, as pointed above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Uh, how would this be different from the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard? I mean, how are we going to stop the new board from collapsing onto itself, like WP:PAIN did? Titoxd^(?!?) 06:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it amazing that someone has even posed that question. Is that a joke? Durova^Charge! 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, and not by a far shot. Let's say that I want to go there to ask for a community ban on EvilCat. What's to stop the other user from engaging me there, and writing megabyte upon megabyte of ranting? What is the difference, in principle, of both boards? I still see it boiling down to one user asking for punishment on another. There may be something really obvious that I'm missing, but I still don't see why my question is a joke. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Siteban discussions would proceed there the same way they proceed here or at ANI. The only differences are how a community board title doesn't imply admin-only discussion and a lower traffic board decreases the risk that occasional visitors will miss something important. If a thread gets trolled it'll get refactored or shut down, same as here. That board is for community decisions rather than gripes. Durova^Charge! 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the only reason ANI doesn't dissolve into PAIN is that it is watched by hundreds of people. If the community noticeboard is not watched, the same thing will happen there. For the matter, if PAIN and RFI had been watched, there would have been no problem with them. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So let's all put Wikipedia:Community noticeboard on our watchlist. :) --Conti|✉ 22:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Another use for the community noticeboard could/should be the notification of recently closed ArbCom cases IMHO, which are currently put here. --Conti|✉ 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had that in mind. The heavy traffic on this board makes it easy to miss that sort of notice and ArbCom decisions are of interest to the entire editor community. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the goal of countering the impression that this board or other boards are just for admins is admirable, and should be pursued. I lurked, if the kids are still using that term, on this board for many, many months before I ever posted a single question, much less a comment, and still have maybe posted 3 times. But I think I agree with Tjstrf that this could easily result in more duplication of topics or confusion over where a certain thing should be posted. Natalie 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's another good use for it. I endorse the idea of moving closed arbitration case-postings to the CN, seeing as they're of interest to the whole community. Picaroon 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think I'd rather move AN over CN; from my perspective, splitting the discussion like this seems more confusing than anything. It adds another page for me to watch over, fragments already-hectic discussion, and may add to the unfortunate perception that admins are more important than other users. Well-intentioned, I am very much sure, but a move/merge may be more useful than a split, is my take. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship numbers (was: Completely unnecessary thread...)

