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

Tor blocking - soft or hard?

Obviously, open proxies are and should be blocked on a regular basis. There seems to be a strong consensus that anonymous editing from Tor nodes should be blocked. I usually see account creation likewise disabled. From what I've seen, though, there doesn't seem to be consensus on the "anon only" block option -- some admins block all users, others block only IP users, and I frequently see Tor blocks reconfigured one way or the other. As a community, do we have any particular preference, here? Blocking anons and registration seem to be unanimously agreed upon, it's only blocking accounts that seems to be a sticking point. I haven't seen any arguments or upset feelings over this, and don't have a particularly strong opinion, myself, but figured it couldn't hurt to discuss. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that a lot of good wikipedians use Tor. I am thinking about installing it myself, but I am worried about this. I support soft blocks only, because then a vandal would have to register over a regular connection. If they got blocked, their main IP would be autoed, so I support soft blocks. mrholybrain's talk 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser has repeatedly found abusive sockpuppets editing through soft-blocked tor proxies. Anyone smart enough to use tor is smart enough to find an ublocked IP to create a sockfarm and age it, then edit through tor. Hardblocked tor users can edit through the secure server. Thatcher131 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As previously, soft blocks aren't so soft and have their own implications for use. These are anonymous open proxies by any other name and should be treated as such. --pgk 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, and have long advocated, that Tor should be anon-only+account creation blocked, but anonymous edits should be permitted. We should also automate this, and for gods-sake we should only block edits from exit nodes, not middle nodes. If you're able to find an unblocked IP to create the sockfarm you'd also be able to find an unblocked IP to use the sock farm. I don't see how we can claim to respect users privacy but we will aggressively block any method a user could use to actually achieve said privacy in a strong way. --Gmaxwell 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I block tor exit nodes as a full block (everything on). So NOT anon only, and account creation disabled. I don't believe we don't guarantee privacy, and these are just open proxies. Prodego ^talk 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies."[1] As TOR proxies are clearly anonymous, I believe the official Wikimedia policy is to block them with a hard block. Certainly, these proxies are widely abused by banned sockpuppeteers such as Verdict (talk · contribs) and only a hard block would stop that. --Yamla 20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Users in China frequently can only edit through TOR. Thus, hardblocking TOR could increase the systemic bias problem.
2. TOR can protect good editors from having their IP collected and published offsite when they forget to log in.
3. In case the Wikimedia Foundation receives a subpoena, TOR can protect good-faith editors who accidentally inserted libel.

I should admit that I have a conflict of interest here - If all (or almost, more likely) TOR exit nodes are blocked, I will have to leave Wikipedia.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Problem With TOR is that although in theory it's a fantastically nice idea, in practice it's overwhelmingly a firehose of sewage. I'm not sure how to solve this. But there's good reason TOR nodes are shot on sight possibly more assiduously than other open proxies - David Gerard 11:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wdefcon.

Resolved

 – Template was prematurely restored, and the Deletion Review decided to keep it restored. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This page was deleted by Thebainer (as far as I know, without consensus), and I believe it to be very useful. I don't think this was the correct action (should have been an MFD, which was never announced on the page and therefore probably was not done), but I'd like to know your opinions. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There was an MfD for Wikipedia:WikiDefcon (which your original edit seemed to mention): Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon. As for Template:Wdefcon, it was kept 4 times at TfD; I'm not convinced that a T1 speedy was appropriate in this case, and would suggest Deletion Review as an appropriate forum for this discussion. (By the way, wasn't T1 originally designed for userboxes?) --ais523 15:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the MfD is from February 2006. Kuroji 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Since this is now on DRV - let's leave it there. There are more important things to worry about either way.--Doc^g 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, such as AIV being full, which is what I was about to add to the template. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, was full 10 minutes ago (some 20 reports). · AndonicO ^Talk 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Template restored. As it has survived multiple XfDs, it is inherently non-speediable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As Doc said, further discussion about this should probably go on at the template's DR: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 24#Template:Wdefcon. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Proxy comments at WP:RFC?

I have received an e-mail query from an ArbCom-banned editor about whether this person may submit comments via e-mail to a user conduct RFC. I know proxy editing isn't allowable, but is proxy commentary an exception? Please advise. Durova^Charge! 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the differentiation myself. If they are banned that means they can't participate in the project. --pgk 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is, to be sure, quite clear under WP:BAN. Nevertheless, I can't imagine that anyone would object profoundly were one to relay constructive (or at least non-disruptive) comments. There are those who construe BAN so strictly as to prevent a banned user's partaking of the project of any way, even a rather propitious one, but I'm not at all sure, the explicit language of BAN notwithstanding, that there is a consensus for such view. If the comments, or, really, any edits a banned user requests to be made by proxy, legitimately advance the goals of the project, I can't see that excluding them would particularly benefit us; seems like one case in which invoking IAR might be appropriate. Joe 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And who decides if the comments are useful in advancing the goal of the project? If there are conflicting views in an RFC then I'm sure one group will see the views of that banned editor as non-constructive. If there aren't conflicting views they add nothing. If you actively invite banned editors to participate in some way, surely that is undermining the purpose of the ban in the first place (and I would hope if it's got to the stage of banning someone there are significant issues with that individual) --pgk 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not actively inviting anyone. I've received a polite request and want to know whether it's appropriate to fulfill the request. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As above, I would disagree regardless, but the easiest thing would seem to be to post a request for clarification at WP:RFAr to see if the arbitrators intended the ban to prevent participation in RFCs. I'll also note WP:BAN states the intent is "Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban". That certainly seems to preclude any involvement. --pgk 20:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration routinely involve banned editors emailing admins and administrators to post comments and rebuttals. This overly tight look at WP:BAN is rediculous. If the comments add something, raise the level of debate or bring a new point, then its WP:IAR time. -M^ask? 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC is meant to address an editor's behavior to prevent future disruption. A banned user (whether for one year or indef) will not be in conflict with any other editor any time soon, and there can be little productive purpose to adding a banned user's comments to an RFC other than revenge or getting even. Further, there is every likelihood that the subject or outside commenters will reply to the banned user, neccessitating another round of procy contributions. I strongly suggest that the committee intends bans to be bans. Thatcher131 02:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I may have worded it badly, but I intended something as below without the 'own them as your own' part. Good ideas are good ideas, and I wont cripple the project by refusing to listen to a good idea just because the persons been an ass. Doesnt mean we accept them into the fold and bans are meaningless, just that we need to be willing to here all voices. -M^ask? 06:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, if a banned user asks you to make proxy edits, take a look at the suggested edits. If you agree with them, make them, but own them as your own. If you disagree with them, or don't care about them, don't. A banned user is banned. They have no further rights to participate here. And they were banned for a reason. The time to have engaged in dispute resolution was before they got banned. Don't make edits because you think the banned user should be allowed to do so, but only if they would be deemed helpful by an unbanned user; you take responsibility for them. Dmcdevit·t 02:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I like that better than what I said above. Thatcher131 03:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think it appropriate if the RFC was about the user in question. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges, and this extends to privileges of engaging in discussion. But if there is an open RFC about a user who is banned, then I do not think it inappropriate for the user to have at least some comments posted; just because someone is banned, they don't become free targets.

