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

Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see

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

=The next step=

It seems to me that while there is disagreement as to Uber's article editing practices, there's more-or-less unanimous agreement that his treatment of others users (the harassment and the hit list, points 2 and 3) is way out of line. (I'm discounting the opinions of the contrarians, whose solicited support [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] is both transparent and non-credible ) I suppose the question now is - what's the next step? Raul654 05:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty easy to say "I will ignore all who disagree with me." It's pretty typical of you. If you notice, however, I simply ask them to review the case on their own. You reject their judgment, not because it is wanton, but because they disagree with your judgment. I've already made all my points clear enough above, all of which have not been responded to. If there is any next step, if for you to be reviewed. ~ UBeR 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul, this is getting absurd. Until that last post, I thought you were doing this is good faith, but that's obviously not the case. You're right. I came to this page because of a notice placed on my talk page. Have you thought (*gasp*) that maybe not everyone checks the administrators' noticeboard on a regular basis? So because Uber or one of his supporters solicited my opionion, I'm immediately non-credible? I think I've contributed enough to WP at this point that I'm obviously not a troll. My opinion should be worth just as much as the opinions of people that disagree with you. Can I discount anyone that's posted on your or WMC's talk page as "non-credible" as well? Give me a break. You're just trying to discount 8 editors' opinions because they disagree with you. When did WP become about censoring ideas you disagree with?Oren0 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, in a perfect world the next step would be an investigation into why Uber is behaving in this manner (because I think there is fault on "both" sides). Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, most people are here because they are willingly contributing their time. This is a really difficult call, you ought to enforce the rules, but by enforcing the rules you probably are doing an injustice because some are using the rules to bully others. You ought to investigate the bullying but that would take too much time (as I found out) and I'm sure there is fault on both sides. Probably the best solution would be to ban anyone who has contributed to this debate from editing any of the various global warming/climate change/mars heating up/etc. articles again! Mike 16:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 - I think the next step is to thank those administrators who do give up their own time to read all this argy-bargy. To do a good job moderating these disputes must take an awful lot of time and effort. Well done and thanks. Having read the israel-palestian and global warming, perhaps it might be worth considering creating new pages which can only be edited by one "side" which are linked to the main page (the main should not be edited by those taking a "side"). By asking people to decide whether they wish to be "neutral", "pro" or "anti" it would allow them to contribute to the article which best suits their own background. But more importantly it would allow the articles to include contentious information often repressed by one group. The "pro" group would be balanced by the "anti" group obtaining an overall NPOV within wikipedia (but not within those articles). Just an idea! Mike 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Forking is bad. --Onorem 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

=Proof that Raul654 filed this complaint just to "get this monkey off WMC's back"=

Raul654, this post [9] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group [10], [11], orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows [12] - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are so right. To bad we organized our secret conspiracy on public talk pages. Now all our hopes of complete world domination via accurate scientific representations are moot! Back to the UN mothership! --Stephan Schulz 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm isn't appreciated here. ~ UBeR 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, this post by William M. Connolley on a user talk page [13], is clearly designed to appear innocent and is a pointer to the next post on another user talk page [14], where the actual conspiring and planning of your group's next move is clearly discussed. WMC was obviously attempting to hide this discussion otherwise why would he say "Where next? - I have (reluctantly) started a discussion of this at User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#RFC? William M. Connolley 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)" and give a pointer to another user talk page before starting the actual planning session? The "where next" comment makes me question "where was it before?". Your self-serving mischaracterization of user talk pages as "public" is false as the public rarely (or never) visits them for "general browsing". Now that your group has been exposed, I hope that the Wikipedia community takes this seriously and considers permanently banning your control and POV pushing on all GW pages. -- Brittainia 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if the above post is a surreal attempt at humor, or is meant to be taken seriously. Assuming it to be the latter, if anyone wants to conspire, it would be trivial to use the "email this user" function on the side of each user's talk page.

Furthermore, there is nothing unseemly about either [1] my message informing WMC as to the existance of this thread (after all, Uber's persistent harassment of him was one of the three primary complaints here; obviously a de facto part of that is to inform the person being harassed), or [2] the fact that WMC asked me to participate in a discussion about how to follow up this thread. Raul654 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Although a conspiracy is not proved only by the discussions that Brittainia unearted, circumstances are of concern. I was perhaphs naive, but I must say that until now, I did not understand how it could be that these three editors are on the same line 99% of the time in GW related articles and always backing up each other. I mean, in normal circumstances, the odds are that they will disagree here and there on occasion no? This being said, the "monkey-off-your-back" post by Raul654 as well as the one where WMC gives an awkward pointer to his friends do not seem to be within normal Wikipedia behaviour. --Childhood's End 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Um...maybe our usual (though by no means universal) agreement has something to do with the fact that all of us can recognize and read scientific papers, and distinguish them from political pseudo-science. Moreover, 99% of the time, Raul is not even there. As of the end of January 2007, he has 8 edits on talk:global warming (as opposed to William's about 700 and my 400). And, of course, the secret conspiracy on our talk pages is open for all to see. My talk page has never been archived. According to the article contribution counter, William has 11 edits there, Raul has 1 (and that is the official notification about the closing of William's ArbCom case that I reopened). Given that User:Brittainia herself has indeed widely canvased support (even on pages of users who have been inactive for a long time), this conspiracy theory is laughable.--Stephan Schulz 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

His 8 edits to talk in contrast to his 76 on the main article. Pretty bad ratio. ~ UBeR 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you sound like the accused in the accused box who is yelling that the accusations against him are laughable. Although you can of course have your say in this new affair, you should stick to facts, not rant. Let the discussion go and see how the case unfolds. As a party to the "conspiracy theory", your testimony (since you chose to testify) must be flawless. It is true that your talk pages are public, but you also know just like us that they're not widely read, far from that.

Besides, we can all read scientific papers. It's just that we can also elect to be critical rather than elect for blind belief. Try reading David Hume (who proved that no certainty exists in science), whose work had a huge influence on Einstein, among others. --Childhood's End 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

=Ramses and Brittainia RFCU - sockpuppeting confirmed =

Per Raymond's suggestion above, I ran a checkuser query on Ramses and Brittainia and - low and behold - they are the same person.They both edit from the same class B network, and almost entirely the same class C networks too, with many overlapping IP addresses (including one case where Ramese made an edit with an IP, then Brittainaia a few minutes later, then Ramses again a few minutes after that; and another case where they used the same IP address within 3 minutes of each other). They're clearly the same person. Raul654 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - user:Persianne is also linked to them. Raul654 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this not a separate issue? As I'm sure you have checked many a times, I have no relation to these editors in terms of location / computer use, etc. If your intent is to distract from issue at hand, please do so elsewhere. If, however, there is reason for the inclusion here unbeknownst to me, I apologize. ~ UBeR 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how the fact that Brittainia and I live together is anyone's business but ours and it certainly should not be relevant to this review process. I do object however, to the process by which Raul654 breached my privacy. No formal process was initiated - is this acceptable or is it more renegade tactics from this group? ~ Rameses 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently your concerted editing was enough, on its face, to make Raymond suspicious as to request a sockpuppet check.