I changed the title from "Completely unnecessary thread, clear abuse of this noticeboard". It was bugging me seeing the silly abuse claim constantly repeated on my watchlist. Dragons flight 22:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the promotion of AnemoneProjectors there are now 1,111 admins. I find this satisfying for some reason. Chick Bowen 07:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I get what you mean by your header and the message. Could you clarify? Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 14:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean nothing at all. It's a round number. By abuse of this noticeboard, I meant by me, not abuse I was reporting, if that wasn't clear. Chick Bowen 16:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Irony. --Ideogram 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Predictions on when we'll reach 2000, or 2222? Newyorkbrad 16:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More importantly (but not much), who is admin #666? the wub "?!" 16:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mindspillage! --Deskana (request backup) 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Head for the hills! Mackensen (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So there's something to that numerology stuff after all... Erm, I mean, what an amusing coincidence! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just alphabetical, isn't it? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming no one was sysoped twice, or desysoped (which has happened), it is Alhutch. But obviously that is not correct, since you need to factor those things in. I know I am #865 though ;-). Prodego ^talk 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like Shimgray was #666 based on the list I have at the bottom of User:NoSeptember/admincount and both of the the rights logs at enwiki and meta. That is, his promotion raised the number to 666. NoSeptember (admin #795) 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could be admin #420. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your admin count says I am admin 866 (based on counting upward from the March 06 count), but I know that I am 865 (I checked when I was promoted). How could that be? Prodego ^talk 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone had been desysopped before you were promoted? So at the time you were the 865th active admin, but the 866th promoted? Just a wild guess, not sure how NoSeptember processes the data. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have hidden text in the lower part of the list that keeps track of meta log changes. Since I am moving backward from 28 June 2006 when I first started tracking the count, it could be an error in counting the changes in the two logs. If any permissions changes were made outside of the logs (i.e. by a developer) I will certainly miss it, which is why I will be limited in how far back I can calculate the count accurately, since developer actions are not logged. Obviously, when building a tracking list backwards, any errors will be cumulative. There were no desysoppings between EOM March and your promotion time. NoSeptember 18:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Better to just use userID's. HIBC, yours is 899386, still no 420 though ;-). NoSeptember is 244888, which is quite a nice number. Newyorkbrad = 990214, Deskana = 309128, and I = 451766. There used to be a tool to go the other way, so you could find out who is user 666, 6666, 66666, 666666... but it doesn't exist anymore. Prodego ^talk 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• One of the reasons I've tracked admin counts is to help create accurate graphs such as this and this. The list at WP:LA (and hence the count) was not always maintained all that accurately. And yes, long ago I noticed that I have an excellent userID# number :). It shows 2 to the X power, repeated X times. NoSeptember 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I find that number distinctly unsatisfying. The ratio of admins to registered accounts has been undergoing a serious long term decline. I've outlined the problem at User talk:Durova/Admin. Durova^Charge! 18:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your information is an excellent source for info on adminship trends. I absolutely love the color coded graph of admin 'classes', if you will. It shows the rate of admin creation better then a simple bar or line graph could. One thing I notice is the wave pattern on the admin promotions by month graph. We seem to be in a trough right now, and perhaps all this concern over admin promotion rates is not entirely warranted. On the other hand, it is significantly lower then other growth rates now. Prodego ^talk 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is only one "big wave", the others seem to be just ripples to me ;). NoSeptember 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit-conflict]There were a lot less admins being promoted then too, though. So it is possible this is an amplified version of a ripple. I guess we will find out in a few months. Prodego ^talk 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The ripples seem to be about 20% fluctuations, the wave was more of a 100% fluctuation that took a year to subside. NoSeptember 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Durova--yes, I agree that the promotion rate needs to be quickened, though how to do it is a question. NoSeptember's graph suggests (possibly--this may be a coincidence) a dropoff after the February '06 wheel war. The less stressful we can make being an admin, the more people will want to do it. Yes? Chick Bowen 19:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's give credit to Tariqabjotu for making the graph. NoSeptember 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed--sorry, and thanks for a useful graph, Tariqabjotu. Chick Bowen 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone who got sysopped when the WP:PAIN and WP:RFI boards were both backlogged and tried to keep them running (and succeeded until some cases went to arbitration), I draw a direct connection between the decline in the admin-to-account ratio and the difficulty in keeping up with those complaints. Although I don't want to come across as alarmist, there's a basic principle I draw from the law enforcement of New York City: during the 1970s it was almost impossible to get the police to respond to a noise complaint because the usual line was, we're too busy dealing with rapes and murders. During the 1990s those priorities changed. When smaller quality of life violations got attention the felony rates went down substantially. What the city discovered was that a friendly police officer walking the beat, asking someone to turn down the volume on a radio or writing a small citation for vandalism actually stopped potential troublemakers from graduating to more serious crimes. I'd like to recruit more sysops - more beat cops as it were - so we have enough admins to intervene early and keep the serious problems to a minimum. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like Fixing Broken Windows, a book (and an ensuing discussion) that I highly recommend to those interested in crime, its causes, and prevention. I recall that Tipping Point also touches on the issue. Heresiarch ^Yo 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

An important point that the Fixing Broken Windows page overlooks is that the Giuliani administration continued and expanded upon initiatives from the Dinkins administration. Also, the specific tactic of addressing turnstile jumpers had an enormous impact on the subway crime rates. New York City actually has a separate police force for its transit system. What they found was that people who sneaked into the system without paying the fare committed a large portion of the more serious crimes (which makes sense intuitively when you think about it for a moment). Anyway, back to Wikipedia: let's look for more good people to mentor into sysops. Durova^Charge! 22:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Of course, the reason for such a low increase lies in the now-adays rediculous 'requirements' for being an admin. Reading the RFAs, you have to be a walking encyclopedia with an edit count of 10,000 (minor edits don't count!) and have an immaculate reputation that surpasses that of the Pope! I'd love to help out, and I do what I can as an editor. But I'm not one that creates articles by the dozen, nor do I have any expert knowledge (other then that which is already on Wikipedia). But you can see me do plenty of 'janitorial' work, which is what I believe is being an admin is all about. You want more volunteers? Get rid of the 'Nay-sayers' first; they're the only reason admins don't get elected. I know consensus is the basis on which the community is build, however bureaucrats still tend to go with the numbers instead of the arguments.