If the RFC is about someone else, on the other hand, then that would certainly be inappropriate. --bainer (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, per consensus I'll decline the request. Thanks all for clarifying. Durova^Charge! 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

File sharers

This is neither a rant nor a hoax: There is a big media company on the Gnutella network that parsed our list of usernames and now abuses the good names of Wikipedia's administrators. It makes it look as if these people commit an illegal activity, which may be particularly objectionable for those who registered under their real names.

If you want a few faked names, timestamps, and the IPs of those search results that say "FreplySpang offers an illegal copy of Petula Clark's Downtown" for example, I can provide them.

Surely that's worth some discussion somewhere? [2], Okay, where else? I'd ask on SirFozzie's talk page, but it's protected. 84.129.139.33 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A search for "petula" returned search hits for a variety of Downtown files purportedly offered by:

• 20:12 "JamesTeterenko" 120.98.66.49
• 20:17 "Rich Farmbrough" 89.120.180.87
• 20:21 "BrionVIBBER" 69.92.84.136
• 20:22 "JitseNiesen" 123.116.96.72
• 20:22 "RobertMerkel" 61.97.74.61
• 20:23 "EugenevanderPijll" 77.84.142.76

(all times UTC, today) 84.129.139.33 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There's not much really you can do, except forward details to the Foundation and see if they can take action., and perhaps email the users affected by this and let them know someone is pretending to be them online The boards here are focused inward towards WP, not outwards. SirFozzie 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that those aren't the actual administrators? I assure you that the cabal is fond of Petula Clark; we invited her to sing at last month's potluck in London. Ral315 » 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this this version (as opposed to the original). Cracking tune either way, though. --kingboyk 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Noooo! This version is the definitive :) - Alison ☺ 05:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (sorry, sorry. Just leaving)

I hoped perhaps there was someone here who could push it "further up" to the Foundation. You'd have to e-mail pretty much all of the admins, remember, their business model is flooding the network with fakes. Seems to me like organized libel and identity theft. 84.129.131.87 21:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Theres no real need, they'd sue based on IP, not name. And im pretty sure no admins going to care. Id imagine all of them spend time on the networks. Perhaps moved on to bittorrent from gnutella, but still. -M^ask? 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's safe to say that none of the admins will get sued. Still, I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation can be quite amused when another company takes the rather unique and identifiable name of their Chief Technology Officer (along with all the other admin names), and publishes search results that imply he's commiting some big-style copyright infringement. 84.129.176.23 10:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you give more information about what's going on? I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that if you search on the names of Wikipedia administrators a lot of fake file hits on the Gnutella P2P network will show up? --Cyde Weys 00:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, from what he's saying apparently that Wikipedia Editor Names (whether a nom de plume, or if you registered under your real name, that name) show up on various searches by someone apparently attempting to poison/Entrap P2P networks. Not being into that kinda stuff, I can't tell you if it's true, or if it's not. SirFozzie 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You enter a query for any major artist or title in a Gnutella client such as Shareaza, and you're likely to get results back saying those files are shared by hundreds of people named like Wikipedia's administrators. If anyone wants to confirm it, they're currently still active (far as I can tell only on the Gnutella2 network).

It's not just another petty ad-ware porn spammer. It must be organized by one of the BIG "media protection" companies that have servers all over the world. MediaDefender, MediaSentry, Overpeer and their ilk. Only a few could generate such large amounts of traffic.

Hey, could this be some twisted revenge plot? Was an article for one of those companies recently deleted by an administrator? 84.129.176.23 10:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(dons the tinfoil-padded radar hat and the Conspiracy Scope Goggles) Uh, most record companies fulfill corporate notability criteria and stand pretty firmly on the undeletable side. I find it possible, if extremely extremely far-fetched, that this could be some (deleted) small label's retribution, but it'd take enormous amounts of lunacy to orchestrate this sort of stuff. Simpler explanation: Some RIAA-hugging anti-piracy company tech answered the question "where the heck do I get a list of bogus user names?" by going to Wikipedia:List of administrators. Then he told his boss, "It's not like anyone will notice or anything". =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we've found the evil mastermind behind it all: one of those results today was at 12:43 from 89.101.72.66 for "14- Uptown Girl_128_lame_cbr[www.torrentazos.com].mp3" - shared by "JimboWales". 84.129.143.228 12:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we could file some sort of class action or so. But who do we file against? --Kim Bruning 13:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One might find something out by filing abuse reports with timestamp and IP to the service providers that hosted them. Or, one could just start with the 'usual suspects', [3] or [4] perhaps, and give them an official call asking if they happen to "know" something. Of course they won't, but maybe that's enough to make it stop, all of a sudden... 84.129.176.85 16:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