And it's extremely relevant to this discussion - The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual. -- Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Meatpuppets Raul654 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have AFD'd Persianne's only substantive contribution, Persian Panda, as a probable hoax article since I can find no confirming sources. If it is a hoax, it is worse possible kind as it appears both detailed and well-written, and would easily pass as legitimate (albeit unsourced) content to most observers. Dragons flight 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, both Brittainia and I would like an apology (for unecessary and unauthorised breach of privacy) from Raul654 and from Raymond Arrit. Failing this I would like to initiate a formal complaint and a review of their actions here. ~ Rameses 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that, beyond your self-serving denial, we have no evidence at all that you, Brittainia, and Persianne are in fact different people. Moreover, the fact that your similar editing patterns were, on their own, enough to tip Raymond off strongly suggests otherwise. I have no intention of apologizing for following up on an (apparently correct) sockpuppeting suspicion. If that doesn't suit you, you can complain to user:UninvitedCompany, the checkuser ombudsman. Raul654 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Though this is pointless to respond to, I'll say it anyway for brevity's sake. Where is the breach of privacy? Raul654 has been entrusted with checkuser access to identify socks, meatpuppetts, and other uses of contributions to evade bans/blocks or misuse Wikipedia content or process. We are not all entrusted with such access for the very privacy reasons you are concerned with. Raul654 confirmed the IPs, and not a single shred of personal identity was posted. Only checkusers can view their logs. I don't know your gender, location either city or continent, editing patterns that aren't public or marital/tax/health status from the checkuser confirmation. So what exactly is your beef with a checkuser that would invite such a riled defense? This question is rhetorical, I do not request a response. Teke ^(talk) 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out, for the sake of clarity, continent, state, city, and even ISP can be determined with an IP. So you're not 100% correct in that aspect. On another note, I believe the very problem was that Raul654 WAS the one who did the check, as opposed to a more trustworthy and uninvolved person. ~ UBeR 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are dragging a child into this, this really is typical of your smear tactics. It is reprehensible how low you will stoop to win! ~ Rameses 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on these comments as well as the signature at the end UBeR's comment here, I would not be surprised if Rameses, Brittainia, Persianne, and UBeR are one in the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of complete fairness, based on this comment and the fact that he raised the issue above ("As I'm sure you have checked many a times, I have no relation to these editors") I ran a check on Uber (my first and only one). There is no evidence there to suggest he is related to the Ramses/Brittainia/Persianne sockpuppetry Raul654 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To add to Raul's comment, I am convinced based on editting patterns alone that Uber is definitely distinct from the others. Dragons flight 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts galore) That's going too far IMHO. I strongly doubt that UBeR is the same as the other two (or three, or one, or whatever). Raymond Arritt 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is merely coincidental that Rameses just started to sign his comments the same way that UBeR does?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am truly disappointed, Ryulong. ~ UBeR 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (Or whatever cliche I'm trying to think of.) Raymond Arritt 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well since your group obviously has no decency whatsoever, I have filed a complaint with the ombudsman. [15] (Is there no place in Wikipedia for families?) ~ Rameses 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Families are allowed on Wikipedia. My little brother has an account here. However, when all of the members of a family push the same point of view disruptively, we have to apply the duck test.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the one where if you weigh the same as a duck, you're a witch? Because a duck floats, wood floats, you burn wood, you burn witches? "She turned me into a newt!" "You don't look like a newt." "I... I got better!" -- Ben 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman? What Ombudsman? Corvus cornix 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong and all of you others, I must say that I am also truly disappointed by your continually dragging a child into this unseemly character assassination (it reminds me of Shakespeare's "the stabbing of Julius Caesar" scene). Persianne has certainly not "pushed the same point of view disruptively" (apart from one vote to save her dad's article from a similar assassination) and if you can show any evidence at all - do so. If you cannot, kindly retract your ugly smear and apologise. Failing this, I ask that this unwarranted and completely false attack on a child's character also be examined by the ombudsman. -- Brittainia 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... Checkuser only discloses similarities between accounts and general information in order to avoid revealing personal details. Personal details, for example, such as that Persianne is apparently the account of an underage female. In the future, you may want to consider not revealing such specific details in public, even when making such a response. Bitnine 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather that shes a daughter of a couple, which isn't quite so revealing. ~ UBeR 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All that Raul has revealed is that all three users apparently use the same machine(s) to access Wikipedia. He did not reveal either the ISP, the location, or the (apparent) family relationships. The latter were subsequently revealed (in as far as we trust them) by User: Rameses and User: Brittainia themselves. --Stephan Schulz 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since creating a hoax article is blockable already, you'd do better to address Persian Panda rather than bemoaning the "character assassination" of an account apparently created primarily to hoax Wikipedia. Dragons flight 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh - that article was her class project. She and her friends set out to prove their science teacher wrong - by showing that Wikipedia is a reasonably reliable source of information (through it's constant error correction). I guess that makes you a part of the project - the part of the hero...? -- Brittainia 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I have had the misfortune to try and edit the various global warming articles. Although I do not personally agree with Uber's point of view, I am firmly convinced that the faction that opposes Uber's views try is ganging up on contributors they don't like in an attempt to silent contributions informing readers of alternative & notable view points to the pro global warming lobbyists. I really do feal sorry for people who are trying to document the alternative view to the pro global warming lobby because they are up against some very nasty characters who quite clearly want to stop people like Uber using any means possible. This whole situation doesn't do Wikipedia's reputation any good. There is unquestionably a majority (of scientists) who are of the view that the minority should not be heard at all. The majority appear to be able to edit Wikipedia at all times of day and night, the minority seems to be "normal" people with an interest as they edit intermittently.