I just had to get that off my chest... --Edokter (Talk) 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Undo" message at MediaWiki:Undo-summary

Does anyone want to chime in on this? This is a protected template, but there seems to be some discussion as to what the undo template should be. There are two suggestions:

1. [[WP:AES|←]]Undid revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]])
2. [[WP:AES|←]]Reverted revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) via [[Help:Reverting#Undo|undo]]

There's some talk on MediaWiki talk:Undo-summary, on people's opinions, but I want this brough to a wider audience-Halo 17:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally like this version. Perhaps a poll should be started about this, on the talk page. Prodego ^talk 17:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Polling is evil. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is a tool to assist in determing consensus. Prodego ^talk 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the one that says Undid, though I would prefer a wording that uses Undo, that is after all what it is doing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Undid" just rubs me the wrong way, "Undo" makes much more sense--162.84.217.206 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Undo is the wrong tense to go in the edit summary - the undoing has already happened. I know we use 'Revert done by X', but using "revert" as a noun is bad enough, please let's not go down this evil and slippery slope any further. Proto::► 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer version two. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, it really shouldn't use the word revert, since we mean something specific by "revert" which is different from "undo." Revert always refers to the most recent change. Chick Bowen 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Undo only works on the most recent change--162.84.217.206 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly does not. Discussion is ongoing at the talk page, please discuss over there so we can keep this consolidated. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If we want to be grammatically correct (for once!), it should be:

[[WP:AES|←]]Revision $1 undone by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]])

... but grammar and MediaWiki messages tend to mix like ice cream and smelly poo. Proto::► 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that version. It sounds much nicer and it makes use of "undo". --bainer (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Except $2 is the person who made the revision being undone, not the person undoing. Prodego ^talk 02:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[[WP:AES|←]]Revision $1, by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]), undone

Possibly... Ral315 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this on MediaWiki talk:Undo-summary, to avoid forking the discussion. --ais523 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

John F. Sandner

I'm not sure if this the right place to raise this. If not let me know. I began an article a few days ago on John F. Sandner, former longtime chairman of the Chicago Merc, and unfortunately I seem to have taken some phrases from a website unintentionally, for which I apologize. The article now has a large "copyright violation" notice, and I tried to expiate matters by commencing a new article in the temp file attached to the article. I understand that an administrator must resolve this. Could someone please look at the temp file when you have a chance, and use that as the basis of a new article? I realize it is a stub and requires much work, but this is just a beginning. thank you. --Samiharris 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Chick Bowen 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Db-bio-photo}}

Cocoaguy created {{Db-bio-photo}} without a community-concensus which is a total nonsense, claiming A7 criteria for deleting non-notable photo :) Shyam ^(T/C) 23:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I redirected it to Template:Ifd, which is what should happen if someone wants to delete an image that has no other problem beyond questionable encyclopedic value. Jkelly 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(Scratches his head). Doesn't CSDA7 delete the article, orphaning the image, which causes it to get deleted? Besides, people are allowed to be bold in their creation of things. It certainly seems like a good idea, until the logical sequence of photos used in DB-BIO articles is considered. Logical2u_Talk 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If an image is licensed under a free-license then why it should get deleted? If the image is under fair-use it would automatically be deleted in seven days after orphaning. Shyam ^(T/C) 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