After *quite* a bit of work, I am proud to announce CSD AutoReason. After installing, it gives you a drop down box of all the CSD criteria when deleting a page. Also, it links to them, so it provides a link for those not sure was csd g1 means. Hope you all enjoy ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a neat bit of coding, thanks for taking the time to do the work! Will test it out now as it looks to be operating ok from the code in my monobook. (aeropagitica) 22:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job! Thanks a lot. alphachimp 22:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! It does exactly what it says on the tin - Alison^☺ 22:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea, but it didn't seem to do anything for me. And yes I ddi bypass my cache and even purge the wiki cache for my monobook.js. I tried several varations as can be seen here. no luck. DES ^(talk) 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why, because this revision you made looks just like mine. I'm using Safari 2.0.4 Did you try quitting and relaunching? - Alison^☺ 23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It apparently didn't interact well with some other stuff in my monobook file. It is working for me now. DES ^(talk) 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done - I've implemented (Firefox 2.0.0.3); thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is brilliant. Natalie 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Really excellent, demon! Nicely done. – Riana ^ऋ 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I like! Great job! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant - thanks! Daniel Bryant 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Magic. That will save time and effort. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, simple but extremely useful. Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have edited my own copy to add some additional links to relevant policy and guideline pages in the deletion reasons, and to split out the sub-cases of A7. You can se this in User:DESiegel/monobook.js or in User talk:^demon/CSD AutoReason#Customization. I hope these changes will be of use to people. In any case I think this tool is a very useful one indeed. DES ^(talk) 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is considering using this for real deletions on English Wikipedia, could I persuade you to think twice about it? Isn't it better to take a few seconds writing, in English, your own justification for deletion? --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the reason. If I'm writing out a speedy deletion reason by hand, it's likely to be something like WP:CSD#G1 (and possibly with a word or two like 'nonsense' on the end). The CSD are meant to be clear-cut, and default deletion reasons are going to help improve this (more or less the same reason why there are templates for user warnings). Some things shouldn't have default reasons, though (WP:IAR deletions are an obvious example, and arguably prod deletion should say something more specific than 'expired prod'). I'm not at all convinced writing out reasons for CSD deletion would generate anything better than a default reason (can you think of an example where it would and the article is within the letter of the CSD criteria? I've excluded the case where the application of the criterion is an appropriate stretch and you want to explain it).--ais523 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this auto-generates pretty much exactly what I would write otherwise, I don't see what the problem. When I'm clearing out an image backlog (where all of them are going to be the same criteria), I'll still copy/paste my summary, but when just clearing out CAT:CSD where the articles have different codes, this can be very handy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am now using this for pretty much every deletion i make. I do however, often add details to the reason beyond the standard reson from the script, this just sames me re-typing the basics that are always the same. It also ensures that the reason contaisn a proper link to policy. Look at my recent deletions and see if the tool has improved my delete reasons or harmed them. DES ^(talk) 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, when I delte a blatent copyvio i add the URL infringed to the reason. DES ^(talk) 18:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys might want to purge/hard refresh your code. I fixed a minor bug and updated the descriptions a bit. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good show. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Un-autoblock request

Resolved

 – User blocked 1 month by Sandstein. - auburnpilot 07:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I came across a request to have an autoblock removed on User talk:Pikminlover, and just before I granted the request, I noticed this user has suffered multiple autoblocks. I've outlined the issue briefly on the talk page, but it seems this user is engaging in sockpuppetry in order to vandalize using one account, then revert and report the vandal account with the first. On four occasions, a user who is blocked as a result of Pikminlover's reverts/AIV reports has resulted in an autoblock on Pikminlover's account. Seems a little too much of a coincidence. I've declined the request for now, but would appreciate another set of eyes. - auburnpilot talk 05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks suspicious to me - even if h tends to use public IP addresses/proxies, reporting the user shouldn't tend to cause his IP address to get the autoblock. There are lots of IP addresses autoblocked, and the probability that his gets autoblocked every time he reports a vandal is so slim that I would probably open a WP:SSP report about him. Od Mishehu 10:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, (1) this is an 11-year old kid (at least that's what they say), (2) most of the other accounts that where then blocked previously had friendly contact with his account (wrote on each other's talkpage etc.) So either this is some sock vandalism game, or a bunch of kids at school. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My original thought was that it might be a couple of kids bored at school, but the IP addresses don't appear to trace back to a school [5] [6] [7] [8]. Unless I'm missing something, they all appear to be fairly static addresses for a home and/or business. - auburnpilot talk 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And now there is a new request to be unblocked due to an autoblock [9]. I'm not going to review it, but this isn't normal. - auburnpilot talk 02:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER violation

I think TomGreen (talk · contribs)s username violates WP:USER. Tom Green is a famous comedian/TV personality. The Parsnip! 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please can you go and speak to the user before bringing it here? And what if by some chance this user is actually called Tom Green? Ryan Postlethwaite 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of Tom Green, and would think it's such a generic name to be not a problem unless he's actually claiming to be a notable Tom Green (if you see what I mean). If he is claiming such, then he needs to verify his identity via OTRS I believe. --kingboyk 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that there's more than one Tom Green in the world - unless he claims to be the notable one, I don't think that we need to take any action. If he does make such claims, then his identity should be verified by OTRS, if needs be. Martinp23 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only in the world, Martin, there's actually more than one on Wikipedia. --kingboyk 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that the policy states you cant use your real name if someone else who has your real name is famous. Tom Green has had multiple movies, tv shows, and currently hosts the only live video podcast on the internet. This isn't kosher, needs to be changed. -M^ask? 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, if it's a generic name, (which in my opinion Tom Green is) then we tend to assume good faith with it, it's in policy to stop BLP issues and such. If the user starts editing Tom Green then there may be an issue, until then, it's fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know how Tom Green does a live podcast?!? --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

With a weekly schedule and callers. You can download it later, too, but he streams it live when it happens. It's led to some.... interesting moments. I only found the site after Alex talked about it in relation to... gah, forget the name, that one singer guys show... Lynchworld! there we go. -M^ask? 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As Ryan said, this is too generic a name for us to snap to attention. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agreee. His user page states that he is 21 years old -- that alone probably establishes that he is not claiming to be the notable podcaster. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, also his talk page explains "If you were looking for Tom Green, the Canadian comedian, whose real first name is actually Michael, you want this article: Tom Green." Addhoc 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlike a previous situation with User:Dave Gilmour, this appears to be just on the safe side of the username policy. Thatcher131 18:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me, given to commonness of the name and the explanation on the talk page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after I've been shown the commoness of the name, and him disavowing that hes any of the famous ones, I think my earlier reaction was a bit harsh. -M^ask? 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Question from Sophymalophy

I wonder if you can assist me?. I created a page last year describing the conviction and eventual reprieve of William Herbert Wallace (that is the name of the page) for the murder of his wife in England in 1931. (I also created ones for Florence Maybrick and The Cameo Murder)

+ Since I did this, another contributor has added a a footnote which is incorrect, has no substance in fact and is simply his theory. The Wallace case is an internationally known mystery and no other person has ever been convicted of the crime. The footnote cites a theory by a Keith Andrews, who decribes himself as a criminologist and author. An exhaustive search of the internet has not turned up any published work by this person and he description of himself as a criminologist applies in the same way it might to anyonw who has read a book on crime. + His theory is without any foundation and leaves a reader with the impression that the murder is now solved. This is not correct as the murder happened in 1931 and all those involved are most likely dead. Andrews cannot claim to have solved the murder because, in the absence of a signed confession ever coming to light, it is unlikely ever to be resolved. This addition therefore is untrue. I have attempted to remove the last two lines of the article, that I was very satisfied with but the page is protected. If Andrews wished to expound his theory, and that is all it is and is ever likely to be, then he should have created a page of his own rather than altered mine. I would like the page to be "unprotected" so that I can remove this incorrect addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophymalophy (talk • contribs) 15:00, April 25, 2007 (UTC)