From what I have seen this is not at all a fair fight, this is the Wikipedia equivalent of the overwhelming force of the Nazis attacking the minority jews (with the same vicious belief they are right). The "Nazis" may be technically operating within the law, and the "jews" may be behaving in ways that in other cases would be acceptable, but until Wikipedia finds a way to redress the balance and in particular starts to enforce NPOV, I'm with the underdogs and would urge you to see their actions as extremely restrained given the intolerable position they are under. Mike 11:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law in the first attempt. Impressive. And with regard to your edits here: I suggest you retract the "professional lobbyists" claim unless you have any serious evidence that anyone in this conflict is paid for his work on Wikipedia. I'm still waiting for my cheque... --Stephan Schulz 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"The climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal" - Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer (Prospect Magazine, November 2005) --Childhood's End 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"A fascist group can easily hide itself by quoting Godwin's Law whenever anyone reveals the true nature of their activities." This has the added benefit of smearing their victim's reputation. You can call that Brittainia's Law. -- Brittainia 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to call this an uncalled for and unjustifiable personal attack. --Stephan Schulz 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stay on topic. These ad hominem arguments do nothing but to distract from the topic. It is becoming increasingly annoying. If you feel so inclined, please bicker on each other's talk pages. ~ UBeR 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits leading to an abusive message on my talk page

I, together with User:Richhoncho were briefly caught up in a mix up over vandalism which User:Oli120792 had engaged in on Haslington. We were being blamed for unfairly accusing him of vandalism when he had originally committed an act of vandalism, and then immediately reverted it whilst User:Richhoncho was preparing to revert it. Because Oli20792 had two edits of the same article almost immediately after each other, the revert which was clearly intended as a good faith one, had the effect of putting back the vandalism. Oli20792 then reverted back, and this was then reverted in the belief that he had merely put back the vandalism. This went on for a while. Oli20792 was also the editor of dubious edits to other articles around the same time, which I reverted. I erroneously reverted one of the Haslington edits before I realised what was going on, did a final revert to remove all vandalism, alerted Richhoncho as to what was going on, and warned Oli20792 of his behaviour, who had started to accuse me of unfairly treating him, but had not made any comments to Richhoncho. Now, in the same section of my talk page where this was dealt with (sections 19 and 20), an anonymous editor (User:82.109.66.150) has written "You Twat! I assume you are a dick face teacher." Since Oli20792 admitted he was a student, it could be possibly the same person. My question is, how does one deal with a kind of game-playing where vandalism attempts are made, and then almost immediately reverted, which I have seen a much more increased number of recently. And how do people view edits of the kind just added to my talk page. (yeah - ok, some may think it is fair comment, but it really isn't in the spirit of the entire site, is it?)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To me this would be disruptive editing. Even if they're immediately removing their vandalism, its still vandalism. If they want to experiment they can use the sandbox. If they continue to make these kinds of edits they should be blocked and treated like any other vandal.--Crossmr 17:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you, and it is interesting to note that, in my own experience, this kind of editing has been increasingly happening over the past few months. It is, however, little commented on (like actual vandalism, of which I have seen a great amount go completely uncommented upon now, apart from a reversion) However, it would be good to get some mroe views, especially from admins who might have to respond to block-requests of users who engage in a lot of this kind of behaviour, as to whether they would not rule out treating such behaviour as evidence of behaviour meriting a block.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've encountered it a fair bit lately from IPs and new users who have made little or not edits. No idea if they're experimenting or trying to be clever with their vandalism. I think we can assume good faith once or twice (especially depending on what it is they're changing and changing back) but once they've been warned if they continue its disruptive editing.--Crossmr 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for monitoring of ongoing AfD -- North America (Americas), canvassing

Hello! Recently, the article North America (Americas) was created; as it's a clear POV fork of North America, I nominated it for deletion (and am also involved in a editing a number of similar regional articles). Apparently incensed -- and with an apparent majority as of now to delete or redirect the article -- a couple of the editors (including the author of the article, who has willfully removed information in the parent article regarding this very topic) decided to canvass editors at the Spanish Wikipedia to vote in the AfD to 'keep' it, effectively stacking the deck. Some of those editors have already voted, and I'm sure a comparison of the wikis will reveal the editors. Anyhow, for lengthy comment, see the nomination here.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. First of all, qualifying the article of a "clear POV fork" is only our POV. This is not a POV fork because, opposed to its definition, the article was not created as a consequence of disagreement with nobody in the article North America (meaning continent), but to provide a link in the Template:Regions of the world that had a link to North America as a continent. Remember WP:BOLD. Now, you're trying to give the false impression that the article had a "majority" of people voting for delete and that then, I decided to "canvass" other editors. The article has always had a majority of keep/merge together. About the canvassing, I didn't even know the existence of such a rule/policy, you make it sound like I was aware of that and that I decided to break that rule. That's false. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Yes: the article (IMO and in many of the other editors opinions' involved so far) is a POV fork, and most to date have opted to either delete or merge it into North America, where the information is or should have been added in the first place. This article also didn't arise out of any discussion at North America (i.e., without consensus), per WP:POVFORK. Then you and Supaman89 (coincidentally or not) actively canvass for 'keep' votes elsewhere (so long as they already have an English account) -- you cannot cover your ass so easily by claiming ignorance of the rule. And I was just as bold to mark this article appropriately -- my opinion hasn't changed. I will comment hereafter if/when needed. Corticopia 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is rather deplorable -- to ensure an equitable outcome, I ask that some administrative action or oversight occur regarding this AfD and actions stemming from it and that corrective actions be taken. Thanks! Corticopia 01:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFO ST47Talk 01:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't mean that kind of oversight, he means 'watching over'. I have changed the section header accordingly. —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the AFD. Easiest way. Neil (not Proto ►) 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Transwikiing - Exporting and Importing

Okay, so there is Special:Export and Special:Import. mw:Parameters to Special:Export says, "If $wgExportAllowHistory is set to false, only the current version can be exported. This currently applies e.g. on the English Wikipedia, but not on Meta." But when we transwiki things, to Wiktionary for example, we do move over the entire revision history, for GFDL reasons and because it is better than copying/pasting the edit history. (At least, I think we do.)

So, the question is, how do I copy over the entire revision history from a Wikipedia page to an outside wiki, which happens to be running MediaWiki 1.6.9?

Thanks!
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• New-style transwikification to Wiktionary isn't done with Special:Export here, but by a Wiktionary administrator using Special:Import at Wiktionary, which doesn't involve an external XML stage. A non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki simply doesn't have the necessary plumbing to make Special:Import from Wikipedia work, and, as you mention, the XML that can be exported from the English Wikipedia is limited. Therefore to transwikify articles to a non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki one must use old-style transwikification. Uncle G 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cities_in_the_UTC_timezone CfD

Thread retitled from "RfC procedure violation! THIS USEFULL CATEGORY WILL BE DELETED".

I'm not sure where to go for this one. The RfC that was announced on Category:Cities in the UTC timezone was not properly formated so I removed it. Furthermore, there were issues in the past regarding the user of the {{template:infobox city}} to auto-generate the categories. Personnally I find them very usefull as I sort through all the cities to see which one are cities and not and which ones need to be improved, changed or removed. I think some outside comments would be good but I didn't know where to go for that either because there is not real other place. So here I am! --CyclePat 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to visit Category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone. --CyclePat 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes for the removal of, what I consider a badly formated delete nomination can be found here --CyclePat 04:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the RfC is that there is no real discussion. --CyclePat 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OKAY! Now I've had it! They're threatening to come here and they're saying my attitude is reprochable. This entire Category for discussion (CfD) is becomming a mockery of wikipedia. I trully feel that CfD needs something to improve it's discussion... because this feel more like a a CfP ... category for poll. --CyclePat 02:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A concern over my user page & the Essjay situation

Resolved

(This is, as far as this sort of disclaimers can say, half-serious.)