By logical sequence of photos in DB-BIO articles I meant "Upload, Fair use tagging, Article creating, image place in article, DB-BIO applied, Article deleted, user doesn't notice/recreate, image orphaned, image deleted". Maybe I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. Logical2u_Talk 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The same photo may be used elsewhere, or may have future purposes. A7 is for articles, there is no such speedy deletion criteria for images. Being orphaned is not a speedy delete criteria even(unless it is unfree). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It may, although frankly I often speedy delete (as IAR) obvious vanity photographs uploaded for a vanity page, and I see no reason not to. I don't think there should necessarily be a CSD for them, since as HighInBC says if they're properly licensed they could be used elsewhere, but I also don't think we should permit people to just upload pictures of themselves willy-nilly, and keep them here indefinitely. Note that orphaned free images have been and should be deletable through IfD, even if they're not speedied. Chick Bowen 00:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there Chick Bowen... If the image is unlikey to be used anywhere else, I don't see the problem in deleting it. However, if it's a good image and might be usefull elsewhere (and it's free) then perhapse uploading it to Commons is a good idea too. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Finding fair use images outside the article namespace

Folks, some time back I seem to recall there was an external tool which helped locate images uploaded under fair-use criteria but used outside the article namespace. Am I mistaken? Otherwise, where is it? Ta! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

PS, to add to that - what happened to the external tool which listed current {{prod}}s? I think it used to be on toolserver... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Proposed_deletion - that cat maintains a list automatically. I don't know about the first question. 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary lists all currently active prods. I don't think the fair use tool exists anymore, though the toolserver and most of its tools are still operational at http://tools.wikimedia.de, though not all the data for the English Wikipedia is there. Here is the latest message from the toolserver mailing list relating to the situation of the toolserver and English Wikipedia. Graham87 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fishy Page(s)

I originally posted this to the VP, and it was suggested to try here:

This isn't quite ANI territory, but it does look a bit suspicious and may require a bit of unpicking. On random browsing I came across Anthony John Bailey - it looked like it was a little too polished and my suspicions were only raised further when I see virtually a mono-contributor history (a couple of accounts and IP addies, but almost all of them bar the most recent few are most likely all the same person). There is certainly some fact in there, but there is certainly also a good deal of what, for a better phrase, could be described as promotional material. Hi-res photograph (publicity shot), verbose language, "Bailey is one of the most decorated living Briton" (is he? no source and sounds promotional), coupled with fudge facts, "Freedom of the City of London 2004" - as Freedom of the City details for London that basically means being as part of a Freemason/guilds type linkage - the text as it is in his article makes it sound like it is on par with Neil Armstrong being bestowed freedoms. The vast majority of references are to "Eligo International" - a check on that website reads:

“ Eligo International is a dynamic and well-established public relations and public affairs company offering its clients innovative, creative and competitively priced communications solutions. Our experienced team of communications experts are engaged in developing and pro-actively executing the communications needs of statesmen and public figures, governments, diplomatic missions, senior corporate and industry leaders at home and abroad. ”

If folks can manage to actually decode any real english words out of that pea soup of management speak then it looks to me like a straight up PR firm. It was also "Founded in 1997 by Anthony Bailey". Of the other references a couple are from reputable sources, but the rest of them are from various "organisations" setup by him or his company. Matters aren't helped by the multiple edit accounts this has all been created from - including 81.149.151.110 (talk · contribs), Digby2 (talk · contribs), Seisal (talk · contribs), Cahce (talk · contribs) and the most obvious, Eligo (talk · contribs). A couple of them may be genuine editors, but the IP addy and Eligo are definitely the same thing. Other relevant articles to the situation include Painting & Patronage and House of Hohenberg - there may be others.

The issue I set out here is not some nn situation - these all appear to be real things - but what it does appear we have is some sort of promotional, PR web. I say web because the methodology of the editing is all too intermingled and from too many new accounts all editing on the same subject. The main article on the individual most definitely reads as nothing but self-promotional vanity and is in no way objective. Others thoughts would be welcomed. SFC9394 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything in that article that meets WP:BIO...should this be prodded or sent to AFD? Hbdragon88 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Start the AfD. I'll vote to delete.--Alabamaboy 01:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Acutally I take that back. Article claims that he is the ambassador to The Bamgia, which strikes me as being notable. Hbdragon88 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Slight problem there, as I can't verify that at all. He has attracted some press coverage over his relationships with notable people and his donations to the Labour Party, and his engagement to an Austrian princess attracted some coverage as well. I'm confused as to what he's actually notable for though. One Night In Hackney 10:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm confused as to what Tara Palmer-Tomkinson is notable for :-) Guy (Help!) 12:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it claims that he is the ambassador (or ambassador-at-large) from The Gambia to the EU. What does that mean? I don't know. This piece, while not exactly a reliable source, makes me think it might simply mean that his PR firm is doing work on behalf of the Gambia. Anyway: shall we continue this conversation on the article's talk page ? FreplySpang 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