What is the name of the page? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

William Herbert Wallace took me a minute to parse the comment, but she said this is the name of the page. -M^ask? 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the article now says that the case is unsolvd, but that Andrews believes in a particular solution. Note also that Keith Andrews (criminologist) cites published work about this theory, as well as other published work both by and about Andrews. It is surely true to say that Andrews "belives" a solution when he has published arguemts for it. DES ^(talk) 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note also that as per WP:OWN, no wikipedia editor should think or speak of a page as "mine" (execpt perhaps in user space). DES ^(talk) 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like Snedger/Valandro/Tomslemen/Sophymalophy has been playing nicely with others regarding the dispute. Phony Saint 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not even in user spaces DES. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speakign, no, but most users view "their" user page as, in a sense "theirs" and WP:USER suggests that edits to soemone else's user page agaist that user's wishes should only be done in rare an exceptional circumstances (such as if the page is violating policy). Simialrly, if a parson is draftign a template or policy proposal or the like as a subpage of his or her user page, and askes others to refrain from editing until a stable version is ready, that request will normally be acceded to, again barring policy violations or the like. Not an absolute right of ownership, but much closer than anywhere else on wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have nominated Keith Andrews (criminologist) for deletion as an obvious vanity piece with no external sources to establish notability (and only 35 Google hits, of which most seem to be either his own or Wikipedia). Guy (Help!) 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Request from a user claiming impersonation

I reverted two fairly unpleasant unreferenced additions at Broseley, see diff 1 & diff 2. The user Mike Yates 07 (talk • contribs) contacted me to ask how to get the info into the articles, and I replied. I have now received another message in which the user claims that his account was used without his permission (diff), and asking that the edits be deleted from the history. I'm not sure if this qualifies for deletion/oversight, but could someone advise the user? Thanks, Mr Stephen 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits in the history can only be deleted through oversight. These now-reverted edits were simple vandalism and don't qualify for deletion under the oversight policy. No action required or possible here, I think. Sandstein 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically you can delete specific revisions, it's just not oversighted (which hides it even from admins). To delete a specific revision, delete the page, then restore all but the revision(s) you want. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're of course correct. Goes to show that even what we mean by deletion is a somewhat relative concept. Of course, there's no point in deleting simple vandal edits, either. Having the diffs available to all will be useful if Mike Yates 07's track record is ever in the need of examination. Sandstein 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now here's a thought...

in line with discussions at WT:BLP in respect of the default in deletion debates, and noting Doc's comment in the deletion debate for Jeffrey St. Clair, I would like to suggest a variant of the {{prod}} tag as follows:

What does the panel think? Guy (Help!) 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this. I've long supported the notion that unsourced articles should be nuked, not pushed into the backlogs saying "we'll fix it eventually." Oftentimes it's the BLPs that are the worst, so I think something like this would help to clean things up a bit. ^demon 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be nice to alert the Bio WikiProject to this (I'll do it). Personally, I emphatically support. We have well over 100,000 BLPs, most of them unsourced and many of them on the margins of notability. --kingboyk 19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely support easier nuking of unsourced BLPs. But... up until now, PROD has been based on unanimous consensus for deletion, which is why people have accepted it. One objection kills a PROD. This proposal, now, will introduce ambiguity and discussions. Who decides whether an article has sufficient, reliable, and independent sources that warrant the tag's removal? One admin? All editors by normal consensus? People are bound to disagree, revert, edit-war over this tag's addition or removal. At which point, why not have a normal AfD in the first place, which is at least a well-established and well-understood process? If we want to make it easier to get rid of WP:BLP issues, a cautious expansion of WP:CSD might be easier in terms of process. Sandstein 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the wording, this tag should only be removed if the article is sourced, and editors get 14 days to do it. The "deleting" admin would have to decide whether the article passes muster or not. If the tag gets removed before then, it's probably incumbent on the original tagger or anybody else who notices it to check the article, and if they disagree, send it to AFD. Just like {{prod}} then, but with a longer grace period and an "only remove if sourced rule". I like it! --kingboyk 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem too far out, so it may fly. I've been experimenting with use of proposed deletion for completely unsourced biographies of living persons, and that deletion nomination for Jeffrey St. Clair was made by me when I noticed that an editor had removed my prod tag from that article. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. The onus should be on the BLP writer to provide sourcing and evidence of notability. If neither of these requirements is met, I don't see why we should keep the defective BLP. -- ChrisO 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of WP:BEANS, I would hope the deleting admin would go back a few revisions to make sure a vandal hasn't removed sourcing from the article before prodding it (ala JB196) SirFozzie 20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we don't need a special tag for this, and if the tag is removed it can always be sent to Articles for deletion. I don't support the idea of only allowing the tag to be removed conditionally, because that's a recipe for the very kind of tussle that proposed deletion is supposed to circumvent. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The point of this proposal, as I understand it, is to create a new deletion criterion, which is "BLP article with no sources". The existing prod won't do because it does not have this criterion. The new tag would be stronger than AFD because it does not require agreement to delete, only agreement that there are no sources. Note I am not arguing in favor, just explaining my opinion of what is being proposed. CMummert · talk 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There need to be sharp criteria for what "doesn't cite its sources" means. If it means there are absolutely zero references or external links, then I would support this, but with a 21 day or 31 day window instead of 14 days. When the reliability of sources or thoroughness of sourcing needs to be evaluated, AFD is more appropriate. CMummert · talk 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD would have to be the final arbiter where there are disputes, but given the potential numbers involved it would be good to avoid that forum wherever possible. --kingboyk 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If AFD is to be the arbiter of disputes, there is little or no difference to the old PROD, except that the new one takes longer. The crucial issue remains: who decides whether the article has proper sources, i.e. whether it should (not) be deleted? If the community decides, AfD is maybe a more appropriate forum. If one admin decides, we're actually facing a new WP:CSD, some of which already have complicated time requirements, etc. Not that I would be against this, it's more a matter of how we structure it. Sandstein 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The community deciding on each and every case could bog down the system. Do we trust admins enough to let one admin decide if an article is adequately sourced? I doubt it. If my summary is correct, that only leaves something like prod, or an entirely new system. --kingboyk 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If the criteria are made explicit, the admin will not have to exercise a great deal of discretion in most cases. CMummert · talk 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This was brought up before as an offshoot of Speedy deletion for unsourced articles and its followup Proposed deletion for unsourced articles. Those died for their own reasons, but people had much less objection to limiting it to BLPs. I support it, we need a culture of sourcing. If people see how harmless this is, maybe it can be expanded in the future. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How about a CSD along the lines of "a BLP that lacks reliable independent sources for its substantial claims, and has been tagged to that effect for at least 7 days?" Whether or not we need a special tag for this or whether {{unsourced}} etc. suffice seems to be more of an ancillary question. Sandstein 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC) -- If discussion turns out to be required after the fact, WP:DRV would be the place. Sandstein 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If the closing admin has to read sources to decide if the delete tag is valid, then it's not a "speedy" delete - it's a plan for backlog. CMummert · talk 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't stand in the way of the bio prod idea. It looks like a move in the right direction, with an appropriate grace period. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be an excellent idea, and would clear the bureaucracy surrounding the deletion of unsourced articles at AFD. Clearly, the criteria would need to be well-defined, but I would trust a single admin to do the deletion, having already been nommed by an editor. What are the current rules about deletion of NN/unsourced articles - can they be deleted unilaterally? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RHB (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