Since there is currently some confusion over Wikipedia administrations claiming to be what they aren't, I'm requesting some advice over my own user page. I added the following notice on top of it in January 21st (and I added the picture later:)

Now, please ignore the premise of the text for purposes of this discussion; I just added this because I wanted to make a jocular "cleanup box" one day, express the confusion inherent in the system, and hopefully, in a subtle way, say that even when we have tons of policies and guidelines, one probably doesn't need to worry about them too much. If you feel this wording is too strong either way, please contact me separately.

However, in the light of this new situation with the concerns over admin conduct and misrepresenting oneself, I'm asking if I stepped out of the line with this box. After all, it says "we wolves", referring to me. Apart of this comment, my user page does not (I think) contain any bits of information that could suggest that I am anything other than an ordinary human being, and to my knowledge, I have not publicly denied of actually, really, truly being an ordinary human being despite of occasional claims to contrary; Apart of this box it does not claim that I am in fact a cute, confused wolf, with a question mark hanging above its head. My Finnish Wikipedia user page does, however, say I'm "...this wolf-man (in Internet at least, but not in Real Life)...", a disclaimer that has (I think) persisted through the time I've been an user there.

Anyway, this box could potentially - and I say this merely as a theoretical conjecture, but knowing how real world works, it is an entirely plausible scenario - be viewed as a claim of me being something I clearly am not.

So do I need to include a disclaimer to my user page in this wiki too? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BJAODN... Obviously no one is really going to think you are a wolf, dude. Mangojuice^talk 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many times while working on Wikipedia that we rely on others to tell the truth. If you are caught in a lie in such a situation then you have shown that you are untrustworthy and everything you do needs to be doua;ble-checked. Lie all you want in situations where no one is relying on the truth. Is someone counting on you being a wolf in some siuation related to making wikipedia better? WAS 4.250 13:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable on your userpage to refer to yourself as a wolf, so long as you avoid committing a WP:BITE violation. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How punny. Natalie 15:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa; wait. You're not a wolf? C'mon; I understand that you want your privacy, but there's no need to deceive the Wikipedia community like that. We trusted you. Now, I am appalled. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you use your status as a wolf to gain advantage in debate? "I happen to be a wolf, so I know exactly what they eat.", that sort of thing? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious angle it might be worth adding to {{userpage}} a disclaimer that details found on user pages might be purposefully false/misleading and that any mentioned credentials should be verified. (→Netscott) 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. -- ReyBrujo 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the general disclaimer is enough. Frankly if you believe anything you see on Wikipedia that does not have a proper citation, then you are going to be disappointed. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked and appalled! I demand your immediate de... er, whatever de- applies here! Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Delupification. (SEWilco 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Image:Images.jpg (Another generic image file name)

Resolved

I think Image:Images.jpg should be locked the same way other generic file names, such as Image:Image.jpg, are locked. The previous discussion on similar images at Wikipedia:Image file names seems to be dead, so I decided to post this here. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the deletion log of File:Images.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), that would seem to be reasonable. I'll protect it. Sandstein 21:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Max Thayer

This user has uploaded a ridiculously large amount of images, all of which appear to be copyright violations, and tagged them as pd-self. As I don't have the time (I must be going), nor, frankly, the energy to list the well over 50 images at WP:PUI, I would ask an admin to delete these clear copyright violations. Clear examples include Image:Richardharrison.jpg or Image:Omar2.jpg. This is especially troubling becuase the user appears to be regular. Thanks. Part Deux 21:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User Gsd2000

I have been trying the edit the British Empire for a couple of Weeks now, and Gsd2000 have been showing an extreme bias and acting as if he owns the page by Reverting almost anything that shows some balance to the article, and is bullying people in submission.

On February 17th he violated the 3RR rule and since I was new, I didn’t know about it, and didn't know who to talk to. Can someone please stop this guy; he's already blanked his history talk page (where countless numbers of people are or had problems with him).

To addition of the info he's deleting, he has shown no proof of sources of any kind, while I provided a widely used University Text, sourced and researched. He just claims it's false, with no prior research, and I keep asking his to show proof to discredit the facts, and he won't. He keeps on deleting. He is always ganing up with others such as Wiki-Ed, that are showing Systematic bias Someone please help me solve this problem. Thank You.

Cosmos416 21:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Please see the discussion on the article talk page: talk page, where Wiki-Ed and I tried to explain why we thought his contributions were inappropriate. Gsd2000 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User UBeR, who has a Barnstar of Valour, Reverted and has pointed out to you to "Please stop reverting verfiable information" and :

"Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ~ UBeR 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)"

Please judge for yourself...

Cosmos416 22:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, "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." My regards, ~ UBeR 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Harassment on my user and user talk pages

I'm being harassed by a group of users on both my user and user talk pages. I have no idea why they're doing this, but it is extremely vile personal attacks they're making.

Sometimes I feel like quitting. But that would make them happy. So I'm not going to quit. How do we deal with this problem?? --sunstar net^talk 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen some of this on your page and elsewhere and was about to offer to semiprotect your userspace. Second, gather a few of the account names that have been doing the harassment and put in a checkuser request at WP:RFCU. From the fact that they have come back despite autoblocks, I fear they are using proxies, but it's worth a try. Third, a bunch of admins in addition to myself watchlist your pages so we can revert this stuff on sight. Newyorkbrad 23:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklisk

Resolved

Hi, how can I request to have links added to the spam blacklist? I'm specifically asking about the ones constantly being added to Lingerie and Generic drug by multiple IP users. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 00:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If they're professional spammers blocking the IP won't help. Consider WP:SEMI instead. Raymond Arritt 00:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Place a request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to discuss. At the IRC channel #wikipedia-spam-t they can blacklist these items from the English Wikipedia alone. If you want them to be completely banned from Wikipedia, try m:Spam blacklist. -- ReyBrujo 00:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tips. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to close Community noticeboard

I would invite interested users to participate in a discussion to close the Community noticeboard here. IronGargoyle 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonkapro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thread retitled from "Reporting a vandal".