zoominfo summary page which collates multiple sources. Of particular interest is the independent piece - the account there (namely that Labour rejected funding from him in the past over concerns that he was a lobbyist, but now accepted due to current financial difficulties) sits completely at odds with the Political chapter in the article - which paints a conveniently different picture. SFC9394 13:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more it just looks like a PR company editing wikipedia for their clients. Checking more of Eligo (talk · contribs) leads to other articles (Khalid al Faisal, Mahmoud Khayami) - conveniently on subjects that the PR firm have as clients. Indeed there is a crossover of editing subjects which can link the same thing back to Public relations (talk · contribs) - editing in June last year. I would tend to suggest this needs to be fully examined - it looks a bit deeper than just a vanity party donor article. SFC9394 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A series of sock/meat-puppets building favorable articles about clients. Not shocking... we all know this goes on.

First, lets take this to WP:RFCU. If it seems they are all from the same IP, indef-ban the lot and delete the article so someone independent can build an un-COI article if any real notability is there (and it might be... ambasitor from a tiny african country might qualify him). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion made at WP:CN

For those who still don't have WP:CN watched, FYI there's a suggestion there right now for an "ArbCab". I don't support the idea, but cross-posting here to get more people's attention to it. – Chacor 02:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't we already have WP:WQA, WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, and WP:ARBCOM? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there are links to them all, I assume we do. :) I have never heard of WP:WQA though, why would you need a page for giving what basically are light warnings? Prodego ^talk 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, WP:WQA is so get third-party opinions on violations of ettiquette, not policy. I'm confused now :). Yuser31415 03:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See the CN for my response. Geo. Talk to me 03:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Gumshoe school?

Sometimes this board or ANI gets questions about how to handle a complex investigation. I've thought of writing up some pages in my namespace on the subject, sort of a quick self-study course. Gumshoe 101 would deal with the basics such as how to read a page history and find a diff. At the most advanced level I'd step through my investigations of long term vandals such as JB196 and AWilliamson. There's a potential for crossing the WP:DENY line, which is one reason I've held off, but I also think there's value in coaching people through the techniques I use. Good idea? Durova^Charge! 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, why not? No harm, as long as it's in userspace. Cheers. Yuser31415 05:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing your techniques as well. Your previous investigations have been pretty impressive, seeing how you got there might be useful. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This might well be useful for all editors on vandal duty, whether administrators or not. I'd recommend that you develop it in your userspace and then move it to Wikipedia space with a link from the Community Portal if it becomes popular enough. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

From the WP:DENY perspective there is always a trade off between enabling us to better deal with vandalism and giving undue publicity to specific vandals/vandalism, as long as the balance is right it shouldn't be an issue. I'd be more concerned with the WP:BEANS issues, revealing some of the signs may enable some to avoid them... --pgk 12:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC I've seen checkusers decline to give much detail on how they've come to a certain conclusion for that very reason. --pgk 12:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed fealings about this one... I have tactics I use to make a case for sockpuppetry that I'd love to share... but if they become universaly known then they become much less usefull. Hmmm... Perhapse the information can be stored in the history of a deleted page so only admins can access it? Maybe thats not such a good solution either? I donno... ballancing the beans in my nose is hard. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could put a note on your user page that people can email you for details. You'd obviously have to judge the enquirer's suitability. Tyrenius 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Immediate attention needed at Latina Aragon