There is a speedy deletion criteria for articles that do not assert notability, but no speedy criteria for articles that assert notability but have no references. Lack of references is a content issue, while deleting an article involves much more than the current content. CMummert · talk 23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP states: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced" but is every unsourced statement automatically "contentious"? I'm still on the fence about this. I would support the very long time period (21+ days) and I would make notifying the creator/major contributor mandatory for this. The point is to get articles improved, the creator is most likely to have sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For those who agree that unsourced BLPs should go, but who do not agree with a new PROD/CSD, it basically boils down to you thinking that they should all go through AFD. What if every unsourced BLP was mass-nommed at AFD? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It would go down in flames because AFD is for deletion, not for cleanup. I'm assuming that the BLPs are not marginally notable and would otherwise pass our WP:N test. hbdragon88 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD is usually not for cleanup. But totally unsourced BLPs should not be on AFD anyway. They should be CSD A9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a new criteria that I'm not seeing? CSD A goes from 1-8. hbdragon88 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He's saying that a new criteria should be added... CMummert · talk 01:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, thought that would be clear. But CMummert's correct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The new CSD criterium should be applied only to the articles created after some cut-out date (say after May 1 2007) otherwise we would create a backlog of thousands of valid BLP stubs. I would support A9 for the BLP articles having no sources no external links whatsever. Everything at least partially sourced should go through Prods/AfD Alex Bakharev 01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims about living people are already deletable on sight; eventualism doesn't apply to BLP articles. A BLP with no sources isn't a valid stub. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Was that really the intent of the policy (that there can be no unsourced BP stubs)? It certainly doesn't say that explicitly, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. CMummert · talk 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of a random selection of articles from User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs a while back and found somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of the articles marked as {{unreferenced}} actually did have at least one reference in them. Since the unreferenced tag is being so widely misused in this manner I'm leery of creating an analogous tag that has deletion as a default action should it go unnoticed for a few weeks. Bryan Derksen 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the closing admin would surely check for sources in the article before deleting. (This proposal is basically WP:PRODUS, by the way, but applied to BLPs only where it will surely be less controversial (but probably still somewhat controversial).) --ais523 08:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one main difference with PRODUS was that it would have applied only to articles created after it went into effect. (I don't think that's needed here, but it certainly is a major difference.) I said before and I'll say again-"unsourced biography of a living person" should be CSD A9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be the best way to scare off many of our IP and new contributors, providing good, valid information but without sourcing (as they don't know enough of our policies). Why would we speedy delete e.g. (found through "random article") Barry Middleton, Adrian Moyles (perhaps for notability), [[Tony Baxter (footballer)], Randall Row, Dick Nolan (footbal player) (needs a different title though) or Michael Hutchings (finally a non-sporter!)? Most of them are stubs in need of expansion and (of course) sourcing, but what would be gained by speedy deleting them? It's not as if they accuse the subjects of being involved in the Kennedy murder. Fram 08:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

They could tomorrow. Got them all watched? I doubt very many people do. Besides, right now, we pretty much don't care if anyone learns our policies. "Well, sourcing is kinda nice, if you can get around to it eventually." Hrm? That's not our policy. Here's the policy-"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And that goes triple for BLPs. Sourcing makes it easy to check and refute any claims made. And if a BLP gets deleted, but sources exist? Recreate it with the sources cited. Easy enough. If someone wants to write unsourced BLPs, and will not stop that when clearly told that's unacceptable, let's, in no uncertain terms, scare them off. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A similar proposal to this was floated earlier - it's still a very damaging idea.

Consider Category:Senegalese politicians. All very notable, important sorts of people. About half of the articles are unsourced, generally stubs.

Now, yes, we obviously can find sources for articles on all the prime ministers of Senegal. That's not the issue. The issue is that there are very few editors working in this area - often not enough to handle a wave of PRODs on their articles. It's an area of high importance to the project and low participation. To add a rule that allows for deletion in this area makes it far too easy to overwhelm these vital areas with deletions and gut our coverage with no attention to whether or not the articles are actually erroneous.

BLPs and sourcing are a problem, but they need a far more subtle solution than this. Phil Sandifer 12:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, when someone is ready to source, they simply recreate, easy enough. This wouldn't be a "you may never recreate" type thing, or even require a DRV. You got sources, you're ready to recreate, you just do it. Until then, why should we have the article? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A new user (User:BlueEarth) and some problems with the recreation of deleted content

User:BlueEarth is a relatively new editor on Wikipedia. He recently created a couple of articles that were more or less based on original research: planetary mass type and subterrestrial planet. Both of these articles were deleted at WP:AFD by unanimous votes (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary mass type and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subterrestrial). User:BlueEarth has now recreated subterrestrial planet with some references, but one of the references refers to a "Alliance Astronomical Society" that may only be fictional, and the other refers to a NASA website that does not use the term. I have marked the page for speedy deletion. However, I think User:BlueEarth may attempt to recreate planetary mass type based on a message he left on my talk page.

I originally assumed good faith with this person and just thought that he did not understand that his articles were inappropriate, but he appears to be unwilling to accept this. If he continues to recreate these articles, his actions will become disruptive. At this point, I think that administrator intervention may be needed. Dr. Submillimeter 19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: The recreated subterrestrial planet was speedy deleted. (That was fast.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What do others think?