Resolved

I'm not sure where to report this, but this guy seems to be more than a regular vandal. user:Wonkapro has created a half dozen pages [16], all of which are basic copies of other pages, except with nonsense. It would be great if an administrator could delete the pages this guy has created. -- Scorpion 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please report it at WP:AIV. ~ UBeR 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Admin Abuse

I'm not sure if this is the right place. Admin KhoiKhoi continues to revert an article to its incorrect version despite the consensus on the talk page being in opposition to his edits. If you look at the talk page for the reggaeton article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reggaeton You will see that there are 3-1 contributors in favor of keeping the first word of the article and its spelling consistent with the actual title of the article, with an accented version of the word as an alternate. Despite pointing this out to KhoiKhoi through messages and through the talk page as well as the edit history for the reggaeton page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggaeton He continues to revert the page back to the incorrect version and the one noncompliant with the talk page consensus, and he gives no explanation whatsoever for his actions. Now he's saying that I'm going to be blocked, because I reverted him, even though I point out repeatedly that I'm editing as per the consensus on the talk page. I need an Admin to take 1 minute to look at the reggaeton article and its talk page to see that he's simply vandalising the page and not explaining his edits. 68.155.70.91 02:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since KhoiKhoi is not using his admin tools, it's not truly admin abuse, just a content dispute. I must confess that I find the talk page indecipherable though and don't understand the nature of the dispute. Savidan 02:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The submitter of this complaint, 68.155.70.91 (talk · contribs), has announced on his Talk page that he is planning to ignore 3RR and take the consequences, "I'll probably get blocked for following wikipedia's rules", seeing himself as impelled to carry out the Talk page consensus. KhoiKhoi has already warned him about the 3-revert rule. I see no evidence that this anon has attempted to contact KhoiKhoi directly. Normal practice suggests that a longer conversation should take place at Talk:Reggaeton, in which both KhoiKhoi and 68.155.70.91 should participate. Although it seems un-wiki, something like a 'vote' might be suggested, since even the alternatives in the debate are quite unclear. 'Consensus' is too strong a word at this point. EdJohnston 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted multiple times to contact KhoiKhoi on his talk page in the past with no personal attacks of any nature, and rather than respond with discussion, he immediately deleted my questions/comments and then blocked my IP address (despite me not breaking any rules), forcing me to use another computer. My comments about disregarding the 3RR on my page were the result of knowing that he has blocked users (including myself) in the past for making edits that he didn't agree with. He seems to be engaged in other edit wars on wikipedia right now that he isn't willing to offer discussion on, either. If I make a comment on his talk page five minutes from now, he's just going to delete it and block me as he has in the past. Its time that his Admin status on Wikipedia be reviewed.

Question on soliciting responses from Wiki editors

On March 3, WikiInquirer (talk · contribs), registered since December 2006, began sending Wiki editors a solicitation to participate in a survey concerning Wikipedia and offering them $10USD or a contribution to the Wiki Foundation. What is policy with respect to this type of solicitation? — ERcheck (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ANI at the bottom. Viridae^Talk 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not at the bottom anymore, see WP:ANI#Mass_spamming_of_a_survey. James086^Talk 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay left

Ok, noting that User:Essjay is gone, and is no longer around to use his tools. I think for the short term we will be fine without him acting as a B-crat, Where we will miss him most is on WP:RFCU and WP:MEDCOM. I think attention needs to be drawn to those areas to prevent too much of a backlog. Essjay ran 11 bots, and they are all currently down, though this is being worked on. The new bots will run under new usernames Folks I think we need to make sure that this gap is filled. The best way to do so is to support those that have the buttons already, and try to make life as easy as possible on them. I'm sure the clerks for the various processes don't mind new helpers. We might have a few problems down the road, but we can absorb the loss. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I need a TS root to grab a root archive sometime...... if Essjay doesn't care if we continue to use his code -- Tawker 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A potential problem may be his now-blocked archival bots, namely EssjayBot, EssjayBot II, EssjayBot III, etc. Unless they have been replaced by other bots... --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is being worked on. I am currently requesting a toolserver account to run those bots. (in addition to a bot of my own programming) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We miss Essay, of course : (, but the Mediation Committee does have a new chair, ^demon. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We're still down a checkuser though. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

=His talk page=

• Now, I don't doubt he has left. There is some ridiculous trolling going on. Is there a need to keep his talk page open? Seriously? – Chacor 12:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been protected. – Chacor 12:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could admins please refrain from adding content to that protected page? It seems to be becoming an admin-only personal messaging board to say goodbye to Essjay. I certainly don't object to anyone saying goodbye to him but to continue editing a protected page for any but the most essential of reasons seems to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. We've had enough discussions of a perceived divide between administrators and regular editors that I don't think I need to repeat the main points in that discussion. --ElKevbo 18:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

=User:Essjay/Letter=

One of the user subpages deleted per Essjay's request was User:Essjay/Letter, which has been fairly central to the whole situation and has been linked from a number of external sites, many of them (like Slashdot) widely read. Under the circumstances, I felt that its deletion just now — and especially the fact that, to a casual user visiting the site, it seems to have "vanished without a trace of ever existing" — may create an impression, however inaccurate, of a "cover-up" in the minds of at least some people stumbling upon links to it.

After discussing ther matter with the deleting admin, I've restored the page for now. I'd appreciate feedback on whether this was the appropriate thing to do, and will attempt to contact Essjay himself to ask whether he actually intended his request to apply to that specific page and what he would like us to do with it.

This is a complicated issue, and I certainly have no wish to hurt Essjay any more than he has been hurt already, nor to override his personal wishes willy-nilly for no good reason. Even so, I just don't think simple deletion is the right decision here. In particular, if the page is deleted, and perhaps even if it isn't, I believe placing some sort of notice there with a link to Essjay's request would be appropriate, and would alleviate any potential concerns that we are trying to make the page "disappear". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a clash with the right to vanish everyone of us has. Maybe it can be transwikied to Wikisource, although I would prefer to keep it deleted. -- ReyBrujo 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The right to vanish does not allow for the retraction of the GFDL license you give all text you contribute here. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The right to vanish applies to user space. If Essjay had put this letter into project space, on a noticeboard or an article talk page, it would be here forever. But it's in his space, let it go. I don't normally wear my religion on my sleeve, but I just got back from church, and the message this morning was the latest in a series on The Beatitudes. "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." Whose interests are served by leaving the letter up? Slashdot visitors and attention seekers? Let it go. If necessary, post a soft redirect to m:Right to vanish. Thatcher131 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of convenience to people visiting from off-site we should put up a short explanation as to why the page doesn't exist any more (users right to vanish, etc). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to create as neutral of an explanation as possible. I'll keep an eye on the page and protect it if it starts to get vandalized. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ilmari, thank you. That looks right to me. Thatcher131 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mailer Diablo left too

User talk:Mailer Diablo left too, the edit summary said "burnt out." --Iamunknown 06:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not the first time. The user left briefly at the end of May of last year after a different incident. Frankly, when I burned out, I just didn't edit for three months. Right to vanish, all that good stuff. Miss the AfD closings for certain. Teke ^(talk) 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

I thought I'd bring to the admins' attention the fact that there's a backlog on this category that really requires very little work. I wouldn't posted this here except the backlog tag has been there for a week and for a category that can be taken care of so easily I think that's too long. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 10:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Wanted