I have already tagged this article, but it's content is supposedly about an Undercover Narcotics Agent, and it would seem to ba a supremely bad idea to have information of this type hanging around Wikipedia. NipokNek 13:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, obviously it's fictional, but that info was added after I posted here. Sorry. NipokNek 13:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The text keeps changing, now it seems to be real again. I need help. NipokNek 13:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted it as an unquestionable copyvio from [3] _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate it when you tag something, and then the text changes significantly. You go back and it looks like you have no idea what you are doing. :P NipokNek 13:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Gang Stalking is its own article, while Gang stalking redirects to Stalking

... and the redirect from Gang stalking to Stalking is protected. I would rather not see the content at Gang Stalking obliterated; maybe it could be merged into Gang. Is this the right place to report this? If it isn't, I apologize. Joie de Vivre 18:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted and protected it as a recreation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

But... what about the content that was at Gang Stalking? Did you just delete it? Wouldn't it be better to place it at the Gang article talk page for possible integration? Joie de Vivre 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted it under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion G4. If you have cited material relevant to Gang, feel free to add it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the gang stalking article might be worth keeping, or at least sending to AFD. The Gang stalking deleted via AFD was a lot of original research that focused on Usenet. Gang Stalking (the one deleted today) seems at the very least more notable, though it might also be guilty of original research. I would be in favor of sending the latter to AFD, since it's substantially different from the prior article. Ral315 (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like more of the same folklore, without the benefit of the usenet 'citations'. I would not be keen to see this start up again. The way to have a page on this (if there is anything here to have a page on) is for it to grow collaboratively from a cited section on gangs or stalking, or on one of the social psychology pages. I would rather it be built somewhere like that or stay deleted, but if people think it is significantly different from what was deleted before, it could go through AfD. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR Problem

I wanted to request some insight into a matter surrounding a 3RR report violation I filed on Feb 8th, The report appeared to have falled by the wayside, with one editor commenting on how the violations didn't appear to be patterned, and that the first instance didn't seem to be a revert. I submitted additional evidence of pattern with prior instances of reverting (that had not been reported). The report went unanswered. Eventually, it was archived without result. I resubmitted the same report (with a notation that it had been filed previously without result). Shortly thereafter, I received the following result, noted here. The first responder, User:Humus sapiens stated "no violation, so no block." The second responder, User:Jayjg, chided me for submitting "ancient" requests, implying that I had dredged through the history of an article to find something from long ago, and that I had re-submitted the article after it had already been ruled upon, neither of which was accurate. In subsequent conversations between Jayig and myself, he suggested that "3RR reports that aren't acted on are typically those that are seen as problematic for one reason or another, which is why they aren't acted on." As I am not really aware of any issues surrounding what appeared to be a simple violation of 3RR (with an unreported history of same), the only "problematic" part of the equation appeared to be that it was a relatively user reporting an editor (who was clever enough to disguide his edit summaries to escape notice). I am submitting my concerns here because it was suggested (though not recommended) that this was the next venue of appeal. I feel that the reasons the 3RR report were denied (ie, no violation, stale reportage) are not in keeping with the spirit and letter of the rule. I had reported the instance of 3RR in a timely fashion, and supplied supplemental information as to prior bad acts and bad faith as needed, both politely and (so I hope) succinctly. I know that 3RR is not ment to be applied punitively, but I feel it has to be applied consistently and fairly. To have the report result skewed because of a perception that it was "ancient", it implies that the complaint was noit actually or adequately investigated. I am not asking for a pound of flesh; I am asking for a bit of fairness and consistency of policy application. I thank you for taking the time to read my concerns, and I apologize if my language was in any way impolite.Arcayne 23:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, your languages is fine and your complaint is valid. It's an unfortunate result of the 3RR desk being understaffed. In my experience the WP:3RR monitors typically do a good (and often thankless) job... but its entirely possible for something to slip though the cracks.

I know it's not your fault that the report went un-acted-on for so long, but it's not within the spirit of the blocking policy to block people for behavior that has stopped.