Resolved

 – Iamunknown 04:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Last night I deleted All India Federation of Organisations of Democratic Rights as a CSD G12 (blatant copyright) violation, but this morning, the user who created the article claimed that CSD G12 does not apply because the site the text was copied from (here) is public domain. I am terribly inexperienced with copyright in general, and have little idea of how to treat this assertion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The website in question has a copyright page [10] that makes the license clear - it's a creative commons license. That isn't compatible with WP because we don't rerelease our work under a creative commons license. CMummert · talk 00:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's cc-by-sa, which means we would have to use the same license (we don't) and we would have to credit the author. G12 still applies. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll inform the author. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 00:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications on copyright is presented at [11]. --Soman 06:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Confused... I thought CC by SA was a compatible license? Afterall, we can upload CC by SA images on Commons. Pizzachicken 16:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

CC-by is compatible with GFDL in one direction, as far as I remember. CC-by-SA isn't compatible in either direction, CC-by-SA prohibits the addition of terms to the licence, and the GFDL insists that we keep track of various information which CC-by-SA doesn't, among other things. The Commons uploads are fine because we never claim that the images are GFDL and merely aggregate them with GFDL work. --ais523 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Now I know, (and knowing is half the battle). Pizzachicken 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD for closure

An editor nominated a chess opening variant article for deletion which was about to be merged into a larger article on the parent opening per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess. I have now implemented the merge (here), and redirected all the other variant articles to the main one. However, I don't want to redirect the nominated article with the AfD tag still on it. Could an admin close the AfD as redundant so I can do this, and then the nom can start an RfD on it if he still wishes to delete it (I wouldn't oppose this, it's a fairly unlikely search term)? I don't want to do a non-admin close on it as an involved party. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There are 8 revisions in the history. That history should technically be preserved somewhere under the GFDL, even if the redirect was considered not needed. Carcharoth 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's fine to leave it as it is - the main thing is to close the redundant AfD so I can actually convert the article into a redirect - thanks. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not here for the editing

Call me a suspicious bastard, but based on their interlinked contribution histories, I believe that:

• MylesRudin (talk · contribs)
• The Real John Wang (talk · contribs) (have a close read of his user page to see what I mean by "suspicious")
• KyleLent (talk · contribs)

are 1) related; and 2) not here to edit the encyclopedia. Is it just me? --Calton | Talk 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not just you, but neither have edited in a month. Certainly they are seemingly vandalistic/nonsense throwaway accounts, so I'm not going to block them because I do policy wonk when contributions are that old. But I will watch for further contributions. Thanks, Calton. Teke 04:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on some of the comments made about other people, I'm deleting the userpages as attack pages. Newyorkbrad 04:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I never even looked at the pages shirks away, embarrassed Teke 04:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked apologetic user seems to be forgotten about by admins

Administrator Jkelly came to my talk page on 9 April and asked my help in cleaning up a copyright mess. He directed me to a section of this noticeboard which has since been archived. Orbicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had committed numerous copyright violations. Gmaxwell created a list of articles Orbicle had created here, and several of us went through those articles, googling sentences, looking for statstically unlikely phrases, etc. A lot of violations were found, but many of the articles/stubs/disambiguation pages were clean. While we were looking through them, Zscout370 blocked Orbicle indefinitely.

In some cases, when I was checking articles, even when I couldn't find any plagiarism by googling, I felt it was better to reword them a little, and sometimes I removed unsourced statements. This led to one of my edits being challenged, on a page about some opera, so, since several of the articles I was checking were about operas, I left a note of explanation at the Opera WikiProject talk page. There was some discussion there, and people felt that it would be over harsh to leave Orbicle blocked forever if he agreed to respect our copyright policy in future. Some of those people posted at his talk page, and at the admin noticeboard. Orbicle put an unblock template on his talk page; the request was reviewed and declined by Irishguy, who wrote, "We are still working on cleaning it all out."

When the cleanup was finished, I hoped that Orbicle would be unblocked. However, I think that administrators simply forgot about him. He had not attempted to to replace the unblock template. He did in fact post an apology and request without reusing the template. I suggested to him that linking to m:Avoid copyright paranoia was not the best way of requesting an unblock, and he removed the link.

Antandrus had said (at the Opera WikiProject talk page) that he'd unblock Orbicle himself if Orbicle promised not to do any more copyvios, and helped us to find the violations. (By the time Orbicle's request for unblocking had been made an rejected, the cleanup was almost finished.) Although Antandrus had said that, I felt that it would be courteous to make the request directly to Zscout370, as it was he who had placed the block. I made a request on Zscout's talk page on 17 April.[12] I kept the page on my watchlist, but there was no reply. On 20 April, I posted that I didn't want to nag, but was there any chance he'd consider it. Again, there was nothing — not even a refusal.[13]

Today, Orbicle posted on his talk page again, apologising once more, promising to be more careful, and saying that he would gladly have helped clean up the mess if he hadn't been blocked. See here.

I don't think there's a danger that he'll do the same thing again, so I really think someone should be willing to give him another chance. I fully uphold the Foundation's copyright policy, and applaud the administrators who work so hard to enforce it. But I think that once there's no longer any danger to the project, it seems rather merciless to keep him blocked forever. When going through his edits, I saw quite a lot of good work, and I am sure he was motivated by a wish to improve the encyclopaedia, and didn't fully realise that copying and pasting a synopsis of a book from Amazon's website, or a list of facts but with identical wording is not acceptable. ElinorD (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I do love when the Admin noticeboard is actually used for something that involves admins. Based on the vouching seen, I'm unblocking. --Golbez 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Argh, just now saw this. Agree with the unblocking, and thanks for taking care of this. Antandrus (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD needs an eye keeping on it

The subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet is Kittybrewster. He has a difference of opinion on the Irish question with Vintagekits and some other users, as seen on a current Village Pump discussion. The AfD needs keeping an eye on because the participants have been liable to get heated and personal. Sam Blacketer 15:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just made a report about sockpuppetry on that AfD here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi, User:Smeagal, myself and a few other editors are currently discussing the reliability of some information and the source of that information on the Metalocalypse article. My concern is that Smeagal is threatening on his talk page that he and other 'roadies' (his words) from a Metalocalypse message board will continue to re-add the information, regardless of the discussion outcome and with disregard for wikipedia policies. I was wondering if an admin could have a quiet word with him about this? DarkSaber2k 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite this forum but WP:AN/I is possibly better. I've told him that canvassing people to keep adding information can be disruptive and making the threat can be harassment - and that constantly spamming the link can be considered spam. But it seems like a content dispute and dispute resolution is your friend. x42bn6 Talk 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice please regarding editor who is undoing other editors' revisions?