In an exchange with a well-known and highly respected contributor over a related issue, said contributor expressed concern that the edits of TedFrank (talk · contribs) merited a careful review - "he seems to not find any problem with him editing on his own time articles on topics about which he is paid in the daytime to propagandize" were his exact words - and the opinion was ventured in respect of his dispute with Jance / Jgwlaw / Gfwesq that "I think Wikipedia is not the right project for any of them" (with the implied inclusion of TedFrank). I need some help with this, please, since said contributor is currently travelling and in any case unlikely to have time to deal with this particular case, having rather bigger fish to fry at the moment. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank stated here a couple of weeks ago that he would be taking a few days off Wikipedia after the prior situation referred to. I haven't seen a case for a block at this time (if there is one, some diffs/links would be good), but if/when he returns, I will try to keep an eye on things including watching out for any POV editing, as he edits mostly in areas I know something about. Newyorkbrad 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that the conflict of interest rules are fuzzy in this area -- AFAICT, Ted's job doesn't necessarily prevent him from editing, depending on the quality of his edits, but it does heighten the need for him to understand and apply WP:NPOV. Unless there's been some dispute resolution on this issue in the past, I would recommend some friendly warnings prior to blocks. I doubt I can do as good a job as Brad, but I'll try to keep an eye on Ted once he returns. TheronJ 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SSP--admin attention requested

There's a backlog at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, with some of the cases being older than a month. I've been trying to address the backlog by closing cases where all the accounts are already blocked. I don't have the mop, so I'm obviously unable to take action when blocks are needed, and I'm reluctant to close the cases where I think no action is required. So I'd like to request some admin help over there. I've made comments on about half of the cases indicating what I think should be done, here's a summary:

block(s) needed--Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp

possible, Checkuser or other investigation needed--Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp

unlikely, could be closed with no action--Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp

combination of named account + IP account(s) used for spamming, unsure what action is needed--Template:Ssp, Template:Ssp

In addition, I closed two cases because it seemed like the appropriate action had already been taken, but I'd appreciate a second opinion: Template:Ssp and Template:Ssp. Thanks! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeev Grin (talk · contribs), Vladimir Petrov (talk · contribs)

Thread retitled from "not sure what to make of this".

Could someone keep an eye on Zeev Grin (talk · contribs) and Vladimir Petrov (talk · contribs) and possibly coach them on what wikipedia is and isn't. This isn't really a serious issue, but all the same, I thought is would be a good idea to get other users involved. --VectorPotential^Talk 19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of chatter on Talk:Reality

Thread retitled from "minor - blanking comments page by an admin".

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AReality&diff=112508879&oldid=112499121

If a stupid question is acceptable by itself, why is it unacceptable when followed by slightly more stupid answers?

Also, despite having 3000-odd linking pages, some of which are locked, this page is hard to find. You should fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.17.252 (talk • contribs) 20:22, March 4, 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPG, which explains what article discussion pages are for; succintly, they are for discussing the article, not anything else. Not sure what you want us to do about making it easier to get to — it's not even a disambiguated page, if you type "Reality" in the box on the left of every page or on the front page of Wikipedia, you get to it. There's not much else we can do. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just realized you meant the Administrators' Noticeboard. Oops. Not sure what we can do to publicize it, either, though. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is linked on the Community Portal but it's kind of down there and in the swamp of things. It's really not that important to most readers, which I supppose is why ATT/RS/NN (the "writing an encyclopedia" info) is at hte top. Hbdragon88 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

The above entitled arbitration case is now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Szhaider, Unre4L, Siddiqui and Nadirali are each banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to release the Cplot blocks?

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Cplot for some background, if you're not already aware. Is it about time to release some/all of these rangeblocks? Or should we give it some more time? I ask mainly because we still get the odd few unblock requests, every week, and I haven't heard anything from the guy, that I know of -- so either he finally got bored, or we finally blocked everything in the greater Chicago area, and it's keeping him out. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS; suggest this be addressed off-wiki. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And also discuss it with Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). —Pilotguy go around 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, Cplot used open proxies. I don't know much about IPs, but if that is the case against it. Teke ^(talk) 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of it. The range blocks affect *a lot* of people. Raul654 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Support releasing them. The federal clowns stuff doesn't bother me, and think he got bored anyway. --Aude (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, remove them. If he starts again, then they can always be reinstated. Neil (not Proto ►) 13:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Neil. Durova^Charge! 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nerroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nerroth has been uploading images under a CC license, when the owner (Amarillo Design Bureau Inc.) only gave permission for their use on Wikipedia. I'm removing the CC tags, but I'm not sure what should happen beyond that. AlistairMcMillan 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged all of them without a fair use template with {{permission}}. Someone who knows something about Star Trek now needs to evaluate these and either delete them or make a Wikipedia:Fair use claim. Two important things to look at when making the decision are that many of the images have been uploaded in both large and small sizes. The latter needs to be the one kept if it meets WP:FUC. Further, the copyright here seems, well, strange. Surely these characters are the property of whoever owns the Star Trek property, and not this board game company. We should probably be using material directly from the copyright holder, unless we are talking about this particular artist's rendition of the characters. Jkelly 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The games are based on licenses from Paramount. The guy I emailed at ADB said they couldn't agree to a CC license even if they wanted to. And most of the images are posted on articles about the board game. Whether we should have multiple articles about the board game is another question. AlistairMcMillan 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jkelly, images uploaded after 20050519 and tagged with Template:Permission are subject to be speedy deleted at any time. I would normally tag them as such, but I don't intend to get into a revert war. --Iamunknown 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that we are all clear on that. The point here was to give people who knew something about the subject to evaluate whether or not they met Wikipedia:Fair use or not; I strongly suspect that they don't, but someone who knows something about this board game and about Star Trek should be taking a look at it. Jkelly 00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just imagined that the images would be more appropriately tagged with {{Don't know}} or {{no license}}. At least that way they won't be deleted on sight. --Iamunknown 02:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I think that would be strange. We know what the license is. {{Permission}} doesn't populate a speedy deletion queue, if that is what the concern is. If someone takes a second look at these and decides that there's no rationale for fair use, they should be speedy deleted per WP:CSD, but that's not going to happen automatically. Jkelly 02:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How do these things even work, anyway? I thought that Image:German_Monopoly_board_in_the_middle_of_a_game.jpg would be copyrighted as it shows copyrighted artwork, but it isn't. If we can't get them free, I think we can do without them. The logos of the governments and factions in the Alpha Octant article are decorative, and I really don't understand the game any better with these huge images of the game board. You could just write that it's a honeycomb-like map and I could picture how it loks. Hbdragon88 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine why we need those either. Jkelly 00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated and blatant Plagiarism by Times of India and its subsidiaries

The Times of India and its subsidiaries are copying text verbatim from wikipedia without bothering to give ANY attribution.