I haven't looked at the content of the report, so I can't say it was a valid report or not. Sorry... someone with more time can comment on that for you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, in retrospect, this has gone on a bit longer than it should have. The reverting stopped because I (as the one getting reverted) decided that it wasn't worth the risk of furthering an edit war, and stopped posting the edits that were getting reverted. That the user in question dodged a bullet is immaterial at this late date; that sort of behavior has a way of popping up again, and with them, it probably will.

As I look over this, I probably should have let this go after the mistake; I hope you will chalk it up to newbie idealism. I didn't mean to disparage the 3RR desk; they are human and make mistakes - this is why they put erasers on pencils and delete keys on keyboards. I could have posted my complaint showing the reverts a lot better than I did. Ciê la vie.

I am sorry to have taken up the ANboard's time, and hope this will fade from memory....these are not the droids you are looking for...Arcayne 08:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

MedCab backlog

We have a large backlog of cases at MedCab requiring mediation, please help. --Ideogram 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for a qualified person to look at dispute

I am looking to have moderator or qualified third party visit Talk:Zodiac killer#Request_for_Comment:_Link_placement_in_Zodic_killer_entry to specifically address a dispute involving link placement on the Zodiac killer. I have read the entire FAQ of the procedures and know the process well, but haven't had any luck getting an actual moderator to help. Thanks. Labyrinth13 02:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because RfC is just requests for comment. If you want formal mediation you should try a request for mediation.--Isotope23 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism on Wikipedia

Hello, I noticed a certain user who edited the Serbia article (he added the radical term of Greater Serbia as a link [4]) and I thought nothing more of it than a simple act of vandalism. However, upon visiting his user page, I was shocked at what I saw:

"...fight against the Greater Serbian aggression in which the Serbs tried to repeat the genocide their Nazi Chetnik collaborators committed in World War II..."

If User:CroDome is prejudiced towards Serbs, thats his problem. But going to Wikipedia, stating that all Serbs committed or attempted to commit some act of genocide and publically denounce an entire nation is not fitting for Wikipedia at all.

He also made obvious anti-Serb nationalistic edits such as this one ("...Serbs wrote this. I just know it. God damnit they are everywhere - you just simply cant track them all down..."), this one ("...Yes I just noticed this great project wikipedia. Though I'm scared if there are any Serbs here; I don't see them so far so so far so good..."), this one (where he removed some Serbs from a list of famous Serbs and claimed they were Croats), even anti-Montenegrin nationalistic edits such as this one and this one, and many more.

He has been warned by User:Sideshow Bob, User:KingIvan and User:Stop The Lies on his talk page and now I think that it's time to raise the question of how to solve this problem right here.

I hope someone will take some sort of action, because nationalism, racism and ethnic hate is something that I think should not be tolerated here. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've toned down the language on his userpage. Suggestions? Yuser31415 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest that in the future, when you have problems with the content of a user's page, you try contacting them on their talkpage and not editing it so that it fits your worldview, since you have no right to do so. KazakhPol 04:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think that users should contact others before editing their talk page, then why do you try to discredit the contributions of users trying to help others with their pages? You seem very self-contradictory en:User:KazakhPol. Stop The Lies 04:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I do have the right to edit another editor's userpage (WP:OWN), as I do have the right to make any page on Wikipedia neutral, no questions asked. Yuser31415 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

When a page has objectional content we don't need to ask permission to remove it. I would have actualy simply deleted the page outright... pages that attack people are speedyable. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

CroDome...