I've just noticed 068152 appears to be randomly reverting (many valid) edits, for example: here, here, here, here, here, reverting another user's edit to their own user page, and most bizarrely of all... reverting someone's test edit in the sandbox.

I was going to leave a message on their talk page (because they also reverted one of my own valid edits without explanation), but I can't even work out why they're doing it. Vandalism? Some bot going haywire? Some other reason? Could an experienced admin have a look at this, thanks. Pufnstuf 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've told them to come here and explain themselves or be blocked. John Reaves (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I got a message from Pupster21 (talk · contribs) on my talk page. Frankly, I am rather suspicious. JuJube 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, according to this, this user must think that any major edit (byte number in bold) is vandalism. Someone may want to take the time to explain how to RC Patrol. --24.136.230.38 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time, he is my best friend and I can't let him get blocked. I think that we should have someone teach him the basics of RC patrol. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to ask him to read this page, which I think has most of the information he'll need. JavaTenor 23:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The bold thing is exactly what he thinks. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have posted the link on his page. At school I will tell him what is going on. (He's a kid too) --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I didn't really feel to go throught the whole dispute resolution process for what I felt was a pretty straight-forward case of edit warring against consensus.

Basically Zubenzenubi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his IP sockpuppet 194.46.173.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have insisted in adding content to Criticism of Windows Vista. The content includes European Commission issues related to Micrsoft and not Windows Vista, and articles about OEMs offering XP instead of Vista and then claiming it a criticism without an attributable source. Basically adding infomation which either doesn't belong in the article, or is not attributable to a source. When myself and User:Warrens removed the additions and discussed the issue on the talk page, we were always reverted by this user and they refused to discuss the issue.

I brought this hear because this isn't exactly an established user trying to add content that is in a grey area of inclusion, but a user who refuses to discuss their inclusion of content against consensus, reverts others removing the content and is now resorting to sockpuppetry (I know IP's aren't exactly users, but the IP is acting like they aren't the same person.) Even a stern warning from someone with the ability to block the user would be nice to either get the user try to reach consensus or stop altogether. Paul Cyr 23:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

John Buscema and RfC vio

Several editors, and heaven knows you can see them at Talk:John Buscema, have tried to work with a fanatic fan, User:Skyelarke, who is a single-purpose account.

He has continually added POV and irrelevant, fan-page trivia, and we've worked with his edits on a bit-by-bit basis and have encouraged him to read Wikipedia policies. Sometimes it works, other times he misconstrues them to a point that he argued it was OK to link to blatantly sales-oriented, commercial sites.

He has finally stepped over the line today by reinserting part of version of the article that in early March, by a consensus of several editors, was rejected.

This is the only thing he does on Wikipedia. We've negotiated, we've discussed, and we did a RfC that he now chooses to ignore. Please, please, please help. At wit's end. What steps do we take now? --Tenebrae 03:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up bureaucracy

I was recently told that I was not allowed to give two users a barnstar because my barnstar had not been approved through the "proper channels". Since basically barnstars can be given by anyone, to anyone, for any reason, I found this approach rather baffling. In the spirit of cleaning up overly bureaucratic subprocesses like WP:ESP and WP:PAIN, perhaps some people could take a look at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals? >Radiant< 07:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This probably doesn't need administrator attention, but I agree it is baffling. I've got an "unauthorized" barnstar on my own userpage, and I honestly think the idea of "authorized" barnstars (!) is strange. It seems like bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. I support the removal of instruction creep whenever possible. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

...not "allowed" to give a barnstar, because it's not "approved"? MfD time, methinks? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I recently created a new form of barnstar (in utter ignorance of the fact that some people thought they should be approved), just because I wanted to give some users a pat on the back. If one user wants to thank another, why should a bureaucratic process step in to stop them? Sam Blacketer 10:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone. The horse has left the building, time to shut (down) the barn. Anchoress 10:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, you know better than this. If you want to make a form of wikitext and call a barnstar, do it. You can then offer it to the person of your choice, and if they like it they can place it on their user page. There is no bureacracy there so there's nothing to reform. Please feel free to re-educate in your own inimitable way anyone who incorrectly believes that such informal activities are subject to some form of regulation. --Tony Sidaway 10:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an opportunity - albeit an annoying one - to educate the users rather than to shrink from the shadow of Big Brother falling over Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There was one misguided attempt at creating a "Wikihalo", which User:Phaedrial rightly turned down a nomination for. This was revitalised recently and handed out as "Wikipedia's top award" without much discussion. I suggested maybe the criteria should be tougher, but thinking about it recently I realised I was wrong. We don't need it, period. Let users thank other users spontaneously not by way of committee. --kingboyk 13:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Wikihalo. --kingboyk 13:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the person was saying that you should not add your new barnstar to the "official" list without demonstrating a consensus to do so rather than saying that you could not create and present whatever award you liked as a personal matter. Whether control over a so-called "official" list of barnstars/awards is necessary or desirable is another matter.

WP:CRIC had a run-in with the award people about a year ago when we were told that we were not allowed more than one "official" WikiProject award. Well, "Nuts", as I believe one US general famously said. All these petty satrapies around the place. Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deletion debate. Have fun... MER-C 13:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Close but no cigar :) here. --kingboyk 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

They all seem to be dying MfD-induced deaths. Somehow, I don't think we'll be worse off, specially not if wikiprojects are being dictated to concerning some sort of award "quota"...Moreschi ^Talk 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

IAR barnstar?

Proposal: I think someone who likes doing graphics should come up with an 'IAR Barnstar' which you are allowed to give to people who: 1) cut through bureaucracy or 2) resist instruction creep or 3) are generally bold, or 4) any other reason you bloody well like, since there are no rules. Such a barnstar must be entirely unofficial for ever. (And I want one) --Doc^g 12:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's good! We can call it the biarnstiar. >Radiant< 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  Haven't we already got an Ed Poor barnstar which essentially serves that purpose? Sean William 13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  I think it needs reserved for cases of sheer-crazy madness.--Doc^g 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  Biarnstar? I might have to just ignore all rules and block you for that appalling joke! :P --kingboyk 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (bl**dy e/c again!)

  Groan. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  It's obvious I spend way too much time here - I actually laughed at that. :( – Riana _ऋ 17:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  Uh-oh - I did, too. Natalie 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I ignored all their rules and gave Radiant a Biarnstorming Wikihalo.--Doc^g 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

IAR barnstars would be good, since we need some decent role models here ;-) --Kim Bruning 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've got a couple of ideas for a good image... I'll see what I can whip up this weekend... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You Win!