For example: this article on Satyajit Ray is taken verbatim from Satyajit Ray#Film craft

User:Blnguyen also reported that many of the Cricketer biographies he wrote have been copied by Times of India. His user page has a list of the plagiarisms he detected.

Also, another user reported in the Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics that Vijay Times, a subsidiary of Times of India is taking photos, articles directly from Wikipedia without any attribution.

I request WP:OFFICE or others to look into this, and stop this plagiarism.

Thanks. --Ragib 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as Jimbo was in Delhi last week, I did pop him a mail and a talk page message wondering if he would pop in to the ToI's Delhi headquarters and have a chat! I'm not sure if he thought I was joking though, or perhaps the issue of the week consumed all of his time. Blnguyen (bananabucket)

And I should look more carefully because there are more plagiarised bits that I didn't check (from the cricket writings of other wikipedians). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So the ToI copied our articles? Hmm...I think there is not much what we can do, other than documenting the pages affected (which are doing well). It is in the hands of OFFICE and let them deal with it (btw, Jimbo has left India, so I do not think he can do much now). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider writing a Letter to the Editor about it -- not to the Times of India, but to their main competitor. Raymond Arritt 01:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Or Slashdotting ;) --Ragib 01:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear God. When it was just the cricket it was plausibly the work of a single bad reporter. This is systematic and Not Good. JoshuaZ 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Find the first blog that, well, blogs about this, and let post that to Slashdot and Digg. They like controversies. Oh, and if we add an Everywhere Girl image in one of the articles, we can get The Inquirer to post about it as well :-P -- ReyBrujo 01:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the autograph! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I remember reading Wikimedia would do nothing about these cases, but any editor who had contributed to those articles can begin a legal process to force them acknowledge the license (much like what gpl-violations.org does). -- ReyBrujo 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a letter to The Hindu, The Indian Express, or The Pioneer (daily), will do the job.Bakaman 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding exploitation without attribution, there is an entire wiki website, the Rajputwiki, which has been created by lifting verbatim from our Rajput page and its numerous sub-pages. If you look into the page-history of each individual page on that wiki, you will find that each page has been seeded verbatim from our pages. Not one word of attribution, and I wrote nearly all of those pages! What is most paradoxical and sad is that I had a harrowing time last year ensuring that this version remained on Wikipedia and was not washed away by the infamous Rajput Troll but it was neatly lifted on to that other website, and used without ado! ImpuMozhi 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well make sure it's noted on the article talk page that it's been used as a source! Maybe we need a project page where this kind of usage can be documented and kept on record. It's quite a compliment actually. Tyrenius 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on my userpage, they also plagisraised my newbie OR violations and some rather farfetched crystal balling.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd be curious to see what would happen if someone seeded one of the articles they're plagiarizing with some obvious errors, to check how indiscriminately they're cutting and pasting. No, we shouldn't really do that (see WP:POINT among others) but still it would be an interesting experiment. Raymond Arritt 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is intended to be a listing of all sites which mirror or fork Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance, which is to keep track of the compliance status of the mirrors and forks. There's a process described there to contact sites about their compliance, the first step of which is the standard GFDL violation letter. --bainer (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have a feeling this came to OTRS as well,m and was referred to Brad. I could be wrong. Copying is fine by GFDL, I believe, as long as there is attribution. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Copying a GFDL work, among other things, requires that you attach a copy of the licence (see WP:GFDL section 2), and considering the length of the licence that would be somewhat impractical for a newspaper. If you copy a GFDL work in quantity, you also have to provide a machine-readable version (maybe less impractical, as it can be hosted on their website, I think, but still annoying for the newspaper; see section 3 of the GFDL). GFDL isn't a very good licence to use if you want newspapers to be able to copy your work (this is one of the reasons why dual-licencing with CC-by-sa is encouraged for images on Commons). --ais523 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• The main issue here is that the Times of India is doing this completely without ANY attribution. If they just mentioned Wikipedia as the source, it would have been somewhat acceptable. But the newspaper is completely plagiarizing content without any attribution. From the notes above, it seems like this is a common practice for them, and not just an isolated incident. --Ragib 10:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. I seem to recall it was raised in OTRS and escalated to Brad, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but say this about the Times of India: that's just not cricket. Go ahead and write letters, but the fair thing would be to write directly to that newspaper first. Durova^Charge! 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Commonwealth Society

This seems to be malformed inasmuch as it has overwritten an earlier AfD on the same subject. I wonder if someone could take a look and disentangle it. I don't think it's been listed properly as a result. Tyrenius 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Request diff removal (re. User:Husnock)

Thread retitled from "Asking for help from a computer administrator".

I’m an administrator of a computer lab in Dubai, UAE that monitored the escalation of a case involving a user called Husnock. The case drew in a lot of American/military personnel because someone unfortunately bookmarked it and then posted the mark to several newsgroups. We have removed all links to this case in an effort to keep it from flaring up again and I kindly ask that Wikipedia users do the same. It came to my attention that this message was posted to your pages, calling Husnock a name and saying he was dangerous to this site and deserves no respect. From what I can gather, Husnock has been off this site for months and hasn’t disrupted it in any way. He was also a military officer deployed to a combat zone and under a lot of stress and should be given at least some leeway (not that I'm defending anything he did or did not do). Clearly, calling him names and posting negative things about him, months after the fact, helps no one. I’m sure you’ll agree. Please let sleeping dogs lie, since comments like the one above can serve no useful purpose. Thank you. -38.119.112.187 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The diff will stay. Short of copyright violations or personal information, we don't hide revisions. Teke ^(talk) 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We will discuss removing the dif. In general, removal of difs only occurs rarely. Prior versions do not show up on web searches such as google and are thus hard to find unless one is already aware of the link. Now, to the community- I at least see no reason not to delete this dif. Unless someone else gives a very good reason to keep it, I'm going to delete it. JoshuaZ 06:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to remove it it. Gmaxwell was expressing an opinion based on his interpretation of the ArbCom case and other whatnot. It's not a personal attack if it's based on editing patterns, it's not civil but it's surely not deletion worthy. Is this an issue of libel? I'm not sure, and this is an anonymous post and we don't know who made it. I agree it's not useful, and I see that the IP has asked Gmaxwell to remove the comment. I don't see the AN need and hold off to see if Gmaxwell removes it without this. Teke ^(talk) 06:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to keep Gmaxwell's !vote but obfuscate the name so that it doesn't show up on a google search. I'm operating on the assumption that the anon is H******, and that he is trying to keep his google profile low. Generally we respect requests like that wherever possible. Thatcher131 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being slow this morning, but I really don't understand the reason why we should take any action on this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on that, but I wouldn't disagree with Thatcher's proposal. Teke ^(talk) 07:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, we do it because we are kind and courteous, even to users who have had a bit of a meltdown. Thatcher131 15:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at RFA talk about Durin's RFB (and RFB issues in general). I would consider it inappropriate to obscure the record during that conversation. Dragons flight 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if you are operating a military computer lab the fastest way to get this resolved would be an email from your official email address, I'm sure there would be no issue with some basic cooperation. --pgk 07:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the original poster here complaining about the diff was very probably Husnock. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

These IAR moves have GOT to stop

Guys please. I implore you. Knock this crazy IAR stuff on the head when dealing with highly charged and emotional issues. El C closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay early, and, duh, now its on deletion review. Much like the Daniel Brandt fiasco; Starting... Continuing... and still continuing this has/will result in a longer, more controversial and much more drawn out process that causes us more headaches and gets us nowhere.