...is an obvious meatpuppet whose edits are only meant to anger people. I do not know why he wasnt banned outright after he made this edit[5]. It really doesnt take a genius to figure out the account is a joke. CroDome managed to anger Yuser31415 so much that he decided he would vandalize CroDome's userpage[6][7][8]. He's now warning me for reverting his vandalism[9][10]. I suggest CroDome be banned and Yuser31415 be instructed that he does not own userpages. KazakhPol 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Yuser's edits. He was removing questionable content off of CroDome's user page, and you were revert warring him over it. No one owns any page on Wikipedia, and Yuser was not WP:OWNing that page, either.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Of interest, this user's commentary: User_talk:Stop_The_Lies#Post_on_anti-Serb_user.27s_talkpage_.28en:User:CroDome.29 Alan.ca 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The user has continued to make anti-Serb and even fascist comments and I really think that this is enough. I am not a Serb, but i do not like nationalism and ethnic hate, which is evident in this user's case. He wrote the article "Serbian Genocide" [11] and added a link to it on his user page. The article used to redirect the page to the article about how Serbs suffered during World War II due to the attrocities and genocide committed by the Nazi Ustashe, but this user tried to invent his own history, claiming that Serbs committed genocide in WWII, which is nonsense. He also wrote "This user is TOTALLY IMPRESSED by the Croatian romantic feeling of the Montenegrins; their heroism, despite their Serbian affiliations and is simply dying to learn more about the beautiful Red Croatian culture" on his user page, once again claiming that Montenegrins are Croats, that they have a Croatian history, thus insulting an entire nation of Montenegrins. He has also affiliated himself with the fascist nazi Ustashe of WWII, by stating "Bog i Hrvati, Ivane. --Za Dom Spremni! [12], and "Za Dom Spremni" was the fascist slogan of the nazi puppet state of Croatia in WWII. Isn't there a quick way to solve this problem, because I don't think a user with such extreme radical opinions can change, he will only continue with his POV pushing, and this is only going to get worse. He has committed several acts of vandalism, refuses to cooperate, and we now see that not only nationalism is the case, but also fascism. --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing trolling at the refdesk talk page.

User:Loomis51 and User:Barringa are luring us (and by "us" I mean other RD editors like User:SteveBaker, User:Mwalcoff, User:Dave6, and the original remover, User:87.102.9.117, as well as I) into an argument - the latter user attempting to soapbox the RD with anti-semitism, the former attempting to engage me and other editors into a debate and accusing us of "sweeping things under the rug". I've run out of good faith here - I and other editors have explained to them both WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CENSOR, but they continue. As users like Friday, Sczenz and Hipocrite don't seem to be taking any action here when they usually are active in such things, I'm asking for someone, preferably an admin, to come in and check out this situation. Loomis seems to think that the question should have been removed because of its content, something we don't do, and that telling Barringa in good faith that his question was removed due to its intent was somehow aiding and abetting an anti-Semite. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a few diffs? .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you can just have a look at this entire thread for starters. Anchoress 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It does seem like a flamebait post. I think this is such because it seems (from the text of the post) that the conclusion is already decided in his eyes, and thus it's not an actual question but rather an attempt to "stir things up." Perhaps he re-work the post in a different way as to be non-offensive, but I'm not sure if that's possible... .V. _[Talk|Email] 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board: Canvassing and vote stacking?

I am concerned that this wikiproject is being used as a forum for Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking. I was engaged in a dispute over an article that was asserting a very Scottish POV Talk:Hamilton when a posting was made to Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. Suddenly, 3 project members joined the debate by simply supporting the original disputant. Not only did they not contribute any fruitful debate, I received further insult for engaging in the debate. Upon reading the Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board page, I have the concern this project page may be used to disrupt Wikipedia. For this reason, I look for administrator consideration. Alan.ca 05:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm an ethnic-based noticeboard? Hmm yikes. I see a bit of POV-solicitation going on (here for example). I guess wikiprojects kind of do the same thing. It's hard to draw the line between notification and solicitation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An an attack on an editor with a different point of view, for good measure. Tyrenius 06:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An ethnic based noticeboard? I think not. It is a regional noticeboard - as is pretty obvious. The Hamilton article is Scottish related and is thus relevant to the board. As pointed out in reply to your post RE:Canvassing Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Talk:Hamilton the dispute involving yourself and Brendanh being stated upon the board does not qualify as votestacking. siarach 06:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Have I done something wrong?

I asked an IP to stop changing British English spellings to American English spellings (I wasn't the first person to request this) but they carried on so I eventually gave them a final warning using {{lang4}}. Their talk page is User talk:70.176.167.204 and their comment on my userpage is at User talk:AnemoneProjectors#Beware of banning IP ranges. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you're fine. You're not banning the IP, you'd be blocking it, there's a huge difference. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but thanks for clarifying. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)