I, Ali'i award this middle finger as an Ignore All Rules Barnstar to all that have contributed to this lovely discussion. Aloha! --Ali'i 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Please place said award on my talk page, to go with my Peanut Butter Jelly Star (which I promised I wouldn't mention, so don't tell anybody else about it. Apparently it may only be given to folks who have worked on internet articles ;)) --kingboyk 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Funding

There is a funding discussion going on here on the foundation mailing list. Perhaps just as each article page has edit, talk, and history a click away - we could have a "paid ads" page a click away. WAS 4.250 10:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me be nice and 100% clear here. If Wikipedia ever advertises, in any way, shape, or form, I quit. Period. If mirrors advertise, that's beyond our control. But Wikipedia itself should never, under any circumstances, whatsoever, accept money to promote anything. Doing so would destroy every concept of neutrality we've ever had. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There may come a point where, if it doesn't, there won't be a wikipedia to quit.--Doc^g 10:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Said who, and if so, why aren't they soliciting donations right about now? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has the financial resources to run its servers for about three to four months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear.” - February 2007 - Florence Devouard, chairwoman of the Wikimedia Foundation.--Doc^g 10:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict x2 A link to the more original draft proposal is here. The concept can be summed up as a) create a new wiki that is devoted to external links and supports advertising and b) only use links sanctioned by linkswiki as external links in Wikipedia. The end result would be no advertising on Wikipedia but advertising on a site that Wikipedia draw on for content. In fairness, the proposal is related as "Obviously, this is a very raw concept.. but I'm interested in hearing what folks think.." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, she later corrected that to state that they had 3-4 months ahead in the bank. For a charity, that's not too bad. It's not like donations are about to stop today. Regardless, if this is something the Foundation wants to do, then we need to be hearing from, and discussing it directly with, them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a Foundation issue, how is AN the appropriate place for this discussion? WP:VP might be the place to go to. – Riana _ऋ 11:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A short note to get people's attention may be appropriate, but Riana is right, this discussion is best held somewhere else. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 12:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't use websites that have ads, I would hate for Wikipedia to join that group. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, apart from Wikipedia and Google's start page, what webpages DO you use? --Golbez 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not financial so much as it is ideological. El_C 18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image revision deletion question

Resolved

The first revision of Image:TeacTopCassetteDeck.jpg looks like it was accidentally uploaded by a user and contains an image of their family. The uploader is a banned sockpuppet of a banned user, but just the same I think it would be best to delete the revision. I didn't know the process to use since the whole image doesn't need to be deleted, just the first revision. Please point me in the right direction if this is not the correct place to report this. Thanks in advance. --Dual Freq 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. IAR and whatnot. Mak (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Massive backlog at Wikipedia:Abuse reports

I recently gave 207.144.70.66 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) a six month block due to its extensive block log (it now has nine blocks including my block) and filed an abuse report on it. When I was filing the abuse report, I noticed a huge backlog there. Since I have finals coming, I cannot help there. Even if I did not have finals, I would not be the best choice to help in that project because my Asperger Syndrome causes me to stick my foot in my mouth from time to time. Could other people with loads of free time please help in clearing the backlog? It seems that the backlog tag there is being ignored. Thanks. Jesse Viviano 17:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD tag removal

I'm slightly confused about this all, but I believe users are not permitted to remove AfD tags until the issue is resolved. Now if that is correct, 71.217.39.122 is constantly removing the tag and it has been replaced again and again. I don't want to break the 3RR or make things worse myself so I am requesting some administrative assistance in this matter as I'm not sure what to do. .:Alex:. 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If an AfD is still ongoing, yes, removing the tag can count as vandalism and should be reverted (ignoring the three revert rule). Where is this happening? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lance Vance and Salvatore Leone. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This guy removed prod's, which is kosher, but then went on to replace his talk page with a ridiculous "Why Wikipedia is gay" rant. Now he's removing AfDs. AGF is out the window. JuJube 18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked, and the two articles have been protected for four days (expiring about a day before the AfD is closed). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Protecting an article on AfD is usually a bad idea, as those who favor keeping the article can and often do respod by trying to fix problems cited by those who favor deletion. There are cases where protection is needed. Would semi-protection do here? DES ^(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on WP:NPOV

There is currently a dispute at WT:NPOV (specifically this thread) about some text that was added in Dec. 2004 without discussion and remained in place until a few days ago. The text in question is relating to the controversy of Shaskesperean authorship. As it stands, I seem to be the only one there who is not involved with editing articles relating to this. I would appreciate it if some more neutral editors could comment on the issue. See the Dec. 2004 edit, the April 24th change, the April 27 reversion as vandalism, and my reversion as it was not vandalism and was discussed on the talk page. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Homerdonut666

While this user had made a few contributions to some pages on the old Heavy Metal rock band Led Zeppelin, both before and after that he has dedicated his account to disruptive activity and vandalism. He most recently effectively blanked the entry Wikipedia, apparently upset that his insertion of pornographic imagery was reverted in various articles (see his talk page). He also blanked the article foot, in a manner similar to his blanking of Wikipedia. I would suggest that the user be indefinitely blocked to prevent any further disruptive activity. Larry Dunn 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin? Old? Never mind, I'll just limp over here to my rocker. Damn kids these days. Corvus cornix 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User is already blocked. —Centrx→talk • 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich is now unblocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich

Fred Bauder just unblocked him. Jason says he would like to be a proper editor henceforth. He's still under a pile of ArbCom restrictions, and I'd ask admins to help him with editing well rather than acting reflexively.

Also: if there are good editors who share Jason's points of view but could help him in working better with Wikipedia, please do help - David Gerard 01:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move to Shatt al-Arab

Requested move to Shatt al-Arab

• Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Shatt al-Arab — Thus moving the article on this Iranian and Iraqi river from a double "Persian/Arabic" title to the Arabic-language name alone, to reflect common English usage, in accordance to Wikipedia's naming conventions. — See some examples of usage in the article's talk page.

I take the unusual step of listing this move request here (in addition to the normal listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves) in an attempt to get as many experienced editors involved as possible, in the hope of avoiding the problems of the previous move request (which took place 30 March to 6 April 2007).

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive81#Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab.

I believe the issue to be a simple, straight-forward case of reflecting the common English usage clearly exemplified by the examples of usage. I encourage (ok, beg :-) everyone to take at least a quick look at the issue.

Best regards, Ev 02:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)