Can I remind you that WP:IAR states (and only states):

“ If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. ”

Note, it says improving Wikipedia. I put to you that these types of moves do not improve Wikipedia. Quite the opposite in fact. Please don't. Glen 08:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• well maybe. I think closing the Essjay AfD was actually smart. More than enough input on that one to gauge the mood. Brandt? I have to say a lot of the keeps appear to be out of spite, but that is probably just my nasty suspicious nature. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that these IAR actions don't work. Speedy deleting Brandt's article? Its still here. Closing Essjay's article as a delete, it too is still there. They draw out process, cause drama throughout the site and actually take us backwards. If the keeps are out of spite, then they are out of spite - but make that decision at the appropriate time. Glen 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Essjay article is still there because the AfD closer didn't delete it. That's an error, not an argument for keeping the AfD open. How much more input do you need? Insisting on X days is just process wonkery. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that invoking WP:SNOW is sensible if it leads to the process taking longer than it otherwise would have (which is pretty much inevitable in contentious cases). --ais523 12:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ais523 that in general controversially closing a contenious debate early is likely to result in a net increase in time wasted. In this particular case information is also changing too rapidly to make a rush decision (e.g. NYT article[17]). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 12:27Z

Closing the Essjay AFD early was diabolical, given the external interest: one thing we (meaning Wikipedia) absolutely should not do was support any potential accusations of covering up what happened. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Diabolical? Get over yourself, will you? I would not have done it, but to call it a work of Satan is well beyond ridiculous. The thing weas massively longer than most AfDs, many tens of editors had contributed. Was the balance of opinion changing? Didn't look like it to me. When you have the answer, why not stop asking? Guy (Help!) 12:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the balance of opinion (which I agree wouldn't have changed, much if at all) - it's to do with the appearance of propriety. It would not have killed anyone to keep it open for the full five days, and closing it early only helps perpetuate all the accusations of high-handedness and elitism amongst admins. It needs to be done exactly to standard procedure, no special case rules applied. It doesn't matter what the end result will be, as the end result is pretty clear. It's the means we reach that end that matter. Normally, I am dead set against process wonkery, but we need to recognise that this must go by the book. Neil (not Proto ►) 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it would not have killed us toi keep it open, on the other hand it does not kill us to close it. What is there is a lengthy debate with extensive input. It's run for several days. There is no appearance of impropriety, it is clear that the Wikipeida community spent time debating it and the evidence, and several options were considered. It's equally clear that nobody's mind is changing now, most, if not all, interested parties have said their piece, and we need to get on with something a bit more productive. I would not have closed it, but neither do I see any pressing need to re-open it. It's certainly not "diabolical". It qualifies for an official "so what" as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly the work of Beelzebub as far as I am concerned. The L in El_C probably stands for Lucifer. Okay, I'm joking, as "diabolical" was too strong a word, but I was miffed as I'd even made a big bold note saying "please do not close this early", a request echoed by many other users, and El_C promptly ignored it because "he knew better". Neil (not Proto ►) 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally I agree - and I would go as far as "damn silly" myself - such things have a habit of causing the opposite of the correct outcome. Had Brandt been left to run I have little doubt we would now have on article, and be a better encyclopaedia for it. But I think people are really taking the whole thing way too seriously. It's a spit in the bucket, in global terms. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Last weekend as soon as I heard about the AFD I rushed over to it to express my neutrality about the article and my strong desire to see the discussion run its full course. Why? I anticipated that the story would grow (as the New York Times article demonstrates) and I anticipated that some sysop would invoke IAR to close the discussion. Bad move: people want to discuss this issue. It looks like hushing things up to act too soon. And of course the tussle will continue on deletion review. I want this to be over as much as anybody, but early discussion closure isn't the way to achieve that end. Let things play themselves out. Durova^Charge! 14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that there were a number of specific requests not to snowball this particular AfD, including one administrator, for what it's worth. If nothing else, I can see this being pretty frustrating to those individuals. They knew as well as many of us that the discussion was likely to end up cut off by WP:SNOW in short order, but it looks like given the current situation, there's not much that can be done to help that. And I suppose that I can also see some folk seeing that as a bad thing, anti-wiki and all that. Bitnine 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't think it was snowballed, I think it was just closed, on the grounds that there was plenty of input and we did not want the debate to get any more toxic. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking back you are right. I think I got distracted by someone's motion to close as snowball no consensus. That being said, I think that between SNOW/IAR we may be at a point where it's currently very unlikely that a high-profile and contentious XfD will run for its full lifetime, even with many people wanting them to run full course. Maybe that's a good thing or maybe it's a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing and probably warrants a look towards to see if it matches community consensus. Bitnine 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bitnine has a good idea about gauging community consensus. Maybe it would be a good thing to reformulate the question so that it includes high profile/controversial articles generally and put the discussion on the community noticeboard. I supported early closure of Brian Peppers - but in all honesty my opinion on that was colored by a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Consistent principles would help the project. Durova^Charge! 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The truth is, I personally think no admin would have closed this as keep, but instead merging and redirecting, and thus we were ensured to have a DRV. Mark my words, we will have the same result for the next AFD, and an overturn in the following DRV. -- ReyBrujo 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started a community thread: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Early_closure_of_high_profile_controversial_articles. Durova^Charge! 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cave Clan

Can someone take a look at this? There's a protected edit request followed by a 4-page explanation about how we're all activists trying to call them gay or something. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was fully protected, I dropped it down to semi-protected because and asked them to behave. Majorly then decided to reprotect it fully as few days ago, without any sort of message on the talk page of the article. The entire talk page is a bunch of people from some caving club in Australia using the talk page of the article as a message board. I am not entirely convinced the club is even notable, and am surprised it made it through an AFD. All the references are from their own websites (www.caveclan.org, www.urbanadventure.org) barring one reference, which is a fact unrelated to the Cave Clan (the reference is about some Australian drain builder). Neil (not Proto ►) 15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

nb, it's now unprotected. Neil (not Proto ►) 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)